text
stringlengths 1
51k
| label
int64 0
15
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
I totally agree with that sentiment. But why do you have to go further
and advocate violating what God has set up? That is the question which
you have not answered from Scripture. You can worship on every day, as
long as you work. But God says the Sabbath is all mine. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
1. Did you read the FAQs?
2. If NO, Read the FAQs.
3. IF YES, you wouldn't have posted such drivel. The "Lord, Liar
or Lunatic" argument is a false trilemma. Even if you disprove
Liar and Lunatic (which you haven't), you have not eliminated
the other possibilities, such as Mistaken, Misdirected, or
Misunderstood. You have arbitrarily set up three and only
three possibilities without considering others.
4. Read a good book on rhetoric and critical thinking. If
you think the "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" discussion is an
example of a good argument, you are in need of learning.
5. Read the FAQs again, especially "Constructing a Logical
Argument."
Ignore these instructions at your peril. Disobeying them
leaves you open for righteous flaming.
--
Maddi Hausmann madhaus@netcom.com
Centigram Communications Corp San Jose California 408/428-3553 | 0 | alt.atheism |
I have a request for those who would like to see Charley Wingate
respond to the "Charley Challenges" (and judging from my e-mail, there
appear to be quite a few of you.)
It is clear that Mr. Wingate intends to continue to post tangential or
unrelated articles while ingoring the Challenges themselves. Between
the last two re-postings of the Challenges, I noted perhaps a dozen or
more posts by Mr. Wingate, none of which answered a single Challenge.
It seems unmistakable to me that Mr. Wingate hopes that the questions
will just go away, and he is doing his level best to change the
subject. Given that this seems a rather common net.theist tactic, I
would like to suggest that we impress upon him our desire for answers,
in the following manner:
1. Ignore any future articles by Mr. Wingate that do not address the
Challenges, until he answers them or explictly announces that he
refuses to do so.
--or--
2. If you must respond to one of his articles, include within it
something similar to the following:
"Please answer the questions posed to you in the Charley Challenges."
Really, I'm not looking to humiliate anyone here, I just want some
honest answers. You wouldn't think that honesty would be too much to
ask from a devout Christian, would you?
Nevermind, that was a rhetorical question. | 0 | alt.atheism |
:P
:P>My favorite reply to the "you are being too literal-minded" complaint is
:P>that if the bible is really inspired by God and if it is really THAT
:P>important to him, then he would make damn certain all the translators and
:P>scribes and people interpreting and copying it were getting it right,
:P>literally. If not, then why should I put ANY merit at all in something
:P>that has been corrupted over and over and over by man even if it was
:P>originally inspired by God?
:P
:PThe "corrupted over and over" theory is pretty weak. Comparison of the
:Pcurrent hebrew text with old versions and translations shows that the text
:Phas in fact changed very little over a space of some two millennia. This
:Pshouldn't be all that suprising; people who believe in a text in this manner
:Pare likely to makes some pains to make good copies. | 0 | alt.atheism |
But, you wouldn't know what red *was*, and you certainly couldn't judge
it subjectively. And, objectivity is not applicable, since you are wanting
to discuss the merits of red. | 0 | alt.atheism |
(reference line trimmed)
[...]
Yes.
Well, for example, the goal of "natural" morality is the survival and
propogation of the species. Another example of a moral system is
presented within the Declaration of Independence, which states that we
should be guaranteed life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You see,
to have a moral system, we must define the purpose of the system. That is,
we shall be moral unto what end?
Well, murder violates the golen rule, which is certainly a pillar of most
every moral system. However, I am not assuming that our current system
and the manner of its implementation are objectively moral. I think that
it is a very good approximation, but we can't be perfect.
Well, "objective" would assume a system based on clear and fundamental
concepts, while "arbitary" implies no clear line of reasoning. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Ann Jackson (ajackson@cs.ubc.ca) wrote on 5 May:
I would like to submit the following which helped me enormously.
If it has already been posted, I apologize.
It seems that during the Middle Ages, it was customary for pastors to
explain the Trinity to their parishoners by analogy to water.
Water is water, but can exist in three forms--liquid, ice and vapor.
Thus it is possible for one essence to exist in three forms.
And recently, the pastor of my church drew an analogy, which I
also found useful--A woman is often percieved by others in three
ways, depending on their relationship to her--a mother, a wife and
an employee in a business.
Thus, it seems clear to me that the essence of God can subsist in
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit or, depending on one's particular
need for Him. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
my $.02 - Yes and No. I do not believe the above scenario is not possible.
Either they are believing and living (in at least some part) led by God, else
they are not. Believing (intellectually, but waiting(?)) is not enough.
Especially important to remember is that no one can judge whether you are
so committed, nor can you judge someone else. I guess the closest we can
come to know someone's situation is listening to their own statements. This
can be fallible, as is our sense of communion one with another.
Regarding this passage, we need to remember that this is a letter to a church
(at Laodicea), people who are Of the Body of Christ. (Rev.3:14-16) He talks
about their works. A translation could say that he says their lack of
concern makes him sick (to the point of throwing up).
Right, saving is by faith alone, except that faith does not come alone, if
you catch the two meanings.
I can offer the explanation that Jesus would that we were either "on fire
for Him" or so cold we knew we were not in His will and thus could be made
aware of our separation. This is admonishment for His children, not eternal
damnation.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[Several people were involved in trying to figure out who first used
the phrase "God-shaped hole". --clh]
"There is a God shaped vacuum in all of us" (or something to that effect) is
generally attributed to Blaise Pascal.
What I want to know is how can you have a God shaped vacuum inside of you if
God is in fact infinite (or omnipresent)?
========================================================================= | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
This posting is totally uncalled for in rec.scouting.
The point has been raised and has been answered. Roger and I have
clearly stated our support of the BSA position on the issue;
specifically, that homosexual behavior constitutes a violation of
the Scout Oath (specifically, the promise to live "morally straight").
There is really nothing else to discuss. Trying to cloud the issue
with comparisons to Blacks or other minorities is also meaningless
because it's like comparing apples to oranges (i.e., people can't
control their race but they can control their behavior).
What else is there to possibly discuss on rec.scouting on this issue?
Nobody, including BSA, is denying anybody the right to live and/or
worship as they please or don't please, but it doesn't mean that BSA
is the big bad wolf for adhering to the recognized, positive, religious
and moral standards on which our society has been established and on
which it should continue to be based. | 0 | alt.atheism |
A human has greater control over his/her actions, than a
predominately instictive tiger.
A proper analogy would be:
If you are thrown into a cage with a person and get mauled, do you
blame that person?
Yes. [ providing that that person was in a responsible frame of
mind, eg not clinicaly insane, on PCB's, etc. ]
---
"One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that
say "Mom", because of the love of their mom. It makes for more
virile men."
Bobby Mozumder ( snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu )
April 4, 1993 | 0 | alt.atheism |
Benedikt Rosenau writes, with great authority:
"Contradictory" is a property of language. If I correct this to
THINGS DEFINED BY CONTRADICTORY LANGUAGE DO NOT EXIST
I will object to definitions as reality. If you then amend it to
THINGS DESCRIBED BY CONTRADICTORY LANGUAGE DO NOT EXIST
then we've come to something which is plainly false. Failures in
description are merely failures in description.
(I'm not an objectivist, remember.)
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Why should he have been any different "then"? Ozzy Osbourne,
ex-singer and main character of the Black Sabbath of good ole days past,
is and always was a devout catholic. Or so I've heard over on the
alt.rock-n-roll.metal newsgroups, an' I figure those folks oughta know..
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The recent rise of nostalgia in this group, combined with the
incredible level of utter bullshit, has prompted me to comb
through my archives and pull out some of "The Best of Alt.Atheism"
for your reading pleasure. I'll post a couple of these a day
unless group concensus demands that I stop, or I run out of good
material.
I haven't been particularly careful in the past about saving
attributions. I think the following comes from John A. Johnson,
but someone correct me if I'm wrong. This is probably the longest
of my entire collection.
________________________________________________________
So that the
Prophecy be
Fulfilled
* * *
In considering the Christian religion, and judging it
according to its claims, it is important to look at its claims at
fulfilling earlier Jewish prophecy. The scribe Matthew is perhaps
the most eager to draw out what he thinks are prophetic answers in
the career of Jesus of Nazareth. As you will see, Matthew's main
strategy is to take various Old Testament passages, often not even
about the promised Messiah, and apply them to the circumstances in
the New Testament. We must also bear in mind the question of the
authenticity of the accounts. Since the gospels were written at
least 35 years after Jesus was executed, we do not know how much
happened exactly as stated. But, for purposes of analysis, we
will take particular claims at face value.
Immanuel:
We begin, of course, at the beginning.
(Mt 1.21-22): "[Mary] will bear a son, and you,
Joseph, will name him 'Jesus' (which means G'd is
salvation), for he will save his people from their
sins." All this happened to fulfil what the lord had
spoken by a prophet:
[Isaiah 7.1-16]: In the days of Ahaz (c. 750 BCE),
king of Judah, Rezin of Syria and Pekah of Israel made
war on Jerusalem (capitol of Judah), but could not
quite conquer it. When the house of David (i.e. Ahaz
and his court in Judah) were told of this, ...its
heart and the heart of its people shook... And, the
lord G'd said to Isaiah, "go to meet with Ahaz..."
...And the lord spoke to Ahaz (through prophet Isaiah,
naturally) saying, "Ask a sign of G'd your lord. It
can be as deep as Sheol or as high as heaven." But,
Ahaz said, "I won't ask; I will not put the lord to a
test." Then (Isaiah) said, "Hear then, O house of
David. Is it not enough for you to weary men, that
you must weary my god too? Therefore, the lord
himself will give you a sign: Behold, a young woman
is with child and will bear a son, and name him
"Immanuel," which means, "G'd is with us." He will
eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse evil
and choose good. For, before the child knows how to
refuse evil and choose good, the land of the two kings
you dread will have been deserted...
Matthew homes in on just the sentence that is in italics.
Further, he the Hebrew word "almah," (young woman), as
specifically, "virgin." But, this is not a prophecy about the
Messiah. It is not a prophecy about an event to happen 750 years
later. It is not a prophecy about a virgin (bethulah) mother. In
short, it not about Jesus. Matthew has made use of a verse out of
context, and tries to make it fit the specific case of Mary. It
should be noted that if we want to read the prophecy in a general
manner, a very general one, it can be made to fit Mary. Mary,
virgin or not, was indeed a young woman with child. Of course,
the fit is shady and has problems. Jesus, while thought of by
later Christians to be G'd walking among men, was never called by
the name, Immanuel. If Christianity wished to claim this prophecy
for Jesus, it becomes at best a cut-and-paste prophecy... a second
class prophecy. Not too convincing.
Egypt:
After Jesus's birth in Bethlehem, Matthew tells about a
quick (and elsewhere unmentioned) excursion to Egypt, as if he
wishes to liken Jesus to Moses. This was done to escape an
alleged infanticidal rampage of the king, Herod.
[Mt 2.15] ...and remained there until the death of
Herod. This was to fulfil what the lord had spoken:
"Out of Egypt I have cal-led my son."
What the lord really said was this.
[Hosea 11.1] When Israel was a child, I loved him.
And, out of Egypt I called my son. The more I called
them (my people), the more they went from me; they
kept sacrificing to the Ba'als, and kept burning
incense to idols.
Matthew conveniently omits the rest of Hosea's oracle. But, it
was indeed Israel that, once called out of Egypt, wanted to
return. This is history. Jesus is certainly not being spoken of
here. And, if we are to draw some kind of parallel here, we wind
up with a Jesus that flees and resists G'd. Again, this prophecy
is just not as convincing as Matthew probably had hoped.
Rachel Weeps:
While Jesus is off vacationing in Egypt, Matthew says that
King Herod sought to kill him, and thus ordered the executions of
all young male children. Matthew then writes,
[Mt 2.17-18] By this, that which was spoken by the
prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
"A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud
lamentation-- Rachel weeping for her children;
she refused to be consoled, because they were
no more."
The reference is to a passage in Jeremiah 31.15, referring to the
carrying off of Israel into exile by Sargon (of Assyria) in 722
BCE. Rachel, the ancestor of the major tribes of Israel, Ephraim,
and Manasseh, is said to weep for her descendants who are "no
more." It is metaphorical, of course, since Rachel lived and dies
before the Hebrews were even in the Egyptian exile.
It is interesting to note that it was Leah, not Rachel, who
was the ancestor of the Judeans (the land where Jesus and
Bethlehem were). If anyone should do weeping for her "children,"
it is Leah. The only connexion that Rachel has with Bethlehem is
that the legends have it that she was buried north of the city,
"on the way to Ephrath, (Bethlehem)."
As for Herod and his infanticide, it is rather unlikely
that such an event actually occurred. One never knows, but the
event is not mentioned or alluded to anywhere else in the Bible,
nor is it mentioned in any of the secular records of the time.
Herod was particularly unliked in his reign, and many far less
evil deeds of Herod were carefully recorded. This might be a
prime example of how events were added to Jesus's life to enhance
the message of the church's gospel.
Because of the whole story's similarity to the tale of the
infant Moses in Egypt, it is highly likely that it is a device set
up by Matthew to add prophetic, yet artificial, approval of Jesus.
It is not surprising that Matthew conveniently neglects to mention
the rest of the Jeremiah quote. The "children" the prophet
speaks of are not dead, but exiled in the Assyrian Empire. G'd
comforts the weeping Rachel, saying that the children will be
returned-- he will gather them back together. Of course, this
would not suit Matthew's purpose, as the children he speaks of are
dead for good. Again, the "prophecy" Matthew sets up is not even
that, and to anyone who bothers to check it out, is not too
convincing.
The Nazarene:
We do not even have to go to the next chapter to find
another Matthean prophecy. After leaving Egypt, Joseph & wife
take the infant Jesus to live in the city of Nazareth,
[Mt 2.23] ...that what was spoken of by the prophets
might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazarene."
First thing we notice is that Matthew does not mention the name of
the prophet(s) this time. Second, we have to ask who "He" is.
There are no Messianic prophecies speaking of a Nazarene. Worse,
there are no prophecies, period, mentioning a Nazarene. Still
worse, there are no Nazarenes mentioned in the Old Testament at
all. In the book of Judges, an angel tells Samson's mother that
she will,
[Judges 13.5] "...conceive and bear a son. No razor
shall tough his head, for he will be a Nazirite to his
god from the day of his birth. He will deliver Israel
from the hands of the Philistines."
This is of course not a prophecy of Jesus, or the messiah of G'd.
But, it is the best that can be found. Obviously, Matthew has
begun to go overboard in cut-and-paste prophecies, in that he is
simple making them up now.
Bearing our
Diseases:
Jesus next goes around healing people of physical illnesses
and disabilities.
[Mt 8.17] This was to fulfil what was spoken by the
prophet Isaiah, "He took our infirmities and bore our
diseases."
As expected, the verse quoted in Isaiah is quoted out of context,
and a few words are skewed to fit the Christian scheme. We have,
[Is 53.4] Surely he, [the suffering servant], has
borne our sickness, and carried our pains.
From a reading of the surrounding passages in Isaiah, we know that
the prophet is speaking in present tense of the collective nation
of Israel, Jehovah's chosen servant and people. He speaks to the
Israelites suffering in exile, in the voice of the gentile nations
that look upon it. This image is deeply ingrained in Jewish
identity --an image of a chastised, yet cherished, Israel as the
instrument of the nations' salvation by G'd.
The verses speak of Israel taking on the sicknesses which
are the literal and metaphorical manifestations of guilt and
discipline. They do not speak of a "servant" going around and
healing people. Notice that the servant in Isaiah takes on the
sicknesses and pains of the nations (and individual Jews). Jesus,
as we all know, did not take the diseases onto himself. The
verses here in Isaiah are not a prophecy of something to come, but
rather something that had already happened. While it is believed
that Jesus took on the eternal punishment of hell, he did not bear
the illnesses he healed. So, while someone might want to say
that, figuratively, Jesus reenacted the deeds of Israel in his
spiritual atonement, he has to admit that Matthew's parallel
misses where he intended it to have its effect.
Silent Messiah:
Upon healing multitudes of commoners, it is said that Jesus
ordered them to keep quiet, presumable so that he wouldn't arouse
the attention of the local rulers.
[Mt 12.15-21] This was to fulfill what was spoken by
the prophet Isaiah.
"Behold my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved,
with whom my soul is pleased. I will put my spirit on
him, and he will announce justice to the Gentiles. He
will not wrangle or cry aloud, nor will anyone hear
his voice in the streets. He will not break a bruised
reed or quench a smoldering wick until he brings
justice to victory, and the gentiles will hope in his
name."
The Isaiah passage quoted reads,
[Is 42.1-4] Behold my servant whom I uphold, my
chosen, in whom my soul delights. I have put my
spirit on him, and he will bring forth justice to the
nations. We will not cry or lift up his voice, or
make it heard in the street. He will not break a
bruised reed, or quench a smoldering wick. He will
faithfully bring forth justice. He will not fail
(burn dimly) or be discouraged (bruised) until he has
established justice in the earth. And the coastlands
await his law.
You see, Matthew has conveniently left out part of the passage,
because it does not suit the dealings of Jesus. Christians could
never think of Jesus failing, never would the "light" of mankind
burn dimly. But, the servant nation of Israel will indeed come to
an end when its job is done. When the gentiles come to embrace
G'd there will no longer be a chosen people, but rather all will
be the children of G'd. Also, the ending phrase has been changed
from the Judaic "...the coastlands await his law." to the
Christologic, "the Gentiles will hope in his name." While the
original proclaims the Torah law of Jehovah, the other rewrites it
to fit its strange doctrine of "believing in the name." If one
has any doubt the servant referred to is not Jesus, one has only
to read the whole chapter, Isaiah 42, and hear about the beloved
but blind and imperfect servant, "a people robbed and
plundered..." So, we see that when Matthew's attempt at
"prophecy" is examined, it crumbles.
Three Days and
Three Nights:
Now we come upon a prophecy supposedly uttered by the very
mouth of the god Jesus himself. He speaks of his crucifixion and
resurrection.
[Mt 12.40] For as Jonah was in the belly of the
whale for three days and three nights, so will the Son
of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and
three nights.
Before any further discussion can occur, it is necessary to know
how the Jews understood days. As far as day names went, each was
24 hours long, lasting from sunset 6pm to the following sunset
6pm. What was referred to as a "day" was the period of light from
6am to the ending sunset at 6pm. Thus, according to our time
scale, a sabbath day began at 6pm Friday evening, and lasted until
6pm saturday evening. This is why the Jews celebrate their
sabbath on the daylight portion of Saturdays, instead of Sundays.
(It seems like a real miracle that Christians didn't forget that
Saturday was indeed the seventh and last day of the week!) Thus,
when days and nights are referred to together, 12 hour daylight
portions and 12 hour night periods are being spoken of. Thus,
Jesus says that he will be in the grave, or in hell, or otherwise
unresurrected for three days and three nights.
As the good book tells us, Jesus was crucified on the "ninth
hour," which is 3pm, Friday afternoon. He then was put into the
grave sometime after that. Then, Jesus left the grave, "rose,"
before dawn of what we call Sunday (The dawn after the sabbath was
over). What this means is that Jesus was, using our time for
clarity, in the grave from 6pm Friday night to some time before
6am Sunday morning. We could also add a little time before 6pm
Friday, since the bible is not specific here. What this means
using Jewish time is that he was in the grave for one day, two
nights, and possibly a couple of hours of one day. Certainly this
is a problem for Jesus prediction. There is absolutely no way we
are even able to have his death involve three days and three
nights --even using modern time measurements. We then are led to
suspect that this error is another one of Matthew's little
mistakes, and that the gospel writer put false words into his
god's mouth. And no matter who made the prediction, it is more
than unconvincing... it is counter-convincing.
Hearing &
Understanding:
Jesus tool on a habit of speaking to his vast audiences in
parables-- stories in which a deeper meaning could be found, if
you were already one of the elect, those chosen to understand the
message of Jesus. He reasons that those who can understand the
parables are the ones he wants. If the people cannot understand
them, there is no need to bother with them, since they will not
accept the "plain" message any better. Matthew says,
[Mt 13.14-16] With them [the audience] indeed in
fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says,
"You will indeed hear but never understand; and you
will indeed see, but never perceive. Because this
people's heart has grown dull, their ears are heavy of
hearing, and they have shut their eyes so the they
would not perceive with them, her with their ears, and
understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal
them."
The original Isaiah passages are part of his earlier works, his
call to the ministry. This is in 740 BCE, when Israel is
flourishing, right before it falls under the authority of Assyria.
Isaiah sees the good times ending, and also a vision from G'd,
calling him to bring reform to Israel and Judah.
[Is 6.9-13] And G'd said, "Go, and say to this
people, `Hear and hear, but do not understand; see and
see, but do not perceive.' Make the heart of this
people fat, make their ears heavy, and shut their
eyes, so they will not see with their eyes, or hear
with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and
turn and be healed." Then Isaiah said, "How long,
lord?" And he said, "Until the cities lie waste
without inhabitant, and houses without men, and the
land is utterly desolate, and the G'ds take men far
away, and forsaken places are many in the land. And
though a tenth will remain in it, it will be burned
again, like a terebinth or an oak whose stump still
stands when the tree is felled." The holy seed is its
stump.
Here we see that it is really G'd who causes the people of Israel
to stop listening to the prophet's warnings, but reaffirms the
promise made to Solomon's (and David's) seed/lineage. If you read
the rest of Isaiah, you find that this is done to fulfil the plan
of G'd to use Israel as a servant, a light to the nations. (Look
at Isaiah 42.18-25, 48.20, 49.3)
We see that Matthew has cut-and-pasted just a little portion
of Isaiah's verse, to suit his own gospel needs. More than that,
he has altered the words, to make it fit the people who didn't
understand Jesus's stories. And, as we see, Isaiah's verses are
not prophecies, but rather commands from G'd to him, in the
present. Once again, Matthew's prophecy falls flat on its face.
Matthew tries again to make Jesus's parables look like they
have the prophetic approval.
[Mt 13.35] ...he said nothing to them without a
parable. This was to fulfil what was spoken of by the
prophet, "I will open my mouth to them in parables. I
will utter that which has been hidden since the
foundation of the world."
Matthew really botches up here. He attempts to quote not from a
prophet, but from the Psalms.
[Ps 78.2-4] I will open my mouth in parable. I will
utter dark sayings of old, things that we all have
heard and known, things that our fathers have told us.
We will not hide them from their children, but tell to
the coming generation the glorious deeds of the
lord...
As was pointed out, the verses in the Psalms do not really come
from a prophet. You might also want to know that earlier copies
of Matthew's gospel even inserted Isaiah's name as this prophet.
Apparently, later scribes caught the error and tried to cover some
of it up.
Perhaps the most significant part of this is that, once
again, Matthew has altered the Old Testament Scriptures. As Jesus
has said earlier, he speaks in parables so that some will not
understand them. The parables in the Psalms are not to be hidden.
Further, they speak of things "known, that our fathers have told
us." Jesus deals with things "hidden since the foundation of the
world." Indeed Jesus dealt in a lot of secrecy and confusion.
This is in direct opposition to the parables in the Psalms. No
wonder Matthew had to rewrite them! And still once again,
Matthew's artificial prophecies fall flat on their face. But,
Christians rarely look at this. Matthew's prophecies aren't the
only things about Christianity that are beginning to look bad.
Excuses of
Little Faith:
In Mt. 17.14-21, we see that the disciples are able to go
around casting out demons, except in one case. Not knowing what
epilepsy was, the people thought those with the disease were
possesed with demons. It is no wonder that the disciples were
unable to "dispossess" the epileptic. But, Jesus, perhaps no more
enlightened than they, is reported to have rebuked them, saying
they didn't have enough faith. This seems strange. Why was this
demon special? It seems that either a true believer has faith or
he does not. Apparently, enough faith will allow someone to move
mountains. Of course, you will find no one, these days that can
move real mountains. No one parts seas. The only miracles the
Charismatics can speak of are those rumoured to happen on trips to
Mexico or some faraway place. Major miracles are making some old
woman's arthritis feel better on Sunday morning T.V.
And the gods, including Jesus, are always shrouded in
ancient lore and writings, protected from the skeptics in their
sacred pasts. They are either dead, sleeping, or hiding in
heaven, with people rumouring about their imminent return and
their great miracles of days long gone. Yet, life goes on.
Tales of mystics, stories of miracles-- all in a distant time
or a distant place. Gods used to reveal themselves to men in the
old days, Jehovah too. But, now they are silent. All the
theologians give are various excuses as to why we don't get to see
God anymore.
We're too lazy; we're not zealous enough; we're
sinful; it's just his "plan"; we put too many of our
own demands on G'd's appearance; if we had the right
faith, if we were willing to meet G'd on his terms...
Yet, even the most pious of men have not seen G'd. You, dear
reader, have not seen G'd. Not literally, you know that to be
true. (I know that's presumptuous and bold. But, searching your
heart, you know what I mean.) All that we've seen religions do is
make people feel good and content about not seeing G'd. They say
our little faith does not merit us to see G'd. Sometimes, they
say, "See the love in these people you worship with... see the
lives of people change... that is seeing G'd." Thus people get
lulled to sleep, satisfied with turning G'd into the everyday
sights. But, that is not seeing G'd as I am speaking of... it is
not seeing G'd the way people used to see.
What we see in the world that is good, is the compassion of
human hearts, the love given and taken by men and women, the
forgiveness practised by Christian & Atheist alike, beauty created
by the mind of man. These are the things that are done; these are
what we see. But, it is said this is so only because everybody
has little faith.
Jesus Rides on
an Ass:
Shortly after accepting the role of the Jewish messiah
king, Jesus requests a donkey be brought in for him to ride into
Jerusalem.
[Mt 21.5] This took place to fulfil what was spoken
by the prophet, saying,
Tell the daughter of Zion, "Behold, your king is
coming to you, humble, mounted on an ass, and on a
ass-colt."
Of course, the passage quoted from Zechariah 9.9 reads a little
differently.
Lo, your king comes to you; he is triumphant and
victorious, humble, and riding on an ass, on an ass-
colt... he will command peace to the nations.
There isn't all that much difference here, except that Zechariah
only involves one animal --an ass-colt-- while Matthew reads the
poetic wording slightly differently. Thus, he has Jesus call for
both a colt and an adult ass. From Matthew's version, we get a
comical picture of the divine Christ sweating it to straddle two
donkeys. This could inevitably lead to a theological,
proctological dilemma! We find that in the account written
earlier by St. Mark, only the colt was called for and brought to
Jesus. This indeed fits the verses of Zechariah properly, and
shows us that in Matthew attempt to use prophetic verses, he has
bungled. Now, excluding many respectable Christians I have met, I
have noticed that while Christ is thought to have ridden on asses,
the situation is often reversed nowadays...
Then, entering the Jerusalem temple, the priests were
angered at people and youngsters calling Jesus the messiah. But,
Jesus replied as we might expect Matthew to have done,
[Mt 21.16] Haven't you read? `Out of the mouth of
babes and sucklings thou has brought perfect praise.'
It is more likely that Matthew made this response up since Jesus
was never one to point out such little "prophetic" things AND
since, as we might expect, the quote is in error, which seems to
fit Matthew's track record quite well. We might ask Jesus or
Matthew, "Haven't you read?" for the source reads,
[Psalms 8.1-2] O YaHWeH our lord, how majestic is
your name in the whole world! You, whose glory is
chanted above the heavens by babes and infants, you
have founded a bulwark against your foes to still the
enemy and the avenger.
The passages hardly need comment. There is no "perfect praise"
spoken of in the psalm, and what praise is there is given to G'd,
not his messiah king, and not Jesus. As mentioned, it seems to be
just one more case of Matthew's pen making up convenient prophetic
scripture.
YHVH said to
my lord...:
Jesus is said to have asked from whom the promised Jewish
messiah-king is to be descended. The Jews agree-- it is king
David. But, then Jesus counters by quoting Psalms 110,
"The LORD said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, until
I put your enemies under your feet."
Taken at face value, Jesus is denying the necessity of Davidic
descent. One assumes he is in opposition to their answer. Of
course, the Christian answer is that he agrees, but is trying to
make some hidden point, to reveal some mystery about the divine
nature of the messiah-king. It's tempting to believe this, if one
is a Christian and not interested in matters of investigation.
But, there are problems.
In Jesus's time, the psalm was thought to be about the
messiah. And, it is easy to see why David might refer to the
messiah as his superior. We need only look at the scriptures
about the messiah to see that he is expected to be a great king,
bringing the Jews to times even better than those under David's
rule. Of course, the Jews listening had no good answer, and the
passage could indeed refer to a divine messiah, such as the
Christians worship. The problem lies in the meaning of this
psalm, an error that apparently several Jews of Jesus's time had
also made. One must remember that there were various factions
among the Jews, often as a result of different expectations of the
messiah-king. Jesus was apparently one of these adventists, like
his audience, who thought the messiah's advent was imminent, and
who interpreted Psalms 110, among others, as being messianic.
What is the problem, then? Psalm 110 literally reads,
YHVH's utterance to my lord:
"Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your
footstool."
YHVH sends forth your mighty scepter from Zion. Rule
in the midst of your foes! Your people will offer
themselves freely on the day you lead your host on the
holy mountains.
"You are a priest of the order of Melchizedek
forever."
The word "lord" is often mistakenly capitalised by Christian
bibles to denote divinity in this lord. But, in the Hebrew, the
word is "adoni," and no capitalisation exists. Adoni simply means
"lord," a generic term as we would use it. It is used often in
the scriptures to refer to kings and to G'd. It is merely an
address of respect.
There is nothing in the text itself to imply that the word
refers either to divinity or to the messiah-king. That this is
supposed to be written by David is not certain. The title of the
psalm translates to either "a psalm of David," or "a psalm about
David." It seems fitting to assume it to be written by a court
poet, about David's covenant and endorsement from G'd. If the
psalm had been written by David, it is unlikely that he would be
talking about the messiah. The idea of a perfect king, descended
from David, was not present in David's age. We have extensive
tales of David's doings and sayings-- none of which include any
praises of a messiah.
Many of the psalms show evidence of being written long after
David was dead, in times of the exile when G'd had put his show of
favour for David's kingdom on hold.
The description in the psalm fit David very well. David was
promised by G'd a rise to power, victory over his enemies,
successful judgement among the nations he conquered. He achieved
the priesthood common to Melchizedek in being a righteous king,
enabled to bless the people. It all fits.
We do not have to blame this problem on Matthew alone,
though. Here, there is not artificial prophecy alluded to, though
his use of the scripture is rather questionable. Still, this
event is common to the other gospels too. So, we let Matthew off
a little more easily this time. It is interesting to note,
though, how Matthew dresses up the event. The earlier gospel of
Mark tells the tale with Jesus simply speaking to a crowd.
Matthew has the Pharisees, who became the religious competition of
an infant Christianity, be the target of Jesus's question. As we
might expect, Matthew writes that the event ends up by
embarrassing the Pharisees. Such power is the pen.
Moses & Jesus,
Had it Together
All Along...:
We leave the gospel story of Matthew momentarily to see a
pseudo-prophecy in John's gospel. The gospel story of John
deserves special treatment, because it seems to be so far removed
from the real events of Jesus's career as told by even Matthew.
But, for the moment, we will just look at one verse. The early
church leaders founded a religion on the Jewish hopes of a messiah
king, and on an artificial extension of the original promises made
by G'd. When constructing the history of Abraham, Moses wrote of
a promise of land and nationhood to the Jewish people. While this
was accomplished eventually, under the rule of king David, the
Christians who came along later decided that they would claim the
fulfillment of the promise. But, to do so, they expanded on the
promise, preaching about a heavenly kingdom.
[John 8.56] (J.C. speaking) Your father, Abraham,
rejoiced to see My day. He say it and was glad.
It would be nice to tie in approval for Jesus from Abraham, but,
Abraham knew nothing of Jesus or a messiah, or anything Christian.
I have tried, and failed to find any event in the Old Testament
which corresponds to John's little prophecy. It is par for the
course to see St. John making up Old Testament backings, just like
his forerunner Matthew. Many Christians know that their faith has
many of its foundations in such fraud, and it is surprising they
still cling to it.
The Potter's
Field:
We are told that Jesus was betrayed while in Jerusalem by
one of his followers, Judas Iscariot. Matthew writes,
[Mt 27.5-10] And throwing down the pieces of silver
in the temple, [Judas] departed... But, the chief
priests, taking the silver, said, "It isn't lawful for
us to put it in the treasury, since it is blood
money." So they... bought a potter's field with it to
bury strangers in... Then was fulfilled what was
spoken by the prophet Jeremiah,
"And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price
of him on whom a price had been set by some of the
sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter's
field, as the lord directed me."
This prophecy is an utterly gross bastardisation of Old Testament
Scripture. First, Matthew has made a mistake regarding the name
of the prophet. It is Zechariah who utters the verses which
Matthew makes use of.
[Zech. 11.12-13] ...And they weighed out my wages,
thirty shekels of silver. Then YHVH said to me, "Cast
them to the treasury," --the lordly price at which I
was paid off by them. So I took the thirty shekels of
silver and cast them into the treasury in the house of
YHVH.
First of all, the verses of Zechariah do not deal with a betrayer
of the messiah, or of G'd. The deal with a shepherd, most likely
a priest, chosen to serve a function of presiding over the people
shortly before G'd would send Judah and Israel into conflict with
one another. The word, "treasury," had been replaced by the King
James Scholars with "to the potter," precisely because this made
Matthew's quote fit better. But, this is a blatant error. The
correct translation of the Hebrew is indeed "treasury," which also
makes perfect sense in Zechariah's context, whereas "potter's
field" is totally unrelated. Whether the mistranslation was
intentional or not seems to be beyond speculation. However, given
Matthew's track record, one finds it hard to resist the notion of
intentional dishonesty.
Of course, Matthew would have ample reason for altering the
text. The thirty pieces of silver match Judas's situation, and if
as most Christians seem to be, the reader is willing to disregard
the contextual incongruity, Matthew might have another prophecy to
toss around. However, the correct translation of Zechariah
directly contradicts the situation with Judas and the high
priests. The high priests would not put the money in the
treasury. The worthless shepherd of Zechariah does exactly the
opposite! Of course, to the average Thursday-Night Bible student,
the "prophecy" as presented by Matthew would be taken at New
Testament face value. To those, Matthew's work is convincing
enough.
Wine, Vinegar,
& Casting Lots:
Then, Jesus is led away to be crucified.
[Mt 27.34-35] ...they gave him vinegar to drink,
mingled with gall; but when he tasted it, he would not
drink it. And, when they had crucified him, they
divided his garments among them by casting lots: that
it might be fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet,
"They parted my garments among them, and upon my
vesture did they cast lots."
First of all, the vinegar offered to Jesus is actually common sour
wine, of the type that Roman soldiers drank regularly. We find
that right before Jesus dies, the soldiers themselves give him
some to drink --not polluted with gall.
[Jn 19.28-30] Jesus... said, "I thirst." A bowl of
vinegar stood there, so they put a sponge full of the
vinegar on hyssop and held it to his mouth. When he
had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished;"
But, Matthew seems to be drawing on, not a passage from the
prophets, but one from the Psalms.
[Ps 69.20-28] I looked for pity, but there was none;
and for comforters, but I found none. They gave me
poison for food (lit. they put gall in my meat), and
for my thirst, they gave me vinegar to drink... Add
to them punishment upon punishment, may they have no
acquittal from thee. Let them be blotted out of the
Book of the Living.
Of course, the sour wine offered to Jesus is done at his request
of drink. This does indeed seem to be a show of pity. The psalm
quoted is about David and his political and military enemies. It
is not about the messiah or Jesus. It is then not surprising that
we run into further problem when we see that the "Jesus" in the
psalm asks G'd for the damnation of the "crucifiers," whereas the
Jesus of the gospels says,
[Lk 23.34] Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, the
don't know what they do!"
Further, Matthew misses with his attempt to create prophecy by
having gall (a bitter substance) put into Jesus's drink, not his
meat, as the psalm stipulates.
With the "prophecy" of the vinegar faulty, we naturally
ask, "What of the casting of lots?" This brings up the 22nd
Psalm, which deserves discussion all by itself. Suffice it now to
say that the fact that Jesus's clothes were divided as told is no
great thing. It turns out that this happened often to any felon
in those days. As we will soon see, it is perhaps the least
erroneous passage of the psalm when applied to Jesus. It does
indeed bring up the interesting question as to the quality of
Jesus's clothes. For a man so removed from worldly possessions,
his ownership of clothes worthy of casting lots raises some
suspicions.
The 22nd Psalm:
This psalm is attributed to David, as a lament of his
condition under the attack of his enemies. It becomes a song of
praise to YHVH and of hope. Taken out of context, parts of it
seem to fit the plight of Jesus at the crucifixion quite well. We
will examine the primary passages.
Verse 1-2: My god, my god! why have you forsaken me?!
Why are you so far from helping me, far from the words
of my groaning? Oh, my god, I cry by day, but you
don't answer, and by night, but find no rest.
Jesus is said to have cried the first sentence while on the cross.
This suggests that the whole psalm is really about Jesus, rather
than king David. Of course, the rest of the first stanza does not
fit as nicely to Jesus or his execution. Jesus is not pictured as
complaining about the whole ordeal, he is supposed to be like "the
lamb led mute before its shearers." Indeed, Jesus doesn't do much
groaning, even when on the cross. He certainly does not cry by
both day and night on the cross.
6-8: But, I am a worm, and no man-- scorned by men...
All who see me mock at me. They make faces and wag
their heads; "He committed his cause to YHVH. So let
him deliver him... for he delights in him."
This seems to fit Jesus's execution pretty well, with the
exception of the Holy messiah being called a worm.
12-13: Many bulls encompass me... they open their
mouths widely at me like a ravening and roaring lion.
16-18: Yea, dogs are round about me, a company of
evildoers encir-cle me, they have pierced my hands and
feet. I can see all my bones... They divide my
garments among them, and cast lost for my raiment.
19-21: But you, YHVH, be not far away! ...Deliver my
soul from the sword, my life from the power of the
dog! Save me from the mouth of the lion, and my
afflicted soul from the horns of the wild bull!
It would seem quite convincing, and I'm sure the early Christian
fathers who wrote of this prophecy thought so too. Unfortunately,
this prophecy has a fatal flaw. The words "have pierced" really
do not exist in the psalm. The correct Hebrew translation is,
16: Yea, dogs are round about me, a company of
evildoers encircles me, like the lion, they are at my
hands and feet...
In Hebrew the phrase "like the lion" and a very rare verb form
which can mean "pierced" differ by one phonetic character. The
word in the Hebrew text is literally, "like the lion" (ka'ari),
which makes sense in the context, and even further fits the animal
imagery employed by the psalm writer. It is convenience that
would urge a Christian to change the word to "ka'aru." But, to
add the needed (yet artificial) weight to the "prophecy" this is
just what the Christian translators have chosen to do. While the
correct translation does not eliminate the psalm from referring to
Jesus, its absence does not say much for the honesty of the
translators.
Apart from the erroneous verse 16, the psalm does not lend
itself to Jesus so easily. Verse 20 speaks of the sufferer being
saved from a sword rather than a cross. This naturally fits the
psalm's true subject, king David. As a side note, we now know
that crucifixions did not pierce the hands, the palms, but rather
the forearms. This doesn't say much in favour of the traditional
thought of a resurrected Jesus showing his disciples the scars on
his palms. But then, facts aren't bound by our religious beliefs.
Matthew escapes culpability this time, as he does not
attempt to draw many direct links between this psalm and his lord
Jesus. But the psalm, like many others, was on the minds of all
the gospel writers when they compiled the stories and
interpretations of Jesus's life and death. How much these
scriptures may have contributed to what actually got written down
is a question that has serious repercussions for Christian
theology. It is easy to see, for those who are not faithful
fundamentalists, how some of the events in the New Testament might
have been "enhanced" by scribes such as the eager Matthew. But,
it does less to speculate than to simply investigate scriptural
matters and prophetic claims. So far, this has not said good
things for St. Matthew.
The reference to the piercing looks a lot like Jesus's
crucifixion. John's gospel recount, written about 70 years after
the fact, tells us at Jesus's execution,
[Jn 19.34,37] But one of the soldiers pierced his
side with a spear, and out came blood and water...
these things took place that Scripture be fulfilled...
"The will look on him whom they've pierced."
Of course, this is built on a passage taken blatantly out of
context. Prophet Zechariah tells us how much of the nation of
Israel will split off from Jerusalem and Judah and go to war with
them.
[Zc 12.7-10] And YHVH will give victory to Judah...
And on that day, I will seek to destroy the nations
that come against Jerusalem (in Judah). And I will
pour a spirit of compassion and supplication... on
Jerusalem so that when they look on him who they have
pierced, they will mourn, and weep bitterly over him
like you weep over a firstborn child.
John's attempt to make up prophecy is perhaps weaker that
Matthew's attempts. Matthew, at least, usually excontexts more
than just one passage. John's errors are grossly obvious and
blatant here. It does not speak well for any of the gospel
writers, as it helps to show how the prophetic aspects of their
religion were founded.
Reckoned with
Transgressors:
After his arrest, Jesus is quickly executed for claiming
the Jewish kingship, messiahship. According to one version of
the gospel tale, Jesus gets executed along with two thieves.
[Mk 15.27] And with him they crucified two robbers,
one on his right, one on his left. And so the
scripture was fulfilled which says,
"He was reckoned with the transgressors."
Here, Mark is trying to link Jesus to a passage in Isaiah 53,
about the servant nation of Israel. The passage is not about the
messiah, for if one reads the whole chapter of Isaiah 53, and its
surrounding chapters, one sees that the servant is a nation. The
verses are also about what this servant has gone through in the
past, not a prediction of what is to come, in any event. The
servant is thought of as a criminal. This also happens to fit the
description of Jesus. Had the passage really been about the
messiah, it still is not at all clear why executing Jesus between
two thieves would fulfill the "prophecy" in Isaiah. Jesus would
more fittingly fulfill it with his whole ministry. He was
considered a blasphemer and troublemaker all throughout his
career. Locking onto a single event is a rather poor way to
steal prophecy, at least in this case, as we see that Mark could
have had made a better analogy with general comparisons.
Mark goes on to tell us how "those who were crucified with
[Jesus] also reviled him." [15.32] This is to be expected from a
couple of robbers. Of course in his later recount, St. Luke
decides to change some things. Luke tells us,
[Lk 23.39-43] And one of the criminals who was hanged
with him railed, "Aren't you the messiah?! Save
yourself, and us!"
This certainly fits with Mark's recount, which tells how the
people who crucified Jesus said, "Save yourself!" and that the
robbers did the same. But then Luke goes on,
But the other [criminal] rebuked [the first] saying,
"Don't you fear G'd, since you are under the same
sentence of condemnation? And we, indeed justly so,
for we are receiving the due reward for our deeds.
But, this man has done nothing wrong. And he said,
"Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom."
And Jesus answered, "Verily I say to you, today you
will be with me in paradise."
Now, this little dialogue seems highly contrived. It stretches
the imagination a bit to see this picture of one ruffian rebuking
his fellow criminal with such eloquent speech. We have a rather
strange picture of a criminal lamenting over the goodness of his
punishment and the justness of his suffering. Such a man,
apparently noble and of principle, doesn't seem likely to have
been a robber. We wonder at the amount of theatrics created by
Luke. Of course, Luke's recount also disagrees with Mark's.
Luke has only one criminal revile Jesus, not both. It is easy
enough to discount the discrepancy because the account was made
up, but those who wish to believe it is all part of the error free
words of G'd do not have this avenue open. This is yet another
example of a writer trying to take an Old Testament passage and
expand it and reinterpret it to suit his theology. In this case,
the embroidery creates some embarrassing problems, as we have
seen.
The End of the
World--
Mt. 24:
Now comes perhaps one of the most extraordinary and
embarrassing passages in the New Testament. It is found in all
three of the synoptic gospel stories, and casts some of the most
unfavourable doubt on the whole theory of Christianity. Jesus
mentions the destruction of the Jewish temples and buildings, and
his disciples ask him about this, and about the end of the world
which he has been warning about.
The disciples: Tell us, when will this [the temple's
destruction] be, and what will be the sign of your
coming, and of the close of the age?
Jesus: Take care that no one leads you astray, for
many will come in my name, saying, "I am the christ."
...you will hear of wars and rumours of wars... for
this must take place, but the end is not yet. For,
nation will rise against nation... all this is but the
beginning of the birthpangs.
They will deliver you up... put you to death,
and false prophets will arise and lead many astray.
...But he who endures to the end will be saved. This
gospel will be preached throughout the whole world, a
testimony to the nations, and then the end will come.
So, when you see the desolation spoken of by the
prophet Daniel, ...let those who are in Judea flee to
the mountains.
Immediately after the tribulation of those days,
the sun will be darkened... the stars will fall from
heaven... then will appear the sign of the Son of Man
in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn,
and see the Son of Man coming... and he will send out
his angels... and gather his elect...
Learn the lesson of the fig tree: as soon as its
branch becomes tender and puts forth leaves, you know
that summer is near. So also, when you see all these
things, you will know that He is near, at the very
gate. Truly I say to you, this generation will not
pass away until all these things take place...
But, of the day and hour, no one knows; not the
angels, not the Son, but only the Father... Therefore,
you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming
at an hour you do not expect.
From this, it is clear that Jesus thought the world would in
within the lifetimes of at least some of his disciples. He tells
them that although he doesn't know the exact day or hour, that it
will come, and thus they must be ready. Theologians have wet
their pants in panic to find some way out of this Holy Error.
But, unfortunately, Jesus made himself to explicit. He told his
disciples that their generation would still be around at the End,
and that they in particular should prepare for it, prepare to be
swept away.
There have been some who resorted to removing the inerrant
nature of the Bible, and said that the phrase, "this generation
shall not pass away..." really means "this race of people will not
pass away..." Of course, the word for generation is used many
times to refer to exactly that, the generation of the disciples.
It is an interesting notion that when God decided to learn Greek,
he didn't learn it well enough to make himself clear. But. it is
quite obvious from the rest of the dialogue that the disciples (at
least some of them) are supposed to live to the End of the World.
The charge of mistranslation is completely blown away by looking
at the Apostles' responses. It becomes abundantly clear from
Rev. 22.7, 1 Peter 4.7, 1 John 2.18, and Rev. 22.20, that Jesus
meant exactly what he said. The End was very near.
For 2,000 years, Christians have rationalised this 24th
chapter of Matthew, or ignored its meaning altogether. For 2,000
years, they have waited for their executed leader to come back,
hearing of wars, and rumours of wars, sure that He is coming soon.
Surely He must be. All we must do is wait. Can you imagine how
tired He must be, sitting around up there, being holy, waiting for
just the right moment to spring?
So, shortly after his crucifixion, Jesus of Nazareth,
(Joshua-ben-Joseph), died. It is said that after three days, or
three days and three nights, or three periods of time, or three
eternal seconds --or three of whatever they can decide makes for
less trouble-- he was seen again, resurrected, glowing with divine
radiance. Then the Saviour decided it wasn't in the best
interests of his new religion to stick around, and therefore
disappeared from sight into heaven. So the story goes, anyway.
As has been seen, there were many things attributed to Jesus when
people got around to writing the gospel stories down. To them,
Jesus was the fulfiller of all prophecy and scripture. We have
seen, though, that this matter is quite shaky. But, throughout
Church history, Christians have held fast to faith, in simple
belief. What doctrinal objections could not be solved with
argumentation or brute force, faith and forgetfulness kept away
from question. To question and investigate has never been the
easiest way to treat matters. Thus for 2,000 years, the
prophecies cited in the New Testament have gone on largely
accepted. Things may well continue that way for some time.
Pausing a moment to consider the way the doctrines of Christianity
have been accepted and used (properly or improperly) to support
wars and persecution, I suppose there is one prophecy of which
Christianity can securely keep hold. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Which sort of loans and what have you heard exactly?
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Please realize that I am frequently getting in trouble for
straying from orthodoxy, but here is my opinion:
I never thought of these two ideas being "against" each other.
People might quibble about what "intrinsically" means but the
reason we are sinners is because we do not behave as good as we
are. The message of Christ is that each of us are not only good,
but great, that we can approach perfection, albeit perhaps through a
different technique than you claim Buddhism teaches. Because we do
not realize our greatness, we sin. Peter had no problem walking
on water until a little doubt crept in.
Doesn't David ask in the 8th Psalm "what is man that you [God]
should care for him, but you have made him just a little lower
than the angels"?
I probably exagerate in my mind what a scrawny little kid David
was, just as I probably exagerate what a gigantic monster Goliath
was, but David's power easily defeated Goliath's.
Remember the rich young man who comes up to Jesus and asks what
he can do to enter the Kingdom, Jesus says follow the commandments.
I always picture the smug look on his face as he says he's done that
his whole life, probably anticipating an "attaboy" from the
Messiah. Instead Jesus gives him a harder task, sell everything
and follow Him. Jesus is raising the bar. The desciples say
how can anyone do this if it's so hard even for rich people.
Jesus says anyone can do it, with God's help.
Jesus says not only can we avoid killing people, we can avoid
getting angry at people. Not only can we avoid committing
adultery, we can control our own desires.
I realize this was not your main point, but I wonder how other
people see this.
(Please forgive any generalizations I am about to make.)
Your point about how "hard" other religions are is a good one, just
as your "Parting Question" is a tough question. I think that Muslims
worship the same God as I do, we can learn from their name "submission".
Hindus and Buddhists and Taoists, etc. claim that "God" is impersonal.
Is God personal or impersonal? I say yes, but if I think a little
more my answer is whichever is greater. I think it is greater
to be a personal entity, with an individual consciousness, but
you're right that that might be a cultural bias. If I think more
I must admit that God's personal nature is as far beyond my
conception as His impersonal nature is beyond the Hindu's
conception. If somehow Jesus could fit into Hindu cosmology
then maybe I wouldn't have a problem, though that is hard to imagine.
Are there any former (or present) "Eastern Religion" members here
who could comment? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
There has been some talk recently of Latin rites from the early Church used to
bless same-sex unions.If anyone has any idea where copies of these rites
exist (in whole or in part), please notify me by e-mail. (I understand that
similar ceremonies written in Slavonic exist as well. Let me know where I can
find these.) It doesn't matter whether the Latin rite is in the original or a
translation. However, I would prefer to have an English version of the Slavon-
ic rite, if it exists. Thanks in advance.
Doug Hayes @ PSU | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
excuse me for my ignorance. But I remember reading once that the
Biblical tribe known as the Philistines still exists...they are the modern
day Palestinians.
Anyone out there with more info, please post it!!! | 0 | alt.atheism |
Perhaps we ought not to have supported a known genocidist?
Provided him with weapon systems, tactical support, technology,
etc.
We made Suddam Hussein.
What did Bush call him? Oh yes, an ally and a freind.
---
" I'd Cheat on Hillary Too." | 0 | alt.atheism |
Sorry for posting this, but my e-mail keeps bouncing. Maybe it will
help others here, anyway, and therefore I pray others will read this. It is
actually a response from my Aunt, who has 5 kids, since I have none yet.
I'm posting this for a good Christian relative who does not have e-mail
access. Since this aunt and uncle have 5 kids I felt they would be more
relevant than I, who have none (yet).
13-year-old (13YO) twins, 10YO boy, 6.5YO boy, 2YO girl
I don't call it spanking, but they do, so yes, very rarely.
I don't call it spanking because it's more of a reaction to something
very dangerous, such as trying to stick their finger in a fan or running
into the road. Maybe 3-4 times for each except for the 2YO girl, who has
not been spanked yet.
They call it that because it *does* hurt their feelings, and of course
I give all the hugs and stuff to ensure they know they're still loved.
No, that would be too painful. If it's too traumatic they never recall
why they were punished. Besides, it must be immediate, and taking the time
to go get a toolmeans you're not doing it right away, and that lessens the
impact. It's very emotional for a child as it is - which is evidenced by the
fact that a little slap on the rear - which hurts for perhaps 5 seconds -
is called a spanking.
Lots of logical consequences - for instance, when 4YO Matthew dared
a good friend to jump out of his treehouse or he would push him out, I made
sure they didn't play together for 5 days so he'd know that would make him
lose friends very quickly. He's never done anything like that since.
We also use time-out in their rooms - I use a timer so they don't keep
arguing with me over leaving, since it's hard to argue with a macine.
I will go to the closed door and tell them timeout won't be over until they
calm down if they're too tantrumy. I use the top of the stairs when they're
really young.
40
Bath, Ohio. It's right outside of Akron, in the northeast part of Ohio.
No, and none of my kids would dream of it. I hope you can use this to
teach all parents that physical punishment isn't always required - parents use
that as an excuse to hit too hard.
Lots of timeouts, same as I use. Our family and my husband's have never
used spankings. In fact, my grandmother in law was one of 11 kids, and they
were almost never spanked. This was around the turn of the century. And,
none of us has ever been afoul of the law - man-made or God's law.
Jesus says, referring to a small child whom he is holding, that "what
ye do to the least of these, ye do also to me." The Bible also says in all
things to be kind, and merciful, and especially loving. (Colossians 3:12-15.)
There is no room for selfish anger, which I'll admit I've been tempted with
at times. When I've felt like spanking hard in anger, maybe the kid deserved
a little slap on the rear, but what I would have given would have been the
devil's work. I could feel the temptation, and just angrily ordered the kid
to his/her room and went to my room myself. After praying and asking God's
forgiveness, I was much calmer, and did not feel like spanking, but felt that
what I had done was enough punishment. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
But what if the geologists are wrong and these people are warning of a
non-existent danger? Analogies can only push an argument so far (on both
sides). Both Melinda's and yours assume the premises used to set up your
respective analogies are true and thus the correct conclusion will arise.
The important point to note is the different directions both sides come from.
Christians believe they know the TRUTH and thus believe they have the right
(and duty) to tell the TRUTH to all.
Christians can get offended if others do not believe (what is self-evidently
to them) the TRUTH. Non-christians do not believe this is the TRUTH and get
offended at them because they (christians) claim to know the TRUTH.
(BTW this argument goes for anyone, I am not just bagging christians)
Neither side can be really reconciled unless one of the parties changes their
mind. As Melinda pointed out, there is no point in arguing along these lines
because both approach from a different premise. A more useful line of
discussion is WHY people believe in particular faiths.
Personally, I don't mind what anyone believes as long as they allow me mine
and we can all live peacefully.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Gilligan = Sloth
Skipper = Anger
Thurston Howell III = Greed
Lovey Howell = Gluttony
Ginger = Lust
Professor = Pride
Mary Ann = Envy
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
"Manufacturing Consent," a film about the media. You alternative movie source
may have this; or to book it in your local alternative theatre, contact:
FILMS TRANSIT * INTERNATIONAL SALES
Jan Rofekamp
402 Notre Dame E.
Montreal, Quebec
Canada H2Y 1C8
Tel (514) 844-3358 * Fax (514) 844-7298
Telex 5560074 Filmtransmtl
(US readers: call Zeitgeist Films at 212 274 1989.)
-s | 0 | alt.atheism |
perhaps you can tell your friend that you feel pressured by his
continual discussions of this topic -- surely he doesn't feel you
should be _pressured_ into something you feel uncomfortable about
(since christianity should be a choice one should make on one's own).
please also realize that he is doing this out of friendship -- he
probably feels you are missing out on something great, and wants to
tell you about it. but since you know where you can learn about
christianity, you can tell him that it is now up to you to make that
choice, and if the choice is no, you should be respected for that.
personally i believe that a christian's mission is just to be
christ-like, showing his/her own faith and happiness in that faith,
and make sure people know they are welcome to talk to you about it. i
do not believe in imposing your beliefs upon others -- but then again
everyone's definitions of "imposing" may differ. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
: Are the Serbs doing the work of God? Hmm...
: I've been wondering if anyone would ever ask the question,
: Are the governments of the United States and Europe not moving
: to end the ethnic cleansing by the Serbs because the targets are
: muslims?
: Can/Does God use those who are not following him to accomplish
: tasks for him? Esp those tasks that are punative?
: James Sledd
: no cute sig.... but I'm working on it.
Are you suggesting that God supports genocide?
Perhaps the Germans were "punishing" Jews on God's behalf?
Any God who works that way is indescribably evil, and unworthy of
my worship or faith. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Regarding David Wilkerson's prophecies. While I'm not real sure of
his credibility, I do remember a book he wrote, called A VISION or
something like that. He made a prediction that people who bought gold
would be hurt financially. At the time, gold was up to about $800;
now it is less than half that. This prediction stuck in my mind
because a lot of people where I worked were buying gold.
The problem is, we tend to remember predictions that come true and
forget ones that didn't (a la Jean Dixon). Does anyone know if there
any of his predictions, perhaps from the book I mentioned, that can
pretty definitely be said to have not come true? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Just a quick reminder:
The way you are interpreting those passages is your opinion. You make
it sound as if your opinion is somehow an undisputable fact.
Many would interpret the passages you cite very differently.
(Many have--several of the great theologians you mentioned do that
very thing. These were people who had much more expertise in the
interpretation of scripture than you or me or probably anyone reading
this newsgroup. To say that all of them are wrong and you are right
is, in my opinion, (notice those last three words) coming pretty darn
close to the sin of pride.
In the future I would suggest you not be so absolutist in your
interpretations, especially when contradicting highly respected
doctors of Christianity. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
At the time Ezekiel was written, Israel was in apostacy again and if I'm not
mistaken, Tyre was about to make war on Israel. Like I said, the Prince of
Tyre was the human ruler of Tyre. He was a wicked man. By calling Satan
the King of Tyre, Ezekiel was saying that Satan is the real ruler over Tyre.
Don't think my interpretation is neccessarily the orthodox Christian one,
although most Christian Bible commentaries interpret the King of Tyre as
being a reference to Satan. (I haven't read Ezekiel throughly in a long
time.) | 0 | alt.atheism |
It only falls apart if you attempt to apply it. This doesn't mean that
an objective system can't exist. It just means that one cannot be
implemented. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Basically, any prophet I've ever dealt with has either been busy
hawking stolen merchandise or selling swampland house lots in
Florida. Then you hear all the stories of sexual abuse by prophets
and how the families of victims were paid to keep quiet about it.
Never mind that, but let me tell you about this Chevelle I bought
from this dude (you guessed it, a prophet) named Mohammed. I've
got the car for like two days when the tranny kicks, then Manny,
my mechanic, tells me it was loaded with sawdust! Take a guess
whether "Mohammed" was anywhere to be found. I don't think so.
Oh, Mohammed!
Yeah, you, Mohammed!
You slimy mass of pond scum!
Yeah, right! You're the one should be watching your butt. You and
your buddy Allah. The stereo he sold me croaked after two days.
Your ass is grass!
Jim | 0 | alt.atheism |
That is not necessarily unorthodox. When Christians call God 'Father',
we are using a metaphor. The Bible in one place refers to God as being
like a mother. God is neither a father nor a mother in the literal
sense; God has some of the attributes of both; the father metaphor is
usually used because (for most people at most times) it is the less
misleading of the two possibilities. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Good heavens, you mean my good friend Wes Collins, who took his wife and two
small children into the jungles of Guatemala, despite dangers from primitive
conditions and armed guerillas, so that the indigenous people groups their
could have the Bible in their native languages--the young man who led Bible
studies in our church, who daily demonstrated and declared his deep abiding
faith in the Lord of Love--you mean he really was a sneaky imperialistic *SPY*
whose _real_ reason for going was to exploit and oppress the ignorant and
unsuspecting masses? Imagine my surprise! I never would have thought it of
him.
How was this terrible deceit discovered? What exactly was the "cultural
interference" they were caught committing? Attempting to persuade the locals
that their ancestral gods were false gods, and their sacrifices (including
human sacrifices in some cases) were vain? Destroying traditional lifestyles
by introducing steel tools, medical vaccines, and durable clothes? Oh and by
the way, who did the denouncing?
I am terribly shocked to hear that my friend Wes, who seemed so nice, was
really such a deceitful tool of the devil. Please provide me with specific
documentation on this charge. There is some risk that I may not believe it
otherwise. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The next time you go to church, you can check the better creed, that is,
have learned that on the first go around. But what's a body without
a little bit a'soul?
At the risk of offending everybody, I will interject the 13th century
point of view. Christ descended immediately into the bosom of Abraham
to set captives captive. He preached to the saved for three days before
drawing them with Him back to this earth. I'm no expert on this part,
but Matthew (27:52-53) says about the death of Jesus: "tombs were opened,
and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. And
coming forth from the tombs after his resurrection, they entered the
holy city and appeared to many." (NAB) Regarding the hell of the
damned, of which you speak, Christ did not see it (Ps 16:10, Acts 2:27),
although it saw Him (cf. Is 45:2).
Concerning the abodes of the dead, I don't want to subject my brethren
to further anguish, so I will direct you to contact me through e-mail
if you are genuinely concerned.
Your new body might be something like Adam's before his fateful encounter
with the Just One (Acts 7:52, CR trans. Vulgate): filled with infused
knowledge, absent of concupiscence, and immortal. It would probably be
a little glorified, too.
I wouldn't recommend it. It's really hot down at the center of the earth!
You know, the normal geothermal gradient, and all that.
Regards.
--
boundary, the catechist | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Dear Netters:
A new religious newsgroup "soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya" was pro-
posed on Oct 16, 1992. The discussion about this new proposed
newsgroup went on in various related groups. The proposal, was
supposed to enter a vote during the last week of November 92. Due
to a false Call For Votes, by some opponent, the voting had to be
canceled. I quote here a statement from the moderator of
new.announce.newgroups:
"The current Call For Votes (CFV) for an Ahmadiyya newsgroup
is being canceled. A new call for votes will be issued within
a few weeks, possibly with a new impartial vote taker. Discus-
sion on the proposal is still open until the new vote is called..."
-- by Lawrence, Nov 20, 1992.
A lot of confusion arose among the netter as to whom to vote.
Therefore it was decided to give a cool down period, so that all
confusions are over. It has been over 4 months of that instant
and now we are again attempting to create this newsgroup. A fresh
RFD is hereby being issued. Please! take part in the discussion
under the same title heading and in "news.groups" or at least
cross-post it to "news.groups".
****************************************************************
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION
****************************************************************
NAME OF PROPOSED NEWSGROUP:
==========================
soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya
CHARTER:
=======
A religious newsgroup, which would mainly discuss the be-
liefs, teachings, philosophy and ideologies of all major reli-
gions of the world as they exist to foster better religious
knowledge and understanding among followers of all religions as
they share common basis. This newsgroup will be devoted to build
a peaceful mutual understanding of the Ahmadiyya branch of
Islam, its peacefull beliefs, ideology and philosophy and how it
is different from other branches of Islam in fostering world
peace and developing better understanding among religious people.
It may also be used to post important religious events within the
World Wide Ahmadiyya Islamic Community in general.
PURPOSE OF THE GROUP:
====================
The following are some of the main purposes this group will
achieve:
i) To discuss the common beliefs of all major religions as
they relate to Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.
ii) To discuss the doctrines, origin and teachings of this
puissant spiritual force on earth.
iii) To examine Islamic teachings and beliefs in general in
light of the Quran and established Islamic traditions
of 15 centuries from Ahmadiyya perspective.
iv) To discuss the similarities between Ahmadi Muslims and
people of other Religions of the world and discuss how
religious tolerance and respect to other's faiths can
be brought about to eliminate inter-religion rivalries
and hatred among people of religions.
v) To discuss the origin and teachings of all religions in
general and Islamic and Ahmadiyya Muslims in particular
to foster better understanding among Ahmadi Muslims and
other religious people.
vi) To discuss current world problems and solution to these
problems as offered by religion.
vii) To exchange important news and views about the Ahmadiyya
Muslim Community and other Religions.
viii)To add diversity in the religious newsgroups present
on Usenet.
ix) To discuss why religious persecution is on the rise in
the world and find solutions to remedy the ever deter-
iorating situation in the world in general and in the
Islamic world in particular.
x) To discuss the contributions of founders of all reli-
gions and their people for humanity, society and world
peace in general and by the International Ahmadiyya Mus
-lim Community in particular.
TYPE:
====
The group will be MODERATED for orderly and free religious dialo-
gue. The moderation will NOT prevent disagreement or dissent to
beliefs, but will mainly be used to prevent derogatory/squalid
use of dialect and irrelevant issues. The moderators have been
decided through personal e-mail and through a general consensus
among the proponants by discussion in news.groups. The following
moderators have been proposed and agreed upon:
Moderator: Nabeel A. Rana (rana@rintintin.colorado.edu)
Co-Moderator: Dr. Tahir Ijaz (ijaz@ccu.umanitoba.ca)
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION ABOUT AHMADIYYA/ISLAM:
=========================================
The Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam, an international organi-
sation, was founder in 1989 in Qadian, India. The founder of this
sect, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908), proclaimed to be the
Promised Reformer of this age as foretold in almost all the major
religions of the world today (Islam, Christianity, Judiasm, Hin-
duism). He claimed to be the long awaited second comming of
Jesus Christ (metaphorically), the Muslim Mahdi, and the Promised
Messiah. He claimed that the prophecies contained in almost all
the great religions of the world about the advent of a messenger
from God have been fulfilled.
The claims Hazrat Ahmad raised storms of hostility and
extreme oposition from many priestlike people of Muslims, Chris-
tians, Jews and Hindus of that age. Such opposition is often wit-
nessed in the history of divine reformers. Even today this sect
is being persecuted specially in some of the Muslim regimes.
Dispite the opposition and persecution, this sect has won many
adherents in 130 countries. It has over 10 million followers, who
come from a diverse ethnic and cultural background.
The sect is devoted to world peace and in bringing about
a better understanding of religion, and the founders of all reli-
gions. Its mission is to unite mankind into one Universal broth-
erhood and develop a better understanding of faith. Ahmadi
Muslims have always been opposed to all kind of violence and spe-
cially religious intollerance and fundamentalism.
Among its many philanthropic activities, the sect has es-
tablished a network of hundreds of schools, hospitals, and clin-
ics in many third world countries. These institutions are staffed
by volunteer professional and are fully financed by the sect's
internal resources.
The Ahmadiyya mission is to bring about a universal moral
reform, establish peace and justice, and to unite mankind under
one universal religion.
NEWSGROUP CREATION:
================== | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[good points on buddhism, etc. deleted]
just because one says christianity -- true christianity -- is hard to
follow faithfully does NOT mean that one discounts the validity and
difficulty of other religions. i admire those of any religion who are
willing to make the kind of sacrifices and dedicate themselves
spiritually in the way you are talking about.
[more deleted]
do you think this is what christianity is all about? not all
christians believe in this particular story literally. it sounds
above like you are supporting a policy of "to each his own" -- here is
another example of that. if it helps someone's faith to take every
word of the bible literally, i support and respect that, too.
please don't judge all of christianity by one man. the only man one
can truly judge all of christianity by is jesus (makes sense, right?).
i think his point about how we put our lives into little boxes is very
true -- what does your comment about robertson have to do with that?
i was raised agnostic -- my father was never baptised and was raised
atheist. he is not an atheist because he found a close-mindedness
present in the viewpoint of his parents equal to the close-mindedness
he found in the viewpoint of the christians he came in contact with.
thus i was _free_ to choose how to live my life, and he supported the
decision i made to join the episcopal church, although he emphasized
to me that his respect for my beliefs should result in my not
intruding on his beliefs, ie, i should not try to convert him, as that
is his decision. (please, no flames or advice on how to convert him!)
one of my good friends is hindi and i greatly respect her
beliefs and the culture surrounding her religion. my best friend is
jewish and i have always held a profound resepct for the jewish
religion (chaim potok and isaac bashevis singer are two of my favorite
authors). i really do not think you can make that kind of
generalization about how christians choose -- and i do mean CHOOSE--
their faith. if they have not consciously accepted the faith in their
adult lives (which is what confirmation represents), THEN you can talk
about their being brainwashed. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
So, we should ban the ammunition? Why not get rid of the guns?
It is worse than others? The National Anthem? Should it be changed too?
God Bless America? The list goes on...
Then you'd be no better than the people you despise.
Oh?
An endorsement, or an acknowledgement? I think gods are things that people
are proud of, but I don't think the motto encourages belief.
Is it?
[...]
Would you approve of such a motto?
And removing the tool will solve the problem?
Or will it increase the problem? | 0 | alt.atheism |
[a lot of stuff deleted]
: For that matter, stay Biblical and call it Omar Rasheet (The Feast of
: First Fruits). Torah commands that this be observed on the day following
: the Sabbath of Passover week. (Sunday by any other name in modern
: parlance.) Why is there so much objection to observing the Resurrection
: on the 1st day of the week on which it actually occured? Why jump it all
: over the calendar the way Easter does? Why not just go with the Sunday
: following Passover the way the Bible has it? Why seek after unbiblical
: methods?
:
In fact, that is the reason Easter "jumps all over the calendar"- Passsover
itself is a lunar holiday, not a solar one, and thus falls over a wide
possible span of times. The few times that Easter does not fall during or
after Passover are because Easter is further linked to the Vernal Equinox-
the beginning of spring.
[more deletions]
:
: So what does this question have to do with Easter (the whore
: goddess)? I am all for celebrating the Resurrection. Just keep that
: whore out of the discussion.
:
Your obsession with the term "whore" clouds your argument. "Whore" is
a value judgement, not a descriptive term.
[more deletions]
Overall, this argument is an illustration of the "etymological fallacy"
(see J.P. Louw: _Semantics of NT Greek_). That is the idea that the true
meaning of a word lies in its origins and linguistic form. In fact, our
own experience demonstrates that the meaning of a word is bound up with
how it is _used_, not where it came from. Very few modern people would
make any connection whatsoever between "Easter" and "Ishtar." If Daniel
Seagard does, then for him it has that meaning. But that is a highly
idiosyncratic "meaning," and not one that needs much refutation. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Homosexual Christians have indeed "checked out" these verses. Some of
them are used against us only through incredibly perverse interpretations.
Others simply do not address the issues.
You would seem to be more in need of a careful and Spirit-led course
in exegesis than most of the gay Christians I know. I suggest that
you stop "proof-texting" about things you know nothing about. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Bill Burns was looking for a description of the differnces between the
Catholic and Lutheran churches.
I'd recommend Prof. William Whalen's book "Separated Brethren". It's
an overview of common US denominations, intended for a Catholic
audience.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Sure nails can be cruel. I'd imagine nails in your eyes would be
*very* painful. But, this does not imply that a painless death is
cruel, which is what you are supposed to be trying to show. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Gregg, I'm really sorry if having it pointed out that in practice
things aren't quite the wonderful utopia you folks seem to claim
them to be upsets you, but exactly who is being childish here is
open to question.
BBCI was an example of an Islamically owned and operated bank -
what will someone bet me they weren't "real" Islamic owners and
operators? - and yet it actually turned out to be a long-running
and quite ruthless operation to steal money from small and often
quite naive depositors.
And why did these naive depositors put their life savings into
BCCI rather than the nasty interest-motivated western bank down
the street? Could it be that they believed an Islamically owned
and operated bank couldn't possibly cheat them?
So please don't try to con us into thinking that it will all
work out right next time. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Jim,
Please feel free to correct me and give me some texts. As far as I can see the
only text which vaugely relates to jewish evangelism is found in Mt. 23:15.
However since this is found only in Mt. it cannot be dated before 90CE which
makes it unusefull for understanding Second Temple Judaism. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Ah, the verb "to must". I was warned about that one back
in Kindergarten.
So, why "must" they have such laws? | 0 | alt.atheism |
He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will
be my son. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So you believe in the existance of One creator I assume.
Ok, god has the disclaimer, reserves the right to judge individual
cases. If we believe him to be loving, then we also believe him to be
able to serve justice to all. Don't worry if a Jew, or athiest is
going to heaven or hell, for that is god to judge (although truly
if you were concerned you could only worry abput those who refuse to
believe/satisfy gods decrees) as much as keeping yourself straight.
If you see something going on that is wrong, discuss it and explore it
before making summary judgement. People have enough free will to choose
for themselves, so don't force choices on them, just inform them
of what they're choices are. God will take care of the rest in his justice.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
You have done no such thing.
An Islamic bank is a bank which operates according to the rules
of Islam in regard to banking. This is done explicitly by the
bank. This was not the case with BCCI.
This is crap. BCCI was motivated by the same motives as other
international banks, with perhaps an emphasis on dealing with
outlaws and the intelligence services of various governments.
Back to childish propaganda again. You really ought to get a life
rather than wasting bandwith on such empty typing. There are thousands
of Islamic banks operating throughout the world which no-one ever hears
about. If you want to talk about corrupted banks we can talk about
all the people who've been robbed by American banks.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
?Huh? Okay, so I'm not Eric Molas, but even if that _is_ how he
feels about life, I disagree with it.
Life, to me, is definitely NOT meaningless; it has precisely the
purpose and meaning I choose to give it. I go on living because I _like_
living; if I needed any further reason, I'd be free - completely free! -
to pick any reason that suited me. That freedom can be almost
intoxicating; it's probably the closest I've ever been to a 'religious'
experience. I'm *very* glad I am an atheist; I wouldn't be anything
else.
Not unless, in explaining your own subjective experience, you also
try to convert him or proselytize. Merely explaining the effects you
personally experience religion as having on you, is not "infectious".
Not unless Eric is paranoid, that is. ;->
Whatever floats your goat. You sound happy enough; that's fairly
much all that matters, right?
Erh... Pardon, but it strikes me that sentence sounds reversible.
"Empty spot"? "God-shaped hole"? I hear such things a lot from
theists; never quite did understand what they were talking about.
I have no such 'emptiness' or 'hole'. Maybe some others do, I wouldn't
know; but I don't, and if I did, I'd seek help about it. Doesn't sound
like a mentally healthy situation at all, walking around with a 'hole'
in oneself.
Well, not having written that original post, I don't know if it
was intended to be interpreted in such a way; but, having reread it
carefully, I somewhat doubt it. At least, that's not how he gets across
to _me_, your mileage may vary...
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Please define the words "shatim" and "fasad" before you use them again. | 0 | alt.atheism |
[deletia- sig]
[deletia- formalities]
I probably should let this pass, it's not worth the time, and it's not
really intended for me. But I couldn't resist. A personal weakness of mine.
Jerkius Kneeus. Tragically incurable.
Not so; I can prove that the existance of God is disputable
by showing that people dispute it; This is easy: I dispute that
God exists. Simple.
I missed your "Traditional Proofs" treatise, but the proofs I remember
from the Summa Theologic (the 5 ways I think it was) were rather poor
stuff. The Ontological argument is about a billion times better, imho.
I would think you'd want non-traditional proofs, considering the general
failure of the traditional proofs: at least the ones I know of.
(I am thinking of the Ontological Argument, the Cosmological Argument and
the Teleological argument. Those are the ones traditional enough to
have funny names, anyway.)
This is the real question. So to discuss it, I'll assume God exists.
Otherwise, there is no heavenly authority to babble about.
Please show this is the case. I am familiar with the First Cause
argument, and I'll accept (for the sake of argument) that there
is a First Cause, even though I find some of its premices
questionable. The rest you'll have to show. This includes
that the First Cause is God.
Got it. I deny that God is all good. So there.
This isn't self-consistent: if humans must renew the relationship,
then God (incarnate or not) can't do it. Well, unless you think God is
human. Granted, God made himself 'human', but this is nonetheless cheating:
The intent of the statement is clearly that man has to fix the problem
he caused. God fixing it- even by indirect means- contradicts this.
Why?
Also, why assume said claim is true anyway?
If *I* claim to be Truth, are you bound by reason to follow me?
:)
Undoubtably. Do you mean to imply we should all obey the commands of the
Marines without question? You seem to imply this about God, and
that the Marines are similar in this respect.. If this is not what
you are trying to say, they please explain what it is you are saying,
as I have missed it.
Why? Why not question it? Even if it *is* truth, we cannot know this
certainly, so why is it so irrational to question? Perhaps we will
thus discover that we were wrong.
You assert that God is Truth and we can't question Truth. But
I assert that God is not Truth and anyway we can question Truth.
How is it my assertion is less good than yours?
Oh?
I hereby deny 1+1=2.
I hope you'll agree 1+1=2 is the truth.
Granted, I look pretty damn silly saying something like that,
but I needed something we'd both agree was clearly true.
Now, you'll notice no stormtroopers have marched in to drag
me off to the gulag. No heaven lighting bolts either. No mysterious
net outages. I seem to be permited to say such things, absurd or not.
They are certainly not true. At least, the ones Newton derived are
not true, and are indeed wildly inaccurate at high speeds or small
distances. We do not have a set of Laws of Physics that always
works in all cases. If we did, Physics would be over already.
Science is all about Questioning this sort of truth. If we didn't,
we'd still follow Aristotle. I'd generalize this a little more:
If you want to learn anything new, you MUST question the things
you Know (tm). Because you can always be wrong.
Even presupposing that Truth may not be Denied, and may
not be Questioned, and that God is Truth, it only follows
that God may not be Denied or Questioned. NOT that he must
be obeyed!
We could unquestioningly DISobey him. How annoying of us.
But you have not connected denial with disobedience.
---
- Dan "No Nickname" Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0 | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I won't even recommend books from my congregation. What you ask sounds
attractive but it is dangerous. As a new Christian you don't want to be
contaminated with other people's interpretation. Steep your self in
scripture, and discuss with other christians. Read if your must but
remember that what other people write is their interpretation. God has
promised to give you light, so ask for it.
Don't wait too long before attaching yourself to church. Just remember to
always compare what they teach you with scripture like the Bereans did. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
No, do I have to? I'm just commenting that it makes very
little sense to consider everything we inherit to be the default.
Seen any steam trains recently? | 0 | alt.atheism |
Is it appropriate for the Lord not to reveal certain
things before the world (i.e., publish them widely)?
These things sacred to Himself. He may place any
pre- or post-conditions He feels are necessary.
Moreover, there are precedents in scripture where
knowledge of sacred things is withheld:
1. After the Transfiguration Jesus instructed
Peter, James, and John to "tell the vision to no
man, until the Son of man be risen again from
the dead" (Matt. 17:9).
If we were living at the time of Savior, there
would be no (public) record of this event.
2. A faithful friend of Paul experiences a vision
of "paradise" when he "heard unspeakable words,
which it is not lawful for a man to utter"
(2 Cor. 12:4).
This person heard something which Paul can not
write to the Corinthians (and us).
3. There is an incident recorded in the Book of
Mormon where words uttered by "babes" were
"forbidden that there should not any man write
them (3 Nephi 26:16, the entire text follows
for those of you without access to the BOM).
3 Nephi 26:16
Behold, it came to pass on the morrow that the
multitude gathered themselves together, and they
both saw and heard these children; yea, even
babes did open their mouths and utter marvelous
things; and the things which they did utter were
forbidden that there should not any man write them.
Some LDS scholars speculate that these words
which could not be written are the sacred
portions from temple we are to withhold from
the world (but it could be something else).
There is much we can discuss about the temple
ordinances. We can discuss regarding baptisms
and other vicarious ordinances for the dead.
We can discuss certain concepts regarding the
endowment ("the ritual").
However, there are certain elements I can not
discuss with anyone (including other saints)
outside of the temple.
As a portion of the endowment, we receive the
tokens and signs that will permit us access
to Heaven. I must keep this knowledge sacred
and respect the conditions under which it is
revealed to me. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
:
: And thank the Lord that Bill Connor has returned to set
: us straight! Now I know I can die happy when my Lexus
: SE400 wipes out on that rain-slick curve in 1997. The
: rest of you had best straighten up, because your time
: is even more limited. Most of you are going in the Flu
: of 1994.
Maddi,
You know you're glad to have me visit ...
But I won't stay long this time, just shopping around. | 0 | alt.atheism |
[why do babies get diseases, etc.]
Here's the (main) problem. The scenario you outline is reasonably
consistent, but all the evidence that I am familiar with not only does
not support it, but indicates something far different. The Earth, by
latest estimates, is about 4.6 billion years old, and has had life for
about 3.5 billion of those years. Humans have only been around for (at
most) about 200,000 years. But, the fossil evidence inidcates that life
has been changing and evolving, and, in fact, disease-ridden, long before
there were people. (Yes, there are fossils that show signs of disease...
mostly bone disorders, of course, but there are some.) Heck, not just
fossil evidence, but what we've been able to glean from genetic study shows
that disease has been around for a long, long time. If human sin was what
brought about disease (at least, indirectly, though necessarily) then
how could it exist before humans?
[deletions]
Uh... I know of many evolutionary biologists, who know more about
biology than you claim to, who will strongly disagree with this. There
is no evidence that the human genetic code (or any other) 'started off'
in perfect condition. It seems to adapt to its envionment, in a
collective sense. I'm really curious as to what you mean by 'the
degeneration of the genetic code'.
Umm. Nah, we seem to do a pretty good job of adapting to viruses and
bacteria, and they to us. Only a very small percentage of microlife is
harmful to humans... and that small percentage seems to be reasonalby
constant in size, but the ranks keep changing. For example, bubonic
plague used to be a really nasty disease, I'm sure you'll agree. But
it still pops up from time to time, even today... and doesn't do as
much damage. Part of that is because of better sanitation, but even
when people get the disease, the symptoms tend to be less severe than in
the past. This seems to be partly because people who were very susceptible
died off long ago, and because the really nasty variants 'overgrazed',
(forgive the poor terminology, I'm an engineer, not a doctor! :-> ) and
died off for lack of nearby hosts.
I could be wrong on this, but from what I gather acne is only a few
hundred years old, and used to be nastier, though no killer. It seems to
be getting less nasty w/age...
Now, wait a minute. I have a question. Humans were created perfect, right?
And, you admit that we have an inbuilt abiliy to fight off disease. It
seems unlikely that Satan, who's making the diseases, would also gift
humans with the means to fight them off. Simpler to make the diseases less
lethal, if he wants survivors. As far as I can see, our immune systems,
imperfect though they may (presently?) be, must have been built into us
by God. I want to be clear on this: are you saying that God was planning
ahead for the time when Satan would be in charge by building an immune
system that was not, at the time of design, necessary? That is, God made
our immune systems ahead of time, knowing that Adam and Eve would sin and
their descendents would need to fight off diseases?
Here's another puzzle. What, exactly, do you mean by 'perfect' in the
phrase, 'created... perfect and without flaw'? To my mind, a 'perfect'
system would be incapable of degrading over time. A 'perfect' system
that will, without constant intervention, become imperfect is *not* a
perfect system. At least, IMHO.
Or is it that God did something like writing a masterpiece novel on a
bunch of gum wrappers held together with Elmer's glue? That is, the
original genetic 'instructions' were perfect, but were 'written' in
inferior materials that had to be carefully tended or would fall apart?
If so, why could God not have used better materials?
Was God *incapable* of creating a system that could maintain itself,
of did It just choose not to?
[deletions]
My main point, as I said, was that there really isn't any evidence for
the explanation you give. (At least, that I'm aware of.) But, I couldn't
help making a few nitpicks here and there. :->
Sincerely, | 0 | alt.atheism |
[deleted]
I can't speak for Mr. Cavano, but I understood his comment to refer to
the idea that unrecognized pantheism is dangerous to Christians. If we
unthinkingly adopt pantheistic ideas that are opposed to Christianity,
we can pervert our faith. When we clearly recognize pantheism when we
encounter it we have the opportunity to embrace what is consistent with
Christianity and reject what isn't.
We need to be alert, always thinking and questioning. We must examine
the underlying assumptions of every book we read, tv program we watch
and socio-political movement we participate in. Ideas are important.
Philosophies and doctrines are what give form to the events of our
lives. They are the basis from which we live our lives of love and
service. The command to love God with all one's mind means no fuzzy-
headed drifting from idea to idea.
One Christian who acknowledges this is the Pope. It is a frequent theme
in his writings. Indeed, thoughtful Christians from most traditions
recognize that consumerism has no place in the lives of Christians. It
too is a perversion and dangerous to our faith. Thank you, Jack, for
pointing out the parallel. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I agree with what Darren has to say here, but would like to add a
personal observation. What I see as arrogance and the problem I have
with it is not a sense of personal certainty, but a lack of respect for
others who come to differing conclusions. Clearly, this is not just
Christian vs. Non-Christian; there is a whole spectrum of belief systems
within Christianity. I do not tend to argue with others about matters
of personal faith because, like aesthetics, it is not demonstable by
objective means.
Choosing what to believe and rely on are important areas of personal
sovereignty. What bothers me is when others suggest that, in these
matters of faith, their specific beliefs are not only true to them
but are absolute and should be binding on others. It follows from this
that God must give everyone the same revelation of truth, and thus
anyone who comes to a different conclusion is intentionally choosing
the wrong path. This is the arrogance I see; a lack of respect for the
honest conclusions of others on matters which are between them and God.
Even a personal certainty leaves room for the beliefs of others. It is
universalizing those matters of personal faith, coupled by a proud
notion that one's relationship with God is superior to other's, that
leads to arrogance. In my honest (and nonuniversal) opinion. :-)
comments, criticism welcome...
-Ken
alvin@ucsu.colorado.edu | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Someone writing anonymously asks:
I *did* become a Christian without having been indoctrinated by my parents, and
having studied Buddhism fairly carefully and other religions to a lesser
degree. I made a decision to accept the truth-claims of Christianity after
having given it a lot of thought. (I have to point out that the process was not
purely a cold, rational one: there was a powerful experiential element as well.
Also, my Calvinist should rest assured that I don't lay any of the
responsibility for the outcome [my conversion] on anyone but God.)
It took me years and years for this all to happen, because I had many of the
objections that this poster puts forward. I grew up in the shadow of [generic
authoritarian conservative denomination], and I *knew* that that wasn't a way
of life that I could adopt. But I gradually learned not to tar all of
Christianity with the same brush, and realized quite suddenly one cold winter
night that I accepted what I had heretofore rejected. I am quite certain that
I was not "brain-washed". | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister
and mother." | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I'd have to say that I have a problem with any organization,
religious or not, where the idea that _simple speech_ such
as this is the basis for a crime. | 0 | alt.atheism |
RB>
RB> No, that's praying on the young. Preying on the young comes
RB> later, when the bright eyed little altar boy finds out what the
RB> priest really wears under that chasible.
The same thing Scotsmen where under there kilt.
I'll never forget the day when I was about tweleve and accidently
walked in on a roomfull of priests sitting around in their underware
drinking beer and watching football.
Kind of changed my opinion a bit. They didn't seem so menacing after
that.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
For example, if it were instinctive not to murder...
So, only intelligent beings can be moral, even if the bahavior of other
beings mimics theirs? And, how much emphasis do you place on intelligence?
Animals of the same species could kill each other arbitarily, but they
don't. Are you trying to say that this isn't an act of morality because
most animals aren't intelligent enough to think like we do? | 0 | alt.atheism |
[...stuff deleted...]
Computers are an excellent example...of evolution without "a" creator.
We did not "create" computers. We did not create the sand that goes
into the silicon that goes into the integrated circuits that go into
processor board. We took these things and put them together in an
interesting way. Just like plants "create" oxygen using light through
photosynthesis. It's a much bigger leap to talk about something that
created "everything" from nothing. I find it unfathomable to resort
to believing in a creator when a much simpler alternative exists: we
simply are incapable of understanding our beginnings -- if there even
were beginnings at all. And that's ok with me. The present keeps me
perfectly busy. | 0 | alt.atheism |
*******
******* This is somewhat long, but pleas read it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*******
Boy am i glad you decided to read this. I've got a problem that
I need as many people's help from as possible.
Before I go in to the details of this, let me go ahead and tell
you that (though it may sound it) this is not one of those boy
meets girl problem...at least not totally like that to me....Anyway...
OK, I am a 19 year old Sophmore at NCSU. About 10 years ago, my family
and I were vacationing at the coast in a cottage we rented. Across the
street, was ths girl who would whistle at me whenever she saw me...
her name in Erin. Well, we became friends that week at the beach and have
been writing each other for about 10 years....there was a period of about
2 years we lost contact..but that was a while ago.
By the way...Erin lives in Kansas and me in NC.
OK, last year in one of her letters, she says that she is coming
back to NC to see some of her family who are gonna be there. So I
drove about 4 hours to see her. This is where it begins....I spent
the whole day with Erin....one of the best days of my life. Even though
we had been writing each other, we still had to get used to being
in person....she has got to be the most incredible woman I ever met.
(She's one year older than me BTW). I mean, no person in the world could
ask for a better person. Not only was she incredibly beautiful (not to
mention WAY out of my league...although I'm not unattractive mind you), but
she had a great personality and a great sence of humor. Her family
is one of those families who goes to church but that is about the
extent of their Christianity...you know the kind of people. But she
knows I am a Christian.
Well, you get the idea of what I think of her. If there is ever such
a thing as love at first sight....I found it. That was last year...I kid
you not when I say that I have thought about her EVERY day since then.
In out letters, Erin and I always kid each other about not finding
dates..(which is true for me, but I know it can't be for her).
She has had some problems at home, her folks split up and she ended
up leaving school....Now we are at the present...
Let me give you part of the letter I got from her last week....
"Okay, now I'm going to try to explain my life to you. I'm not
going to KU anymore because something just isn't right. College
just wasn't clicking with me here. Greek life is really big here and
that just isn't my way. I wasn't taking any classes that truly interested
me & i really have no idea of what i want to do with my life. I was
interested in something medical (Physical Therpy) & I love working with
kids, but 'it' just didn't work for me at this university. And my parents
could tell.
"So I'm working full time at the Bass Store [Bass shoes that is] and now
I have a part-time job at a local daycare. I work in the infant room
M-W-F. I've really enjoyed it so far. It spices up my week a little bit and
it's great experience.
"As of now, I'm not planning on going back to school in the very
near future. The main reason being my indecision on what I want to
study. But I definatley plan on going back within the next couple of
years. Where? I have no idea--except for one thing, it won't be
to Kansas.
"Right noew I'm discussing a promotion with my boss and district
manager. It looks like I'll train at the store I work at now for
about 4-6 months as Assistant Manager and when that's done, I'll
basically be given a list of stores (newly or soon to be built) to
chose where i would like to manage. I've pretty much decided on either
one of the Carolinas (hopeully close to the beach) Wouldn't it
be fun to actually see each other more than once every few years??
What do you think abou that? I would like to know your opinion.
"This job would pretty much be temporary. But it is VERY GOOD pay
and any thye of management experience would look good on an application
or resume. The company is solid and treats it employees very well. Good
benefits, bonuses & medical plans. Plus- after 1 year of full-time
service, they will reimburse tuition. I do have school money waitng
for me, but this will help, especially since I will probably end up
paying out of state tuition wherever I go.
"Chris, i really would like to know what you think of my decision. I
respect your opinion. I've been completely lost for what to do for
soooo long that when the opportunity came along it sounded really
good. I do like my job although I'm about 99.9% sure that i want
to do more with my life than reatil management..but it IS something.
I don't think earning about $20,000 a year for a 20 year old female
is too bad.
"Anyway, onto your career decisions. I'll solve your problem right now,
MARRY ME...
"You can do your pilot thing-- I like to be by myself sometimes! Seriously
(or not as seriously)- do what will make you the happiest, worry about the
home life later."
***********
OK, well I'm sure you see what has got me so uptight. What do you
think she meant about the marraige thing??
I dream at night about marrying her, and then she mentions it in her
letter!!! I don't know what to think??
Since she wants to move to the Carolina's should i search out a
Bass store near here and aske her to come to Carolina???
I always pick on those people who graduate from high school and
get married....but what does she mean???
I've had a lot of stress lately with exams and also the fact that
I don't date beacause 1) No time 2) Not that much $$ 3) that
most college women are wrapped up in the social scene with the
Greeks whic as a Christian I can't support-----and here
she says she doesn't like the Greek thing either!!
Maybe I'm so stunned because there is actually a girl that I am
so attracted to paying some real attention to me.
I mean, what if she did move to NC...what would I do??? I'm
only 19 and she 20....I'm only a Sophmore struggling through
classes..
I have prayed about this over the past year from time to time..
saying, "God if she is the right one, let the situation open up.."
Could this be my sign???
I would do ANYTHING to get her to NC...here is some moree that makes
it worse..
Should I call her?? I'm terrible over the phone. I don't even like
to talk to my friends here for longer than 3 minutes.
I mean, what would a girl as perfect as her want with a very
average guy like me??
I'm really confused....I would really appreciate any help i can get.
Thanx
Chris | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
(Deletion)
| 0 | alt.atheism |
I disagree with your claim that Jews were not evangelistic (except in
the narrow sense of the word). Jewish proselytism was widespread.
There are numerous accounts of Jewish proselytism, both in the New
Testament and in Roman and Greek documents of the day. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
(Reasoning pertinent to believing Xians deleted for space)
It strikes me, for no apparent reason, that this is reversible.
I.e., if I had proof that there existed a hell, in which I would be
eternally punished for not believing in life, would that make me a Xian?
(pardon my language) _Bloody_hell_no_!
...Of course, being merely a reversal of your thinking, this
doesn't add anything _new_ to the debate, but...
A point very well taken, IMNSHO.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I am fairly sure that she could obtain citizenship by making an
application for it. It might require immigration to Germany, but
I am almost certain that once applied for citizenship is inevitable
in this case.
More interesting only for your propaganda purposes. I have said several
times now that I don't consider Iran particularly exemplary as a good
Islamic state. We might talk about the rights of people in "capitalist
secular" third world countries to give other examples of the lack of
rights in third world countries broadly. Say, for example, Central
American secular capitalist countries whose govt's the US supports
but who Amnesty International has pointed out are human rights vacua.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Ah, double-fulfillment. First of all I would say that I'm not sure all
the prophecies had double-fulfillment, e.g., the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy.
I would say that just because this happens on some occasions does not mean
it will occur always, especially with regard to NT prophecies. The apostles
who quoted the OT and applied those passages to Jesus were acting as divine
messengers and giving the inerrant Word of God to the Church. No one has
that authority today. No one has the apostolic authority to say that
such-and-such a prophecy has double-fulfillment. If the imagry of
Revelation fits with events of the 1st century, it is folly for us to try
and make it apply to events 20 centuries later.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I think many reading this group would also benefit by knowing how
deviant the view _as I've articulated it above_ (which may not be
the true view of Khomeini) is from the basic principles of Islam.
So that the non-muslim readers of this group will see how far from
the simple basics of Islam such views are on the face of them. And
if they are _not_ in contradiction with the basics of Islam, how
subtle such issues are and how it seems sects exist in Islam while
they are explicitly proscribed by the Qur'an.
In my opinion considering any human being as having a substance
or metaphysical fundamentally different from that of any other human
being _is_ a heretical notion and one proscribed by Islam.
Absolutely! I would be interested in discussing this privately and
I am interested in hearing how one might try to make the concept of
error-free and sinless human beings philosophically consistent with
the teachings of the Qur'an. However, _prima facie_ such attemptsa
are highly susceptible to degenerating into monkery, explicitly
proscribed by the Qur'an.
Alaikum Wassalam
| 0 | alt.atheism |
.
It's my understanding that the U.S. Supreme Court has never
given a legal definition of religion. This despite the many
cases involving religion that have come before the Court.
Can anyone verify or falsify this?
Has any state or other government tried to give a legal
definition of religion?
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The last sentence is ironic, since so many readers of
soc.religion.christian seem to not be embarrassed by apologists such as
Josh McDowell and C.S. Lewis. The above also expresses a rather odd sense
of history. What makes you think the masses in Aquinas' day, who were
mostly illiterate, knew any more about rhetoric and logic than most people
today? If writings from the period seem elevated consider that only the
cream of the crop, so to speak, could read and write. If everyone in
the medieval period "knew the rules" it was a matter of uncritically
accepting what they were told.
Bill Mayne | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
My last article included this quote:
"If any substantial number of [ talk.religion.misc ] readers read some
Wittgenstein, 60% of the postings would disappear. (If they *understood*
some Wittgenstein, 98% would disappear. :-))" -- Michael L Siemon
There is a convention called a `smiley', which looks like this: :-) .
It is supposed to look like a sideways smiley-face, and indicates that the
preceding comment is supposed to be funny.
And, I'll note that I have participated on talk.religion.misc for over
five years -- I'd say Mr Siemon was not too far off. 8^)
*
In the meat of his reply, Mr Boundary serves up an excellent example of what
I meant by "There is no way out of the loop". I wrote that human brains "are
infested with sin", and can be trusted only in limited circumstances.
Which just moves the problem back one level: how do you tell if your
conscience is properly formed?
The only way to tell is to presuppose that you are capable of judging the
formed-ness of your own conscience. In other words, you can only be sure
that your conscience is `properly formed' if you assume that your evaluation
can be trusted. Assuming your conclusions saves you a lot of time, I'll
grant, but it's not a valid way of reasoning.
Unless you are infallible, your judgements about your own thinking cannot be
certain. Therefore, it is not possible to be certain your conscience is
`properly formed'. (Whatever that is supposed to mean.)
Mr Boundary then gives another paradigm example of the problem:
The Church is `by necessity' the infallible interpreter of divine revelation?
How do you know? Presumably, you believe this because of some argument or
another -- how do you know that the argument contains no mistakes?
You write:
But there is a huge difference between `confidence in our ability to
distinguish what is true from what is not true' and `infallible'. I am
confident about a lot of things, but absolute certainty is a very long way
from `confident'.
This discussion is about the arrogance of claiming to be absolutely certain
(really, go check the subject line). Saying you are absolutely certain is
significantly different than saying you are confident. When you say that
you are confident, that invites people to ask why.
Except in very limited circumstances, when you say that you are absolutely
certain, it invites people to dismiss you as someone who does not have any
idea of his own fallibility.
I have yet to meet anyone who believed in a knowably-infallible source of
truth who would admit the possibility of errors in his reasoning. All of
them -- every last one -- has claimed that he was himself infallible.
The result has been to convince me that they had no idea what was going on.
Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
[This particular discussion may not be entirely relevant to the
original criticism. I get the feeling that the original poster
regarded as arrogant the very idea that there are right and wrong
answers in religion, and that the difference can have eternal
consequences. When I say that I think there is a hell and that he is
at least in significant danger of ending up there, I will admit that
-- as you say -- the reasoning processes I used to reach this are
fallible. Thus at least in principle I could be wrong. But these
basic facts are clearly enough taught in the Bible that I think it's
unlikely that I'm misinterpreting it. (In order to get this level of
confidence, I've tried to frame my statement sufficiently carefully as
to sidestep a number of the more controversial issues. I haven't, for
example said that all non-Christians will definitely end up in hell,
and I haven't attempted to describe hell in any detail.) I have a
feeling that my view is going to be regarded as arrogant and
intolerant even though I acknowledge that I'm fallible and so there's
some chance I'm wrong.
Don't get me wrong -- I think there are a lot of genuinely arrogant
Christians, and often criticism of us is justified. But in at least
some cases I think the criticisms constitute blaming the messenger.
If the universe is set up so that there are eternal consequences for
certain decisions, it's not my fault -- I'm just telling it the way I
think it is. You may think God is immoral for setting things up that
way. It's one of the critiques of Christianity that I find it most
difficult to respond to. But it's not arrogance for me to tell what
I think is the truth. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Size of armies, duration, numbers of casualties both absolute and as a
percentage of those involved, geographical area and numbers of countries
too, are all measures of size. In this case I'd say the relevant
statistic would be the number of combatants (total troops) compared to
total casualties from among the total civilian population in the
affected geographical area.
Vietnam and Korea might make good comparisons.
Western news in general, but in particular the American "mass media":
CBS, NBC, ABC, etc. The general tone of the news during the whole
war was one of "those poor, poor Iraqis" along with "look how precisely
this cruise missile blew this building to bits".
I agree.
Perhaps so. And maybe the atomic bomb was a mistake too. But that's easy
to say from our "enlightened" viewpoint here in the 90's, right? Back
then, it was *all-out* war, and Germany and Japan had to be squashed.
After all, a million or more British had already died, hundreds of
thousands of French, a couple hundread thousand or so Americans, and
millions of Russians, not to mention a few million Jews, Poles, and
other people of slavic descent in German concentration camps. All
things considered, the fire-bombings and the atomic bomb were
essential (and therefore justified) in bringing the war to a quick
end to avoid even greater allied losses.
I, for one, don't regret it.
Sure. And it's the people who suffer because of them. All the more
reason to depose these "entrenched political rulers operating in their
own selfish interests"! Or do you mean that this applies to the allies
as well??
I make no claim or effort to justify the misguided foreign policy of the
West before the war. It is evident that the West, especially America,
misjudged Hussein drastically. But once Hussein invaded Kuwait and
threatened to militarily corner a significant portion of the world's
oil supply, he had to be stopped. Sure the war could have been
prevented by judicious and concerted effort on the part of the West
before Hussein invaded Kuwait, but it is still *Hussein* who is
responsible for his decision to invade. And once he did so, a
strong response from the West was required.
Well, it's not very "loving" to allow a Hussein or a Hitler to gobble up
nearby countries and keep them. Or to allow them to continue with mass
slaughter of certain peoples under their dominion. So, I'd have to
say yes, stopping Hussein was the most "loving" thing to do for the
most people involved once he set his mind on military conquest.
I mentioned it.
If we hadn't intervened, allowing Hussein to keep Kuwait, then it would
have been appeasement. It is precisely the lessons the world learned
in WW2 that motivated the Western alliance to war. Letting Hitler take
Austria and Czechoslavkia did not stop WW2 from happening, and letting
Hussein keep Kuwait would not have stopped an eventual Gulf War to
protect Saudi Arabia.
Sure. What was truly unfortunate was that they followed Hitler in
his grandiose quest for a "Thousand Year Reich". The consequences
stemmed from that.
What should I say about them? Anything in particular?
So? It was the *policemen* on trial not Rodney King!! And under American
law they deserved a jury of *their* peers! If there had been black
officers involved, I'm sure their would have been black jurors too.
This point (of allegedly racial motivations) is really shallow.
So? It's "hard to imagine"? So when has Argument from Incredulity
gained acceptance from the revered author of "Constructing a Logical
Argument"? Can we expect another revision soon?? :) (Just kidding.)
I have to admit that I wonder this too. But *neither* the prosecution
nor the defense is talking. So one cannot conclude either way due to
the silence of the principals.
OK. It certainly seemed to me that there was excessive force involved.
And frankly, the original "not guilty" verdict baffled me too. But then
I learned that the prosecution in the first case did not try to convict
on a charge of excessive force or simple assault which they probably
would have won, they tried to get a conviction on a charge of aggravated
assault with intent to inflict serious bodily harm. A charge, which
news commentators said, was akin to attempted murder under California
law. Based on what the prosecution was asking for, it's evident that
the first jury decided that the officers were "not guilty". Note,
not "not guilty" of doing wrong, but "not guilty" of aggravated assault
with the *intent* of inflicting serious bodily harm. The seeds of the
prosecutions defeat were in their own overconfidence in obtaining a
verdict such that they went for the most extreme charge they could.
If the facts as the news commentators presented them are true, then
I feel the "not guilty" verdict was a reasonable one.
Thanks mathew, I like the quote. Pretty funny actually. (I'm a
Monty Python fan, you know. Kind of seems in that vein.)
Of course, oversimplifying any moral argument can make it seem
contradictory. But then, you know that already.
Regards, | 0 | alt.atheism |
^^^^^^^^^
1 Cor 11:31-32 "But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment.
When we are judged by the ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ Lord, we are being discipled so
that we will not be condemned with the world."
1 Cor 5:3 "Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit.
And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were
present." ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
1 Cor 2:15-16 "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he
himself is not ^^^^^^^^^ subject to any man's ^^^ judgement: 'For
who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?' But we have the
mind of Christ."
Jude :14-15 "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: 'See,
the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge
everyone, and to ^^^^ convict all the ungodly of ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ all
the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words
ungodly sinners have spoken against him.'"
Arrogance is a sin. Although a desire to show others of one's rightness may
be a sign of arrogance in some cases, it may be only a sign that they are
following the Bible in others:
Jude :22-23 "Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and
save them; to others show mercy, mixed with ^^^^^^ fear -- hating ^^^^ even
^^^^ the clothing stained by corrupted flesh."
I hope you don't find me arrogant, then. This sounds like a bad practice --
ignoring what certain people say because you perceive them as arrogant.
James 1:19 "My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to
listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry," | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
TDB> 12. Disease introduced to Brazilian * oher S.Am. tribes: x million
To be fair, this was going to happen eventually. Given time, the Americans
would have reached Europe on their own and the same thing would have
happened. It was just a matter of who got together first.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
I've just read Carol's response and I just had to get into this. I've
got some verses which are not subject to interpretation because they say
what they say. They are 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and
Galatians 1:11-12.
Also, based on the fact that Jesus is the Word incarnate and he judges
people if they follow him (see Acts 17:29-31 and John 5:21-27) and that
those who reject Jesus' teachings are judged by the very words he spoke
(see John 12:47-50), then Jesus' words are true and do not need
interpretation, nor would it be just of God to judge based on his word
if it had to be interpreted. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
OFM replies to a question on the multiplicity of translations of the bible,
Unfortunately, this isn't true. On another news group earlier this year,
someone posted that the King James Bible was the divinely inspired version
of the Bible in English and was, therefore, inerrant; all other English
translations were from Satan, trying to deceive the body of Christ. A
few years ago, the pastor of a church I was attending showed me a poster
advertising the availability of a certain man to address congregations.
Very prominantly on the poster was the fact that the man used only the KJV.
The idea that the KJV is THE English Bible is more prevalent than many
might think.
-- Scott at Brandeis | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
<. . ..
: The next Sunday, the sermon was about Joshua 6 (where the Israelites
: take Jericho and then proceed to massacre everybody there --- except
: for Rahab, who had sheltered the spies). With those reports about
: Bosnia in my mind, I felt uncomfortable about the minister saying that
: the massacre (the one in Joshua) was right. But what really bothered
: me was that, if I was going to try taking Christianity seriously, I
: shouldn't be so troubled about the reports of "ethnic cleansing" in
: Bosnia. Certainly, my sympathies shouldn't be with the Moslims.
: Considering that the Bosnian Muslims are descendants of Christians
: who, under Turkish rule, converted to Islam could the Serbs be doing
: God's work?
Perhaps it would be useful to ask whether those doing the ethnic
cleansing could be said to be loving those they are killing in the very
act of killing. Does it reflect the attitude of God, who sends rain to
both the just and the unjust? If not, then Christians should be
uncomfortable with it. Jesus gave his followers the law of love to
follow and it is by exhibiting this that disciples will be known.
Doctrinal (or political) correctness is not the standard, so I don't see
why Christians should be moved against the Serbs because their ancestors
converted from Christianity to Islam. It seems to me that as a
Christian you _should_ be troubled by the ethnic cleansing.
--
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Hooray ! I always suspected that I was human too :-) It is the desire to be like
Christ that often causes christians to be very critical of themselves and other
christians. We are supposed to grow, mature, endeavour to be Christ-like but we
are far far far from perfect. Build up the body of Christ, don't tear it down,
and that includes yourself. Jesus loves me just the way I am today, tomorrow and
always (thank God ! :-). | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
...
Seems to me if you learned to differentiate between illusion and
reality on your own you wouldn't need to rely on doctrines that
need to be updated. My experience of Christianity (25+ years) is
that most Christians seek answers from clergymen who have little
or no direct experience of spiritual matters, and that most of
these questions can be answered by simple introspection. Most
people suspect that they cannot trust their senses, but few take
the next step to figure out that they can trust themselves. Not to
get too esoteric, but it seems that most religions, Christianity
included, are founded by particularly intuitive people who understand
this.
(stuff deleted)
And what if the original poster, Pixie, is never "converted?"
Does it make sense that she (or I, or the majority of humanity
for that matter) would go to hell for eternity, as many
Christians believe? It makes more sense to me that rather
than be converted to a centuries-old doctrine that holds no
life for her, that she simply continue to decide for herself
what is best.
-------------------------------------------- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I no longer have the textbook, but abstinence was defined as something
like "no contact between the penis and the vagina, vulva, or area
immediately surrounding the vulva, and no transfer of semen to the
vagina, vulva, or area surrounding the vulva".
That is, abstinence wasn't discussed as "sex outside of marriage is
morally wrong" but as keep the sperm away from the ovum and conception
is impossible. The moral question I recall the teacher asking was,
"is it okay to create a child if you aren't able to be a good parent
yet?"
-jen
-- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[4) "Nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21.27). Therefore,
babies are born in such a state that should they die, they are cuf off
from God and put in hell, which is exactly the doctrine of St. Augustine
and St. Thomas. Of coures, having only original sins on thier souls,
they suffer the lightest punishment, the loss of the vision oand
presence of God, but that does not change the undeniable fact that they
cannot possibly come to a forgivenss of original sin, nor can they
inherit eternal life. "That," as St. Augustine said, "Is what the
Pelagian heretics taught." Which is why he said later, "If you want to
be a Christian, do not teach that unbaptized infants can come to a
forgivenss of original sin."] | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
So what you're saying is that your mind is made up, and you'll just explain
away any differences at being statistically insignificant?
So you'll just explain away any inconsistancies in your "theory" as being
"a special case".
You just equated them. Re-read your own words.
A study release in 1991 found that 11% of female seagulls are lesbians.
Now, apply this last sentence of your to YOUR theory. Notice how your are
contridicting observations?
You don't know much math, do you? The ability to use SAS to determine the
length of the third side of the triangle is fundemental to geometry.
Goals <> postulates.
Again, if one of the "goals" of this "objective/natural morality" system
you are proposing is "survival of the species", then homosexuality is
immoral. | 0 | alt.atheism |
I have a few minor problems with the article posted as proof of
Christ's resurrection.
First the scriptural quotations:
This sort of reasoning is such that if you beleive you are justified,
if not then your beleif is in vain, so you might as well beleive. Most
of these quotations are of people who do beleive. People who would
try to justify their own positions.
Second the logical proof:
The period of time that has elapsed from the event growing larger
does not increase the odds that a hoax would be discovered. In fact
the longer a hoax is perpetuated the stronger it becomes.
Finally:
There is no proof of the resurrection of Christ, except in our spirits
communion with his, and the Father's. It is a matter of FAITH, belief
without logical proof. Incedently one of the largest stumbling blocks for
rational western man, myself included. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
->In article <1993Apr9.151914.1885@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>, mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu
->>
->>In article <monack.733980580@helium> monack@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david
->>>Another issue is that by having to request to not be required to
->>>recite the "so help me God" part of the oath, a theistic jury may be
->>>prejudiced against your testimony even though atheism is probably not
->>>at all relevant to the case.
->>>
->>>What is the recommended procedure for requesting an alternate oath or
->>>affirmation?
->>>
->>>Dave
Sorry for using a follow-up to respond, but my server dropped about a weeks worth of news
when it couldn't keep up.
When the you are asked to swear "So help you god" and you have to say it, ask which one; Jesus,
Allah, Vishnu, Zues, Odin. Get them to be specific. Don't be obnoxious, just humbly ask, then
quitely sit back and watch the fun.
---
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
James L. Felder |
Sverdrup Technology,Inc. | phone: 216-891-4019
NASA Lewis Research Center |
Cleveland, Ohio 44135 | email: jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov
"Some people drink from the fountain of knowledge, other people gargle" | 0 | alt.atheism |
He: Fifty dollars if I can't answer your question.
She: What is the Big Bang theory.
He: The Big Bang theory is a recipe for cookies.
She: Fifty dollars, please.
He: Hey, I didn't say the answers would make sense. | 0 | alt.atheism |
I'm compiling a bibliography on religious perspectives on esotericism,
hermeticism, gnosticism, mysticism, occultism, alchemy and magic, and
am interested in sources that others have found particularly interesting
and insightful. I'm especially interested in medieval works, such as
_The Chemical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz_ and Arthurian legends.
Please feel free, too, to send personal opinions on any of the above,
pro or con or anywhere in between. Thanks much. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Just because the wording is elsewhere does not mean they didn't spend
much time on the wording.
People can be described as cruel in this way, but punishments cannot. | 0 | alt.atheism |
As much as I considered some of the (so-called) Islam-related dialogue
here a total waste of time, I somehow can't restrain myself in this
instance, so, Gregg, try this:
20:52 P.S.T. I come to my senses and accept the all-knowing
wisdom and power of the Quran and Allah. Not only that, but Allah
himself drops by to congratulate me on my wise choice. Allah rolls a
few bones and we get down. Then Allah gets out the Crisco, bends
over, and invites me to take a spin around the block. Wow.
20:56 P.S.T. I realize that maybe Allah is looking for more of a
commitment than I'm ready for, so I say "Man, I've got some
programming to do. Gotta go. I'll call you."
20:59 P.S.T Thinking it over, I renounce Islam.
BTW, Gregg, Allah said he still thinks of you. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Well, it's that time of year again here at IU: graduation.
Unfortunately, this means that I am out of here, more than likely for
good. I cannot say if I'll be in here under another username or not, or
even if I'll ever get back in here at all. I am leaving this part of my
ministry to another brother, John Right. So, have fun and remember that
flaming can be considered slander. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
:
: Wild and fanciful claims require greater evidence. If you state that
: one of the books in your room is blue, I certainly do not need as much
: evidence to believe than if you were to claim that there is a two headed
: leapard in your bed. [ and I don't mean a male lover in a leotard! ]
Keith,
If the issue is, "What is Truth" then the consequences of whatever
proposition argued is irrelevent. If the issue is, "What are the consequences
if such and such -is- True", then Truth is irrelevent. Which is it to
be?
| 0 | alt.atheism |
On 23-Apr-93 in Serbian genocide Work of God?
Bingo - that and there's no oil there.
On 23-Apr-93 in Serbian genocide Work of God?
If this is the "work of god" then I'm doubly glad that I don't worship him.
David Hunt - Graduate Slave | My mind is my own. | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>> | Jewish homeland!
====T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=========T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=====
Email: bluelobster+@cmu.edu Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper" | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Are we talking about me, or the majority of the people that support it?
Anyway, I think that "revenge" or "fairness" is why most people are in
favor of the punishment. If a murderer is going to be punished, people
that think that he should "get what he deserves." Most people wouldn't
think it would be fair for the murderer to live, while his victim died.
Perhaps you think that it is petty and pathetic, but your views are in the
minority.
Where are we required to have compassion, forgiveness, and sympathy? If
someone wrongs me, I will take great lengths to make sure that his advantage
is removed, or a similar situation is forced upon him. If someone kills
another, then we can apply the golden rule and kill this person in turn.
Is not our entire moral system based on such a concept?
Or, are you stating that human life is sacred, somehow, and that it should
never be violated? This would sound like some sort of religious view.
Once a criminal has committed a murder, his desires are irrelevant.
And, you still have not answered my question. If you are concerned about
the death penalty due to the possibility of the execution of an innocent,
then why isn't this same concern shared with imprisonment. Shouldn't we,
by your logic, administer as minimum as punishment as possible, to avoid
violating the liberty or happiness of an innocent person? | 0 | alt.atheism |
Could you explain what any of this pertains to? Is this a position
statement on something or typing practice? And why are you using my
name, do you think this relates to anything I've said and if so, what. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Hi!
I don't know much about Mormons, and I want to know about serious independent
studies about the Book of Mormon.
I don't buy the 'official' story about the gold original taken to heaven,
but haven't read the Book of Mormon by myself (I have to much work learning
Biblical Hebrew), I will appreciate any comment about the results of study
in style, vocabulary, place-names, internal consistency, and so on.
For example: There is evidence for one-writer or multiple writers?
There are some mention about events, places, or historical persons later
discovered by archeologist?
Yours in Collen
Andres Grino Brandt Casilla 14801 - Santiago 21
agrino@enkidu.mic.cl Chile | 0 | alt.atheism |
The Sophomore
(Romans 1:22)
The sophomore says, ``What is truth?''
and turns to bask in the admiration of his peers.
How modern how daring how liberating
How modern how daring how liberating
they chant
The sophomore, being American
Doesn't know
That his ``question''
modern
skeptical
cynical
Was asked before, by a
modern
skeptical
cynical
urbane cosmopolitan
Politician (appointed not elected)
Who happened to live two thousand years ago.
Like many politicians he cared
Less about ideals
than results
Less about ends
than means
Less about anything
than keeping his job
(and his head).
We might call him
A bit brutal
Though `firm' would be kinder
(And no doubt Stalin, who let nobody go, laughed at his laxness)
He didn't like his job; perhaps he no longer hoped for better
(Nor feared worse, except regarding his head).
And when these wily Jews
With their heads-I-win, tails-you-lose
conundrums
Brought forth their madman,
His first impulse was to play the Roman:
``I find nothing wrong with him,
See to it yourselves.''
But when they mentioned `King' and `Caesar'
His heart froze.
If he killed their madman
He'd start a riot
and lose his job
(and his head)
If he saved the King of the Jews
He'd piss off Caesar
and lose his job
(and his head)
And when his wife told him to have
Nothing to do with the righteous lout
She didn't tell him anything
He hadn't already figured out.
So he punted.
``Not my jurisdiction! Take him to see Herod!''
(who just happened to be in town....)
Herod appreciated the courtesy
But wasn't worried
And sent the sharp-tongued fool
(Who suddenly didn't have much to say,
funny how people lose it under pressure....)
back
In the attire proper
to his Royal State.
His ass is covered---if Herod has no problem,
Caesar certainly won't. The fool can be king
of whatever world he wants
as long as it's not Caesar's.
``I'm letting him go,'' he said with a shout.
(Looks like he'll last this one out....)
The crowd's reaction puzzled him.
They really wanted him dead.
They didn't want the King of the Jews,
They wanted Barabbas instead
(And, as Josephus records, they got him)
Oh well, he thought,
They all look the same to me.
And we'll get Barabbas next time.
And if I can get them to say
``We have no king but Caesar!''
By killing a madman,
Hell, I'll kill ten a day.
And then Pilate had his fun
A little joke
Short
To the point
Trilingual
And all this
Went as it always does
When someone gets caught
In the gears of government
And there's a scientific explanation
(no doubt)
For the superstitious rumors
(persisting to this day)
That it didn't all end
With a tomb
and a Roman squadron on guard.
Our sophomore doesn't know about this
He doesn't recognize his kindred spirit
(Or truth either, as he admits).
I guess we haven't learned much
in two thousand years.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Then by that definition, I would be in a cell church only here at IU,
not when the whole group gets together at Indianapolis (>950 every week
in attendance). | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I apologize if this post isn't entirely appropriate for the newsgroup.
I would like to correspond with any Christians attending the University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I will be transfering there in August to
complete my Ph.D. and I thought it would be nice to correspond with people
before I moved out.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
|
|> Religion (especially Christianity) is nothing more than a DRUG.
|> Some people use drugs as an escape from reality. Christians inject
|> themselves with jeezus and live with that high.
|
|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.
|
Pardon the harshness that follows...
Once, I told a cradle christian: Please do not take advantage of Jesus
or anybody for the sake of your own (selfish) realization or search
for true faith/religion/belonging/'being in'/fear of hell/vanity/etc.
Instead of serving yourself, _we must be serving Him_.
*Until you have comprehended this truth, you are only doing things for your
own egoism.*
Let us not use Jesus, our religion, the Bible, anything or
anybody as a means of escape or getting ecstatic or high.
We are God's children and we must have a true and authentic
relationship with our Father with obedience, faith, hope and
love and works (the last as the most important).
Beware of our 'materialistic', 'worldly' and 'selfish' motives.
Atheists have this ground against us and I believe they are right about
*some* who call themselves 'christians'. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
On Palm Sunday at our parish, we were "invited" to take the role of
Jesus in the Passion. I declined to participate. Last year at the
liturgy meeting I pointed out how we crucify Christ by our sins, so
therefore it is appropriate that we retain the role of the crowd, but
to no avail.
As a member of a liturgy committee, I can tell you that the problem
is certain people dominating, who want to try out all kinds of
innovations. The priests don't seem even to _want_ to make any
decisions of their own in many cases. I guess it's easier to "try
something new" than it is to refuse to allow it.
At our parish on Holy Thursday, instead of the priests washing feet
("Who wants to get around people's feet," according to one of our
priests) the congregation was "invited" to come up and help wash one
another's hands.
The symbolism of this action distressed me, and again I refused to
participate. I thought that if we were to have to come up with
rubrics for this liturgical action (i.e. "Body of Christ" -- "Amen"
for receiving Communion), that they could be "I am not responsible for
the blood of this man."
Also for part of the Eucharistic Prayer ("Blessed are You, God of
all creation...") was substituted some text read by a lay couple. The
priest certainly should not have given this part of the Mass over to
others, and I was so disturbed that I declined to receive Communion
that night (we aren't required to anyway -- I instead offered up
prayers for our priests and parish).
The quality of the Mass has not changed. Again, if it were to be
celebrated according to the rubrics set down by the Church, it would
still be "liturgically" beautiful. The problem comes about from
people trying to be "creative" who are not.
I think the answer to your question on participation could be that
given by Father Peter Stravinskas in answer to the question posed by
the title of Thomas Day's _Why Catholics Can't Sing_. "They don't
want to" because of all this nonsense.
By the way, for any non-Catholics reading this, the problem does
not reflect bad liturgy by the Catholic Church, but by those who are
disobedient to the Church in changing it on their own "authority." | 15 | soc.religion.christian |