text
stringlengths 1
51k
| label
int64 0
15
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
This is something I've always found a little curious. I've never quite understood
the trinity thing. On the one hand, Jesus is supposed to be God incarnate. But,
at the same time, he is God's son "For God so loved the world that he gave his
only begotten son". First question is, if Jesus was God in human form, how could
he really be God's son? If the Holy Ghost "planted the seed" in Mary, so to speak,
then it seems that Jesus' relationship to God would be the equivalent to the
human father/son relationship. While a son might inherit alot of the father's
qualities, he is not the father. They are still two separite entities. To try
and say that a son is the same person as the father is obviously wrong. In that
case, Jesus and God aren't the same. On the other hand, if their relationship
isn't the same as the human father/son relationship, but Jesus is actually God
incarnate, then he's not really God's son and he never was. He's just God
manifesting himself as Jesus. At least, this is how I'm seeing it. Can someone
who is more knowledgeable about the trinity enlighten us?
Getting back to the original question, what is the great price that Jesus paid
to redeem our sins? Was it dying on the cross? Since Jesus knew that he would
rise again in 3 days and then ascend back to heaven, I have a hard time seeing
how this is considered paying such a great price for humanity. His earthly body
may have been killed, but then, so what? He suffered a few hours of physical
pain, but then, there has been many a human who has suffered a great deal more.
The fact that Jesus was God's only begotten son doesn't seem to me to have much
meaning since God can beget as many sons as he wants to. Jesus being the only
one was simply a matter of choice. I suspect that these questions will be very
offensive to many Christians on this net. To those people, please accept my
sincere apologies. It is not my intention to offend or to trivialize Christ.
But, I do believe these are legitimate questions and I am genuinely curious.
[Note that the Trinity and Incarnation have to be looked at together.
First, your reading of the Virgin Birth is an uncommon one. (In this
group, it's dangerous to say that no one believes something.) You
seem to be suggesting the Jesus is God's son in a physical sense,
with the Holy Spirit as Father and Mary as Mother. I consider that
terrible heresy, though some people react less violently. The Virgin
Birth says that Jesus' birth is God's responsibility. But it doesn't
imply that God's sperm was involved. Indeed one (though by no means
the only) speculation is that God used Joseph's genetic material.
Second, Jesus is in some sense doubly indirect from the Father. In a
Trinitarian context, the term Son refers to the eternal Logos, who is
a part of God. The Son didn't come into existence with Jesus' birth.
Jesus is the incarnation of the Son. So his sonness isn't
specifically a result of being incarnated. Rather, it's the Son
who was incarnated. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
...
I have seen it used in an Orthodox church once, although I can't recall why.
I found it odd, to say the least. Also, I object to the statement that the
Orthodox DELETE the filioque from the original form of the Creed.
The creed originally did NOT contain that phrase, and it is not present
in the Greek original, which hangs by my desk. Not intending to start a
flame war. We didn't need to delete what wasn't there.
Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)
-- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I once heard an arguement from a xtian friend similar to this.
"Christianity is a Higher Logic. Athiest like u will not be able
to understand it. Your atheist logic is very low. Only thru faith can
we understand the Higher Logic in God".
So I asked him, "So what is this Higher Logic?"
His answer, "I don't know."
This, & the posting above highlights one of the worst things about
xtainity. It is abundantly clear to both atheists & xtains that
their believe is both illogical & irrational. Their tactics, therefore:
to disregard logic & rationality altogether. Silly excuses such as
the ones above and those such as, "How can u trust science, science
was invented by man!", only goes to further show the weakness of
their religion.
In my country where xtainity was and still is rapidly growing, xtains
never try to convert people by appealing to their brains or senses.
They know it would be a fruitless act, given the irrational nature
of their faith.
They would wait until a person is in distress, then they would comfort
him/her and addict them to their emotional opium.
Never in my life had I met a person who converted to xtainity coz it's
"reasonable". Rationality has no place in xtainity (see xtian arguement
against "reason" above).
--
The UnEnlightened One
------------------+--------------------------------------------------------
|
Tan Chade Meng | The wise man tells his wife that he understands her.
Singapore |
cmtan@iss.nus.sg | The fool tries to prove it.
|
------------------+--------------------------------------------------------
-- | 0 | alt.atheism |
Could an atheist accept a usage in which religious literature or
tradition is viewed in a metaphorical way? Of course: this is
essentially what we do with Homer, or with other concepts such as
fate, luck, free will ;-)... However, there remains the question of
whether the religious literature of -- say -- Christianity is a
particularly *good* set of metaphors for the world today. It's also
entirely unclear, and to me quite unlikely, that one could take a
contemporary religion like that and divorce the metaphoric potential
from the literalism and absolutism it carries now in many cases. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Thanks for the responses so far. I hope that I have
sparked some thought (which is more my intent than
to restart one of the Reformations).
I'm just going to tug on two threads:
In Message-ID: <May.10.05.07.21.1993.3479@athos.rutgers.edu>
db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler) writes,
I was simply observing that as a non-Jew, I am not in that community
which might be bound by such a decision (I don't know much about
the Council of Jamnia, but I have heard that it is not well-attested
historically). 'Faithless' has nothing to do with it, and I prefer
not to speculate about motives.
I wish the Dialogue_with_Trypho were a real transcript of a real
dialogue,, but I think it a fictional effect on Justin's part.
Putting that to one side, Justin's point may be evidential; one
would want to know- 'which books?'
Perhaps the reformers were traveling in all the light (MS evidence)
they had. Let's stick to the issues. Again, I prefer not to speculate
about motives. One would need quotes from Luther, Calvin, etc. to
evidence this 'preference'.
-----
In Message-ID: <May.9.05.38.22.1993.27327@athos.rutgers.edu>
wagner@grace.math.uh.edu (David Wagner)
Is this the principle: 'Any (BC) text not quoted by Christ cannot
be counted as Scripture' ? Think well about this- Job, Ruth...?
These is a logically invalid *a priori*.
Besides, we are talking about OT texts-
which in many parts are superceded by the NT
(in the Xtian view). Would not this same
principle exclude _Ecclesiastes_?
This principle cannot be consistently applied.
Dave W. answers:
Meaning what? Do you affirm the principle (that the D.c's can be
excluded since they contain 'false doctrine') or do you deny it?
If affirmed (as is implied in your statement) how does one determine
that doctrine X is false? Do you affirm every teaching in _Ecclesiastes_?
If so, it may be a test that cannot be applied. The Orthodox
faithfully believe that Psalm 151 is canonical. How can my
faith say 'Not!' ? All I hear here is the *a priori* I mentioned
before.
This is contrary to fact.
Can this be elevated to a principle? How is 'spiritual quality'
measured? I'll take the 'spiritual quality' of most of Sirach over
Joshua or Chronicles, any day.
What can I say? You believe what you believe- I'm asking for
a consistency check. I don't see that the books were added- in any
construction this formulation begs the question. No one can validly
ask me to 'have faith' that these books are noncanonical.
Dave Davis, ddavis@ma30.bull.com
These are my opinions & activities alone
QOTD: | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Well, you're going to have to practice, but you're getting
the hang of it. Soon we're going to have to give you a new
nickname. Try these on for size:
Tammy "Lucky Seven" Healy
Tammy "Pass the falafel" Healy
Tammy "R Us" Healy
Tammy "Learning by Doing" Healy
Maddi "Never a Useful Post" Hausmann
--
Maddi Hausmann madhaus@netcom.com
Centigram Communications Corp San Jose California 408/428-3553 | 0 | alt.atheism |
I have been studying the Bible now for about a year. I love it,
but I am not very familiar with the different denominations, or
traditions, or common beliefs of various christian groups.
I have heard various people (outside this news group)
describe *idols* such as power, money, material
possessions etc. These things are worshiped in some sense I
suppose, but I never really gave idols much thought. Until now...
I have been reading the postings in this news group (which I
just found a few days ago), and I have a question... First, I'm
not trying to question anyone's belief or try to push my views
on anyone else (I haven't been at this long enough to have
any views other than I cannot get to heaven by being good,
I must understand that Christ bore my sins on the cross so that
I could be saved and I need to repent, i.e. realize that
every time I sin, I might as well stick a sharp stick in
Christ's side because He took the punishment for my sins,
when He died on the cross).
In my studies, Mary never really comes up. I know who she is,
but that's about it. It seems to me that a statue of Mary
could be considered an idol? Do people pray to statues of Mary?
It sounds like educated christians (more educated than myself
I'm sure) believe Mary was sinless? Wow... I hoped to spend
the summer convincing myself (one way or the other) about
Tongues (I'm reading "Charismatic Chaos"). I guess I'll study
Tongues in parallel with reading this news group. Any help you can
give me will be appreciated.
-------------------------------------------
[I don't think the issue is so much that people are more educated than
you (though it may well be that they are), as that they come from a
different tradition than yours.
This is a discussion between Catholics and Protestants. Catholics
generally believe that Mary was sinless. Protestants do not. The
issue comes down to different sources of authority. Protestants
generally limit themselves to the Bible as a source of doctrine.
Since this isn't in the Bible (except in passages that no one would
understand in this way if they didn't already believe it), Protestants
don't accept it. Catholics see continuing revelation through the
Church, though they believe the results are consistent with the Bible.
I interpret your posting, not as a call for yet another argument about
whether the Catholic Marian devotions are idolatry (an argument I am
not prepared to see newed here), but as a sign of being interested in
learning about traditions other than your own. Catholics are of
course a major one, but by no means the only one. I generally
consider the major traditions to be Catholic, Orthodox, and
various subsets of Protestantism. Within Protestantism, it's a matter
of how finely you want to cut things. These days I think the major
division is between those who accept Biblical inerrancy and those
who don't. There are also a number of major historical traditions,
but in recent decades distinctions are tending to blur. I'd
identify the major Protestant traditions as:
Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican (they're sort of halfway between
Catholic and Protestant), Wesleyan, Baptist, Holiness, Pentecostal,
Church of Christ
But there are a number of others. Historical distinctions tend not to
be so important among the liberal churches anymore, and I think
current trends in society and the Church are also tending to make
conservatives seen themselves as allies from a general "evangelical"
perspective. But differences among these various traditions are still
quite marked.
I think the best introduction to these issues is to read a good book
on church history. Anyone who wants to understand the church really
needs to understand how we got where we are now. A church history
will normally show you where each of these traditions came from, and
give a feeling for their nature. Unfortunately I'm away from my
library at the moment, so I don't have anything specific to recommend. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Gee, since you ignored the entire substance of my substantial
post, you got a lot of nerve claiming that I don't understand
what's being talked about.
Respond to the previous post or shut the fuck up. You're
really annoying.
--
Maddi Hausmann madhaus@netcom.com
Centigram Communications Corp San Jose California 408/428-3553 | 0 | alt.atheism |
Often times (most recently on this list in the last few days) I've
heard the passage from revelation:
"...whoever adds to the sacred words of this book...whoever removes
words from this book..."
used as an arguement against the deutercanonical books.
I feel this is ridiculous for two reasons:
1. They weren't added later by the Catholic Church; they were
*always* part of what was considered inspired scripture.
(This has been dealt with in previous postings...no reason
to repeat the info.)
2. It is more likely than not that when St. John (or whomever) wrote
the book of Revelation WHAT WAS THEN CONSIDERED SCRIPTURE was
** NOT ** the same thing you and I are holding in our hands!
If one takes the translation of "this book" in REV 18:22 (or somewhere
around there) to mean "all of scripture", then all of us are likely
holding something that is in violation of this command.
It is impossible to exactly date the scriptures, even the N.T. ones
(they didn't like to date their letters, I guess). I really wish I
had my bible with me right now to get the facts straight, but I believe
that several of the N.T. letters, chief among them 2 Peter, have their
most likely date of composition in the early second century A.D.
Revelation was almost certainly written durin the reign of
Domition (sp?), A.D. 80-96. Thus it could be argues that we are all
in sin if we accept 2 Peter as scripture, since it was "added" to the
book after the composition of Revelation, when we are told to add
nothing more. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I quote from the journal, "30 Days In the Church and In the World,"
1992, No. 8/9, p. 29.
Regarding the new draft of the Universal Catechism:
In procuring the common good of society the need could arise
that the aggressor be placed in the position where he cannot
cause harm. By virtue of this, the right and obligation of
public authorities to punish with proportionate penalties,
including the death penalty, is acknowledged. For similar
reasons, legimate authorities have the right to impede
aggressors in society with the use of arms. The Church's
traditional teaching has always been expressed and will
continue to be expressed in the
consideration of the real conditions of common good and the
effective means for preserving public order and personal
safety. To the degree that means other than the death
penalty and military operations are sufficient to keep the
peace, then these non-violent provisions are to be preferred
because they are more in proportion and in keeping with the
final goal of protection of peace and human dignity.
As is clearly shown by this excerpt, the Church's teaching on capital
punishment remains today as it has always been in the past - in total
accord with my sentiment that I do not disagree with the use of deadly
force in those cases for which this option is justifiable.
I seek to conform my will to the will of God as expounded by His
instrument of the visible Church here on earth whenever the question
of faith or morals arises.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I don't think the issue of whether infants have faith is relevant or not.
Certainly they *can*, as the example of John in utero proves. I find the
translation of Col 2 above odd in terms of the circumcision of christ,
which the KJV and RSV put in terms of Christ's cricumcision which we, in
union with him *participate* in putting off the body of sins of the flesh.
Also, perhaps cor 2:12 is dividing the act of burial with him in baptism,
which can be independant of faith, from the experience of rising with
Christ by faith. Who says both are by faith? This interpretation has the
advantage of explaining those who are faithlessly baptized, for whom their
baptisim is not benefit, but serves to put them into the kingdom nonetheless.
Like the israelites (all of them, children included) who were baptized in
the cloud and in the sea, it was of no advantage because they did not add
to their baptism faith and obedience.
Baptism does not impart faith, nor is it done strictly speaking on the
basis of the faith of the parent, but because of the covcenant promise of
God. It imparts grace, the grace of the kingdom, which can be a
punishement in disguise if there is later apostacy.
Do you teach a child to pray the Lord's prayer? Do you expect them to not
steal? They *can* have faith appropriate to their condition. And in the
new covenant, we shall no longer say: know the lord, for they shall all
know him from the least unto the greatest Heb 8:11.
But also according to Ezekiel 18, God will not hold innocent anyone on the
basis of anyone elses innocense. Thus Jesus could not be our federal head
any more than adam, *IF* that's what ezekiel is talking about. Shall you
make ezekiel 18 contradict the second commandemnt as well?
>
Ezekiel 36:25-26 indicates that this new heart will be given by God,
in the context of the sprinkling of water in baptism. It is the action of
God puting them into his new order, and not a question of"personal"
faith as such.
But the death that came to all because of sin is not just their personal
death, but the dead state (originbal sin). We are in a covenant of death,
because adam, our federal head gave over his dominion to the devil and death.
While this psalm is figurative in it's language, it is not hyperbolic, and
the one does not necessarily imply the other. There is not other
hyperbolic language in this psalm. What v 5 is likely refering to is
what is symbolized by the OT cleanliness laws (which make intercourse and
childbrith both acts which caus uncleannes and seperation from God). The
whole psalm is in the language of OT ritual (hyssop, cleansing, burnt
offering, etc) David's sin with bathsheba included this element, as he
did not ritually cleanse himself when he should have.
But what was symbolized by the OT ritual was the truth that sin was
passed generationally. That's why the organ of generation had to be
cut. That's why brith was unclean. Uncleanness was death, and all babies
were born dead, and needed to be washed to newness of life, which we have in
baptism today. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The "R Us" is not trademarked, but the "Backwards R Us" is, I
believe.
---
Speaking of proofs of God, the funniest one I have ever seen was in a
term paper handed in by a freshman. She wrote, "God must exist, because
he wouldn't be so mean as to make me believe he exists if he really
doesn't!" Is this argument really so much worse than the ontological
proofs of the existence of God provided by Anselm and Descartes, among
others? | 0 | alt.atheism |
Right.
The Branch Dividians were. They believed and trusted so much that it became
impossible to turn back to reality. What you are advocating is total
irreversible brainwashing. | 0 | alt.atheism |
jwindley@cheap.cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley) writes...
[...]
This is curious. I read in _EH_...
"The Lord imparted the gift of knowledge to James the Just, to John
and Peter after his resurrection, these delivered it to the rest of
the apostles, and they to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one."
--- Eusebius, _Ecclesiastical History_
It seems that the Lord imparted the gift of knowledge, not that the
Lord imparted secret information.
[...]
I'm afraid that I cannot find this portrayal in _EH_.
I don't see anywhere in 3:32:7-8 where Eusebius mentions that certain
gnostics had the wrong gnosis.
The closest is when Eusebius summarizes Hegesippus' statements,
"...whilst if there were any at all, that attempted to pervert
the sound doctrine of the saving gospel, they were yet skulking
in dark retreats..."
"Favorably interpreted?" Just in looking at two of the four
references that you gave (I have the _EH_ handy, Irenaeus and the
_Clemetine Recognitions_ I will have to look for) I see no room for
such 'interpretations.'
And any such 'interpretation' still falls short of an equivalence to
the Temple Ceremonies.
The links for Jay's using _EH_ for support are: "imparting the gift
of knowledge" = "imparted secret information" = "being given secret
signs and tokens to gain entrance to heaven." But there is not
enough equivalence between the the ideas for us to be able to call
this "favorable interpretation." It appears to be closer to
"fabrication." | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Gerry Palo wrote that there is nothing in Christianity that excludes
the theory of a succession of lives.
I wrote that the Apostle Paul, in Romans 9, speaks of God as
choosing Jacob over Esau, and adds that this is not as a result of
anything that either child had done, since they had not been born
yet.
Clearly, Paul does not believe that they had had previous lives, nor
does he suppose that his readers will believe it. For if they had
had previous lives, it would not make sense to say, "Neither of them
has done anything good or bad as yet, since they are not yet born."
Daniel Cossack writes to ask whether it is fair for God to hate
Easau when Esau has done nothing bad?
I reply that in Hebrew it is standard usage to speak of hating when
what is meant is simply putting in second place. As an example,
consider the saying in Matthew 6:24
+ No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one
+ and love the other, or....
Now, it is obviously false that a man with two masters must hate one
of them. But it is obviously true that he must put one of them in
second place. A dog that always comes when either Billy or Bobby
calls will have a problem if they stand in different places and call
simultaneously. It cannot give first priority to both. One must take
second place. In our original example, second place means that
Jacob, not Esau, is chosen to bear the covenant blessing and
obligation, and to be the ancestor of Christ.
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Eugene Bigelow mentions Matthew 11:14 which says of John the
Baptist:
+ And if ye will receive it, this is ELijah, who was to come.
I take this to mean that John was an Elijah-like figure, dressing
and living like Elijah, preaching like Elijah, and fulfilling the
prediction that Elijah would prepare the way for the Messiah. I do
not think that he was Elijah in a literal sense, and, appareently,
neither did he (John 1:21). | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Just because those "marriages" are more stable and loving and long-lasting,
doesn't make it right. Same-sex partners could have been best friends,
without getting sexually involved with each other. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I don't have a stat, but, unfortunately, I did read generally that both smoking
and belief in the supernatural (occultish garbage) is on the rise here.
This is very interesting. I thing the principle is sort of the same though:
all "philosophical" ideas are generally tried out and tested mostly during
college years. Whether the idea is christian or atheist doesn't always matter.
But I'd like to say it's because atheists are more intelligent :)
--
regards,
--Adam | 0 | alt.atheism |
May I ask why they are afraid to do so?
---
Speaking of proofs of God, the funniest one I have ever seen was in a
term paper handed in by a freshman. She wrote, "God must exist, because
he wouldn't be so mean as to make me believe he exists if he really
doesn't!" Is this argument really so much worse than the ontological
proofs of the existence of God provided by Anselm and Descartes, among
others? | 0 | alt.atheism |
Hi everyone,
I'm trying to find my way to God, but find it difficult as I can't hear
God talking to me, letting me know that he exists and is with me and
that he knows me, and I feel that I can't possibly get to know him until
he does. Maybe he _is_ talking to me but I just don't know or understand
how to listen.
Some Christians tell me that (in their opinion) the only way to find God
is to take a plunge and commit your life to him, and you will discover.
This idea of diving into the totally unknown is a little bit
frightening, but I have a few questions.
1) How do you actually commit yourself? If I just say, "OK God, her you
go, I'm committing my life to you", I wouldn't really feel that he'd
listened - at least, I couldn't be sure that he had. So how does one (or
how did you) commit oneself to God?
2) In committing myself in this way, what do I have to forfeit of my
current life? What can I no longer do? I feel that I'm as 'good' as many
Christians, and I try to uphold the idea of 'loving your neighbour' - I
don't go round killing people, stealing, etc., and I try not to get
jealous of other people in any way - and I would say that I keep to the
standards of treating other people as well as many Christians. So what
do I have to give up?
3) When committed, what do I have to do? What does it involve? What (if
any) burdens am I taking on?
4) So then, what's the general difference before and after? I assume,
that (like on your birthday you don't suddenly feel a year older) it
won't suddenly change my life the day I commit myself. So what happens?
5) How can I be sure that it is the right thing to do? How can I find
out what the 'it' in the last sentence actually _is_?!
Thanks very much for all your help in answering these questions. Perhaps
e-mail would be a better way to reply, but it's up to you. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Stuff deleted
I reiterate that I would agree with you that there is little
justification for the punishment of apostasy in the Qur'an.
In Islamic history, as well, apostasy has rarely been punished.
Belief is considered a matter of conscience and since there
is to be no compulsion in the matter of belief, apostates have
been generally left to believe or not believe as they will.
However, when an apostate makes attacks upon "God and
His Messenger" the situation changes. Now the charge of
apostasy may be complicated with other charges - perhaps
charges of sedition, treason, spying, etc. If the person
makes a public issue of their apostasy or mounts public
attacks (as opposed to arguement) against Islam, the
situation is likewise complicated. If the person spreads
slander or broadcasts falsehoods, again the situation
changes. The punishments vary according to the situation
the apostate is in. Anyhow, the charge of aggravated
apostasy would only be a subsidiary charge in Rushdie's case.
There is a distinction in the Qur'an between a formal war situation
and being in the situation where someone unilaterally
wages war (by their actions), creates disorder, makes mischief,etc.
against the Muslims and creates a situation that results in harm
to Muslims. Here, a small group or even a single individual could
be said to be engaged in such a practise. In other words, there is
a clear difference between a formal war situation (where two
clearly defined parties wage war, conclude treaties, exchange
prisoners, etc.), and dealing with attacks that come from isolated
individuals or groups against Islam. It is the second situation,
the unilateral attack and the spreading of "fasad" that
would apply in the case of Rushdie.
The matter of Rushdie is not a simple matter of banning an
offensive book (banning the book is secondary) -
a full set of circumstances following the publication of
the book come into play as well, including the deaths of many
Muslims, and Rushdie's (and his publishers) Media games.
I am not sure which hadith you are referring to above. I believe
that one of the Qur'anic verses on which the fatwa is based is 5:33.
Every verse in the Qur'an has a corresponding "circumstance of
revelation" but in no way is the understanding (the tafsir) of the
verse restricted solely to the particular historical circumstance
in which it was revealed. If this was the case then we could say
that all the laws and regulations that were revealed when the
Muslims were NOT involved in conflict, should be suspended when
they were at war. The logic does not follow. In complex, real-life
situations, there may be many verses and many hadiths which can
all be related to a single, complicated situation. The internal
relationships between these verses may be quite complex, such that
arriving at an understanding of how the verses interlock and how
each applies to the particular situation can be quite a demanding task.
It is not necessarily a simple "this or that" process. There may
be many parameters involved, there may be a larger context in
which a particular situation should be viewed. All these matters
impinge on the situation.
In other words there is a great deal involved in deciphering the Qur'an.
The Qur'an asks us to reflect on its verses, but this reflection must
entail more than simply reading a verse and its corresponding hadith.
If the reflection is for the sake of increasing personal piety, then each
person has his own level of understanding and there is no harm in that.
However, if the reflection is in order to decide matters that pertain to
the
State, to the gestation of laws and rulings, to the gestation of society,
the dispensing of justice, the guidance of the community, then there
are certain minimum requirements of understanding that one
should achieve. Jaffar Ibn Muhammad as-Sadiq(a.s.) relates some of
these requirements, as taught by the Prophet(S.A.), in a hadith:
"...he who does not distinguish in the Book of Allah the abrogating
verse from the abrogated one, and a specific one from a general one,
and a decisive from an ambiguous; and does not differentiate between
a permission and an obligation, and does not recognize a verse of
Meccan period from a Medinite one, and does not know the circumstances
of revelation, and does not understand the technical words of
the Qur'an (whether simple or compound); and does not comprehend the
knowledge of decree and measure, and is ignorant of advancing and
delaying (in its verses); and does not distinguish the clear from
the deep, nor the manifest from the esoteric, nor the beginning
from the termination; and is unaware of the question and the answer,
the disjoining and the joining, and the exceptions and the all-inclusive,
and is ignorant of an adjective of a preceding noun that explains the
subsequent one; and is unaware of the emphasized subject and the
detailed one, the obligatory laws and the permissions, the places of the
duties and rules, and the meaning of the lawful and the unlawful; and
does not know the joined words, and the words that are related to those
coming before them, or after them - then such a man does not know
the Qur'an; nor is he among the people of the Qur'an....".
Based on these and other hadiths, and in accordance with many Qur'anic
verses ("Why should not a company from every group remain behind
to gain profound understanding (tafaqquh) in religion and to warn
people when they return to them, so that they may beware." (9:122)),
a science of jurisprudence arose. The requirements
for a person to be considered a mujtahid (one who can pronounce on
matters of law and religion) are many. I've listed a few major
divisions below - there are, of course, many subdivisions within these
headings.
- Knowledge of Arabic (syntax, conjugation, roots, semantics, oratory).
- Knowledge of tafsir and principles of tafsir.
- Logic (mantiq)
- A knowledge of Hadiths
- A knowledge of transmitters (rijal)
- Knowledge of the principles of juriprudence (Qur'an, Sunnah, Consensus,
Reasoning)
The study of Qur'an and sunnah for purposes of law involves:
- discussion of imperatives (awamir)
- discussion of negative imperatives (nawahi)
- discussion of generalities and particularities (aam wa khas)
- discussion of unconditional and conditional
- discussion of tacit meanings
- discussion of the abstract and the clear
- discussion of the abrogator and the abrogated
The principles of Application of the law involves:
- principles of exemption
- principles of precaution
- principles of option
- principles of mastery
The jurisprudent is bound to go through a very rigorous process
in pronouncing judgement on a given situation. It is not a matter
of looking at one verse and one hadith.
Now no one should blindly follow anyone, but there is a difference
between blind following and acceding to the opinion of someone who is
clearly more knowledgeable and more qualified than oneself. There is the
"The fuqaha (religious scholars) are the trustees of the Prophet, as
long as they do not concern themselves with the illicit desires, pleasures,
and wealth of this world." The Prophet (S.A.) was asked: "O Messenger
of God! How may we know if they so concern themselves?" He (S.A.) replied:
"By seeing whether they follow the ruling power. If they do that, fear for
your religion and shun them." I do not yet know enough about the Imams
of the four Sunni madhabs to comment on how this hadith applies
to them or to the contemporary scholars who base themselves upon them.
The Prophet also refered to the fuqaha as "The fortress of Islam". My only
point is to make it clear that arriving at a legal judgement calls into
play a certain amount of expertise - the specifics of this expertise is
delineated in the Qur'an and hadith. Those who acquire this expertise
are praised in both the Qur'an and hadith - those who without the requisite
knowledge pronounce on matters that affect society, state, and religion
are cautioned.
The only reason I said anything at all about the Rushdie affair in this
group, is because the whole basis for the discussion of the fatwa (that is,
apostasy), was wrong. When one discusses something they should at least
base their discussion on fact. Secondly, Khomeini was condemned as a
heretic
because he supposedly claimed to be infallible - another instance of
creating a straw man and then beating him.
I agree that we should move the discussion to another newsgroup.
Unfortunately,
I do not have any access to email, so private discussion or a moderated
group
is out of the question (I cannot post to a moderated group like
soc.religion.islam. How about soc.culture.arabic or talk.religion.misc? | 0 | alt.atheism |
"Isaac Asimov read creationist books. He read the Bible. He had ample
opportunity to kneel before his Creator and Savior. He refused. In
fact, he sent out a strong promotional letter urging support of the
American Humanist Association, shortly before he died."
--excerpt from Ken Ham, "Asimov Meets His Creator," _Back to Genesis_
No. 42, June 1992, p. c (included in _Acts & Facts_ vol. 21, no. 6,
June 1992, from the Institute for Creation Research). This is one
of the most offensive articles they've ever published--but at least
it argues *against* a deathbed conversion. There's a part of the
article even worse than what I've just quoted, in which an excerpt
from a reader's letter says that if Asimov is burning in hell now,
"then he certainly has had a 180-degree change in his former beliefs
about creation and the Creator." (A post-deathbed conversion.) | 0 | alt.atheism |
"Hate the sin but love the sinner"...I've heard that quite a bit recently,
often in the context of discussions about Christianity and homosexuality...
but the context really isn't that important. My question is whether that
statement is consistent with Christianity. I would think not.
Hate begets more hate, never love. Consider some sin. I'll leave it unnamed
since I don't want this to digress into an argument as to whether or not
something is a sin. Now lets apply our "hate the sin..." philosophy and see
what happens. If we truly hate the sin, then the more we see it, the
stronger our hatred of it will become. Eventually this hate becomes so
strong that we become disgusted with the sinner and eventually come to hate
the sinner. In addition, our hatred of the sin often causes us to say and
do things which are taken personally by the sinner (who often does not even
believe what they are doing is a sin). After enough of this, the sinner begins
to hate us (they certainly don't love us for our constant criticism of their
behavior). Hate builds up and drives people away from God...this certainly
cannot be a good way to build love.
In the summary of the law, Christ commands us to love God and to love our
neighbors. He doesn't say anything about hate. In fact, if anything, he
commands us to save our criticisms for ourselves. So, how are Christians
supposed to deal with the sin of others? I suppose that there is only one
way to deal with sin (either in others or ourselves)...through prayer. We
need to ask God to help us with our own sin, and to help those we love
with theirs. Only love can conquer sin...hatred has no place. The best way to
love someone is to pray for them.
- Scott | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
::DATE: Sun, 25 Apr 1993 10:13:30 GMT
::FROM: Fred Rice <darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au:
::
::
::The Qur'an talks about those who take their lusts and worldly desires for
::their "god".
::
::I think this probably encompasses most atheists.
::
:: Fred Rice
:: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
:
:As well as all the Muslim men screwing fourteen year old prostitutes in
:Thailand. Got a better quote?
: | 0 | alt.atheism |
I think that if someone often has immoral dreams, like lustful dreams,
or dreams where you commit acts of violence, etc. etc. it may be a sign
that he has something sinful in his heart. It may be the Holy Spirit's
way of allowing the sinfulness that is in us to come to light so that
we can pray about it and have it removed. Generally, if one has a
pure heart, and sets his mind on things that are holy, he will be holy
even when he dreams.
Dreams also can be from the Lord. Joseph and Nebucadnezzar are two examples
of people in the Bible who received dreams from the Lord.
Regarding out of body experiences, this is something that we have to be
careful with. What is called an OOBE can be spiritual in nature, especially
if what one saw is the same as an experience witnessed by someone else.
Christians should certainly avoid any occult activity that would generate
an out of body experience. Some things that might be called an OOBE
might actually be from the Lord. Paul wrote of what might of been an OOBE.
In II Corinthians 12, he wrote of a spiritual experience of being caught
up into the third heaven. Is an OOBE truely an OOBE? Does one really
leave his body, or is he just seeing an image being shown to him by a
spirit, be it a demon or the Holy Spirit? I don't think it matters
that much. Paul could not tell.
Be that as it may, we should be careful not to open ourselves up to Satan
to experience OOBE's. We should not meditate and pretend we are in a
place until our spirits apparently float there. This is dangerous. If
God wants to gice us what seems like an OOBE, then He can do that of His
own sovereign will. In the Bible, most often it seems that prophets are
just taken up by God's sovereign will, and not because they are seeking
an OOBE. John was in the Spirit praying on the Lord's day when he was
caught up in the visions he received. Ezekial was talking with some
Jewish leaders when he was caught up into the visions of God one
time. If God wants to take one of us up into a vision, he can do it.
People should be careful not to open themselves up to evil spirits
for the sake of a few thrills. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[cont. Dr. James DeYoung; #3]
R. Scroggs
Robin Scroggs has built upon the discussion of his predecessors and
suggested a new twist to the word. Scroggs believes that arsenokoitai is a
"Hellenistic Jewish coinage, perhaps influenced by awareness of rabbinic
terminology." The term is derived from Lev 18"22 & 20:13 where the LXX
juxtaposes the two words arsenos ("male") and koiten ("bed"), and represents
the Hebrew miskab zabar ("lying with a male"). Yet he believes that Paul did
not originate the term, but borrowed it from "circles of Hellenistic Jews
acquainted with rabbinic discussions" (180 n.14). It was invented to avoid
"contact with the usual Greek terminology" (108). If this is true, Scroggs
observes, it explains why the word does not appear in Greco-Roman discussions
of pederasty and why later patristic writers avoided it. It was meaningless to
native-speaking Greeks (108).
Scroggs takes the second part as the active word and the first word as the
object of the second part, thus differing from Boswell's "learned discussion"
(107). Yet Scroggs understands the general meaning of "one who lies with a
male" to have a very narrow reference. With the preceding malokoi (I Cor 6:9),
which Scroggs interprets as "the effeminate call-boy," arsenokoitai is the
active partner "who keeps the malakos of the 'mistress' or who hires him on
occasion to satisfy his sexual desires" (108). Hence arsenokoitai does not
refer to homosexuality in general, to female homosexuality, or to the generic
model of pederasty. It certainly cannot refer to the modern gay model, he
affirms (109).
This is Scrogg's interpretation of the term in I Tim 1:10 also. The
combination of pornoi ("fornicators"), arsenokoitai and andrapodistai ("slave
dealers") refers to "male prostitutes, males who lie [with them], and slave
dealers [who procure them]" (120). It again refers to that specific form of
pederasty "which consisted of the enslaving of boys as youths for sexual
purposes, and the use of these boys by adult males" (121). Even "serious
minded pagan authors" condemned this form of pederasty. He then uses these
instances of arsenokoitai in I Cor and I Tim to interpret the apparently
general condemnation of both female and male homosexuality in Rom 1.
Consequently Paul "Must have had, could only have had pederasty in mind" (122).
We cannot know what Paul would have said about the "contemporary model of
adult/adult mutuality in same sex relation ships" (122).
In relating these terms to the context and to contemporary ethical
concerns, Scroggs emphasizes the point that the specific items in the list of
vices in I Cor 6 have no deliberate, intended meaning in Paul. The form and
function of the catalogue of vices are traditional and stereotyped. Any
relationship between an individual item in the list and the context was usually
nonexistent. He concludes that Paul "does not care about any specific item in
the lists" (104).
Both on the basis of the meaning of the terms and of the literary
phenomenon of a "catalogue of vices," Scroggs argues that the Scriptures are
"irrelevant and provide no help in the heated debate today" (129). The "model
in today's Christian homosexual community is so different from the model
attacked by the NT" that "Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not
relevant to today's debate. They should no longer be used in denominational
discussions about homosexuality, should in no way be a weapon to justify
refusal of ordination. . . " (127).
REACTIONS TO THE NEW INTERPRETATIONS OF ARSENOKOITAI
D. Wright
In more recent years the positions of Bailey, Boswell, and Scroggs have
come under closer scrutiny. Perhaps the most critical evaluation of Boswell's
view is that by David Wright. In his thorough article, Wright points out
several shortcomings of Boswell's treatment of arsenokoitai. He faults
Boswell for failing to cite, or citing inaccurately, all the references to Lev
18:22 and 20:13 in the church fathers, such as Eusebius, the "Apostolic
Constitutions," Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Origen (127-28).
Boswell has not considered seriously enough the possibility that the term
derives either its form or its meaning from the Leviticus passages (129). This
is significant, for if the term is so derived, it clearly refutes Boswell's
claim that the first half of the word (arseno-) denotes not the object but the
gender of the second half (-koitai). The LXX must mean "a male who sleeps with
a male," making arseno- the object.
Wright also faults Boswell's claims regarding linguistic features of the
term, including suggested parallels (129). Though Boswell claims that
compounds with arseno- employ it objectively and those with arreno- employ it
as an adjective, Wright believes that the difference between the two is merely
one of dialectical diversity: "No semantic import attaches to the difference
between the two forms" (131). Wright believes that in most compounds in which
the second half is a verb or has a verbal force, the first half denotes its
object and where "the second part is substantival, the first half denotes its
gender" (132).
It is with Boswell's treatment of the early church fathers that Wright
takes special issue, because the former has failed to cite all the sources.
For example, Aristides' Apology (c. AD 138) probably uses arrenomaneis,
androbaten, and arsenokoitias all with the same basic meaning of male
homosexuality (133), contrary to Boswell's discussion. Boswell fails to cite
Hippolytus (Refut. Omn. Haer. 5:26:22-23) and improperly cites Eusebius and the
Syriac writer Bardensanes. The latter uses Syriac terms that are identical to
the Syriac of I Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1:10 (133-34).
Next Wright shows how the early church fathers use arsenokoitai in
parallel with paidophthoria referring to male homosexuality with teenagers, the
dominant form of male homosexuality among the Greeks (134). Sometimes this
parallelism occurs in the threefold listings of moicheia ("adultery"), porneia
("fornication"), and paidophthoria, with arsenokoitai replacing paidophthoris
(136). Clement of Alexandria in Protr. 10:108:5 cites the second table of the
Ten Commandments as "You shall not kill, ou moicheuseis ("you shall not commit
adultery"), ou paidophthoreseis ("you shall not practice homosexuality with
boys"), you shall not steal. . ." (150 n. 43).
Another occurrence of arsenokoitein ("commit homosexuality") exists in the
Sibylline Oracles 2:71-73. It may be, Wright observes, that the word was
coined by a Jewish pre-Christian writer in a Hellenistic setting represented by
Or.Sib., book 2 (137-38).
Wright also discusses uses of arsenokoitai in Rhetorius (6th c.) who drew
upon the first century AD writer Teucer, in Macarius (4th-5th c.), and in John
the Faster (d. 595) (139-40). The last in particular bears the idea of
homosexual intercourse, contrary to Boswell.
Wright next replies to Boswell's contention that the term would not be
absent "from so much literature about homosexuality if that is what it denoted
(140-41). Wright points out that it should not be expected in writers prior to
the first century AD since it did not exist before then, that the Greeks used
dozens of words and phrases to refer to homosexuality, that some sources (e.g.
Didache) show no acquaintance with Paul's letters or deliberately avoid citing
Scripture, and that Boswell neglects citing several church fathers (140-41).
Boswell's treatment of Chrysostom in particular draws Wright's attention
(141-44). Boswell conspicuously misrepresents the witness of Chrysostom,
omitting references and asserting what is patently untrue. Chrysostom gives a
long uncompromising and clear indictment of homosexuality in his homily on Rom
1:26. Boswell has exaggerated Chrysostom's infrequent use of the term. Wright
observes that Boswell has "signally failed to demonstrate any us of
arsenokoites etc. in which it patently does not denote male homosexual
activity" (144). It is infrequent because of its relatively technical nature
and the availability of such a term as paidophthoria that more clearly
specified the prevailing form of male homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world.
Wright also surveys the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic translations of I Tim
and I Cor. All three render arsenokoitai with words that reflect the meaning
"homosexual" i.e., they understand arseno- as the object of the second half of
the word (144-45). None of these primary versions supports Boswell's limited
conclusion based on them.
Wright concludes his discussion with a few observations about the
catalogues of vices as a literary form. He believes that such lists developed
in late Judaism as Hellenistic Jews wrote in clear condemnation of
homosexuality in the Greek world. This paralleled the increased concern on the
part of moral philosophers over homosexual indulgence. The term came into
being under the influence of the LXX (145) so that writers spoke "generally of
male activity with males rather than specifically categorized male sexual
engagement with paides" (146). If arsenokoitai and paidophthoria were
interchangeable, it is because the former encompassed the latter (146).
In summary, Wright seeks to show that arsenokoitai is a broad term meaning
homosexuality and arises with Judaism. The views of Boswell, Scroggs, and
others who limit the term to "active male prostitutes" or pederasty are without
significant support from linguistic and historical studies. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I certainly agree with the last paragraph. Also, Jesus;s statements on
hell can be treated as totally symbolic, allegorical or as parables, as
was much of his other teaching. There's more than enough hell here on earth
that we are freed from by following Jesus that the rest just doesn't mattter
to me. And the fact that we can be free of the hell here is the best gift
God offers. Eternal life begins for us now and we do not wait to start
partaking of the divine nature and journeying on the path to deification.
Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)
-- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Does anyone know whether the _Acta Sanctorum_, the huge multi-volume collection
of Roman Catholic hagiography produced by the Bollandists, has ever been
translated into English? I'm working on the _Vita S. Dympnae_ and would love
to be able to check my own translation against somebody else's.
Email replies preferred, unless this query turns out to be of general interest.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
As per various threads on science and creationism, I've started dabbling into a
book called Christianity and the Nature of Science by JP Moreland. A question
that I had come from one of his comments. He stated that God is not
necessarily a religious term, but could be used as other scientific terms that
give explanation for events or theories, without being a proven scientific
fact. I think I got his point -- I can quote the section if I'm being vague.
The examples he gave were quarks and continental plates. Are there
explanations of science or parts of theories that are not measurable in and of
themselves, or can everything be quantified, measured, tested, etc.?
MAC
--
****************************************************************
Michael A. Cobb
"...and I won't raise taxes on the middle University of Illinois
class to pay for my programs." Champaign-Urbana
-Bill Clinton 3rd Debate cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu | 0 | alt.atheism |
I would put it stronger than that. I consider it nonsense.
Simply put, I do not see any way that a "Platonic essence" could have
any *real* existance. "Essence" in the Platonic sense does not have
any referent as far as I can tell - it is just an imaginary concept
invented to provide an explanation for things better explained in
other ways.
So, to attribute an 'essence' to God is to attribute to him something that
does not exist!! Thus the orthodox Platonic formulation seems to leave
the unity of God in limbo, since it is based on a non-existant 'essence',
thus failing to avoid the very problem it was supposed to address.
Thus, to me, the unity of God must be primary, and the triality must be
secondary, must be modal or aspectual (relating to roles, or to modes
of interaction), since otherwise there is no meaning to saying God is one.
--
sarima@teradata.com (formerly tdatirv!sarima)
or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I read it. I found it wonderful. For some reason (no flames,
please), I was reminded of Hemingway, Carl Orff and Van Gogh (not
all at once, though).
| 0 | alt.atheism |
As St. Augustine said, "I did not invent original sin, which the
Catholic faith holds from ancient time; but you, who deny it, without a
doubt are a follower of a new heresy." (De nuptiis, lib. 11.c.12)] | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Curiously enough, this subject has occupied a good bit of my prayer life
recently. God's experience of time is so completely different from our own,
since He is both within and without it. Using words like "foreknowledge"
and "predestination" are semantically incorrect when it comes to describing
God's perception of our action, because, for God, the beginning, living, and
ending of our lives are all the same. Sort of. For God, there is no "before"
when He did not know, so he could not have "foreknowledge" of our lives or
a time when he could have "predestined" our actions. In fact, since our
understanding of things is so tied to our linear experience of time, I
would say that it is impossible for us to understand completely how our
free will interacts with God's control of the universe. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Lets talk about principles. If we accept that God sets the
standards for what ought to be included in Scripture - then we
can ask:
1. Is it authoritative?
2. Is it prophetic?
3. Is it authentic?
4. Is it dynamic?
5. Is it received, collected, read and used?
On these counts, the apocrapha falls short of the glory of God.
To quote Unger's Bible Dictionary on the Apocrapha:
1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and
anachronisms.
2. They teach doctrines which are false and foster practices
which are at variance with sacred Scripture.
3. They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of
subject matter and styling out of keeping with sacred Scripture.
4. They lack the distinctive elements which give genuine
Scripture their divine character, such as prophetic power and
poetic and religious feeling.
But the problem with this argument lies in the assumption that
the Hebrew canon included the Apocrapha in the first place, and
it wasn't until the sixteenth century that Luther and co. threw
them out. The Jewish council you mentioned previously didn't
accept them, so the reformation protestants had good historical
precedence for their actions. Jerome only translated the
apocrapha under protest, and it was literally 'over his dead
body' that it was included in the catholic canon.
How do you then view the words: "I warn everyone who hears the
words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to
them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
And if anyone takes away from this book the prophecy, God will
take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the
holy city" (Rev 22.18-9)
Surely this sets the standard and not just man-made traditions.
It is also noteworthy to consider Jesus' attitude. He had no
argument with the pharisees over any of the OT canon (John
10.31-6), and explained to his followers on the road to Emmaus
that in the law, prophets and psalms which referred to him - the
OT division of Scripture (Luke 24.44), as well as in Luke 11.51
taking Genesis to Chronicles (the jewish order - we would say
Genesis to Malachi) as Scripture.
I am not familiar with the book.
Some other arguments you might like to consider are found in
Chapter 3 of Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands A Verdict. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I don't think I've changed my stance at all. My original stance was that
a painless execution was not a cruel one. I didn't say what would be
considered cruel, only that a painless death wasn't. Now, cruelty must
involve some sort of suffering, I believe. I don't think someone that gets
shot in the head or electrocuted really suffers very much. Even a hanging
probably produces one sharp instance of pain, but it's over so quickly...
Pardon?
No. Well, again I stated that a painless death isn't cruel, but I don't
think I stated that all painful executions *are* cruel. I think that some
are cruel, depending on the nature and duration of the pain.
Anything more than an instant, I guess. Any death by suffocation
asphyxiation, or blood loss would be cruel, I think (this includes the
gas chamber, and drawing and quartering). I'd say that any pain that
lasts, say, over twenty seconds or so would be too long (but this may
be an arbitrary cutoff, I suppose). | 0 | alt.atheism |
[ 2 good reasons deleted. AI]
It's even worse than that --
"Ye shall not add unto the word which I
command you, neither shall ye diminish
from it" (Deut. 4:2).
Shall we rip out every page from our
Bibles beginning from Joshua through
Revelation? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Jung may have said that, but he was in no way speaking for the
Catholic Church. The dogma of the Assumption in no way means Mary is
considered to be God or part of "the Godhead." Therefore it implies no
such thing about the feminine in general.
Also Jung's statement makes it sound as though the dogma was
announced "out of the blue." This also is incorrect, as dogma is only
the formulation of what has always been part of Tradition. This dogma
has always been believed, but was not formally defined until the
Assumption was declared as an _ex cathedra_ statement. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Due to a discussion on this group some time ago, the theists would
more likely take an Asimov quote out of context and paint him as
the biggest Bible thumpin', God fearin', atheist hatin' christian
you ever laid eyes on. Right up there with Einstein.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Not to change the subject, but how was Fr. Gobbi allowed at Notre Dame? Notre
Dame is an anti Catholic University. Was this allowed to show that the
crackpots at Notre Dame believe in freedom of speech? I am glad that they did
allow him to speak. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
searching out our deceased ancestors so that we can perform the
ordinances -- such as baptism, confirmation, and marriage for time and
eternity -- that are required for a person to obtain salvation through
Christ and to live with Him through the eternities. These are people
who may have not had the opportunity to know Christ in their lifetime,
so we are making it possible for Christ's saving grace (I know there
are thousands of interpretations of that phrase) to become fully
effective for them if they allow it to do so on the other side.
This paragraph brought to mind a question. How do you (Mormons) reconcile
the idea of eternal marriage with Christ's statement that in the ressurection
people will neither marry nor be given in marriage (Luke, chapt. 20)?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Hammerslag (dhammers@urbana.mcd.mot.com)
"...there ain't nobody so bad that the Lord can't save 'em ain't
nobody so good they don't need God's love..." -- Mullins | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
This is misleading, at best. The question, really, has to do with the
status of the Greek Septuagint versus Hebrew scripture. And the issue
predates the Reformation by quite a bit -- Jerome was negative about the
"deuteroncanonicals" and in fact, even though he transalted them, he put
them after the Hebrew canon (reordered from the Greek ordering to the
Hebrew one.) His translations of them were quick-and-dirty, also (he
reports having done one of them in one day, and another overnight, just
dictating his translation to an amanuensis.
That is to say, it is the Vulgate, and all of its massive importance in
Western Christianity, along with the veneration of Jerome, which took the
first steps in "reducing" these books from the status they had (and have)
among the Greeks.
Furthermore, it is inaccurate to say that the Reformers "threw out" these
books. Basically, they just placed them in a secondary status (as Jerome
had already done), but with the additional warning that doctrine should
not be based on citations from these ALONE.
I think that the emphasis on the Hebrew originals is sound, though it
seems somewhat arbitrary to disallow on the face of it a translation as
part of a collection whose principles of selection (in Hebrew or Greek)
are confused or unknown and likely fraught with accident. It also seems
to play into a tendentious notion of the original languages being somehow
"more inspired" -- as if magical, and conveying a message untranslatable
-- than a translation, as if we could not hear God's word to the Jews in
Greek (or German, or English, ...). This tendency seems to have got a
big boost in _sola scriptura_ Protestantism, even to the point of current
"inerrancy" bizarreness, despite the more basic, underlying tendency of
the Reformers to see that the texts SHOULD and COULD be translated. If
we can profit from an English rendering of Hebrew and Greek, there is
surely little reason to keep Sirach, at least, out of our Bibles (and of
course, Anglicans don't do so :-)). For texts originally in Greek, it
would seem more to be anti-Greek prejudice (notably, by the time the
Hebrew canon is fully attested, including anti-Christian prejudice which
led to the Jewish abandonment of the Septuagint) which is operative.
BTW: readers may enjoy some lectures of Bruce Metzger on the issues of
translation of the Bible (including some of what I said about Jerome,
above) in the current numbers of the journal _Bibliotheca Sacra_; two
of four have been published so far. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I include the key verse (D&C 68:25) because others
may not have the reference.
"And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion,
or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach
them not to understand the doctrine of repentance,
faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of
baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying
on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be
upon the heads of the parents."
What is "the sin" of the parents?
Ezekiel 18 teaches a correct principle.
However, it assumes that fathers and sons have
equal knowledge to prepare for the judgment.
Parents are responsible to teach their children
the Gospel and other life skills. Should they
fail to make a sufficient attempt to teach their
children, the parent would be held responsible
-- not for their children's sins, but for not
teaching them properly.
Whenever the Lord installs someone to a position
of authority in either the family or the church He
expects that person to teach those in his charge.
In Ezekiel 33:7-9 someone called to care for others
is likened to "a watchman unto the house of Israel."
"If thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from
his way, that man shall die in his iniquity; but
his blood will I require at thine hand.
Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to
turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he
shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast
delivered thy soul."
Even though the D&C prefaces this commandment with
"parents have children in Zion" I believe all
parents are responsible for teaching their children
whatever good principles they understand.
However, LDS parents accept greater responsbility
and could be judged more strictly. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
There are exactly ZERO verses that "clearly" address the issues.
The kind of interpretation I see as "incredibly perverse" is that applied
to the story of Sodom as if it were a blanket equation of homosexual
behavior and rape. Since Christians citing the Bible in such a context
should be presumed to have at least READ the story, it amounts to slander
-- a charge that homosexuality == rape -- to use that against us.
The moderator adequately discusses the circularity of your use of _porneia_
in this. I think we can all agree (with Paul) that there are SOME kinds of
activity that could be named by "fornication" or "theft" or "coveting" or
"reviling" or "drunkenness" which would well deserve condemnation. We may
or may not agree to the bounds of those categories, however; and the very
fact that they are argued over suggests that not only is the matter not at
all "clear" but that Paul -- an excellent rhetorician -- had no interest
in MAKING them clear, leaving matters rather to our Spirit-led decisions,
with all the uncomfortable living-with-other-readings that has dominated
Christian discussion of ALL these areas.
Homosexual behavior is no different. I (and the other gay Christians I
know) are adamant in condemning rape -- heterosexual or homosexual -- and
child molestation -- heterosexual or homosexual -- and even the possibly
"harmless" but obsessive kinds of sex -- heterosexual or homosexual --
that would stand condemned by Paul in the very continuation of the chapter
you cite [may I mildly suggest that what *Paul* does in his letter that
you want to use is perhaps a good guide to his meaning?]
"'I am free to do anything,' you say. Yes, but not everything
is for my good. No doubt I am free to do anything, but I for one
will not let anything make free with me." [1 Cor. 6:12]
Which is a restatement that we must have no other "god" before God. A
commandment neither I nor any other gay Christian wishes to break. Some
people are indeed involved in obsessively driven modes of sexual behavior.
It is just as wrong (though slightly less incendiary, so it's a secondary
argument from the 'phobic contingent) to equate homosexuality with such
behavior as to equate it with the rape of God's messengers.
I won't deal with the exegesis of Leviticus, except very tangentially.
Fundamentally, you are exhibiting the same circularity here as in your
assumption that you know what _porneia_ means. There are plenty of
laws prohibiting sexual behavior to be found in Leviticus, most of
which Christians ignore completely. They never even BOTHER to examine
them. They just *assume* that they know which ones are "moral" and
which ones are "ritual." Well, I have news for you. Any anthropology
course should sensitize you to ritual and clean vs. unlcean as categories
in an awful lot of societies (we have them too, but buried pretty deep).
And I cannot see any ground for distinguishing these bits of Leviticus
from the "ritual law" which NO Christian I know feels applies to us.
I'm dead serious here. When people start going on (as they do in this
matter) about how "repulsive" and "unnatural" our acts are -- and what
do they know about it, huh? -- it is a solid clue to the same sort of
arbitrary cultural inculcations as the American prejudice against eating
insects. On what basis, other than assuming your conclusion, can you
say that the law against male-male intercourse in Leviticus is NOT a part
of the ritual law?
For those Christians who *do* think that *some* parts of Leviticus can
be "law" for Christians (while others are not even to be thought about)
it is incumbent on you *in every case, handled on its own merits* to
determine why you "pick" one and ignore another. I frankly think the
whole effort misguided. Reread Paul: "No doubt I am free to do anything."
But Christians have a criterion to use for making our judgments on this,
the Great Commandment of love for God and neighbor. If you cannot go
through Leviticus and decide each "command" there on that basis, then
your own arbitrary selection from it is simply idiosyncracy. In this
context, it is remarkably offensive to say:
Well, la-ti-da. So what? This is almost as slimey an argument as the
one that homosexuality == rape. I know of no one who argues seriously
(though one can always find jokers) in "defense" of bestiality. It is
absolutely irrelevant and incomparable to the issues gay Christians *do*
raise (which concern sexual activity within committed, consensual human
adult realtionships), so that your bringing it up is no more relevant
than the laws of kashrut. If you cannot address the actual issues, you
are being bloody dishonest in trailing this red herring in front of the
world. If *you* want to address bestiality, that is YOUR business, not
mine. And attempting to torpedo a serious issue by using what is in
our culture a ridiculous joke shows that you have no interest in hearing
us as human beings. You want to dismiss us, and use the sleaziest means
you can think of to do so.
Jesus and Paul both expound, very explictly and in considerable length,
the central linch-pin of Christian moral thought: we are required to
love one another, and ALL else depends on that. Gay and lesbian Christ-
ians challenge you to address the issue on those terms -- and all we get
in return are cheap debate tricks attempting to side-track the issues.
Christians, no doubt very sincere ones, keep showing up here and in every
corner of USENET and the world, and ALL they ever do is spout these same
old verses (which they obviously have never thought about, maybe never
even read), in TOTAL ignorance of the issues raised, slandering us with
the vilest charges of child abuse or whatever their perfervid minds can
manage to conjure up, tossing out red herrings with (they suppose) great
emotional force to cause readers to dismiss our witness without even
taking the trouble to find out what it is.
Such behavior should shame anyone who claims to have seen Truth in Christ.
WHY, for God's precious sake, do you people quote irrelevant verses to
condemn people you don't know and won't even take the trouble to LISTEN
to BEFORE you start your condemnations? Is that loving your neighbor?
God forbid! Is THAT how you obey the repeated commands to NOT judge or
condemn others? Christ and Paul spend ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more time in
insisting on this than the half-dozen obscure words in Paul that you are
SO bloody ready to take as license to do what God tells you NOT to do.
Why, for God's sake?
"For God did not send the Son into the world
to condemn the world,
but that the world might be saved through him.
Whoever believes in him is not condemned,
but whoever does not believe has already been condemned
for refusing to believe in the name of God's only Son.
Now the judgment is this:
the light has come into the world,
but men have preferred darkness to light
because their deeds were evil.
For everyone who practices wickedness
hates the light,
and does not come near the light
for fear his deeds will be exposed.
But he who acts in truth
comes into the light,
so that it may be sh0own
that his deeds are done in God." John 3:17-21
For long ages, we (many of us) have been confused by evil counsel from
evil men and told that if we came to the light we would be shamed and
rejected. Some of us despaired and took to courses that probably *do*
show a sinful shunning of God's light. Blessed are those whose spirits
have been crushed by the self-righteous; they shall be justified.
However, we have seen the Truth, and the Truth is the light of humanity;
and we now know that it is not WE who fear the light, but our enemies who
fear the light of our witness and will do everything they can to shadow
it with the darkness of false witness against us. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
But one of the most basic concepts of Christian morality is that we
all have defective appetites due to original sin. Not just
homosexuals, but everybody. Thus we are not entitled to indulge in
whatever behavior our bodies want us to.
I think we need to keep clear the distinction between homosexual
_behavior_ (which is wrong) and homosexual _orientation_ (which is not
a sin, merely a misfortune).
[Please: NO EMAIL REPLIES. Respond in this public forum.] | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Hello.
Hoping to net some netters
who are in the helping professions
(counseling, psychology, psychiatry, social work, therapy etc.)
to network on some topics and consider
the possibility of a sci.counseling.christian type newsgroup
or list.
The integration of psychology and counseling and theology
is a subject of great debate and one of particular interest
to me.
If you're out there, please lemme know.
Email me direct if you will so we can get to know one another
off the news. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Vell, this is perfectly normal behaviour Vor a Vogon, you know? | 0 | alt.atheism |
Yes, Mary is fully human. However, that does not imply that she was
just as subject to sin as we are. Catholic doctrine says that man's
nature is good (Gen 1:31), but is damaged by Original Sin (Rom 5:12-16).
In that case, being undamaged by Original Sin, Mary is more fully human
than any of the rest of us.
You ask why God cannot "repeat the miracle" of Mary's preservation
from Original Sin. A better way to phrase it would be "why _did_ He
not" do it that way, but you misunderstand how Mary's salvation was
obtained. Like ours, the Blessed Virgin Mary's salvation was obtained
through the merits of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. However, as
God is not bound by time, which is His creation, God is free to apply
His Sacrifice to anyone at any time, even if that person lived before
Christ came to Earth, from our time-bound perspective. Therefore,
Christ's Death and Resurrection still served a necessary purpose, and
were necessary even for Mary's salvation. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
OFM Comments:
No disagreement at all that there is a VERY serious struggle going on.
But Jesus more typically uses consequences as a threat. That's quite
different from Hell Classic (TM). :-) Jesus doesn't sound like the
usual hell-fire type of preacher. He attracts people through what he
does. And the stongest example in Jesus preaching is in the parable of
Lazarus and Dives, which is a parable! In any case, my point is that
a fear-based response to Christ is not a freeing, life-affirming choice
and isn't Good News in a meaningful sense. There are plenty of good
reasons to follow Jesus that have nothing to do with fear or a literal
hell, that still pertain to overcoming in the present struggle between
God and the Disloyal Opposition. A faith based in fear is not built
on Rock, as we should found our faith, but on ice. If the fear were
removed, there would BE no foundation.
That's basically why it matters to me. I think we have many Christians
that DON'T have a solid basis for relating to the living Incarnate God.
I cannot be fully open to the working of God in and through my life if
my response to God is motivated on fear.
Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)
-- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
First, I don't expect them to love me if they don't even know I
exist. Secondly, I wouldn't expect them to love me simply because
they were my creator. I would expect to have to earn that love.
Are you daft? How do I love something I don't believe exists?
Come back when you've learned to love your third testicle.
At which point you have stepped over the line and become a
complete asshole. Even though it's your first offense, I won't
let it slip becuase I've heard it too goddamned many times.
You love Jesus because deep in your heart you're a cannibalistic
necrophiliac. Because I say so, and I'm much more qualified to
assess your motivations than you are.
Fortunately, there are some things I get to accept on evidence
rather than faith. One of them being that until christians like
yourself quit being so fucking arrogant, there will never be
peace. You've all made sure of that.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Obviously, we have different sources. Bill Moyers (who happens to be a
theist, to tie this to alt.atheism!) in his PBS documentary "After The
War" is my main source. (I think I still have it on videotape.) Others
include The Nation and The Progressive.
The rest of the article is mere rationalisation. You may claim that
sanitation plants are strategic "legitimate" targets, but what happens to
the civilians in a city with no sewer system? What happens to the
civilians when you destroy water purification plants? And when hospitals
can't handle the resultant epidemics, because there is no more electricity?
And what exactly are your sources? We have all, I'm sure, seen Postol's
interviews in the media where he demostrates how the Pentagon lied about
the Patriot's effectiveness; what is your source for the 70%
effectiveness you claim?
In any case, I don't know if this is relevant to alt.atheism. How about
if we move it somewhere else?
-s | 0 | alt.atheism |
The "R Us" thing is trademarked. I don't know if Charles
Lazarus is dead or alive, but I'd be careful, because with
a name like Lazarus, he might rise again just to start a
lawsuit.
Dean Kaflowitz | 0 | alt.atheism |
BR> From: wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins)
BR> Newsgroups: alt.atheism
BR> Organization: DGSID, Atlanta, GA
BR> The problem is that most scientists exclude the
BR> possibility of the supernatural in the question of
BR> origins. Is this is a fair premise? I utterly
BR> reject the hypothesis that science is the highest form of
BR> truth.
It is better than the crap that the creationists put out. So far all they
have been able to manage is distortions and half-truths. (When they are not
taking quotes out of context...)
BR> Some of these so-called human-like creatures were
BR> apes. Some were humans. Some were fancifully
BR> reconstructed from fragments.
The genetic code has shown more about how man is realted to primates that the
fossil record. (A little detail the creationists try and ignore.)
BR> Good deeds do not justify a person in God's
BR> sight. An atonement (Jesus) is needed to atone
BR> for sin.
Who says? Your Bible(tm)? I would be surprised if *ANY* Christian followed
all of the rules in the Bible. (Most of them just pick and choose, according
to the local biases.)
BR> My point: God is the creator. Look's like we agree.
Where is your proof? How do you know it was *YOUR* God?
BR> I'll send you some info via e-mail.
BR> Regards, Bill.
Why not post them? I would be interested in seeing them myself. | 0 | alt.atheism |
My wifes uncle was a 30+ level mason. He let me look at some of the books
(which after his death his "brothers" came over and took from his greiving
widow before his body had even cooled). Don't tell me you don't worship
Osiris. You must not be past your 20th level. You should read Wilkinson's
Egyptians and how he shows this Egyptian religion paralleling his own British
Masonry. There is a man here at this laboratory who is a 33 degree black
mason. I've talked with him, though much he likes to hide ("mystery").
Special handshakes and all. When he first started trying to "evangelize" me,
he told me all kinds on special this, and special that. Here is truely a
"mystery" religion. THere is the public side with motorcyle mania and
childrens hospitals and then there is the priviate side that only the highest
degree mason every learns of.
I haven't read it, but the literature that is offered by the silver haired
apologist (can't remember his name) on TV, didn't exactly come to this same
conclusion.
"Khons, the son of the great goddess-mother, seems to have been gernaerally
represented as a full-grown god. The Babylonian divinity was also represented
very frequently in Egupt in the very same wayas in the land of his nativity
-i.e. as a child in his mother's arems. THis was the way in which Osiris, 'the
son, the husband of his mother,' was often exhibited, and what we learn of this
god, equally as in the case of Khonso, shows that in his original he was none
other than Nimrod. It is admitted that the secret system of Free Masonry was
originally founded on the Mysteries of the Egyptian Isis, the goddess-mother,
or wife of Osiris. But what could have led to the union of a Masonic body with
these Mysteries, had they not had particular reference to architecture, and had
the god who was worshipped in them not been celebrated for his success in
perfecting the arts of fortification and building? Now, if such were the case,
considering the relation in which, as we have already seen, Egypt stood to
Babylon, who would naturally be liiked up to there as the great patron of the
Masonic art? The strong presumption is, that Nimrod must have been the man.
He was the first that gained faim in this way. As the child of the Babylonian
goddess-mother, he was worshipped in the character of Ala mahozim, 'The God of
Fortification.' Osiris, the child of the Egyptian Modonna, was equally
celebrated as 'the strong chief of the buildings.' THis strong chief of the
buildings was origninally worshipped in Egypt with every physicall
characteristic of Nimrod. I have already noticed the fact that Nimrod, as the
son of Cush, was a negro. Now, there was a tradition in Egypt, recorded by
Plutarch, that 'Osiris was black'......." Hislop
It was like a cold slap to my face, when my wifes uncle brought out his
cerimonial dress and it was leopard skin. I mean real leopard skin. He told
me that only the highest of degrees wore the leopard skin. (The reason that he
started telling me all this was that he had just been given a couple of months
to live and my wife had led him to a saving faith in Christ and he immediately
repented from 'mysteries' of the lodge!)
Nimr-rod from Nimr, a "leopard," and rada or rad "To subdue." It is a
universal principle in all idolatries, that the high priest wears the insignia
of the god he serves. Any representation of Osiris usually show the wearing of
some leopard. It is interesting that the Druids of Britian also show, or
should I say hide, this representation. They, however, worshipped the "spotted
cow".
I'll stand by my statements. Masonry is of the "mystery" religions that all
find their source in Babylon, the great harlot. Sorry Peter, I do not mean to
be a "cold slap to the face" but there is to much evidence to the contrary that
Masonry doesn't find its origins in Egypt. Of the Masons I have personally
talked to, all refered to Egypt as their origin. Why are you now separating
yourself from this which not many years ago, was freely admitted? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
When an alleged private revelation attracts sufficient attention,
the Church may investigate it. If the investigation indicates a
likelihood that the alleged private revelation is in fact from God,
it will be approved. That means that it can be preached in the
Church. However, it is still true that no one is required to
believe that it came from God. A Catholic is free to deny the
authenticity of even the most well attested and strongly approved
private revelations, such as those at Fatima and Lourdes. (I
suspect that few if any Catholics do reject Fatima and Lourdes, but
if any do their rejection of them does not mean they are not
orthodox Catholics in good standing.)
It may be a bit much to say that a Catholic is free to deny what
happened at Fatima. That's a bit strong, it is sort of like saying
that a Catholic is free to deny that Hong Kong exists. What a
Catholic *is* free to do is to deny the truth of Fatima, without being
called a heretic. You can be labeled other things for such an
offense, but not a heretic.
Theologians make a basic distinction as far as the degree of assent
one must give to events like Fatima and Lourdes. Things revealed by
God through Jesus Christ or His Apostles must be given the assent due
to a revelation of God: total and unswerving. Fatima and Lourdes
demand our assent as much as any other well-attested event in human
history. Perhaps a bit more, given the approval of the Church.
"Approval" of an apparition by the Church principally means that
whatever happened was in harmony with the Catholic Faith.
I personally think of private revelations as our Lord's way of telling
us what to do at particular periods in history. He gave us all the
doctrines, etc., 2000 years ago, but we can always use some help in
knowing how exactly to apply what He gave us.
Catholic devotion to the Sacred Heart was a result of a series of
apparitions to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, for example. The problem
at the time was extreme moral rigorism that was turning our Lord into
someone without a heart. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
> Between Adam and Eve and Golgotha the whole process of the fall
> of man occurred. This involved a gradual dimming of
> consciousness of the spiritual world. This is discernable in
> the world outlooks of different peoples through history. The
> Greek, for example, could say, "better a beggar in the land of
> the living than a king in the land of the dead." (Iliad, I
> think).
I would not swear that nothing of the sort is found in the Iliad,
but the first passage I thought of was the Odyssey 11:480 or
thereabouts (my copy has no line numbers). The ghost of Acchilles
speaks (Robert FitzGerald translation):
> Better, I say, to break sod as a farm hand
> for some poor country man, on iron rations,
> than lord it over all the exhausted dead.
The next passage I thought of was from Ecclesiastes 9:4
+ A living dog is better than a dead lion.
> On the other hand, there is one notion firmly embedded in
> Christianity that originated most definitely in a pagan source.
> The idea that the human being consists essentially of soul
> only, and that the soul is created at birth, was consciously
> adopted from Aristotle, whose ideas dominated Christian thought
> for fifteen hundred years and still does today....
Surely Aristotle had little influence on Christian thought before
about 1250 AD. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Archive-name: atheism/resources
Alt-atheism-archive-name: resources
Last-modified: 5 April 1993
Version: 1.1
Atheist Resources
Addresses of Atheist Organizations
USA
FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION
Darwin fish bumper stickers and assorted other atheist paraphernalia are
available from the Freedom From Religion Foundation in the US.
Write to: FFRF, P.O. Box 750, Madison, WI 53701.
Telephone: (608) 256-8900
EVOLUTION DESIGNS
Evolution Designs sell the "Darwin fish". It's a fish symbol, like the ones
Christians stick on their cars, but with feet and the word "Darwin" written
inside. The deluxe moulded 3D plastic fish is $4.95 postpaid in the US.
Write to: Evolution Designs, 7119 Laurel Canyon #4, North Hollywood,
CA 91605.
People in the San Francisco Bay area can get Darwin Fish from Lynn Gold --
try mailing <figmo@netcom.com>. For net people who go to Lynn directly, the
price is $4.95 per fish.
SET FREE
Atheist stickers, T-shirts and books.
Write to: Set Free, P.O. Box 3065-192, Garden Grove, CA 92642.
AMERICAN ATHEIST PRESS
AAP publish various atheist books -- critiques of the Bible, lists of
Biblical contradictions, and so on. One such book is:
"The Bible Handbook" by W.P. Ball and G.W. Foote. American Atheist Press.
372 pp. ISBN 0-910309-26-4, 2nd edition, 1986. Bible contradictions,
absurdities, atrocities, immoralities... contains Ball, Foote: "The Bible
Contradicts Itself", AAP. Based on the King James version of the Bible.
Write to: American Atheist Press, P.O. Box 140195, Austin, TX 78714-0195.
or: 7215 Cameron Road, Austin, TX 78752-2973.
Telephone: (512) 458-1244
Fax: (512) 467-9525
PROMETHEUS BOOKS
Sell books including Haught's "Holy Horrors" (see below).
Write to: 700 East Amherst Street, Buffalo, New York 14215.
Telephone: (716) 837-2475.
An alternate address (which may be newer or older) is:
Prometheus Books, 59 Glenn Drive, Buffalo, NY 14228-2197.
AFRICAN-AMERICANS FOR HUMANISM
An organization promoting black secular humanism and uncovering the history of
black freethought. They publish a quarterly newsletter, AAH EXAMINER.
Write to: Norm R. Allen, Jr., African Americans for Humanism, P.O. Box 664,
Buffalo, NY 14226.
United Kingdom
Rationalist Press Association National Secular Society
88 Islington High Street 702 Holloway Road
London N1 8EW London N19 3NL
071 226 7251 071 272 1266
British Humanist Association South Place Ethical Society
14 Lamb's Conduit Passage Conway Hall
London WC1R 4RH Red Lion Square
071 430 0908 London WC1R 4RL
fax 071 430 1271 071 831 7723
The National Secular Society publish "The Freethinker", a monthly magazine
founded in 1881.
Germany
IBKA e.V.
Internationaler Bund der Konfessionslosen und Atheisten
Postfach 880, D-1000 Berlin 41. Germany.
IBKA publish a journal:
MIZ. (Materialien und Informationen zur Zeit. Politisches
Journal der Konfessionslosesn und Atheisten. Hrsg. IBKA e.V.)
MIZ-Vertrieb, Postfach 880, D-1000 Berlin 41. Germany.
For atheist books, write to:
IBDK, Internationaler B"ucherdienst der Konfessionslosen
Postfach 3005, D-3000 Hannover 1. Germany.
Telephone: 0511/211216
Books -- Fiction
THOMAS M. DISCH
"The Santa Claus Compromise"
Short story. The ultimate proof that Santa exists. All characters and
events are fictitious. Any similarity to living or dead gods -- uh, well...
WALTER M. MILLER, JR
"A Canticle for Leibowitz"
One gem in this post atomic doomsday novel is the monks who spent their lives
copying blueprints from "Saint Leibowitz", filling the sheets of paper with
ink and leaving white lines and letters.
EDGAR PANGBORN
"Davy"
Post atomic doomsday novel set in clerical states. The church, for example,
forbids that anyone "produce, describe or use any substance containing...
atoms".
PHILIP K. DICK
Philip K. Dick Dick wrote many philosophical and thought-provoking short
stories and novels. His stories are bizarre at times, but very approachable.
He wrote mainly SF, but he wrote about people, truth and religion rather than
technology. Although he often believed that he had met some sort of God, he
remained sceptical. Amongst his novels, the following are of some relevance:
"Galactic Pot-Healer"
A fallible alien deity summons a group of Earth craftsmen and women to a
remote planet to raise a giant cathedral from beneath the oceans. When the
deity begins to demand faith from the earthers, pot-healer Joe Fernwright is
unable to comply. A polished, ironic and amusing novel.
"A Maze of Death"
Noteworthy for its description of a technology-based religion.
"VALIS"
The schizophrenic hero searches for the hidden mysteries of Gnostic
Christianity after reality is fired into his brain by a pink laser beam of
unknown but possibly divine origin. He is accompanied by his dogmatic and
dismissively atheist friend and assorted other odd characters.
"The Divine Invasion"
God invades Earth by making a young woman pregnant as she returns from
another star system. Unfortunately she is terminally ill, and must be
assisted by a dead man whose brain is wired to 24-hour easy listening music.
MARGARET ATWOOD
"The Handmaid's Tale"
A story based on the premise that the US Congress is mysteriously
assassinated, and fundamentalists quickly take charge of the nation to set it
"right" again. The book is the diary of a woman's life as she tries to live
under the new Christian theocracy. Women's right to own property is revoked,
and their bank accounts are closed; sinful luxuries are outlawed, and the
radio is only used for readings from the Bible. Crimes are punished
retroactively: doctors who performed legal abortions in the "old world" are
hunted down and hanged. Atwood's writing style is difficult to get used to
at first, but the tale grows more and more chilling as it goes on.
VARIOUS AUTHORS
"The Bible"
This somewhat dull and rambling work has often been criticized. However, it
is probably worth reading, if only so that you'll know what all the fuss is
about. It exists in many different versions, so make sure you get the one
true version.
Books -- Non-fiction
PETER DE ROSA
"Vicars of Christ", Bantam Press, 1988
Although de Rosa seems to be Christian or even Catholic this is a very
enlighting history of papal immoralities, adulteries, fallacies etc.
(German translation: "Gottes erste Diener. Die dunkle Seite des Papsttums",
Droemer-Knaur, 1989)
MICHAEL MARTIN
"Atheism: A Philosophical Justification", Temple University Press,
Philadelphia, USA.
A detailed and scholarly justification of atheism. Contains an outstanding
appendix defining terminology and usage in this (necessarily) tendentious
area. Argues both for "negative atheism" (i.e. the "non-belief in the
existence of god(s)") and also for "positive atheism" ("the belief in the
non-existence of god(s)"). Includes great refutations of the most
challenging arguments for god; particular attention is paid to refuting
contempory theists such as Platinga and Swinburne.
541 pages. ISBN 0-87722-642-3 (hardcover; paperback also available)
"The Case Against Christianity", Temple University Press
A comprehensive critique of Christianity, in which he considers
the best contemporary defences of Christianity and (ultimately)
demonstrates that they are unsupportable and/or incoherent.
273 pages. ISBN 0-87722-767-5
JAMES TURNER
"Without God, Without Creed", The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,
MD, USA
Subtitled "The Origins of Unbelief in America". Examines the way in which
unbelief (whether agnostic or atheistic) became a mainstream alternative
world-view. Focusses on the period 1770-1900, and while considering France
and Britain the emphasis is on American, and particularly New England
developments. "Neither a religious history of secularization or atheism,
Without God, Without Creed is, rather, the intellectual history of the fate
of a single idea, the belief that God exists."
316 pages. ISBN (hardcover) 0-8018-2494-X (paper) 0-8018-3407-4
GEORGE SELDES (Editor)
"The great thoughts", Ballantine Books, New York, USA
A "dictionary of quotations" of a different kind, concentrating on statements
and writings which, explicitly or implicitly, present the person's philosophy
and world-view. Includes obscure (and often suppressed) opinions from many
people. For some popular observations, traces the way in which various
people expressed and twisted the idea over the centuries. Quite a number of
the quotations are derived from Cardiff's "What Great Men Think of Religion"
and Noyes' "Views of Religion".
490 pages. ISBN (paper) 0-345-29887-X.
RICHARD SWINBURNE
"The Existence of God (Revised Edition)", Clarendon Paperbacks, Oxford
This book is the second volume in a trilogy that began with "The Coherence of
Theism" (1977) and was concluded with "Faith and Reason" (1981). In this
work, Swinburne attempts to construct a series of inductive arguments for the
existence of God. His arguments, which are somewhat tendentious and rely
upon the imputation of late 20th century western Christian values and
aesthetics to a God which is supposedly as simple as can be conceived, were
decisively rejected in Mackie's "The Miracle of Theism". In the revised
edition of "The Existence of God", Swinburne includes an Appendix in which he
makes a somewhat incoherent attempt to rebut Mackie.
J. L. MACKIE
"The Miracle of Theism", Oxford
This (posthumous) volume contains a comprehensive review of the principal
arguments for and against the existence of God. It ranges from the classical
philosophical positions of Descartes, Anselm, Berkeley, Hume et al, through
the moral arguments of Newman, Kant and Sidgwick, to the recent restatements
of the classical theses by Plantinga and Swinburne. It also addresses those
positions which push the concept of God beyond the realm of the rational,
such as those of Kierkegaard, Kung and Philips, as well as "replacements for
God" such as Lelie's axiarchism. The book is a delight to read - less
formalistic and better written than Martin's works, and refreshingly direct
when compared with the hand-waving of Swinburne.
JAMES A. HAUGHT
"Holy Horrors: An Illustrated History of Religious Murder and Madness",
Prometheus Books
Looks at religious persecution from ancient times to the present day -- and
not only by Christians.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 89-64079. 1990.
NORM R. ALLEN, JR.
"African American Humanism: an Anthology"
See the listing for African Americans for Humanism above.
GORDON STEIN
"An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism", Prometheus Books
An anthology covering a wide range of subjects, including 'The Devil, Evil
and Morality' and 'The History of Freethought'. Comprehensive bibliography.
EDMUND D. COHEN
"The Mind of The Bible-Believer", Prometheus Books
A study of why people become Christian fundamentalists, and what effect it
has on them.
GEORGE H. SMITH
"Atheism: The Case Against God", Prometheus Books
Describes the positions of atheism, theism and agnosticism. Reviews many
of the arguments used in favour of the existence of God. Concludes with an
assessment of the impact of God on people's lives.
Net Resources
There's a small mail-based archive server at mantis.co.uk which carries
archives of old alt.atheism.moderated articles and assorted other files. For
more information, send mail to archive-server@mantis.co.uk saying
help
send atheism/index
and it will mail back a reply.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
On these counts, the apocrapha falls short of the glory of God.
To quote Unger's Bible Dictionary on the Apocrapha:
1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and
anachronisms.
2. They teach doctrines which are false and foster practices
which are at variance with sacred Scripture.
3. They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of
subject matter and styling out of keeping with sacred Scripture.
4. They lack the distinctive elements which give genuine
Scripture their divine character, such as prophetic power and
poetic and religious feeling.
First, to point out the obvious: While #4 would clearly be a highly
subjective issue, one would be hard pressed to point to another book
of the OT (or for that matter the NT) that doesn't, on some issues, in
some way, fail one or more of the first three of these tests.
Second, one factor the Deuterocanonicals share is the lateness of
their composition. I don't recall the exact dating of all of the
books, but most --if not all-- were written after the latest of the
canonical books (i.e. Daniel).
Furthermore, while the Deuterocanonical may or may not have been
originally written in Greek, they are clearly deeply _Hellenistic_ in
nature. Both of these features probably figured heavily in the
rejection of these books from the various canons.
These may not be strict and uniformly applicable criteria by which to
judge the canonicity of these books, but, as these discussions have
shown, I think the one thing we can see is that there _are_ no purely
objective standards for determining canonicity. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
In response to alleged circular reasoning concerning the morality of
homosexuality, clh poses the following challenge:
I answer,
The circle is simple to break. The Church teaches that homosexual
behavior is immoral. This teaching is raw, impassionate, unassailable
dogma. That closes the argument for me.
--
Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock
Catechist
gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
But wouldn't that go for any sin. My father told me when he was growing
up Catholics were not allowed to associate with anyone who was divorced.
There are a few verses prohibitting divorce. Somehow, divorce became
acceptable (even in Catholicism anullments). Certainly it is no longer
a sin to associate with a divorced person. The point is that each person
has their own temptations to deal with. Paul repeatedly talks about the
"thorn" in his side, some think it refers to lust, others pride, but
who knows. Whatever the thorn was, apparently it was not "compatible"
with Christianity, yet does that make his epistles any less? The Bible
warns us against judging, greed, anxiety, impure thoughts, bearing grudges,
etc., etc. I suppose we should seek out all the so-called Christians
who have entertained impure thoughts and oust them. All those who have
given in to greed, get 'em outta here. Jesus pointed out that he
was the physician for the sinners. Any attempts to make homosexuals
feel unwelcome because of our discomfort with homosexuality is incompatible
with Christianity. Is our hatred so deep that rather than see someone
try to become closer to Jesus, we need to keep them away. Does Jesus need
us to screen out those guilty of a particular sin. Do we really mistrust
Jesus when he says he can forgive any sin?
Think about it. Among the people Jesus encountered were sinners and
the Pharisees. The sinners he embraced and forgave. The Pharisees,
hypocritcal, unmerciful, self-righteous, pointed out others sins and
did not seek and thus did not gain forgiveness of their own sins. What
I take from this and other verses is that if we do not admit our sins,
those sins will not be forgiven. And since those guilty of even one sin
are guilty of the whole law, those not repenting the judging of others
are guilty, as guilty as if they committed the same sin they judged others
of.
The poor in spirit, meek, humble, merciful, pure of heart, peacemakers,
those who thirst for justice, those who suffer for His sake are blessed. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Riddle me this. If a god(s) exist why on earth should we grovel? Why on earth
should we give a damm at all? What evidence do you have that if such a
creature(s) exist it deserves anything beyond mild admiration or sheer
hatred for what it/they have done in the past (whichever god(s) you care to
pick). That is assuming any records of their actions are correct.
Religon offers a bliss bubble of self contained reality which is seperate
from the physical world. Any belief system can leave you in such a state
and so can drugs. God(s) are not a requirement. Only if you remove such
useless tappestry can you build a set of morals to build a society upon.
It is that or keep on exterminating those who don't believe (or converting
them).
- Eric
NEW VIRUSES: | 0 | alt.atheism |
but whoever listens to me will live in safety and be at ease, without fear of
harm."
Proverbs 1:33
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Could the guy who wrote the article "Why I am not Bertrand Russell"
resend me a copy? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Why shouldn't I mind? It sounds as if you are proceeding with just
the sort of obfuscation you have accused me of. I always preceeded
my statements with "it is my understanding that..." Now, I have made
my claim clear with regard to the issue of both the Twelve Imams and
with Khomeini's supposed claim of infalibility. After hearing your
seemingly more knowledgable claim that Khomeini made no such claim
regarding himself, I have withdrawn that portion of my statement
regarding that claim. However, I have received _no_ such response
regarding the infallibility of the Twelve Imams. There is nothing
obfuscationist about my claims, which are always made clearly.
I have received no such clear response regarding the Twelve Imams
but rather abstruse references to unusual metaphysical natures and
other such opaque "concepts" often used by people to camoflage the
baselessness of their positions, particularly in matters of theology.
These are just the sorts of "concepts" used by Christian churches
the perverting of their religion.
Alaikum Wassalam, | 0 | alt.atheism |
whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell) sent in a list of verses
which he felt condemn homosexuality. mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) wrote in
response that some of these verses "are used against us only through incredibly
perverse interpretations" and that others "simply do not address the issues."
[remainder of my post deleted] The moderator then made some comments I would
like to address:
If you are referring to the terms "effeminate" and "homosexuals" in
the above passage, I agree that the accuracy of the translation has
been challenged. However, I was simply commenting on the charge that
it is an "incredibly perverse" interpretation to read this as a
condemnation of homosexuality. Such a charge seems to imply that no
reasonable person would ever conclude from the verse that Paul
intended to condemn homosexuality; however, I think I can see how a
reasonable person might very well take this view of the verse.
Therefore I do not believe it is "incredibly perverse" to read it in
this way.
Actually, I wasn't thinking of the church at all. After all, a couple
doesn't have to be married by a minister. A secular justice of the
peace could do the job, and the two people would be married. My point
was that it is easy to find a biblical basis for heterosexual
marriage, but where in the Bible would one get a Christian marriage
between two people of the same sex? And if you do see a biblical
basis for same-sex marriages, how willing would gay Christians be to
"save themselves" for such a marriage and to never have sexual
intercourse with anyone outside of that marriage relationship? Please
note that I am not trying to imply that gay Christians would not be
willing to be so monogamous, I am genuinely interested in hearing
opinions on the subject. I have heard comments from gays in the past
that lead me to believe they regard promiscuity as one of the main
points of being homosexual, yet I tend to doubt that gays who want to
be Christian would advocate such a position. So what is the gay view?
- Mark | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Sadly understandable...
Yes.
To be fair, you should really qualify this as semitic-western religions, but
you basically go ahead and do this later on anyway.
Again, this should really be evaluated at a personal level. For example, there
was only one Jesus (presumably), and he probably didn't say all that many
things, and yet (seemingly) billions and billions of Christian sects have
arisen. Perhaps there is one that is totally dedicated to rationalism and
believes in Christ as in pantheism. It would seem to go against the Bible, but
it is amazing what people come up with under the guise of "personal
interpretation".
This is a good point. We have here the quintessential Christian: he sets up a
system of values/beliefs for himself, which work very well, and every
event/experience is understandable and deablable within the framework of this
system. However, we also have an individual who has the inability (at least
not without some difficulty) to change, which is important, because the problem
with such a system is the same as with any system: one cannot be open minded to
the point of "testing hypotheses" against the basic premise of the system
without destroying whatever faith is invested therein, unless of course, all
the tests fail. In other words, the *fairer* way would be to test and evaluate
moralities without the bias/responsibility of losing/retaining a system.
Interesting, but again, when it seems to basically boil down to individual
nuances (although not always, I will admit, and probably it is the
mass-oriented divisions which are the most appalling), it becomes irrelevant,
unfortunately.
Granted
In which case the people become the bullets, and the religion, as the gun,
merely offers them a way to more adequately do some harm with themselves, if I
may be so bold as to extend your similie?
Also understandable... ;)
--
best regards,
| 0 | alt.atheism |
comments :
^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There is a BIG difference between the status of what you refer to as
Alexandrians (actually, this includes all Oriental Orthodox Churches
and not only Copts) and that of Nestorians. The Oriental Orthodox
Churches never even "shelter" Eutyches (the advocator of Monophysitism)
but on the contrary, it condemned (and still does condemn) him and his
heresy. That is why the Eastren (Chalcedonian) Orthodox Church held
talks with the Oriental (non-Chalcedonian) that started 30 years ago
and still continueing till today, but they have converged on many
issues the most imporatant of which is Christology (I have more
details of the inter-Orthodox dialogue, in case anyone is interested).
So I do not see how the "Alexandrians" and the Nestorians are in a
similar position.
Peace, | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
To big for a .sig?
No way!
Keith " Home of the billdboard .sig files " Ryan
=)
---
Private note to Jennifer Fakult.
"This post may contain one or more of the following:
sarcasm, cycnicism, irony, or humor. Please be aware
of this possibility and do not allow yourself to be
confused and/or thrown for a loop. If in doubt, assume
all of the above. | 0 | alt.atheism |
But hanging is certainly painful. Or, do you not let the condemned
know they are going to die?
Hanging is not supposed to be very pleasant. I believe that in
actuality, it is not "quick and clean". However, gas chambers can be
quite non-painful. Heck, why not give them a good time? Suffication by
Nitrious Oxide!
=)
---
Private note to Jennifer Fakult.
"This post may contain one or more of the following:
sarcasm, cycnicism, irony, or humor. Please be aware
of this possibility and do not allow yourself to be
confused and/or thrown for a loop. If in doubt, assume
all of the above. | 0 | alt.atheism |
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be
my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the
earth."
Acts 1:8
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[material deleted]
[deletions]
I don't necessarily object to the secrecy but I do question it, since I see no
Biblical reason why any aspect of Christian worship should involve secrecy.
But I am interested in your claim that early Christian practices "parallel"
Mormon temple ceremonies. Could you give an example? Also, why do they only
parallel Mormon ceremonies? Why don't Mormon ceremonies restore the original
Christian practices? Wasn't that the whole point of Joseph Smith's stated
mission? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
This was a popular belief in the Judaism of Jesus` time, that Elijah
would return again (as he had been taken in to heaven in a chariot and
did not actually die). However Jesus was referring to John the
Baptist not in the sense that Elijah was reincarnated as John
(remember Elijah didn`t die) but that John was a similar prophet to
Elijah. John was a fiery preacher, he wore sackcloth and wandered
rough through Israel preaching the coming kingdom. The verses that
describe him (in Mark`s gospel) can be linked to OT references about
Elijah. Hence John was similar to Elijah and Jesus was drawing the
parallels between the two just as he drew parallels with the Suffering
Servant in Isaiah (and other messianic figures) and himself.
A brief reply but I don`t have time to look up all the relevant stuff.
Suffice to say there is a very strong explanation.
Rick.
________________________________________________________________
Richard Johnston Queen`s University
73 Malone Road Belfast
Belfast
Northern Ireland
BT9 6SB | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Perhaps one other thing I should have added is that Jeremiah's prophesies
about the coming destruction of Jerusalem would have been understood by
the people of that time to be a full frontal assault on their understanding
of their relationship with the Lord. Today the if the general populace
hears "prophesies" like the Portland earthquake or New York will burn
ones, they are unlikely to see it in the context of their relationship
(or lack of it) with the Lord. They are far more likely to think that
they are just the result of the fevered imaginations of a religious nutter.
That is one reason why I am always deep;y suspicious of bald judgement
prophesies without any explanation of the reasons for the judgement. This
doesn't have to be long winded. To see a relatively modern example look
at Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural speech. The relevant section is
below. It is this type of spiritual insight which was missing in both
prophesies posted here.
--- Excerpt from Abraham Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural speech----
Both read the same Bible, and pray
to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem
strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing
their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not
that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not he answered that of neither
has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. ''Woe unto the
world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to
that man by whom the offence cometh" If we shall suppose that American
Slavery is one of those offences which, in the provdence of God, must needs come
but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove
and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to
those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein an departure from
those divine attribute which the believers in a Living God always ascribe
to Him ? Fondly do we hope - fervently do we pray - that this mighty
scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue,
until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of
unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with
the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three
thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord,
are true and righteous altogether"
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right,
as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we
are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have
borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan - to do all which
may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves,
and with all nations.
--
___
Bill Rea (o o)
-------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w--- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Then you better pray for me, too, because I believe that the Mighty
Invisibile Pink Unicorn does not exist. One being cannot be both "Pink"
and "Invisible." The demon (or should that be daemon?) that keeps me
from believing and saving my soul is named Logic. | 0 | alt.atheism |
#|> #
#|> #Noting that a particular society, in this case the mainland UK,
#|> #has few religously motivated murders, and few murders of *any*
#|> #kind, says very little about whether inter-religion murders elsewhere
#|> #are religiously motivated.
#|>
#|> No, but it allows one to conclude that there is nothing inherent
#|> in all religion (or for that matter, in catholicism and protestantism)
#|> that motivates one to kill.
#
#"Motivates" or "allows?" The Christian Bible says that one may kill
#under certain circumstances. In fact, it instructs one to kill under
#certain circumstances.
I'd say the majority of people have a moral system that instructs them
to kill under certain circumstances. I do get your distinction between
motivate and allow, and I do agree that if a flavour of theism 'allows'
atoricities, then that's an indictment of that theism. But it rather
depends on what the 'certain circumstances' are. When you talk about
Christianity, or Islam, then at least your claims can be understood.
It's when people go to a general statement about theism that it falls
apart. One could believe in a God which instructs one to be utterly
harmless.
#
#|> For my part, I conclude that something
#|> else is required. I also happen to believe that that something
#|> else will work no less well without religion - any easy Them/Us will
#|> do.
#
#And what does religion supply, if not an easy Them/Us?
Not necessarily. "Love thy neighbour" does not supply a them/us - it
demolishes it. And my definition of religion is broader than my
definition of theism, as I have explained.
#
#|> #By insisting that even the murder of four labourers, chosen because
#|> #they were catholics, and who had nothing to do with the IRA, by
#|> #Protestant extremists, is *not* religously motivated, I think what
#|> #you are saying is that you simply will not accept *any* murder as
#|> #being religiously motivated.
#|>
#|> No. What about that guy who cut off someone's head because he believed
#|> he was the devil incarnate? That was religously motivated.
#
#What about the Protestant extremists who killed four Catholic
#labourers? That *wasn't* religiously motivated?
Not in my opinion. If they were doing it because of some obscure
point of theology, then yes. But since all protestants don't do this
(nor do they elect extremists to do it for them), it's just too broad
too say "religion did this". I'm saying that the causes are far more
complex than that - take away the religious element, and you'd still
have the powerful motives of revenge and misguided patriotism. You
know, when most Catholics and Protestants worldwide say 'stop the
killing', one might listen to that, especially when you claim not
to read minds.
#
#
#|> Also, the murders ensuing from the fatwa on Mr. Rushdie, the Inquisitions,
#|> and the many religous wars.
#
#What's so special about these exceptions? Isn't this all just a
#grab-bag of ad-hoc excuses for not considering some other murders
#to be religiously motivated? What's the general principle behind
#all this?
The general principle is that it's fairly clear (to me, at least) that
religion is the primary motivator (enabler, whatever) of these. It's
not nearly so obvious what's going on when one looks at NI, apart
from violence of course.
#
#|> #It's not an abstract "argument". Northern Irish Protestants say
#|> #"We don't want to be absorbed into am officially Catholic country."
#|> #
#|> #Now what are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to reply "No,
#|> #that's only what you think you don't want. Mr O'Dwyer assures us
#|> #that no matter what you say you want, you really want something
#|> #else?"
#|>
#|> You think the Unionists wouldn't mind being absorbed into a non-Catholic
#|> country (other than the UK of course)? It's a terrible thing to lose
#|> a mind. Maybe the word "country" is there for more than just kicks.
#|> I certainly don't believe that the Unionists are in it for God - I think
#|> they wish to maintain their position of privilege.
#
#I'm still listening to what they say, and you are still telling us
#your version of what they think. You read minds, and I don't.
You've speculated on my motives often enough, and you don't take
my statements of my own beliefs at face value - therefore your claim
not to read minds has no credibility with me, sorry. I also note that
you fail to answer my question. It just looks to me very much like
you have an axe to grind - especially as you are indeed ignoring what
most Protestants say - which is @stop the killing". The people you
refer to are properly described as Unionists, not Protestants.
#
#As for their position of privilege, what is that if not religion-
#based?
It is based on politics, bigotry, and heartless extremism. None of these
things are synonymous with religion, though there is certainly some
overlap.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Woo! So far, we've had the following interpretations of the figure of
the `Whore of Babylon' in Rev 17 & 18:
a) The United States of America
b) MHO dB) which was as a figure of the fallen spiritual powers who
corrupt and oppress human society
c) Historical Jerusalem
d) Historical Rome
Dare I suggest that the passage might be many layered in meaning? How
about * The prophecy reveals God's judgement on the corrupt & idolatrous
state oppressing his chosen people (d) * That God's judgement extends
_especially_ to his once chosen city (c) because, despite that City's
special call, it still rejected God's grace at the decisive time (Rev
11:8? - also isn't Rev19:24 equally suggestive of Rome as Jerusalem?) *
That the USofA is guilty of many of the crimes of Rome/Babylon (a) and
is equally subject to God's judgement * That the Good Book(TM) actually
encompasses _all_ these viewpoints by revealing the corrupting spiritual
powers warring against mankind through the very society that we've
created. (b)
Clever, huh? (<-- Flame here!) No need to argue at all!
I think Mary's view has a lot of sense because there seems to be a
deliberate contrast between Rev 17/18 and Rev 21/22 - the mortal
Jerusalem chosen by God but never (historically) fulfilling its vocation
and the new Jerusalem perfected (outside of history) purely by God's
grace. eg Details like Rev 17:1 `.. who sits on many waters' cf Rev 22
the single stream in the new Jersualem `the river of life flowing from
the throne of God and of the Lamb.' | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
: Arrogance is arrogance. It is not the result of religion, it is the result
: of people knowing or firmly believing in an idea and one's desire to show
: others of one's rightness. I assume that God decided to be judge for our
: sake as much as his own, if we allow him who is kind and merciful be the
: judge, we'll probably be better off than if others judged us or we judged
: ourselves.
I'm not sure I agree with this 100%. I agree that arrogance is not the result
of religion and that God is a far better judge than we are. I also agree if
you mean to say that arrogance shows up in the form of trying to prove one's
superior knowledge, rightness, or holiness over another person's beliefs.
I need to be careful to understand what you mean here so that I do not fall
into the mistake of misrepresenting your views. If I fall down in this area
I hope you will forgive me.
Arrogance is not the result of believing one is right or of believing that
one's God is greater than the god's of others or of believing that one's
religion is better than other religions. These are all naturally self-implied
beliefs.
It is self-contradictory to say that I believe my current beliefs to be wrong.
Were I to find myself in error, my beliefs would naturally change and follow
what I believe to be right. Therefore, I must always consider my beliefs
correct. That's not arrogance. That's unavoidable behavior.
It is nonsense to say that I believe another person's god to be greater than
my God. Were his or her god greater, wouldn't I be obligated to change so
that their god would become my God? We are naturally obligated to worship
that God which we deem to be the greatest. Why should we feel obligated to
worship a second best god for the sake of feeling humble?
Arrogance is not necessarily thinking onesself to be better looking or more
intelligent or stronger or having more resources than another person. No
doubt many will have to chew on this one awhile. Were passive observation
of one's superior points arrogance, then God would be most arrogant of all.
Humility does not rest in slandering or belittling God's work of creation in
our lives. People often go around trying to be humble saying to one another,
"I'm not very smart. I'm poor. I'm not good looking. I'm just a worm in
the ground. I'm such a weak person and although I don't want to sin, I
really cannot help it." Were this person truely humble, he would take a
different approach. "God, thank you for making me the way you did. I know
that you never do anything second best. Yet with all that you have given me,
I have been so unthankful. You've given me power to resist the devil. I
have not used it but have indulged myself in doing exactly what you have said
not to do. I have slandered your creation in my life and have credited myself
with humility for doing so. Lord, with all you've given me, I have been
completely unfaithful and I do not deserve your forgiveness. And, yet Your
love for me is so boundless that you would give Yourself to die for me to
save me. As terribly evil as I am, I deserve to go straight to hell, yet it
pleases you somehow to rescue me from this terrible life I've led. Lord,
please forgive me and help me stay on the right track so that I can bring
glory to Your Name instead of insult. Lord I'm so sorry for my wrongs. Please
help me to change."
:
: I think people take exceptional offense to religious arrogance because
: they don't want to be wrong. If I find someone arrogant, I typically
: don't have anything to do with them.
For me, I've often found it hard to tell the difference. Often times, the
most humble christian has come across to me as arrogant while the most
proud "worm in the ground" false humility type person has been found to be
most comfortable company.
When I'm wrong and arrogant about my wrongness, I certainly don't feel like
being confronted by my wrongness. Were someone to confront me verbally with
my wrongness, I'd be likely to snap at them and examine them head to toe for
all their faults and charge them with hypocricy for what they said to me.
At the root, my desire would be to make them shut up so that I can go about
living my life arrogantly as I wish. However, were someone to confront me
silently by their example, earn my respect, and perhaps mention it to me in
humility in private, I'd feel broken down and challenged to seek God for help
in changing from the error of my ways.
The hard part is getting to the point to where I can be humble before anyone
regardless of their humility or pride--regardless of their hypocricy or
sincerity--regardless of whether onlookers will frown down upon me or not.
It isn't easy to take this pain in love with thankfulness for the opportunity
to improve in one's ability to serve God. It's easier to cast aside any hope
of reaching true humility and merely hide behind slandering God's creation
in our lives instead.
: But we should examine ourselves [I hope I typed this back in right]
: and why we react to certain situations with such emotions. For instance,
: many of us feel "justified" to be insulted by an arrogant person. As if
: we needed a reason to feel insulted. But after being insulted over and
: over again by the words of others, you'd think we'd either toughen up
: or decide not to be insulted, or ignore the insult. Just because you
: can justify feelings of anger or insult or outrage, that doesn't make that
: reaction the appropriate one. It is in this light of self-examination
: that we can change our emotional reactions.
:
Sometimes it helps when we can understand and feel the difference between
what is a true statement of our character and what is a false and slanderous
statement of our character. The devil is the accuser of the bretheren. He
would love us to feel hopelessly guilty where we are innocent and feel arrogant
and self-righteous where we are indeed wrong. The devil's aim is to get us
into as much misery as he can. Just think of the devil as a cruel and merci-
less criminal who torments a parent by burning his or her children with
hot irons. The way the devil gets under the Father's skin is by hurting
those that the Father loves so much.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I deplore the horrible crime of child murder...
We want prevention, not merely punishment.
We must reach the root of the evil...
It is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt
from the dreadful deed...
No mater what the motive, love of ease,
or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent,
the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed...
but oh! thrice guilty is he who drove her
to the desperation which impelled her to the crime." | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
1] An english translation of this can be found in:
"The Acts of the Apostles, translated from the Codex Bezae, with an
introduction on its Lucan Origin and Importance", J. M. Wilson
(London, 1923).
2] Another work that might be useful is:
"The Acts of the Apostles, a Critical Edition with Introduction and
Notes on Selected Passages", Albert C. Clark (Oxford, 1933;
reprinted 1970).
(This is an edition of text of Acts that makes the assumption that the
text in Codex Bezae is the more authentic. I don't know if it
actually contains an english translation or not.)
3] Another useful that discusses many of the variants in detail is:
"The Theological Tendency of the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in
Acts", Eldon J Epp (Cambridge, 1966).
4] The most recent reference I found was an edition in French from the
early '80s. (I can supply the reference if anyone's interested.)
5] Now, many of the works are going to be difficult to find. So if
you're interested in examining the differences in the long recension
an excellent (and easily obtainable) discussion can be found in:
"A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT", Bruce Metzger (United Bible
Society, 1971).
Metzger's book serves as a companion volume to the UBS 3rd edition of
the Greek NT. It contains a discussion on the reasoning that went
behind the decisions on each of the 1440 variant readings included in
the UBS3. Furthermore, notes on an addition 600 readings are
included in aTCotGNT (the majority of these occur in Acts).
"[An attempt was made] to set before the reader a more or less full
report (with an English translation) of the several additions and
other modifications that are attested by Western witnesses ...
Since many of these have no corresponding apparatus in the
text-volume, care was taken to supply an adequate conspectus of the
evidence that supports the divergent readings." (p 272).
6] Most of the copies of the text of Acts that we have (including the
ones in Vaticanus and Siniaticus) adher pretty closely to the shorter
(or Alexandrian) version. The longer version to which you refer is
usually called the "Western" version and its main witness is the Codex
Bezae (althought there are a few other rather fragmentary sources).
7] As far as size, the difference is that in Clark's edition
(mentioned above) the book of Acts contains 19,983 words whereas the
text edited by Westcott and Hort (a typical Alexandrian text) contains
18,401 words; i.e. a difference of about 8-1/2%.
8] To answer the obvious questions, no, there are no major revelations
in the longer text nor major omissions in the shorter text. The main
difference seems to "expansion" of detail in the Western text (or, if
you prefer "contractions" in the Alexandrian). The Western text seems
to be given to more detail. There are some interesting specific
cases, but this probably not the place to go into it in detail.
9] The discussion over the years as to which of these versions is the
more authentic has been hot and heavy. If there is anything
approaching a modern consensus it is (i) that neither text represents
purely the "authentic" version, (ii) each variant reading has to be
examined on its own merits however, (iii) the variant in the
Alexandrian text is the "better" more often than not. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Does anyone belong to or know any facts about the
Christian Reformed Church? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Well, suppose your mother was a crack addict and crack user/abuser while
she was pregnant? Suppose your husband gave you some SDT (this recently
happened to a close friend of my wife and mine)?
OFTEN, the consequences of our sin are at least partially inflicted on
innocent people. Several times in the OT, this is pointed out, even
saying that descendants would suffer consequences for a person's sin
for several generations. Even today, we see multi-generational (to
coin a phrase) effects from alcoholism, child abuse, and spousal
abuse just to name three.
So, God's definition of fair and ours differ.
Some points of perspective:
Though the predisposition towards sinning is now inbred (see Webster's
first definition of inbred) thanks to Adam, it is arrogant and foolish
for any of us to think we would have done any different if we were in
their shoes. I know myself pretty well, and I'm just not that good. Take
God's word for it, neither are you. "There is no one righteous..."
More important, when a person decides to be a disciple of Jesus, God
promises supernatural help in overcoming our physical self's sinful
tendency. We can, of course, choose to ignore this help. (Rom 7,8)
"...God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many
schemes." -Eccl
Mark | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The Catholic doctrine of predestination does not exclude free
will in any way. Since God knows everything, He therefore knows
everything that is going to happen to us. We have free will, and
are able to change what happens to us. However, since God knows
everything, He knows all the choices we will make "in advance" (God
is not subject to time). Too often arguments pit predestination
against free will. We believe in both.
That last sentence of Steve's is an important one to remember.
There are certain things in the Catholic religion that cannot be
completely comprehended by a human being. Were this not the case, it
would be good evidence that the religion was man-made.
In the case of predestination, you have to reconcile two things that
would at first appear to be irreconcilable: the sovereignty of God's
will over all things, and man's free will in deciding his own fate.
Catholics believe in both! But that doesn't mean that anyone has come
up with a pat reconciliation... | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Protestants love to play up Jerome for all he is worth. They should
remeber that after the Decree of Pope St. Damsus I, Jerome did not
hesitate in accpeting the deuteroncanon, and quoted them as Scripture in
his later writings. And as I have already pointed out, in a previous
letter on this subject, the Catholic Church has accepted the
deuterocanon from the beginning. And the Protestants in the 1500's all
of a sudden revived the old theory of some, condemned by Pope, Council,
and Church, that the deuterocanon were not inspired.
Again, why must the Church of Jesus Christ adopt the canon of the
unbelieving Jews, drawn up in Jamnia in 90 AD, in countering the
Christian use of the Septuagint. ^^^^^ | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Sorry about the delay in responding, due to conference paper deadline panic.
[Alarming amounts of agreement deleted :-)]
That ("complicated") isn't in fact where P(H) > P(HG) comes from; it's more
the other way around. It's from
P(H) = P(HG) + P(HG') where G' is the complement of G
and by axiom, P(anything) >= 0, so P(HG') >= 0, so P(H) >= P(HG).
In a sense, HG is necessarily more "complicated" than H for any H and G,
so I may be splitting hairs, but what I'm trying to say is that irrespective
of subjective impressions of how complicated something is, P(H) >= P(HG)
holds, with equality if and only if P(HG') = 0.
Well, "P(x | A) = P(x | B)" means that x is as likely to be observed if A is
operative as it is if B is operative. This implies that observing x does not
provide any useful information which might allow us to discriminate between
the respective possibilities that A and B are operative; the difference
reduces to the difference between the (unknown and unhelpful) prior
probabilities P(A) and P(B):
P(x | A) = P(x | B) ==>
P(A | x) = k P(A), and P(B | x) = k P(B)
where k = P(x | A) / P(x) = P(x | B) / P(x).
So A and B are "equally consistent with the data" in that observing x
doesn't give any pointers as to which of A or B is operative.
In the particular case where A = H and B = HG, however, we know that their
prior probabilities are ordered by P(H) >= P(HG), although we don't know
the actual values, and it's this which allows us to deploy the Razor to
throw out any such HG.
That's certainly true, but the particular point here was whether or
not a `divine component' actually underlies the prevalence of religion
in addition to the memetic transmission component, which even the religious
implicitly acknowledge to be operative when they talk of `spreading the word'.
Now it seems to me, as I've said, that the observed variance in religious
belief is well accounted for by the memetic transmission model, but rather
*less* well if one proposes a `divine component' in addition, since I would
expect the latter to conspire *against* wide variance and even mutual
exclusion among beliefs. Thus my *personal* feeling is that P(x | HG) isn't
even equal to P(x | H) in this case, but is smaller (H is memetic transmission,
G is `divine component', x is the variance among beliefs). But I happily
acknowledge that this is a subjective impression.
Not that I'm a statistician as such either, but:
The idea is that both theism and atheism are compatible with all of
the (read `my') observations to date. However, theism (of the type with
which I am concerned) *also* suggests that, for instance, prayer may be
answered, people may be miraculously healed (both are in principle amenable
to statistical verification) and that god/s may generally intervene in
measurable ways.
This means that these regions of the space of possible observations,
which I loosely termed "appearances of god/s", have some nonzero
probability under the theistic hypothesis and zero under the atheistic.
Since there is only so much probability available for each hypothesis to
scatter around over the observation space, the probability which theism
expends on making "appearances of god/s" possible must come from somewhere
else (i.e. other possible observations).
All else being equal, this means that an observation which *isn't* an
"appearance of god/s" must have a slightly higher probability under
atheism than under theism. The Bayesian stuff implies that such
observations must cause my running estimate for the probability of
the atheistic hypothesis to increase, with a corresponding decrease
in my running estimate for the probability of the theistic hypothesis.
Sorry if that's still a bit jargonesque, but it's rather difficult to
put it any other way, since it does depend intimately on the properties
of conditional probability densities, and particularly that the total
area under them is always unity.
An analogy may (or may not :-) be helpful. Say that hypothesis A is "the
coin is fair", and that B is "the coin is unfair (two-headed)". (I've
used A and B to avoid confusion with H[heads] and T[tails].)
Then
P(H | A) = 0.5 } total 1
P(T | A) = 0.5 }
P(H | B) = 1 } total 1
P(T | B) = 0 }
The observations are a string of heads, with no tails. This is compatible
with both a fair coin (A) and a two-headed coin (B). However, the probability
expended by A on making possible the appearance of tails (even though they
don't actually appear) must come from somewhere else, since the total must
be unity, and it comes in this case from the probability of the appearance
of heads.
Say our running estimates at time n-1 are e[n-1](A) and e[n-1](B). The
observation x[n] at time n is another head, x[n] = H. The estimates are
modified according to
P(H | A)
e[n](A) = e[n-1](A) * -------- = e[n-1](A) * m
P(H)
and
P(H | B)
e[n](B) = e[n-1](B) * -------- = e[n-1](B) * 2m
P(H)
Now we don't know P(H), the *actual* prior probability of a head, but
the multiplier for e(A) is half that for e(B). This is true every time
the coin is tossed and a head is observed.
Thus whatever the initial values of the estimates, after n heads, we have
n
e[n](A) = m e[0](A)
and
n
e[n](B) = (2m) e[0](B),
and since e[k](A) + e[k](B) = 1 at any time k, you can show that 0.5 < m < 1
and thus 1 < 2m < 2. Hence the estimate for the fair-coin hypothesis A must
decrease at each trial and that for the two-headed coin hypothesis B must
increase, even though both hypotheses are compatible with a string of heads.
The loose analogy is between "unfair coin" and atheism, and between "fair
coin" and theism, with observations consistent with both. A tail, which
would falsify "unfair coin", is analogous to an "appearance of god/s",
which would falsify atheism. I am *not* claiming that the analogy extends
to the numerical values of the various probabilities, just that the principle
is the same.
Quite so, but this type of theism is what I might call "the G in the HG",
in terms of our Ockham's Razor discussion, and I'd bin it on those grounds.
The hypotheses don't have to be falsifiable, and indeed in my `model',
the theism isn't falsifiable.
You don't have to. We don't need, in the above analogy, to know *any*
prior probabilities to deduce that the updating multiplier for the
fair-coin hypothesis is less than unity, and that the corresponding
multiplier for the two-headed coin hypothesis is greater than unity.
You don't need to know the initial values of the running estimates
either. It's clear that after a large number of observations, P(fair-coin)
approaches zero and P(two-headed-coin) approaches unity.
All you need to know is whether P(x | Ha) is larger than P(x | Ht) for
observed x, and this follows from the assumptions that there are certain
events rendered *possible* (not necessary) under Ht which are not possible
under Ha, and all else is equal.
Any observations you like; it really doesn't matter, nor affect the
reasoning, provided that there are some possible observations which
would count as "appearances of god/s". Examples of this might be
a demonstration of the efficacy of prayer, or of the veracity of
revelation.
OK, we'll downgrade "*does* interact" to "*may* interact", which would
actually be better since "does interact" implies a falsifiability which
we both agree is misplaced.
I'll explain, but bear in mind that this isn't central; all I require of
a theism is that it *not* make the prediction "Appearances of god/s will
never happen", as does atheism. (Before somebody points out that quantum
mechanics doesn't make this prediction either, the difference is that
QM and atheism do not form a partition.)
Predictions include such statements as "Prayer is efficacious" (implying
"If you do the stats, you will find that Prayer is efficacious"), or "Prayer
is *not* efficacious", or "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not
pass, till all these things be fulfilled." I don't think we have any problems
of misunderstanding here.
That's fine; I don't claim that theism is false, merely that the [finite
number of] observations available to me so far suggest that it is, and
that as I continue to observe, the suggestion looks better and better.
I think you are; an "appearance of god/s" is sufficient to falsify
atheism, whereas in general the corresponding theism is unfalsifiable.
No: by way of a counterexample, let X = "the coin is fair", or more
accurately (so that not(X) makes sense) "the two sides of the coin are
different". This is unfalsifiable by tossing the coin; even a string of
heads is consistent with a fair coin, and you have to go to an infinite
number of tosses to falsify X in the limit. Its converse is falsifiable,
and is falsified when at least one head and at least one tail have appeared.
Oops. Sorry. Mea culpa.
We agree here.
"The Rapture will not happen on October 28 1992." Said Rapture would have
falsified atheism to my satisfaction had it happened, although its failure
to happen does not, of course, falsify any theisms other than those which
specifically predicted it.
"No phenomenon which requires the existence of one or more gods for its
explanation will ever be observed." That about sums the whole thing up.
Cheers
Simon | 0 | alt.atheism |
: Ok, what's more important to gay Christians? Sex, or Christianity?
: Christianity I would hope. Would they be willing to forgo sex
: completely, in order to avoid being a stumbling block to others,
: to avoid the chance that their interpretation might be wrong,
: etc? If not, why not? Heterosexuals abstain all the time.
: (It would be nice if protestant churches had celibate orders
: to show the world that sex is not the important thing in life)
The difference is that straight members are given the choice of
abstaining or not, and celibacy is recognized as a gift, given only
to some. Gays are told that, as a condition of acceptance, they
_must_ be celibate. I don't believe that God gives me a forced choice
between having a relationship with God and expressing my heterosexuality
(within the context of a faithful relationship). Nor do I believe
that God gives that forced choice to gays. Sex or Christianity is a
false dichotomy.
: To tell the truth, gay churches remind me a lot of Henry the VIII
: starting the Church of England in order to get a divorce (or is
: this a myth). Note that I am not denying that gay Christians are
: Christian.
For my part, gay churches remind me of blacks starting their own churches
either because they were not allowed at all in the white churches, or, at
best, only with special restrictions that did not apply to white members. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[a lot of stuff deleted -- i'm focusing on just one point]
i'm a little confused about the difference between this "weak atheism",
as you put it, and agnosticism. is agnosticism not believing or
necessarily disbelieving in anything, or what is it? i used to be
agnostic (by this definition) -- but if weak atheism includes not
necessarily believing in God, then i guess i was one of those. ???
actually what i have a hard time understanding is people who do not
ever decide what they believe. i am constantly in a state of
self-examination, as it would appear many others are as well (including the
atheists, of course -- i'd assume that's why they're here!). i guess
some people don't really consider it important to think about the
answers to "life, the universe and everything" -- any comment? just
wondering....
tough call, as these things seem to be based on faith -- wish i could
help you, but i already tried once with someone who was a
self-professed agnostic-thinking-of-becoming-a -christian, and it
didn't work too well! especially tough as i'm still mulling over
whether or not i believe in miracles (looks like another email to my
chaplain is coming up....). all i can do is wish you the best of
luck, and please do post what you find.
hmm, how so? i guess i really don't understand. there are times, of
course, when i say to myself "of course i have absolutely no way of
knowing that what i believe in is true except the satisfaction and
sense of peace i get from it -- which of course could just be
psychological". somehow i live with this anyway -- is this what you
mean?
the only "proof" i have is that i believe God spoke to me once --
which could of course be my own imagination. the odd thing is,
though, that if you don't at some point start believing in something,
after a while it all gets sort of ridiculous. maybe it's just a
question of where you draw the line.
i'll only add one question -- have you read pascal? what did you
think of him if you did?
also you may (or may not) be interested by cslewis/ _surprised by
joy_. i'd be interested in knowing what you think of him, no sarcasm
at all intended. (i just say this because one can never know how
one's written words will be interpreted. i am not interested in
converting you, since i don't seem to have whatever it would take --
proof -- to do so. i'm just interested in learning.)
i like this.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
What? Absolutely not. No way. Asimov was a lifelong atheist, and
said so many times, right until his death. Judging from the many
stories he told about his own life, he felt culturally closest to
Judaism, which makes sense. He was born Jewish. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Heck, I remember reading a quote of Luther as something like: "Jews should
be shot like deer." And of course much Catholic doctrine for centuries was
extremely anti-Semitic.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
It is important if Christianity is being damaged by it. If
people who "speak in tongues" make claims that they are
miraculously speaking a foreign language through the power of
the Holy Spirit, when it can easily be shown that they are simply
making noises, it damages all Christians, since many who are
not Christians do not distinguish between the various sects.
The more modest claim for "tongues" that it is simply
uncontrolled praise in which "words fail you" is surely the one
that should be used by those who make use of this practice.
I agree with the point that "Charismatic" practices like this
can lead to forms of worship which are more about the
worshipper showing off than genuine praise for God; one of the
things Jesus warned us about. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[does he believe in predestination]
really? you may be right, but i'd like proof. as far as i know (and
i am not a div school student!) the catholic church does not seem to
accept predestination. my chaplain told me "beware of greeks bearing
gifts" with reference to this doctrine: it seems to have the curious
result that human beings are not held responsible for their own
actions! i'll answer how you deal with this in a minute.
right. that doesn't really seem like predestination to me, but i'll
continue with what you're saying....
this is really confusing to me, especially since i still believe that
christ jesus died for ALL of us. preknowledge of obstinacy seems
like an awfully convoluted way to account for a couple of verses. but
then, i am not really biblically supported in this opinion -- or am i?
others?
so God uses grace like margarine: he only spreads it where it's needed
and not where it isn't? and so there are the saved and the not-saved,
and nothing in between. hmmmm.
although i realize this doctrine was not originally intended to cause
social problems, it ends up doing just that -- if there is supposed to
be some sort of "sign" that someone is elect, like lots of children or
success at work, then those who have a good life on earth will go
around thinking that those who don't are doomed to hell.
in a way, though, this sounds like the opposite idea -- those doomed
to hell will have a great life on earth. that's almost like the
converse of what i believe -- responsibility for what we do now will
be punished after we die. you're saying what we get after we die has
a direct bearing on how we live now? strange....
so sin is either punished now or later -- and not both? what if it's
sort of half-punished? are there any grey areas in this doctrine?
[my stuff deleted]
>We should stop the slaughter of the innocent (cf Proverbs 24.11-12), but
>does that mean that Christians should support a war in Bosnia with the
>U.S. or even the U.N. involved? I do not think so, but I am an
>isolationist, and disagree with foreign adventures in general. But in
>the case of Bosnia, I frankly see no excuse for us getting militarily
>involved, it would not be a "just war." "Blessed" after all, "are the
>peacemakers" was what Our Lord said, not the interventionists. Our
>actions in Bosnia must be for peace, and not for a war which is
>unrelated to anything to justify it for us.
the idea (well, my idea) would be that you would intervene to
establish peace and stop the atrocities. i'm not suggesting wwIII. i
don't really understand what you mean by a "just war". of course i am
not an isolationist, although i see some merit in not jumping in at
the first opportunity (can you say kuwait?). we happen to be a big
country with a lot of resources (as well as a lot of debt), and this
gives us some responsibility in the world, whether we like it or not.
flashbacks of wwII, as well as vietnam, should be haunting us.
yet another difference of opinion. so be it.
>Andy Byler
thank you for answering; i hope you don't take any of my comments as
flames, but instead as expressions of interest. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
|
| > Mary at that time appeared to a girl named Bernadette at
| > Lourdes. She referred to herself as the Immaculate Conception.
| > Since a nine year old would have no way of knowing about the
| > doctrine, the apparition was deemed to be true and it sealed
| > the case for the doctrine.
|Bernadette was 14 years old when she had her visions, in 1858,
|four years after the dogma had been officially proclaimed by the
|Pope.
|
| Yours,
| James Kiefer
I forgot exactly what her age was but I remember clearly
that she was born in a family of poverty and she did not
have any education, whatsoever, at the age of the apparitions.
She suffered from asthma at that age and she and her family were
living in a prison cell of some sort.
She had to ask the 'Lady' several times in her apparitions about
what her name was since her confessor priest asked her to do so.
For several instances, the priest did not get an answer since
Bernadette did not receive any. One time, after several apparitions
passed, The Lady finally said, "I am the Immaculate Conception".
So, Bernadette, was so happy and repeated these words over and
over in her mind so as not to forget it before she told the
priest who was asking. So, when she told the priest, the
priest was shocked and asked Bernadette, "Do you know what
you are talking about?". Bernadette did not know what exactly
it meant but she was just too happy to have the answer for
the priest. The priest continued with, "How did you remember
this if you do not know?". Bernadette answered honestly that
she had to repeat it over and over in her mind while on her
way to the priest...
The priest knew about the dogma being four years old then.
But Bernadette did not know and yet she had the answer which
the priest finally observed and took as proof of an authentic
personal revelation of Our Lady to Bernadette.
(Note: This Lady of Lourdes shrine has a spring of water which
our lady requested Bernadette to dig up herself with her
bare hands in front of pilgrims. At the start little
water flowed but after several years there is more water
flowing.)
-Marida
"...spreading God's words through actions..."
-Mother Teresa
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
: >
: > I think you're letting atheist mythology
: Great start. I realize immediately that you are not interested
: in discussion and are going to thump your babble at me. I would
: much prefer an answer from Ms Healy, who seems to have a
: reasonable and reasoned approach to things. Say, aren't you the
: creationist guy who made a lot of silly statements about
: evolution some time ago?
: Duh, gee, then we must be talking Christian mythology now. I
: was hoping to discuss something with a reasonable, logical
: person, but all you seem to have for your side is a repetition
: of the same boring mythology I've seen a thousand times before.
: I am deleting the rest of your remarks, unless I spot something
: that approaches an answer, because they are merely a repetition
: of some uninteresting doctrine or other and contain no thought
: at all.
: I have to congratulate you, though, Bill. You wouldn't
: know a logical argument if it bit you on the balls. Such
: a persistent lack of function in the face of repeated
: attempts to assist you in learning (which I have seen
: in this forum and others in the past) speaks of a talent
: that goes well beyond my own, meager abilities. I just don't
: seem to have that capacity for ignoring outside influences.
: Dean Kaflowitz
Dean,
Re-read your comments, do you think that merely characterizing an
argument is the same as refuting it? Do you think that ad hominum
attacks are sufficient to make any point other than you disapproval of
me? Do you have any contribution to make at all? | 0 | alt.atheism |
You mean Bobby Mozumder is a myth? We wondered about that.
You mean Bobby Mozumder didn't really post here? We wondered
about that, too.
So, Mr Conner. Is Bobby Mozumder a myth, a performing artist,
a real Moslem. a crackpot, a provocateur? You know everything
and read all minds: why don't you tell us? | 0 | alt.atheism |
CJF> agrino@enkidu.mic.cl (Andres Grino Brandt) asks about Mormons.
CJF> Although I don't personally know about independent sudies, I do know
CJF> a few things.
CJF> One of the more amusing things in the BOM is a claim that a
CJF> civilization existed in North America, aroun where the mystical plates
CJF> were found. Not only did it use steel and other metals, but it had
CJF> lots of wars (very OT). No one has ever found any metal swords or
CJF> and traces of a civilization other than the Native Americans.
I was talking to the head of the archeology dept. once in college and
the topic of Mormon archeology came up. It seems that the Mormon church
is (or was) big on giving grants to archeologists to prove that the
native Americans are really the lost tribe of Israel and other such
bunk. The archeologists would shake their head knowingly while listening
to them, take the grant, and go off to do real archeology anyway.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
However, to underestimate the power of religion creating historical
events is also a big misunderstanding. For instance, would the
30-year-old war have ever started if there were no fractions
between the Protestants and the Vatican?
Cheers,
Kent | 0 | alt.atheism |
Does anyone know of an English language edition that does not show the
verse (or even chapter) numbers. I have always thought that such an
edition would be very useful - although hard to navigate around.
I have a Scots NT that doesn't show verse numbers, and it is great to
read, particularly longer narrative passages, but my Scots isn't quite
up to doing proper study from this edition - I tend to use it to get a
"feel" for a story, particularly in the gospels, and then use an
English edition to look for details.
Alison | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Ultimately it rests with personal opinion...in my opinion. :-)
The question doesn't make sense to me. Maybe it would be better to ask,
"What makes a democracy better than [for example] a totalitarian
regim?" | 0 | alt.atheism |
Does anyone know about the Christian Embassy in Washington DC? What
exactly does it do?
Please respond to lisa@ux1.lbl.gov | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Hi Frank:
I've read it a couple of times and I think that it is excellent.
Christiandom has needed this book for some time now. I suggest that
*every* Christian read it.
According to Hank, they printed 15 times more than Harvest House
usually prints for the first printing, and it still sold out in
the first week. It is in it's second printing, and most Christian
book stores have waiting lists. You can order it directly from CRI
at 1-800-443-9797. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
From _Free Inquiry_, Winter 83/84, the following is an
introduction to the article "Joseph Smith and the Book of
Mormon", by George D. Smith. The introduction is written by
Paul Kurtz.
Mormonism -- the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
-- claims a worldwide membership 5.2 million. It is one of
the world's fastest growing religions, with as many as
200,000 new converst in 1982 alone. Because of the church's
aggressive missionary program, covering more than one
hundred countries, it is spreading even to third world
countries.
Mormonism is both puritanical in moral outlook and
evangelical in preachment. The church is run along strict
authoritarian lines. Led by a president, who allegedly
receives revelations directly form God, and a group of
twelve apostles who attempt to maintain orthodoxy in belief
and practice, the church is opposed to abortion,
pornography, sexual freedom, women's rights, and other, in
its view, immoral influences of secular society, and it
forbids the use of tobacco, alcohol, coffee, and tea.
Centered in Salt Lake City, the church is extremely wealthy
and politically powerful in Utal and many other western
states. Among well-know present-day Mormons are Ezra Taft
Benson (former secretary of agriculture), the Osmond family,
the Mariotts of the hotel empire, and a score of high-placed
government officials.
The Mormon church was founded in western New York in 1830 by
Joseph Smith who claimed that by divine revelation be had
found gold plates containing hieroglyphics buried on a hill
and that with the help of visits from the angel Moroni he
had been able to translate the writing into the _Book of
Mormon_, the basis of Mormon belief. This book, written "by
the commandment of God," claims that the ancient Hebrews
settled in America about 600 B.C.E. and were the ancestors
of the American Indians. Mormons believe that those who
have been baptized in the "true church" will be reunited
after death and that deceased non-Mormon family members can
be baptized by proxy and thus join their relatives in the
hereafter. Because of these beliefs, Mormons have been
considered outcasts by mainline Christian denominations and
as heretics by religious fundamentalists.
Joseph Smith was a controversial figure in his day -- he was
both worshiped as a saint and denounced as a fraud. Because
of persecution he led his band of loyal followers from
Palmyra, New York, westward to Ohio and then to Illinois,
where in 1844 he was shot to death by an agry mob. Brigham
Young, who reportedly had as many as eighty wives, took over
the leadership of the church and led the Mormons further
westward, to found the new Zion in Salt Lake City.
Following the teachings of Joseph Smith in the practice of
polygamy was perhaps the Mormons most controversial practice
in nineteenth-century America.
While other religions go back many centuries --
Muhammadanism, 1200 years; Christianity, 2000; and Judaism,
3000 -- and attempts to examine their beginnings are
difficult, extensive historical investigation of Mormon
roots is possible. Some Mormons are willing to examine this
history objectively, bu others maintain that such scrutiny
is dangerous to the faith.
In the following pages, _Free Inquiry_ presents two articles
about the Mormon church. First, George D. Smith, a lifelong
member of the church, provides a detailed critical
examination of Joseph Smith and his claim the the _Book of
Mormon_ was divinely revealed. Second, we present a portion
of an interview with philosopher Sterling McMurrin, also a
Mormon since birth, who questions the treatment of the
history of the church by Mormon authorities. -- Paul Kurtz
The article itself is super. | 0 | alt.atheism |
You should remember that in Adam's transgression, all men and women
sinned, as Paul wrote. All of humanity cooperativley reblled against
God in Adma's sin, thus, all are subject to it, and the sin is
transmitted from generation to generation.
Andy Byler] | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Edgar Pearlstein asks (Fri 7 May 1993) whether the Supreme Court, or
any other government authority, has attempted a legal definition of
religion.
The Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1958 exempted
from the draft those whose "religious training and belief" was
opposed to participation in war in any form. It defined "R T & B" as
"an individual's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving
duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but [not
including] essentially political, sociological, or philosophical
views or a merely personal moral code."
In the 1965 case of UNITED STATES V. SEEGER, the Supreme Court
broadened the definition so as not to restrict it to explicit
We have concluded that Congress, in using the expression "Supreme
Being" rather than the designation "God," .... the test of belief
"in a relation to a Superme Being" is whether a given belief that
is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its
possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God
of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption. Where such
beliefs have parallel positions in the lives of their respective
holders we cannot say that one is "in a relation to a Supreme
Being" and the other is not...."
My immediate reference is THE FIRST FREEDOM, by Nat Hentoff,
(Delacorte 1980, Dell 1981). | 15 | soc.religion.christian |