Datasets:

aihpi

/

20_newsgroups_demo

like 0

I know that "must" is a verb in some languages. I'm complaining about the assertion containing the word must.

alt.atheism

From: jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com There are many indications that would have taken place had Saddam been wanting or planning on going into Saudi Arabia. There were none. This has been openly stated by ex-Pentagon analysts. Pull. From: jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com Actually, reports from other mid-east countries showed that Hussein was ready to make concessions due to the sanctions. We just didn't want him to - we wanted to crush him, as well as battle-test all these high tech toys we've built over the years. From: jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com We're also hypocrites of the first magnitude. Obviously, we don't give a shit about freedom and democracy. All we care about is our oil. Oh, and the excuse, now that the Soviets are gone from the board, to keep a sizable military presence in the gulf region. Care to make bets about when ALL our troops will come home? Basically, Saddam was OK with us. He was a killer, who tortured his own people, used gas on them, and other horrors - he was a brutal dictator, but he was OUR brutal dictator. Once he said "fuck you" to the US, he became the next Hitler. The same for Noriega. He was a bastard, but he was OUR bastard...until he changed his mind and went his own way. Then we had to get rid of him. David Hunt - Graduate Slave | My mind is my own. | Towards both a Mechanical Engineering | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and Carnegie Mellon University | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>> | Jewish homeland! ====T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=========T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D===== Email: bluelobster+@cmu.edu Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"

alt.atheism

"CHRISTIANITY IN CRISIS" by: Hank Hanegraaff "Controversy for the sake of controversy is a sin. Controversy for the sake of truth is a divine command." -Dr. Walter Martin Dr. Walter Martin personally selected Hank Hanegraaff to succeed him as President of the Christian Research Institute -- the largest evangelical counter-cult organization in the world. In this skillful, careful treatment of an explosive subject, Hanegraaff documents and examines how the beliefs of the Word of Faith movement clearly compromises and confuse the essentials of the historic Christian faith. For the first time ever, this large and influential movement is legitimately labeled as cultic. In this book, Hanegraaff discusses such leaders of the Word of Faith movement as E.W. Kenyon and the Twelve Apostles of "another gospel" (Gal 1:6-9) (Kenneth E. Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Frederick K.C. Price, John Avanzini, Robert Tilton, Marilyn Hickey, Paul (David) Yonggi Cho, Charles Capps, Jerry Savelle, Morris Cerullo, and Paul and Jan Crouch). The book is now available through Harvest House Publishers and should be in most Christian Book Stores soon. You can order a hard-back copy through CRI for $14.99 by calling 1-800-443-9797 and avoid retail mark-ups. The Christian Research Journal, which is a quarterly publication by CRI has an article in it's most recent issue just released called, "What's Wrong With The Word Faith Movement?" This is a good article that will inform you of each of the teachers above, and tide you over until your book arrives. If you are interested in receiving the Journal yourself, you can order it from CRI at the number above for $14 a year. It is the best source of the most-accurate and well-researched info in Christiandom today.

soc.religion.christian

Though this will be addressed in the series of articles I'm posting now under "ARESNOKOITIA", I can't wait. This just really blew my socks off. Read I Tim 1: 3-11. Verses 3-8 speaks against those who have perverted the teachings of the Mosaic Law. In vv.9-10, we have, *IN ORDER*, the 5th thru the 9th commandments and in the midst of this listing is "homosexuals." The decalogue, above everything else, is seen as God's absolute. If you don't believe in absolutes, then you have nothing do do with Jehovah of the OT, which Paul reveals to be the Messiah of the NT. "Lord Christ Jesus" transliterates to read "Jehovah's Anointed Savior." In I Cor5, we see the same emphasis of moral separation from the pagan gentiles as we do in Lev 18-20. In I Cor 6:9-10, only one notation (drunkards) is not found in Lev 18-20. Paul was not naive in his use of the LXX. He knew full well how he was using the Law of God that was given in the OT, for application in the NT. As I've said, the Law was fulfilled, not done away with. This understanding is thoroughly rebutted in DeYoungs article that is being posted. Please refer to it. We can do better than "probably" which is not an adequate defense against the statement that Paul's culture didn't have the same understanding of homosexuality as ours. Again read the article because it uses facts. I think I do, because I have worked in the homosexual community by means of working with AIDs patients. The pastoral is merely the practical application of the theological truth however. Those who are working thru the issue of homosexuality need to have our love and understanding just as with a friend who is contiplating cheating on his wife or a friend who lives with his girlfriend, yet you continue to witness to him. But, once the choice is made, and there is no remorse, then I feel that Paul's "pastoral" care, as presented in the Corinthian Church, come to bear significance. THe one in active rebellion should be placed outside of the church if a believer, and if a non-believer, then one wipes his sandels and leaves it in Gods hand. If there was a member in your youth group who was constantly pawing at the little girls, you wouldn't hesitate to deal with the matter quickly and decisivly. That, in part, betrays the present "political correctness" of the issue. Pederasty is not accepted at the present, but some how we are to accept homosexuality because the latter is politically correct, while the former is not -at least not yet. THis is how the morals decay. I guess this would follow the liberal application in the political realm of economics. The liberals want to tax the rich in the federal, yet in their own states, when they try to get businesses to settle there, they give tax incentives to these same richies. It comes down to a moral code of relativeness, or to use the cultural thing, politically correct -at the moment. --Rex

soc.religion.christian

I'm sure there are many people who work with neural networks and read this newsgroup. Please tell Kevin what you've achieved, and what you expect. Indeed. I think dualism is a non-solution, or, as Dennett recently put it, a dead horse. Petri

alt.atheism

I'm sure you are not. After the "San Francisco" Earthquake a couple of years ago, there was a flurry of traffic on talk.religion.misc about how this was the result of the notorious homo- this that and t'other in the City. The fact that the Earthquake was actually down the road in Santa Cruz/Watsonville didn't seem to phase them any.

alt.atheism

: I heard about the arms sale to Saudi Arabia. Now, how is it such a grave : mistake to sell Saudi Arabia weapons? Or are you claiming that we shouldn't : sell any weapons to other countries? Straightforward answer please. Saudi Arabia is an oppressive regime that has been recently interfering in the politcs of newly renunified Yemen, including assasinations and border incursions. It is entirely possible that they will soon invade. Unluckily for Yemen it is not popular in the West as they managed to put aside political differences during reunification and thus the West has effectively lost one half (North?) as a client state.

alt.atheism

"This is your god" (from John Carpenter's "They Live," natch)

alt.atheism

What is your reaction to people who claim they were abducted by space aliens? Some of these people say, "I was abducted, experimented on, etc." If we insist that these aliens don't exist is the burden of proof placed on us. These people can give no hard facts but can give a lot of testimony to back up their beliefs. Replace <space aliens> with <elvis>, <big foot>, <blue unicorns>, and we have a larger percentage of the population than I like to think about.

alt.atheism

(Peter > > Simple logic arguments are folly. If you read the Bible you will see I can't. It seems Jesus used logic to make people using logic look like fools? No, that does not sound right, he maybe just told they were fools, and that's it, and people believed that... Hmm, does not sound reasonable either... I find it always very intriguing to see people stating that transcendental values can't be explained, and then in the next sentence they try to explain these unexplained values. Highly strange. Cheers, Kent

alt.atheism

I guess I would react rather strongly to this line of thinking carried out! When you think "your army" is stronger than "mine", you would "righteously" take my children and baptize them, doing what you know is really "best" for them. You cannot possibly put this kind of action, nor the crusades into the context of the teachings of Jesus/God. I think he advocated a different approach that was *by design* made to be appealing, to those called by him, not chosen by a church practice. It seems to me you have the cause and effect switched, the change comes and then you get baptized.

soc.religion.christian

"Liberate" is the way an invader describes an invasion, including, if I'm not mistaken, the Iraqi liberation of Kuwait. Never invaded Nicaragua? Only with more word games: can you say "send in the Marines?" Oh, good: word games. If you let the aggressor pick the words, there's scarcely ever been a reprehensible military action. That's a convenient technique, much seen on alt.atheism: define those who disagree with you according to a straw-man extreme that matches virtually nobody. Very noble and patriotic. I'm sure the fine young Americans who carpet-bombed Iraqi infantry positions from over the horizon, destroyed Iraq's sewer and water infrastructure from the safety of the sky or further, or who bulldozed other Iraqi infantry into their trenches [or more importantly the commanders who ordered them to] were just thrilled to be risking death (if not risking it by much) in the defense of the liberty of ... well, wealthy Kuwaitis. Can't have those oil-fields under a tyrant's heel if that tyrant is antagonistic to US interests... Having pigeon-holed "peace-niks" (in this context, "people who disagree with me about the conduct of the Gulf War") into "peace-at-all-cost-hitler-supporting-genocide-abetting-wimps", you can now express righteous indignation when "they" refuse to fit this mold and question the conduct of the war on legitimate terms. HOW DARE THEY! Yes, hypocrisy indeed! Those violent peace-niks! (Care to list an example here?) Wow: instant '80's nostalgia! [Of course, "peace-nik" itself is a '50's Cold War derogatory term equating those who promote pacifism with Godless Pinko Communists]. Yes indeed, I felt my freedoms mightily threatened by Iraq...

alt.atheism

I've heard that in California they ask you to swear without any mention of a god. What states actually include "god" in the courtroom oath?

alt.atheism

no its not. its due to the fact that there are two issues here: Religion and religion. religion is personal belief system. Religion is a memetic virus. people loudly proclaiming their beliefs are crossing the border from religion -> Religion. people that want to "save" others are firmly entrenched in Religion ("memoids"). rule #1 of not practicing Religion is to shut the fuck up, unless you discuss it politely. this means that the motive behind the conversation is not only your self-gratifying wish to spread the word. religion is something that ultimately comes from within a person, and reflects their value judgements. Religion is something that is contracted from others and does not reflect the persons value judgements (other than perhaps "i think i'll be brainwashed today"). Religion is a drug... i believe you can discuss religion. however, the post that started this off was not intented as discussion, it was more a proclamation of someones Religion.

alt.atheism

My sentiments exactly... which is why I'm unsubbing from this group. This is the 3rd 'christian' discussion list I have ever belonged to and once again I'm being chased away by the strife, anger, discontent, lies, et al . As Paul (Saul) said, 'I come to preach Christ, and Him crucified' Don't let the simple beauty of faith in God get overshadowed by heady theological discussions or thousands of lines of post-incarnation trappings of some church. As for the atheists/agnostics who read this list: if you aren't christian and if you have no intention of ever becoming one why on earth do you waste your time and mine by participating on a christian discussion list ? I will continue to search for christian discussion (prayerful, spirit-filled, kind, humble, patient, etc.) in other circles. -- Sheila Patterson, CIT CR-Technical Support Group 315 CCC - Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 (607) 255-5388

soc.religion.christian

(Peter White) writes You've missed on very important passage. 2 Thess. 1:6-10 For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed-- for our testimony to you was believed. Things to note from this passage. Unbelievers are both those who openly reject the gospel, and those who do not know God. The eternal destruction is the same as the eternal hope in 2:16. This distructions primarily emphasize that it is separation from the presence of God. THe context is speaking of the 2nd advent while 2:1 is speaking of the rapture. Don't confuse the two. Yet we have a far greater discription of hell that we do heaven. For instance, If this was like earthly fire that requires a gas producing substance to ignite. However, there seems to be a different type of fire as expressed in the burning bush that was not consumed. Also, the Daniel acct. shows that the laws of nature can be interupted even with earthly fire. Maybe you don't understand. There will be those who are alive at the end of the millenium, who will walk straight into the GWTJ. Even those who have died in their sin will be resurrected, i.e. reunited with their physical body, to receive condemnation. This is contrary to the teaching of Scripture. THis is conjecture at best if you are using it to support the "no physical body" thesis. The true awlfulness of hell, is that it is eternal separation from God, after having seen the glory of His presence at the GWTJ. But whether it was open rebellion against the revealed gospel of Christ or if it is not having known GOd (not saught Him as He is), then as Paul says, they are without excuss and that every mouth will be stopped. There will be no defense at the judgment seat of God. THerefore we understand "it is appointed unto man once to die, and then comes judgment" literally. just because it is horrific, doesn't make it less of a reality. it should compel those of us who have the riches of Christ to share it with others

soc.religion.christian

-= PASTORTALK =- A weekly dialogue with a local pastor on the news of the day by Carl (Gene) Wilkes Startext: MC344578 CompuServe: 70423,600 Internet: 70423.600@compuserve.com -= THIS WEEK'S THOUGHTS =- Last week the Supreme Court refused without comment to hear an appeal by Rensselaer, IN, school officials desiring the distribution of Bibles in their public schools (REL65, 5/21). A lower court had banned the local Gideons, an international Bible- distribution group, from passing out Bibles to fifth-graders. The ACLU's Barry Lynn was quoted as saying that the court's action protected the "religious neutrality of our public schools." He also said that schools must serve students of "all faiths and none." Schools were not to be a "bazaar where rival religious groups compete for converts," according to Lynn. Several Gideons, men who are responsible for putting Bibles in hospitals and hotels, are members of our church. They tell of similar stories where they are only allowed to distribute Bibles on sidewalks around the schools, but cannot go inside the schools. They tell of mild harassment by parents who do not want their children receiving a Bible from a stranger. They are willing to continue their work at a distance, but find the school's position somewhat disheartening. I understand rationally and logically the court's position. And, I can see the sense of fairness for all groups. But, on the other hand, when does "neutrality" become "nihilism?" When does plurality turn into no position at all? I see a couple of ironies here. One is that we can pass out condoms but not Bibles in our schools. Think on that one for a moment. The other is that while we are seeking "religious neutrality" in our schools, countries like Russia--who, by the way, practiced "religious neutrality" for the past seventy years--are making the Bible part of their public school curriculum. When I was in St. Petersburg in March, the church we worked with had trained over 100 public school teachers to teach the Bible, and the government had requested hundreds more! I recently heard a medical doctor who is president of the Gideon chapter in Moscow tell how they are eagerly invited to the University of Moscow to distribute Bibles to the students and are given class time to explain its contents. I remember seeing a photograph of this doctor holding a Bible and speaking to the university students standing under a statue of Lenin. Now, that's ironic! I admit two things: 1) We are a pluralistic society, and all faiths have equal footing. This is what our country was founded on. 2) To allow every group on school grounds could create a bazaar-like atmosphere. Each city must work to be inclusive of all religions and provide a hearing for them. 3)--I know I said two--The vitality of religious faith is not dependent upon whether or not the public arena acknowledges it as valid. However--and you knew this was coming--I believe, disallowing the distribution of the Bible by law-abiding, caring adults in our schools only signals once again our culture's movement away from a singular base from which we as individuals and as a nation can make moral and ethical decisions. What do you think? -= MAIL BOX =- (Let me know if you do not want me to print your letter or your name.) Good column [re: TIME coverstory about teen sexuality]; I agree with moral education from home, but some homes don't have the kinds of morals I want taught. One family I worked with smoked dope as their primary family activity. Another acted like incest was OK. Families, no matter where they are, are often a lot sicker than we'd like to believe. From: John Hightower, MC 407602 John, I agree that the "home" ain't what it used to be, and some homes are NOT the place to learn value-based sexuality. I still believe that this is where the church can come into play. I know, those families you speak of may not come to a church to seek information, but the help does not need to be in a church building...I believe that the youth from the families you mentioned will probably disregard the value-free information at school, too.

soc.religion.christian

Prove it. I am an atheist. It doesn't mean I am for or against abortion. An obvious effect of homosexuality is non-procreation. That, unlike your statement, is a fact. Please prove that (a) homosexuality is defended as means of population control, (b) being atheist causes you to hold these beliefs. I defend homosexuality because (a) what people do with their bodies is none of my business (b) I defend the equal rights of all humans. Do you? Define values. Prove your statement. Prove your statement. Electrons are waves. Electrons are particles. I believe in both. I have physical proof of both. I have no proof of god(tm) only an ancient book. That is not indicative of the existence of a being with omnipotence or omnipresence. And, by your own argument, christians don't exist. First of all, your earlier statements have absolutely nothing to do with your question. Why did you post them? To show that athiests, besides not existing (your view), are more humane than christians/other religions? Secondly I am very much for the control of population growth. The logic that you cannot grasp indicates ignorance of contraception. But of course, this is 'outlawed' (sometimes literally) by religion since if it can't create more followers, it will die. I

alt.atheism

speaking of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin: Yes. For examples of this in the writings of the early fathers, consider: You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others; For there is no blemish in you, nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? -- St. Ephrem the Syrian, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8, around A.D. 370 Lift me up not from Sara but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin. -- St. Ambrose, "Commentary on Psalm 118", 22:30, ca. A.D. 388 There are many others. No. We have, for instance: Was there ever anyone of any breeding who dared to speak the name of Holy Mary, and being questioned, did not immediately add, "the Virgin"? ... And to Holy Mary, Virgin is invariably added, for that Holy Woman remains undefiled. -- St. Epiphanus of Salamis, "Panacea against all heresies", between A.D. 374-377. We surely cannot deny that you were right in correcting the doctrine about children of Mary ... For the Lord Jesus would not have chosen to be born of a virgin if He had judged that she would be so incontinent as to taint the birthplace of the Body of the Lord, home of the Eternal King, with the seed of human intercourse. Anyone who proposes this is merely proposing ... that Christ could not be born of a virgin. -- Pope St. Siricius, Letter to Anysius, Bishop of Thessalonica, A.D. 392 Note that St. Augustine's conversion to Christianity was in A.D. 387. I don't know offhand when his election as bishop of Hippo was, but I'm quite sure it was after 392. The belief in Mary's perpetual virginity originated long before Augustine's time. We hold that it originated with the Apostles. Strictly speaking, however, Mary's perpetual virginity is independent of her Immaculate Conception. Mary could have been Immaculately Conceived and not remained a virgin; she could have remained a virgin and not been Immaculately Conceived. No. It has been held in the Church since ancient times that original sin was transmitted at conception, when a person's life begins. Biology had nothing to do with it. Prayerfully reflecting on the truth of Mary's sinlessness, and the means by which God could have achieved this, the Church arrived at the truth of the Immaculate Conception. Thus, the Immaculate Conception is not a new doctrine, but the logical result of our understanding of two old ones. The celebration of the Feast of the Immaculate Conception itself was given by Pope Sixtus IV (1471-84) and the Feast was made a precept feast of the Church by Pope Clement XI (1700-21). No. First of all, Lourdes is private revelation, and doctrine is not based on private revelation. The most that private revelation can do is enhance and deepen our understanding of existing public revelation, which ended with the death of St. John the Apostle. Second, the "case for the doctrine" was irreformably sealed in 1854 with the ex cathedra promulgation of the Bull "Ineffabilis Deus" by Pope Pius IX. This meant that the doctrine was formally recognized as a dogma; a dogma, by definition, cannot change and is required to be believed by the faithful. The apparition at Lourdes happened in 1858, four years later. The most that might be claimed is that Lourdes gave the infallible proclamation of 1854 a sort of heavenly stamp of approval, but the Church has never claimed that, nor shall she. In Christ's Peace, Brad Kaiser (bradk@isdgsm.eurpd.csg.mot.com)

soc.religion.christian

jsn104 is jeremy scott noonan

alt.atheism

Now where did I put my little red book? Or was that green? Jim

alt.atheism

What about the land mines which have already been mentioned? Oh, very neat. Dismiss everything I say unless I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt something which you yourself admit I can never prove to your satisfaction. Thanks, I'll stick to squaring circles.

alt.atheism

I would like to see his reasoning behind this. You may have gotten "burned" by natural disaster prophecies down there, but that does not mean that every natural disaster/judgement prophecy is false. Take a quick look at the book of Jeremiah and it is obvious that judgement prophecies can be valid. here in the US, it seems like we might have more of a problem with positive prophecies, though I am sure there may be a few people who are too into judgement. Sometimes God does give words that are difficult to swallow. The relative positiveness of a prophecy is not necesarily grounds to dismiss it. Much of the OT is not happy stuff.

soc.religion.christian

If that's the ONLY reason, I'd be inclined to doubt whether or not what they profess is Christianity. The relationship of faith is based upon trust. Fear and trust are generally incompatible. If my only motivation is fear, is there room for trust? If so, there's room for faith. If fear precludes trust, then there can't be faith. Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com) --

soc.religion.christian

CALL FOR VOTES This is the official 2nd Call For Votes for this newsgroup. NAME OF PROPOSED NEWSGROUP: ========================== soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya CHARTER: ======= A religious newsgroup, which would mainly be devoted to fostering an understanding and appraisal of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, its beliefs, ideology and philosophy. It will also discuss the distinction between Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and other branches of Islam. In addition this newsgroup will also discuss the beliefs, teachings, and philosophy of all the other major religions to pro- mote universal religious appreciation, awareness, and tolerance. The newsgroup may also be used to post important religious events within the world wide Ahmadiyya Islamic Community. VOTING INSTRUCTIONS: ==================== Voting is being held since the first call for votes appeared (May 4, 1993), and will continue untill May 25, 1993 (23:59:59 GMT) All votes should be received within this period. It gives a total of 21 days for all to vote. All votes in _favor_ of creation of the proposed newsgroup should be sent in a form of a e-mail message to: SRIA-YES@UCSU.COLORADO.EDU with a clear statement in the body of the message like: I vote YES for soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya I vote in favor of s.r.i.a. etc. Similarly all votes _against_ the proposed newsgroup should be sent in a form of a e-mail message to: SRIA-NO@UCSU.COLORADO.EDU with a clear statement in the body of the message like: I vote NO for soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya I vote against the creation of s.r.i.a. etc. * You may also include your vote in the SUBJECT header of your mail. * Please make sure to include your FULL NAME, if your mailer does not do that for you. * One person may only vote ONCE. No matter how many e-mail accounts s/he has. Only one vote per person shall be considered valid. * Any ambiguous votes like "I vote YES for S.R.I.A., if ...." shall only be considered comments and would NOT be counted as votes. * Votes received _after_ 23:59:59 GMT, on May 25, 1993, will not be valid and not counted. * In the event of multiple votes being received from the same person, only the last one will be counted. If you change your mind regarding the way you have voted, send your new vote again, your previous vote shall be discarded. * Posting to USENET will NOT be counted a vote. * Please DO NOT send any votes to the e-mail address of the per- son who has posted this CVF. Those votes shall not be counted either. NOTE: An acknowledgement shall be sent to everyone who votes.Two additional CFV's will be posted during the course of the vote. Number(s) of "YES" or "NO" votes will not be disclosed during the the voting period, at the end of which all votes shall be made public. PURPOSE OF THE NEWSGROUP: ======================== The following are the main purposes this group shall achieve: i) To highlight the common beliefs of all major religions and philosophical traditions as they relate to Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. ii) To discuss the doctrines, origin and teachings the Ahmad- iyya Muslim Community, a dynamic world-wide movement. iii) To expound Islamic teachings and beliefs in the Holy Quran and Islamic traditions from the Ahmadiyya Islamic perspective. iv) To emphasize and discuss the similarities between Ahmadi Muslims and followers of other religions of the world and to explore how understanding and respect for each other's faith can be brought about to eliminate religious intol- erance and malice among people of all religious and phil- osophical traditions. v) To look into the origin and teachings of all religions in general and of Islam and Ahmadiyya Muslim Movement in par- ticular, and to use the commonality of origin to foster better understanding among Ahmadi Muslims and other people and to promote an acceptance of universality of fundamental rights to the freedom of conscience. vi) To point out current world problems and suggest solutions to these problems, as offered by different religions and systems of ethical philosophies. vii) To investigate the implications of science on religion with particular emphasis on the Ahmadi Muslim perspective, but with openness to dialogue with people of all religions and philosophical traditions with reasoned positions as to the relationship between religion and empirical science, logic, and scientific ethics. viii) To exchange important news and views about the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and of other religions. ix) To add diversity to the existing religious newsgroups pre- sent on Usenet in the interest of promoting a forum for decorous dialogue. x) To inquire why religious persecution is on the rise in the world and suggest solutions to remedy the ever deterior- ating situation in the world in general and in the Islamic world in particular. xi) To commemorate the contributions to humanity, society and world peace made by the founders and followers of all religions in general and by the International Ahmadiyya Muslim community in particular. TYPE: ==== The group will be MODERATED for orderly and free religious dialo- gue. The moderation will NOT prevent disagreement, dissent, or controversy based on a difference of beliefs or doctrine; rather, the moderators will seek mainly to discourage gratuitously deroga- tory, abusive, or squalid language, and the introduction of issues which are irrelevant based on the provisions of this charter. The moderators have been chosen through personal e-mail and through a general consensus among the proponents by discussion in news.groups. The following moderators have been proposed and agreed upon: Moderator: Nabeel A. Rana <rana@rintintin.colorado.edu> Co-Moderator: Dr. Tahir Ijaz <ijaz@ccu.umanitoba.ca> A BRIEF DESCRIPTION ABOUT AHMADIYYA ISLAM: =============================================== The Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam, an international organi- sation, was found in 1889 in Qadian, India. The founder of this movement, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908), was proclaimed to be the Promised Reformer of this age as foretold in the Scriptures of almost all major religions of the world. He claimed to be the fulfillment of the long awaited second comming of Jesus Christ (metaphorically), the Muslim Mahdi, and the Promised Messiah. The claims of Hazrat Ahmad raised storms of hostility and extreme opposition, which are often witnessed in the history of divine reformers. Even today this sect is being persecuted especial- ly in some of the Muslim regimes. The right of Ahmadi Muslims to openly practice their religion and to define themselves as Muslims has been severely restricted in many Muslim Countries. The United Nations, human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and top leaderships of some countries have voiced their concerns against this denial of basic human and civil liberaties to the members of this movement, but so far to no avail. Despite the opposition and persecution, the movement cont- inues to grow with a current membership of millions from around the world in over 130 countries, who come from diverse ethnic and cul- tural backgrounds. The movement is devoted to world peace and strives towards developing a better understanding of all religions. Ahmadi Muslims have always been opposed to all forms of violence, bigotry, reli- gious intolerance and fundamentalism. Among its many philanthropic activities, the sect has es- tablished a network of hundreds of schools, hospitals, and clinics in many third world countries. These institutions are staffed by volunteer professionals and are fully financed by the movement's internal resources. The movement stresses the importance of educa- tion and leadership. Its members have included a high number of professionals as well as world class individuals. The Ahmadiyya mission is to bring about a universal moral reform, establish peace and justice, and to unite mankind under one universal brotherhood. NEWSGROUP CREATION: ================== The discussion for this proposed newsgroup has now offi- cially ended. Voting will be held for three weeks. If the news- group gets 2/3rd majority AND 100 more "YES/Create" votes than "NO/don't create" votes; the newsgroup shall be created. ABOUT THE VOTE-TAKER: ==================== Mr. Anthony Lest has been asked by the proponents of this newsgroup to act as an official impartial vote-taker for the proposed newsgroup. He has no objection to use his workstation for the purpose of vote-taking. Neither the University of Colora- do, nor Anthony Lest has anything to do with the proposal of the newsgroup. They are just collecting the votes as a neutral third party. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS: ===================== Any questions or comments about the proposed newsgroup may be sent to: Nabeel A. Rana <rana@rintintin.colorado.edu>

soc.religion.christian

Of course not. I would think that would be great _fun_, not having ever felt the joy and peace the Christians speak of with a longing gaze. This is not what I got when I believed - I just tried to hide my fear of getting punished for something I never was sure of. The Bible is hopelessly confusing for someone who wants to know for sure. God did not answer. In the end, I found I had been following a mass delusion, a lie. I can't believe in a being who refuses to give a slightest hint of her existence. I suggest they should honestly reconsider the reasons why they believe and analyse their position. In fact, it is amusing to note in this context that many fundamentalist publications tell us exactly the opposite - one should not examine one's belief critically. I'll tell you something I left out of my 'testimony' I posted to this group two months ago. A day after I finally found out my faith is over, I decided to try just one more time. The same cycle of emotional responses fired once again, but this time the delusion lasted only a couple of hours. I told my friend in a phone that it really works, thank god, just to think about it again when I hung up. I had to admit that I had lied, and fallen prey to the same illusion. I used to believe what I read in books when I was younger, or what other people told me, but I grew more and more skeptical the more I read. I learned what it means to use _reason_. As a student of chemistry, I had to perform a qualitative analysis of a mixture of two organic compounds in the lab. I _hated_ experiments like this - they are old-fashioned and increase the student's workload considerably. Besides, I had to do it twice, since I failed in my first attempt. However, I think I'll never forget the lesson: No matter how strongly you believe the structure of the unknown is X, it may still be Y. It is _very_ tempting to jump into conclusions, take a leap of faith, assure oneself, ignore the data which is inconsistent. But it can still be wrong. I found out that I was, after all, using exactly the same mechanism to believe in god - mental self-assurance, suspension of fear, filtering of information. In other words, it was only me, no god playing any part. Oh? And I had better believe this? Dan, many UFO stories are much better documented than the resurrection of Jesus. The resurrection is documented quite haphazardly in the Bible - it seems the authors did not pay too much attention to which wild rumour to leave out. Besides, the ends of the gospels probably contain later additions and insertions; for instance, the end of Mark (16:9-20) is missing from many early texts, says my Bible. Jesus may have lived and died, but he was probably misunderstood. This is easy. I believe that the world exists independent of my mind, and that logic and reason can be used to interpret and analyse what I observe. Nothing else need to be taken on faith, I will go by the evidence. It makes no difference whether I believe George Washington existed or not. I assume that he did, considering the vast amount of evidence presented. A liar, how do you know what my attitude was? Try reading your Bible again. I was willing to die for my faith. Those who do are usually remembered as heroes, at least among those who believe. Dan, do you think I'm lying when I say I believed firmly for 15 years? It seems it is very difficult to admit that someone who has really believed does not do so anymore. But I can't go on lying to myself. Blind trust is dangerous, and I was just another blind led by the blind. But if god really wants me, she'll know what to do. I'm willing. I just don't know whether she exists - looking at the available evidence, it looks like she doesn't. Petri

alt.atheism

So when they took the time to *copy* *the* *text* correctly, that includes "obvious corruptions?" So when they took the time to *copy* *the* *text* correctly, that does not exclude "variant readings from the masoretic text" which are "of little theological import" Hey, you're the expert.

alt.atheism

[text deleted] [text deleted] Thank you very much Paul. I have always been impressed by the very human-ness of Mary. That God chose a woman, like me, to bring into this world the incarnation of Himself proves to me that this God is MY God. He reaches down from His perfection to touch me. Ah, the wonder of it all :-)

soc.religion.christian

I recently came across this article which I found interesting. I have posted it to hear what other people feel about the issue. I realise it is rather long (12 pages in Wordperfect) by may well be worth the read. Except for the first page (which I typed) the rest was scanned inusing Omnipage. Some of the f's have come out as t's and visa-versa. I have tried to correct as much as possible. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Peter Hammond is the founder of Frontline Fellowship, a missionary organisation witnessing to the communist countries in Southern Africa. He has also made several visits to many East European countries. FRONTLINE FELLOWSHIP NEWS ISSN 1018-144X PRAYING FOR JUSTICE (by Peter Hammond) To those involved in ministering to Christians suffering persecution the imprecatory Psalms are a tremendous source of comfort. And those of us who are fighting for the right to life of the preborn, or battling social evils such as pornography or crime, are beginning to appreciate what an important weapon God has entrusted to us in the imprecatory Psalms. THE IMPRECATORY PSALMS Early in my Christian walk I encountered the prayers for judgement in the Psalms and was quite at loss to know how to respond to them. Prayers such as: "Break the arm of the wicked and evil men; call him to account for his wickedness ..." Psalm 10:15 did not seem consistent with the gospel of love which I had accepted. Yet Psalm 10:15 was clearly motivated by love for God ("The Lord is King for ever and ever; the nation will perish from His land" 10:16, and "Why does the wicked man revile God? 10:13), and by love for the innocent who suffer ("You hear, O Lord, the desire of the afflicted; You encourage them, and You listen to their cry, defending the fatherless and oppressed, in order that man, who is of the earth, may terrify no more." 10:17-18) Nevertheless, I grew increasingly uncomfortable reading such graphic prayers for God to judge the wicked as: "Pour out your wrath on them; let Your fierce anger overtake them" 64:24; "O Lord, the God avenges, O God who avenges, shine forth. Rise up, O Judge of the earth, pay back to the proud what they deserve." 95:1-2; "Break the teeth in their mouths, O God; ...let them vanish like water .. let their arrows be blunted ... The righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked. Then men will way, "Surely the righteous still are rewarded; surely there is a God who judges the earth.'" 58:6-11 Certainly I wanted God to be honoured and yes I was deeply destressed by the prevalence of evil - but could I actually pray for God to "pour out His wrath" on the wicked? The scripture make it clear that these prayers are not to be prayed for own selfish motives, nor against our personal enemies. Rather they are to be prayed in Christ, for His glory and against His enemies. The psalmist describes the targets of these imprecation as: those who devise injustice in their heart and whose hands mete out violence (58:2) those who "boast of evil" and "are a disgrace in the eyes of God. Your tongue plots destruction, it is like a sharpened razor, and you who practise deceit. You love evil rather than good, falsehood rather than speaking the truth." 52:1-3; "They crush your people ... They slay the widow and the alien; they murder the fatherless." 94:5- 6; "With cunning they conspire against Your people; they plot against those You cherish." 83:3; "You hate all who do wrong. You destroy those who tell lies; bloodthirsty and deceitful men the Lord abhors." 5:5-6. To those unrepentant enemies of God the psalmist declares: "Surely God will bring you down to everlasting ruin" 52:5; "Surely God will crush the heads of His enemies ... of those who go on in their sins" 68:21. And the purpose of these prayers for justice is declared: "Then it will be known to the ends of the earth that God rules ..." 59:13; "to proclaim the powers of God" 68:34; "All kings will bow down to Him and all nations will serve Him " 72:11; "Who knows the power of Your anger? For Your wrath is as great as the fear that is due You. " 90:11 Yet despite the fact that 90 of the 150 Psalms include imprecations (prayers invoking God's righteous judgement upon the wicked) such prayers are rare in the average Western church. However, amongst the persecuted churches these prayers are much more common. PRAYING AGAINST THE PERSECUTORS Amidst the burnt out churches and devastation of Marxist Angola I found the survivors of communist persecution including the crippled and maimed, and widows and orphans praying for God to strike down the wicked and remove the persecutors of the Church. I was shocked - yet it was Biblical (Even the martyrs in heaven pray "How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?" Revelation 6:10). The initiator of the communist persecution in Angola was Agestino Neto. Described as a "drunken, psychotic, marxist poet", Neto had been installed by Cuban troops as the first dictator of Angola. He boasted that: "Within 20 years there won't be a Bible or a church left in Angola. I will have eradicated Christianity." Yet despite the vicious wave of church burning and massacres it is not Christianity that was eradicated in Angola but Agestino Neto. Neto died in mysterious circumstances on an operating table in Moscow. In Romania I learnt of a series of remarkable incidents recorded of God judging the persecutors of the Church in answer to prayer: * A communist official ordered a certain pastor to be arrested. the next day the official died of a heart attack. * Another communist party official ordered that all the Bibles in his district were to be collected and pulped, to be turned into toilet paper. This blasphemous project was in fact carried out. But the next day when the official was medically examined, he was informed that he had terminal cancer. He died shortly afterwards. * On another occasion, a communist official who had ordered a Baptist church to be demolished by bulldozers died in a car crash the very next day. * When an order was given to dismantle a place of worship on the mountainside in a forest, the workmen flatly refused to carry out the order. At gunpoint a group of conscripted gypsies also refused to touch the church. In desperation, the communist police forced prisoners at bayonet-point to dismantle the structure. Yet the officer in charge pleaded with the local Christians to pray for him, that God would not judge him. He emphasised that he had nothing against Christians and was only obeying strict orders. The building was in fact reconstructed later, and again used for worship. "They were all seized with Sear and the Name of the Lord Jesus was held in high honour... in this way the Word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power. " Acts 19:17,20 Nicolae Ceaucescu the dictator who ordered much of the persecution in Romania was overthrown by his own army and executed on Christmas day, 1989, to joyous shouts of "the antiChrist is dead" in the streets. Many testified that this was in answer to the fervent prayers of the long suffering people of Romania. Another persecutor of the Church who challenged God was Samora Machel, the first dictator of Marxist Mozambique. Samora Machel was a cannibal who ate human flesh in witchcraft ceremonies in the 1960's. He pledged his soul to Satan and vowed that he would destroy the Church and turn Mozambique into the first truly Marxist-Leninist state in Africa. Thousands of churches in Mozambique were closed confiscated, "nationalised" chained and padlocked, burnt down or boarded up. Missionaries were expelled, some being imprisoned first. Evangelism was forbidden. Bibles were ceremonially burnt and tens of thousands of Christians, including many pastors and elders, were shipped off to concentration camps - most were never seen again. A month before his sudden death Samora Machel cursed God publicly and challenged Him to prove His existence by striking him (Machel) dead. On 19 October 1986, while several churches were specifically praying for God to stop the persecution in Mozambique, Machel's Soviet Tupelov aircraft crashed in a violent thunderstorm. The plane crashed 200 metres within South Africa's boundary with Mozambique. Amidst the wreckage the marxist plans for overthrowing the government of Malawi were discovered and published. Not only had God judged a blasphemer and a persecutor, but He had also saved a country from persecution. In the months leading up to the first multi-party elections in Zambia many churches fasted and prayed tor God to remove the 27 year socialist dictatorship of Kenneth Kaunda. This was done on 31st October 1991 when Fredrick Chiluba (a man converted to Christ whilst imprisoned for opposing Kaunda) was elected president of Zambia and covenanted to make Zambia a Christian country. It is recorded in history that the wicked Mary, Queen of Scots, declared trembling and in tears: "I am more afraid of John Knox's prayers than of an army of ten thousand". On 3 April 1993 the Secretary General of the South African Communist Party Chris Hani was shot dead. From the unprecedented international wave of condolences and adulation reported one could be forgiven for assuming that this man was a saint and a martyr. Certainly it was not the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus which dominated the thoughts and headlines of South Africa this Easter, but the assassination of Chris Hani. The stunning hypocrisy of the situation is that 20 135 people were murdered in South Africa in 1992, yet more collective concern and anguish were reported over the death of the head of the SA Communist Party than for all the thousands of other victims. Indeed the SA government, the international community and the mass media have apparently had greater sorrow reported over this one death than for all the 50 000 South Africans murdered since 2nd February 1990 when the ANC, SACP and PAC were unbanned! Yet as a member of the ANC Revolutionary Council since 1973, Deputy Commander of Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) the ANC's "military wing" - from 1982, and Chief of Staff of MK from 1987, Chris Hani had approved and ordered bombings and assassinations of many unarmed civilians. As Jesus warned: "all who live by the sword will die by the sword " Matt 26:52. After personally confronting Hani about his terrorist activities at a press conference in Washington DC (where he publicly declared his support for Fidel Castro, Col. Gaddafi, Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein and defended the placing of car bombs and limpet mines in public places during "the struggle") I told him that I was a Christian and, while I didn't hate him, I did hate communism and I was praying for him - that God would either bring him to repentance and salvation in Christ, or that God would remove him. He responded by swearing and declaring that he was an atheist. Several other people also prayed that God would either bring Hani to repentance or remove him. Similarly several churches in America have begun to pray the imprecatory Psalms against unrepentant abortionists. In one town 8 abortionists were struck down, with heart attacks, strokes, car accidents and cancer, within months of these public prayers for God to stop these killers of preborn babies. Some praised God for His righteous acts of judgement and quoted: "When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous and terror to evildoers " Proverbs 21:15. Others were shocked that any Christian could express satisfaction at the misfortune of any - even of the blatantly wicked. Yet the Apostles prayed imprecatory prayers (Acts 13:8-12; Galatians 1:8-9; 2 Tim 4:14-15) and so did our Lord (Matt 11:20-24). What then should our attitude towards the imprecatory Psalms be? Should we be praying the Psalms? To tackle these thorny issues I would like to present a short summary of an excellent book, "War Psalms of the Prince of Peace - Lessons From The Imprecatory Psalms" by James E Adams, (published by the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company): Our Lord Jesus Christ & His apostles used the Psalms constantly in teaching men to know God. The New Testament (NT) quotes the Old Testament (OT) over 283 times. 41% of all OT quotes in the NT are from the Psalms. Christ Himself alluded to the Psalms over 50 times. The Psalms are the Prayer Book of the Bible. 1. Are the imprecatory Psalms the oracles of God? Some Christian commentators & theologians reject these Psalms as "devilish", "diabolical ", "unsuited to the church", and "Not God 's pronouncements of His wrath on the wicked; but the prayers of a man for vengeance on his enemies, just the opposite of Jesus' teaching that we should love our enemies. " Yet 2 Tim 3:16-17 declares: "All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. " (see also 2 Peter 3:15-16). The fact that something in the Word of God is beyond our comprehension is not grounds to denying or even questioning its inspiration. To make ourselves the judge of what is good or evil is to impudently take the place of God. Do we imagine ourselves to be holier than God? Wrong ideas of God have led many to become "evangelic plastic surgeons who have made it their job to "clean up" God's Word according to their own ideas of what is proper. They have forgotten that it is God alone who must determine what Christianity is and what is suitable for His Church. The essence of what many have done is to question the authority of God's Word (like Eve's original sin of listening to Satan's question "Yes, hath God said... ?"). The Psalms are part of God's revelation of Himself and His attributes, and they are reaffirmed by the NT as the authoritative Word of God. Those imprecatory Psalms which these evangelical plastic surgeons reject as "unsuited" and "unworthy" for the Church are the very Psalms Christ used to testify about Himself (eg: Mark 12:36; Matt 22:43-44) and which the Apostles used as authoritative Scripture (eg: Acts 1:16-20; Acts 4:25; Heb 4:7). See also: 2 Samuel 23:1-2. CH Spurgeon said concerning the imprecatory Psalms, (especially Ps 109): "Truly this is one of the hard places of Scripture, a passage which the soul trembles to read, yet it is not ours to sit in judgement upon it, but to bow our ear to what the Lord would speak to us therein. " The rejection of any part of God's Word is a rejection of the giver of that Word, God Himself. 2. Who is praying these Psalms? Christ quoted the Psalms not merely as prophesy; He actually spoke the Psalms as His own words. The Psalms occupied an enormous place in the life of our Lord. He used it as His prayer book and song book - from the Synagogue to the festivals and at the Last Supper. On the cross Christ quoted from the Psalms - not as some ancient authority that He adapted for His own use, but as His very own words - the words of the Lord's Anointed - which as David's Son He truly was. "Father, into your hands I commit my Spirit" Ps 31:5 "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Ps 22:1 In His ministry Christ foretells what He will say as the Judge on the day of judgement, and He quotes the Psalms in doing so! Matt 7:23 "Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers'. " Ps 6:8 In Heb 10:5 the apostle attributes Ps 40:6-8 directly to Christ although nowhere in the Gospels is Christ recorded as having said these words. Similarly Hebrews 2 : 12 attributes Ps 22:22 directly to Christ despite there being no record of His having spoken these words while on earth. Clearly the apostles believed Christ is speaking in the Psalms. Christ came to establish His kingdom and to extend His mercy in all the earth. But let us never forget that Jesus will come again to execute Judgement on the wicked. David as the anointed king of the chosen people of God was a prototype of Jesus Christ. Acts 2:30: "being therefore a prophet, ... he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of Christ. " David was a witness to Christ in his office, in his lite, and in his words. The same words which David spoke, the future Messiah spoke through him. The prayers of David were prayed also by Christ. Or better Christ Himself prayed these Psalms through His forerunner David. The imprecatory Psalms are expressions of the infinite justice of God, of His indignation against wrong doing, and His compassion for the wronged. 3. But what about the Psalms of repentance? Christ is also the Lamb of God, the substitutionary sacrifice for our sins. Christ in the day of His crucifixion was charged with the sin of His people. He appropriated to Himself those debts for which He had made Himself responsible. Our Lord was the substitution for the sinner. He took the sinners place (Isaiah 53). "God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God. " 2 Cor 5:21 In history the Psalms, especially the imprecatory Psalms, have been understood to have been the prayers of Christ by: St Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, Tertullian, Luther and many others. All the Psalms are the voice of Christ. Christ is praying the imprecatory Psalms! All the Psalms are messianic. It is the Lord Jesus Christ who is praying these prayers of vengeance. It is only right for the righteous King of Peace to ask God to destroy His enemies. These prayers signal an alarm to all who are still enemies of King Jesus. His prayers will be answered! God's Word is revealed upon all who oppose Christ. Anyone who rejects God's way of forgiveness in the cross of Christ will bear the dreadful curses of God. He who prays Psalm 69:23-28 will one day make this prayer a reality when He declares to those on His left: "Depart from me you who are cursed into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. " Matt 25:41 All the enemies of the Lord need to hear these Psalms. *God's Kingdom is at War.* The powers of evil will tall and God alone will reign forever! "With justice He judges and makes war...out of His mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. He will rule them with an iron sceptre; He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty...King of Kings and Lord of Lords. " Rev 19 : 15 4. Are Jesus' prayers contradictory? What about Jesus' command to love our enemies and to bless those who curse us (Matt 5:44)? Christ is of course the loving and merciful Saviour who forgives sin; but He is also the awesome Judge who is coming in Judgement on those who disobey His Gospel. "God is just. He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled...This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with His powerful angels. He will punish those who do not obey the Gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of His power on the day He comes to be glorified in His holy people and to be marvelled at among au those who have believed. " 2 Thess 1:6-10 Jesus has power on earth to forgive sins, and He has power on earth to execute judgement upon His enemies. In the Psalms we see both the vengeance and the love ot God. Even in the N.T. & in the Gospels we see imprecations. "Woe to you,...hypocrites...blind guides...blind fools...full of greed and self indulgence...whitewashed tombs...you snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to Hell ? " Matt 23 In Matt 26:23-24 Christ quotes from Ps 69 and 109 to refer to His betrayal by Judas. We also need to acknowledge that Christ's prayers of blessing are not for all. In John 17:6-9 it is clear that Christ is only praying to the elect of God - those who have: "obeyed your Word"... "accepted" God's Word ... and have "believed ". (see Luke 10:8-16 - Those who reject the message of God's kingdom will be judged.) 5. May we pray the imprecatory Psalms? Martin Luther pointed out that when one prays: "Hallowed be Thy Name, Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done " then "he must put all the opposition to this in one pile and say: 'Curses, maledictions and disgrace upon every other name and every other kingdom. May they be ruined and torn apart and may all their schemes and wisdom and plans run aground' . " To pray tor the extension of God's kingdom is to solicit the destruction of all other kingdoms, eg: Dan 2:44: "The God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed ... it will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. " * Advance and victory for the Church means defeat and retreat for the kingdom of darkness. * There is a life & death struggle between two kingdoms. The Church cannot exclude hatred tor satan's kingdom from its love for God's kingdom. God's kingdom cannot come without satan's kingdom being destroyed. God's will cannot be done on earth without the destruction of evil. The glory of God demands the destruction of evil. Instead of being influenced by a sickly sentimentalism which insists upon the assumed, but really non-existent, rights of man - we should focus instead upon the rights of God. Note Psalm 83 where the Psalmist prays against those who "plot together" against God and His people: "Cover their faces with shame so that men will seek your Name O Lord... Do to them as You did to Midian, as you did to Sisera and Jabin at the river Kishon, who perished at Endor and became like refuse on the ground. " The story of Sisera in the book of Judges (Chapter 4 and 5) provides a vivid example of God's judgement on the wicked. Sisera "cruelly oppressed the Israelites for twenty years" and they "cried to the Lord for help" Judges 4:3. In response to those prayers: "The Lord routed Sisera and all his chariots and army by the sword, and Sisera abandoned his chariot and fled on foot... All the troops of Sisera fell by the sword; not a man was left. " Judges 4:15-16 The account then goes on to describe how Sisera escaped to the tent of Jael where she lulled him into a false sense of safety and then drove a tent peg through his temple with a hammer. The song of victory by Deborah and Barak celebrated the crushing of the head of Sisera in graphic detail (Judges 5:25-27). And it is this that Psalm 83 implores God to again do to His enemies.. "As you did to Sisera ..." 6. The blessings of obedience and the curse of disobedience The imprecatory Psalms are fully consistent with the Law of God: "If you do not carefully follow all the words of this Law, which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome Name - the Lord your God - the Lord will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants. He will bring upon you all the diseases of Egypt that you dreaded, and they will cling to you. The Lord will also bring on you every kind of sickness and disaster not recorded in this Book of the Law until you are destroyed...because you did not obey the Lord your God ... so it will please Him to ruin and destroy you. You will be uprooted from the land you are entering to possess. " Deuteronomy 28:58-63 The covenant God made with His people included curses for disobedience as well as blessings for obedience. Deuteronomy 27 records the formal giving and receiving of the covenant terms in an awesome account: "The Levites shall recite to all the people of Israel in a loud voice: "Cursed is the man who carves an image or casts an idol - a thing detestable to the Lord, the work of the craftsman's hands - and sets it up in secret. " Then all the people shall say, "Amen!" " "Cursed is the man who dishonours his father or his mother... "Cursed is the man who moves his neighbour's boundary stone... "Cursed is the man who leads the blind astray on the roads... "Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the alien, the fatherless or the widow... "Cursed is the man who kills his neighbour secretly... "Cursed is the man who accepts a bribe to kill an innocent person. "Cursed is the man who does not uphold the words of the Law by carrying them out. Then all the people shall say, "Amen!" " Deut 27:14-26 The New Testament confirms that the inevitable consequence of rejecting Christ is the curse. "If anyone does not love the Lord - a curse be on him. " 1 Corinthians 16:22 (See also: Romans 12:19-21; Hebrews 1:1-3; 3:7-12; 3:1519; 10:26- 31; 12:14-29.) 7. How can we preach these prayers? The Church of Jesus Christ is an army under orders. Scripture constitutes the official dispatch from the Commander- in-Chief. But we have a problem: those who are called to pass on those orders to others are refusing to do so. How then can we expect to be a united, effective army? Is it any wonder that the troops have lost sight of their commission to demolish the strongholds of the kingdom of darkness? If the Church does not hear the battle cries of her Captain, how will she follow Him onto the battlefield? Pastors are commissioned to pass on the orders of the Church's Commander, never withholding or changing His words. One whose job is to carry dispatches to troops in wartime would face certain and severe punishment if he dared to amend the general's orders. The pastor's charge is of greater importance than that of a courier in any earthly army. There's no place tor the dispatcher to decide he doesn't agree with his Commander's strategy. When Jesus Christ sent seventy-two disciples on a preaching mission, He told them to proclaim the coming of God's Kingdom (Lk 10:9) - that is, to announce that people must submit to God's rule in their lives. Jesus instructed them to pray for peace on any house they approach, assuring them that if anyone rejected it, the peace would return on the disciples (verse 5). But we must consider what He said they should do if their message were rejected - that is, if the hearers persisted in rebellion against God's rule - "But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its 'streets and say, 'Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near"' Luke 10:11. What would be the result of that denunciation? I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom [on which God sent fire from Heaven in judgement for its wickedness] than for that town (verse 12). Immediately Jesus added curses on Korazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum tor their rejection of His message (verses 13-15). He then explained to the disciples the great authority He had given them: "He who listens to you listens to Me; he who rejects you rejects Me; but he who rejects Me rejects him who sent Me " (verse 16). This is the fundamental basis tor calling down God's curses on anyone: his persistent rebellion against God's authority expressed in His Law and the ministry of His servants. We need to clearly and forcefully proclaim the war cries of the Prince of Peace. Only then will the Church awake from its lethargy and once again enter the battle. If we tail to pass on the battle cry then a lack of urgency and confusion in the ranks will be inevitable. Like Psalm 1 our preaching needs to clearly show the blessings of obedience and the curse of disobedience. The eternal truth is that God cannot be mocked. Whatever a man sows - that shall he reap (Galatians 6:7). The curses pronounced on disobedience in Deut 28:47-53 were fulfilled in detail in Samaria (2 Kings 6:2&29) and in Judea (AD 70). The wrath of God upon covenant breakers is real. The "I" of the Psalms is Jesus Christ. The "we" of the Psalms includes those of us in the Lord Jesus. The enemies are not our own, individually, but those of the Lord and of His Church. The Psalms are ot Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King. They record Christ's march in victory against the kingdom of darkness. As Christ is the author of the Psalms, so, too, is He the final fulfilment of the covenant on which they are based. God will answer the psalmist's prayers completely in Jesus Christ on the final day of judgment. While on earth Jesus foretold the day when He will say: "But those enemies of Mine who did not want Me to be King over them - bring them here and kill them in front of Me" Luke 19:27. A fatal end awaits everyone who refuses to acknowledge and to obey Jesus as King and Lord. Hearing expositions of these war psalms of the Prince of Peace will remind His people that God's kingdom is at war! The kingdom of darkness is being overcome by the kingdom of Jesus Christ, a war in which each local congregation of believers plays a vital part. You must rally your battalion to put on the whole armour of God, including "the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God " Eph 6:17. That battle- readiness also involves "pray(ing) in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests n Eph 6:18. Christ teaches His army to pray for the utter destruction of the enemies of God as the psalmist did: "Pour out Your wrath on the nations that do not acknowledge You, on the kingdoms that do not call on Your Name" Ps 79:6. To deal with the very real hurts and injustices in this world it is necessary for us to pray for God's justice. Those who are persecuted need the comfort of these prayers. "Let the saints rejoice in His honour and sing for joy...May the praise of God be in their mouths and a double-edged sword in their hands, to inflict vengeance on the nations and punishment on the peoples, to bind their kings with fetters, their nobles with shackles of iron, to carry out the sentences written against them. This is the glory of all His saints. Praise the Lord. " Ps 149:5-9 Prayer is, in fact, spiritual warfare. One weapon is prayer for conversion of spiritual enemies; another is prayer for judgement on those who finally refuse to be converted. We handicap the army of God when we refuse to use both of these great weapons that He has given us. It is at all times a part of the task of the people nf God to destroy evil. If you have been guilty of dulling your sword, by neglecting or undermining these psalms, repent of that sin, sharpen your sword anew, and go forth to do battle in the Name and for the Glory of Jesus - until "the knowledge of the Lord will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea" Hab 2:14. The full book "War Psalms of the Prince of Peace " is available, at R25, from Frontline Fellowship, PO Box 74 Newlands, 7725 RSA.

soc.religion.christian

The Catholic church has an entirely different view of Mary than do "most" other Christian churches (those with parallel beliefs notwithstanding). Christ, by most accounts, is the only sinless person to ever live. I too, have trouble with a sinless Mary concept just. As for the related issue of the "original" sin - only Adam and Eve will answer for that one. My children do not answer for my sins, certainly I only answer for mine.

soc.religion.christian

I think C.S. Lewis has argued that medieval people did not all think the world is flat. However, this argument goes both ways. Pretend someone telling Plato that it is highly probable that people do not really have souls; their minds and their consciousness are just something their brains make up, and their brains (their body) is actually ahead of their mind even in voluntarly actions. I don't think Plato would have been happy with this, and neither would Paul, although Paul's ideas were quite different. However, if you would _read_ what we discuss in this group, and not just preach, you would see that there currently is much evidence in favour of these statements. The same applies to the theory of natural selection, or other sacred cows of Christianity on our origins and human nature. I don't believe in spirits, devils or immortal souls any more than in gods. Ah, you said it. You believe what you want to. This is what I had assumed all along. You might be as well planting Satan's seeds, ever thought of this? Besides, you haven't yet explained why we must believe so blindly, without any guiding light at all (at least I haven't noticed it). I don't think this is at all fair play on god's part. Your argument sounds like a version of Pascal's Wager. Please read the FAQ, this fallacy is discussed there. And I failed to get help from the HS because I had a wrong attitude? Sorry, Dan, but I do not think this spirit exists. People who claim to have access to it just look badly deluded, not gifted. Petri

alt.atheism

[Frank's solution deleted.] If you have access to telnet, contact nyx.cs.du.edu. It's a public access Unix system, completly free, and all you need to for access is a verifiable form of ID (I think he requires a notarized copy of a picture, or a check, or some such).

alt.atheism

You will keep in perfect peace him whose mind is steadfast, because he trusts in you. Isaiah 26:3

soc.religion.christian

Damn. And I did so have my hopes up. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away, and sank Manhattan out at sea.

alt.atheism

The above article is a good short summary of traditional Christian teaching concerning the death of Mary. Also very good is "Re: Question about the Virgin Mary" by Micheal D. Walker. He tells the story very well. I would like to add that in the Eastern Orthodox Church we celebrate "The Dormition (or falling asleep) of the Theotokos (the mother of God)". The Icon for this day shows Mary lying on a bed surrounded by the Apostles who are weeping. Christ, in his resurrected glory, is there holding what seems to be a small child. This is, in fact, Mary's soul already with Christ in Heaven. The Assumption of Mary is one more confirmation for us as Christians that Christ did indeed conquer death. It forshadows the general resurrection on the last day. The disciples were not surprised to find Mary's body missing from the grave. She was the Mother of the Savior. She was the first of all Christians. She gave birth to the Word of God. If it were not for her we would not be saved. This is why we pray in the Orthodox Church, "Through the prayers of the Theotokos, Savior save us."

soc.religion.christian

existance. *************************************************************************** I just thought it necessary to help defend the point that Jesus existed. Guys: Jesus existed. If he didnt, then you have to say that Socrates didnt exist cuz he, like Jesus, has nothing from his hands that have survived. Only Plato and others record his existance. Many others record Jesus' existance, including the Babylonian Talmud. Sorry guys, the argument that Jesus may not have existed is a dead point now. He did. Whether he was God or whether there is a God is a completely different story, however. *****************************************************************************

alt.atheism

They must be theists in disguise. In any event, we don't _need_ to create religious parodies: just look at some actual religions which are absurd. And now . . . Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey.

alt.atheism

I can (and do) take religious writings as a metaphor for life. I do this with all sorts of fiction, from Beowolf to Deep Space Nine. The idea is to not limit yourself to one book, screen out the good stuff from what you read, and to remember that it is all just a story. You sound Buddist to me :^)

alt.atheism

My first and most important point is that regardless of how your recovery happened, I'm glad it did! On 10-May-93 in Re: How I got saved... NOW! The point that I'll try to make is that coincidences like this occur with a very high frequency. How many of us have been thinking of someone and had that person call? Much of the whole psychic phenomenon is easily explicable by this - one forgets the misses. Consider your astrological forcast in the newspaper. How many times have you said "That's me" vs "That's not me"? You'll remember the hits, but the misses will be much more frequent. On 10-May-93 in Re: How I got saved... And what if, instead if being healed, your affliction got much worse and you ended up paralyzed? Would you have attributed that to god as well? Or would that have been the work of satan? If you believe that would have been so, why ONLY good from god, and ONLY evil from satan? Couldn't the agony have come from god? Think about what he did to poor Job! David Hunt - Graduate Slave | My mind is my own. | Towards both a Mechanical Engineering | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and Carnegie Mellon University | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>> | Jewish homeland! ====T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=========T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D===== Email: bluelobster+@cmu.edu Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"

soc.religion.christian

In the part of the posting you have so helpfully deleted, I pointed out that they used the wording from the English Bill of Rights apparently *changing* what they understood by it, and I asked why then should we, two hundred years later, be bound by what Keith Allan Schneider *thinks* they understood by it. So one cannot say "a cruel fate"? Your prevarications are getting increasingly unconvincing, I think.

alt.atheism

In a post of 29 April (?), considering disasters as instances of the judgements of God in history, Andy Byler spoke of > the desire of the Jerusalem mob who crucified the Lord that > "His blood be upon us." Vera Noyes replied (02 May), > I will not comment here for fear of being heavily flamed. I invite them both (and other interested parties as well) to read my comments on this verse of Scripture. To obtain them, send the message GET CHOOSING BARABBAS to LISTSERV@ASUACAD.BITNET or to LISTSERV@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU. Putting it briefly, I think that the significance of the demands of the Jerusalem crowd has usually been greatly misunderstood, both by Christian and by anti-Christian readers. Yours, James Kiefer

soc.religion.christian

[....] Thanks Jon. I had forgotten about the 1912 and 1927 invasions (if I had ever learned of them. I mean I *really* forgot!) But I read the context as more recent, such as when the Sandinistas were expecting an "imminent" invasion from the U.S. which never happened. I stand corrected. Thanks. I remembered this one. This one and Bush's invasion were the two I mentioned above. Good ol' Teddy R.-- he knew how to get things done! Regards,

alt.atheism

I would not be too quick to say that they are almost certainly untrue. Even strong minded people may fall back on childhood indoctrination, grasp at straws, or do other strange things when faced with extreme suffering, not to mention physiological problems which may lead to diminished mental capacity. At the risk of restarting an old argument and accusations of appeal to authority I remind readers of what I posted a while back as a kind of obituary for the late atheist Dr. Albert Sabin. In an old interview rebroadcast on public radio just after his death he told about a time a few years before when he was stricken with a very serious illness. He admitted to having cried out to God while critically ill and on a respirator. As it turned out he recovered and lived several more years. After his recovery he attributed this to early indoctrination. Don't say it couldn't happen to you, or that it hasn't happened to others, even if you are one of the few people who have experienced things like this. People are different. I admire Dr. Sabin for admitting his human weakness in that instance. I would not think less of Asimov for similar weakness. Nevertheless I agree that these reports are unsubstantiated and may well be untrue. In any case they are not evidence for anything besides the power of early indoctrination and human frailty.

alt.atheism

way.qub.ac.uk writes (single angle brackets): ng There is no question of similarity in Jesus indication about John. The passage in Matthew is very direct. Where Luke (1:17) reports the angel Gabriel prophesying that John will go before Christ "in the power and spirit of Elias", In Matthew 11: 14, Jesus himself says of John, "And if you care to accept it, he himself is Elijah, who was to come". It is interesting that Jesus prepended the words, "If you care to accept it", as if to say that the implications of this truth, namely of rein- carnation, I will not force on you, but for those who can accept it, here it is. A Jewish poster to other newsgroups on Jewish esotericism and other topics has outlined the esoteric, cabbalistic Jewish teaching of of reincarnation and Karma, a teaching that is little known among Jews today, but which is apparently widespread enough in Israel that Hannah Hurnard ("Hinds Feet on High Places") was told about it by a Rabbi she was trying to convert back in the 1940s as a missionary in Palestine. Thus there may well have been a small number of Jews who knew about this, whereas the large number of people did not. The statement of Jesus about John, the greatest human personality in the New Testament, is guarded but nevertheless quite direct. Again, the subject of reincarnation, one way or another, is not a subject of the New Testament, nor is the fate in general of the human being between death and the last judgement. But there are occasional indications that point to it. As for the "popular belief" that Elijah would come again, it was more than a popular belief, as Jesus confirms it in more than one place, and he never corrected those who were expecting Elijah -- for example, those who thought that Jesus himself be he.

soc.religion.christian

Well, you were going well until you hit this one. Hawaii was an independent country. A coup by Americans led to a request to annex it. The US refused, but eventually did annex it several years later during the Spanish-American War. -- "On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Leftover Turkey! On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Turkey Casserole that she made from Leftover Turkey. [days 3-4 deleted] ... Flaming Turkey Wings! ... -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

alt.atheism

Once the Rushdie situation exploded into the media, the Muslim voice on the matter of the book was effectively restricted to short video bytes showing the dramatic highlights of Muslim demonstrations. For every twenty or so newspaper, magazine articles, interviews etc. supporting Rushdie, there would appear one Muslim voice. This person was usually selected based on how dramatic and incoherent he was, not on his knowledge of Islam or the situation at the time. This approx. twenty to one ratio continued throughout the escalation of the crisis, with Rushdie in the central spotlight as the man of the moment, the valiant defender of everyman's right to free speech decoupled from responsibility. (As an aside, it's interesting that while the hue and cry about freedom of speech went up, some books (defaming certain ethnic and religious groups) continued to be banned here. It was felt that they injured the sensibilities of these groups and presented a false image which could promote feelings of hate towards these groups. For Muslims this kind of double standard was annoying.) Rushdie saw this spotlight as a golden opportunity to lash out at "organized" Islam, and he did so with admirable verbal skill. The only kind of Islam which Rushdie finds palatable is what he calls a "secular" Islam - an Islam separated from it's Qur'an, it's Prophet, God, its legislation, and most importantly from any intrusion into any political arena. Fine - Rushdie made his views known - the Muslim's made their anger at his book known. The scale of the whole affair erupted into global proportions - it was, by this time, already a political situation - affecting governments as well as individuals. The situation was a serious one, with far-reaching political implications. At the centre of this turmoil was Rushdie, throwing fuel on the fire - engaged in a personal crusade that made him oblivious to any sense of caution. Now you may feel that the person in the centre of a worldwide storm such as this has no responsibility, has no reason to exercise restraint of any kind, has no obligation to perhaps step back momentarily out of the spotlight till matters calm down. Perhaps you even feel that he is justified in "boldly" defying the anger of all those who dare to take umbrage at his literary work, no matter what insult they find within it. Perhaps you see him as a kind of secular "heroic Knight",mounted on the his media steed, doing battle with the "dragon" of Islamic "fundamentalism". Well Khomeini saw him as a disingeneous author who grew up in a Muslim atmosphere, knew well what Muslim's hold dear, who wrote a book which mischievously uses certain literary conventions to slander, insult, and attack Islam and its most notable personalities - who, when faced with a situation that became a worldwide crisis, continued with his mischief in the world stage of the media - who, even after people were injured and killed because of the magnitude and emotion of the situation, continued his mischief, instead of having the good sense to desist. Khomeini saw the crisis as mischief making on a grand scale, mischief making that grew in scale as the scale of the crisis enlarged. The deaths of Muslims around the world and Rushdie's continued media mischief even after this, was the triggering factor that seemed to decide Khomeini on putting a stop to the mischief. The person at the centre of all these events was Rushdie - he was the source of the continuing mischief - all media support, government support was just that - support. The source was Rushdie (and his publishers, who were nothing short of ecstatic at the publicity and were very happy to see Rushdie constantly in the media). The Islamic rulings that deal with people who engage in this kind of grand-scale mischief making, was applied to Rushdie. I have made no attempts at justification, only at explanation. "Image" is the chief concern of Muslim 'apologists' for Islam and for Rushdie. If Muslims willingly relegated themselves to becoming a sub-culture within a larger secular culture, such that the secular principles and laws had precedence over the laws of Islam - then I have no doubt that Islam would then be thought to have a good "image" (Principally because it would by and large reflect the secular image). A "good image" usually means " be more like me". Your attempts at TOTALLY exonerating Rushdie reflect exactly the attitude that resulted in the polarization brought about by the crisis.

alt.atheism

[On secrecy in LDS ceremonies. --clh]

soc.religion.christian

What I mean is what I said. "What I want" does not automatically translate into "what I think is right." That is, it does not translate that way for me. If you reply that "I think it is ok to kill you because that is what I decided" then what that means is that for you "What I want" does translate into "what I think is right". It just doesn't translate that way for me.

alt.atheism

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [underlining mine/Quean Lutibelle] Yes, those who apply it hatefully would be better served if they if they could alter the Bible to reflect their views: Scene 1: A well in Samaria: Woman: But I have no husband. Jesus: Yo! Everybody! Listen up! Get your rocks ready! We'll have some good biblical fun. Here she is whispering to me that she doesn't have a husband, yet I know by my secret powers that she has had five of them! (You know how these Samaritans are! And worse, she's living with a guy now that she's not even married to. Now I believe in loving her, and if you'll just raise up those rocks like the bible allows and threaten her with a good stoning, she'll understand how much we hate the sin but love the sinner. We must keep our priorities strait, lest folks 2,000 years from now misunderstand me and believe I canceled all sin! Scene 2: Golgatha 2nd Thief: You got a raw deal, man. They didn't catch you doing anything wrong like they caught me. Bleeding Jesus: Now, son. Let me be real clear. You say you did something wrong, but are you repenting? I need to be absolutely certain cause if you repent, I have a nice room for you in heaven, but if you think you might go thieving again, I have to cancel your reservation. It is nice of you to have pity on me while I'm hanging here, but you must understand, this is all an act; I'm not really hurting. I'm God, you see. And the point of all this is to teach you to be perfect like me. If you think a simple kind remark to me in suffering is going to get you any favors, you'd better think twice! But if you will just REPENT, you will become a Fundelical in Good Standing. From all such Bad News, you have delivered us, Good God! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Quean Lutibelle/Louie

soc.religion.christian

#In article <1r3tqo$ook@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> # #>#>|>#>#Theism is strongly correlated with irrational belief in absolutes. Irrational #>#>|>#>#belief in absolutes is strongly correlated with fanatism. #># #>#(deletion) #># #>#>|Theism is correlated with fanaticism. I have neither said that all fanatism #>#>|is caused by theism nor that all theism leads to fanatism. The point is, #>#>|theism increases the chance of becoming a fanatic. One could of course #>#>|argue that would be fanatics tend towards theism (for example), but I just #>#>|have to loook at the times in history when theism was the dominant ideology #>#>|to invalidate that conclusion that that is the basic mechanism behind it. #>#> #>#>IMO, the influence of Stalin, or for that matter, Ayn Rand, invalidates your #>#>assumption that theism is the factor to be considered. #># #>#Bogus. I just said that theism is not the only factor for fanatism. #>#The point is that theism is *a* factor. #> #>That's your claim; now back it up. I consider your argument as useful #>as the following: Belief is strongly correlated with fanaticism. Therefore #>belief is *a* factor in fanaticism. True, and utterly useless. (Note, this #>is *any* belief, not belief in Gods) #> # #Tiring to say the least. I have backed it up, read the first statement. I have read it. Conspicuous by its absence is any evidence or point. # #The latter is the fallacy of the wrong analogy. Saying someone believes #something is hardly an information about the person at all. Saying someone #is a theist holds much more information. Further, the correlation between #theists and fanatism is higher than that between belief at all and fanatism #because of the special features of theistic belief. Truth by blatant assertion. Evidence? # # #>#>Gullibility, #>#>blind obedience to authority, lack of scepticism, and so on, are all more #>#>reliable indicators. And the really dangerous people - the sources of #>#>fanaticism - are often none of these things. They are cynical manipulators #>#>of the gullible, who know precisely what they are doing. #># #>#That's a claim you have to support. Please note that especially in the #>#field of theism, the leaders believe what they say. #> #>If you believe that, you're incredibly naive. #> # #You, Frank O'Dwyer, are living in a dream world. I wonder if there is any #base of discussion left after such a statement. As a matter of fact, I think #you are ignorant of human nature. Even when one starts with something one does #not believe, one gets easily fooled into actually believing what one says. # #To give you the benefit of the doubt, prove your statement. The onus of proof is on you, sunshine. What makes you think that theist leaders believe what they say? Especially when they say one thing and do another, or say one thing closely followed by its opposite? The practice is not restricted to theism, but it's there for anyone to see. It's almost an epidemic in this country. Just for instance, if it is harder for a camel to pass thru' the eye of a needle, why is the Catholic church such a wealthy land-owner? Why are there churches to the square inch in my country? # #>#>Now, *some* #>#>brands of theism, and more precisely *some* theists, do tend to fanaticism, #>#>I grant you. To tar all theists with this brush is bigotry, not a reasoned #>#>argument - and it reads to me like a warm-up for censorship and restriction #>#>of religious freedom. Ever read Animal Farm? #>#> #>#That's a straw man. And as usually in discussions with you one has to #>#repeat it: Read what I have written above: not every theism leads to #>#fanatism, and not all fanatism is caused by theism. The point is, #>#there is a correlation, and it comes from innate features of theism. #> #>No, some of it comes from features which *some* theism has in common #>with *some* fanaticism. Your last statement simply isn't implied by #>what you say before, because you're trying to sneak in "innate features #>of [all] theism". The word you're groping for is "some". #> # #Bogus again. Not all theism as is is fanatic. However, the rest already #gives backup for the statement about the correlation about fanatism and #theism. And further, the specialty of other theistic beliefs allows them #to switch to fanatism easily. It takes just a nifty improvement in the #theology. Truth by blatant assertion. # # #>#Gullibility, by the way, is one of them. #> #>No shit, Sherlock. So why not talk about gullibility instead of theism, #>since it seems a whole lot more relevant to the case you have, as opposed #>to the case you are trying to make? #> # #Because there is more about theism that the attraction to gullible people #causing the correlation. And the whole discussion started that way by the #statement that theism is meaningfully correlated to fanatism, which you #challenged. Indeed I did. As I recall, I asked for evidence. What is the correlation of which you speak? # # #>#And to say that I am going to forbid religion is another of your straw #>#men. Interesting that you have nothing better to offer. #> #>I said it reads like a warm up to that. That's because it's an irrational #>and bogus tirade, and has no other use than creating a nice Them/Us #>split in the minds of excitable people such as are to be found on either #>side of church walls. #> # #Blah blah blah. I am quite well aware that giving everyone their rights #protects me better from fanatics than the other way round. Of course, other people are always fanatics, never oneself. Your wish to slur all theists seems pretty fanatical to me. # #It is quite nice to see that you are actually implying a connection between #that argument and the rise of fanatism. So far, it is just another of your #assertions. So? You can do it. # # #>#>|>(2) Define "irrational belief". e.g., is it rational to believe that #>#>|> reason is always useful? #>#>|> #>#>| #>#>|Irrational belief is belief that is not based upon reason. The latter has #>#>|been discussed for a long time with Charley Wingate. One point is that #>#>|the beliefs violate reason often, and another that a process that does #>#>|not lend itself to rational analysis does not contain reliable information. #>#> #>#>Well, there is a glaring paradox here: an argument that reason is useful #>#>based on reason would be circular, and argument not based on reason would #>#>be irrational. Which is it? #>#> #>#That's bogus. Self reference is not circular. And since the evaluation of #>#usefulness is possible within rational systems, it is allowed. #> #>O.K., it's oval. It's still begging the question, however. And though #>that certainly is allowed, it's not rational. And you claiming to be #>rational and all. #> # #Another of your assertions. No proof, no evidence, just claims. Hey - I learned it from you. Did I do good? # # #>At the risk of repeating myself, and hearing "we had that before" [we #>didn't hear a _refutation_ before, so we're back. Deal with it] : #>you can't use reason to demonstrate that reason is useful. Someone #>who thinks reason is crap won't buy it, you see. #> # #That is unusually weak even for you. The latter implies that my proof #depends on their opinion. Somehow who does not accept that there are #triangles won't accept Pythagoras. Wow, that's an incredible insight. #I don't have to prove them wrong in their opinion. It is possible to #show that their systems leave out useful information respectively claims #unreliable or even absurd statements to be information. Totally circular, and totally useless. # #Their wish to believe makes them believe. Things are judges by their appeal, #and not by their information. It makes you feel good when you believe that #may be good for them, but it contains zillions of possible pitfalls. From #belief despite contrary evidence to the bogus proofs they attempt. Truth by blatant assertion. I've seen as many bogus proofs of the non-existence of gods as I have of their existence. # #Rational systems, by the way, does not mean that every data has to come from #logical analysis, the point is that the evaluation of the data does not #contradict logic. It easily follows that such a system does not allows to #evaluate if its rational in itself. Yes, it is possible to evaluate that #it is rational in a system that is not rational by the fallacies of that #system, but since the validity of the axioms is agreed upon, that has as #little impact as the possibility of a demon ala Descartes. This just doesn't parse, sorry. # #So far it just a matter of consistency. I use ratiional arguments to show #that my system is consistent or that theirs isn't. The evaluation of the Nor this. #predictions does not need rationality. It does not contradict, however. # # #>#Your argument is as silly as proving mathematical statements needs mathematics #>#and mathematics are therfore circular. #> #>Anybody else think Godel was silly? #> # #Stream of consciousness typing? What is that supposed to mean? # # #>#>The first part of the second statement contains no information, because #>#>you don't say what "the beliefs" are. If "the beliefs" are strong theism #>#>and/or strong atheism, then your statement is not in general true. The #>#>second part of your sentence is patently false - counterexample: an #>#>axiomatic datum does not lend itself to rational analysis, but is #>#>assumed to contain reliable information regardless of what process is #>#>used to obtain it. #>#> #># #>#I've been speaking of religious systems with contradictory definitions #>#of god here. #># #>#An axiomatic datum lends itself to rational analysis, what you say here #>#is a an often refuted fallacy. Have a look at the discussion of the #>#axiom of choice. And further, one can evaluate axioms in larger systems #>#out of which they are usually derived. "I exist" is derived, if you want #>#it that way. #># #>#Further, one can test the consistency and so on of a set of axioms. #># #>#what is it you are trying to say? #> #>That at some point, people always wind up saying "this datum is reliable" #>for no particular reason at all. Example: "I am not dreaming". #> # #Nope. There is evidence for it. The trick is that the choice of an axiomatic #basis of a system is difficult, because the possibilities are interwoven. #One therefore chooses that with the least assumptions or with assumptions #that are necessary to get information out of the system anyway. I'd like to see this alleged evidence. # #One does not need to define axioms in order to define an evaluation method #for usefulness, the foundation is laid by how one feels at all (that's not #how one feels about it). I see. You have no irrational beliefs. But then, fanatics never do, do they? # #>#>|Compared the evidence theists have for their claims to the strength of #>#>|their demands makes the whole thing not only irrational but antirational. #>#> #>#>I can't agree with this until you are specific - *which* theism? To #>#>say that all theism is necessarily antirational requires a proof which #>#>I suspect you do not have. #>#> #># #>#Using the traditonal definition of gods. Personal, supernatural entities #>#with objective effects on this world. Usually connected to morals and/or #>#the way the world works. #> #>IMO, any belief about such gods is necessarily irrational. That does #>not mean that people who hold them are in principle opposed to the exercise of #>intelligence. Some atheists are also scientists, for example. #> # #They don't use theism when doing science. Or it wouldn't be science. Please #note that subjective data lend themselves to a scientific treatment as well. #They just prohibit formulating them as objective statements. Ergo, nothing is objective. Fair enough. # # #>#>|The affinity to fanatism is easily seen. It has to be true because I believe #>#>|it is nothing more than a work hypothesis. However, the beliefs say they are #>#>|more than a work hypothesis. #>#> #>#>I don't understand this. Can you formalise your argument? #># #>#Person A believes system B becuase it sounds so nice. That does not make #>#B true, it is at best a work hypothesis. However, the content of B is that #>#it is true AND that it is more than a work hypothesis. Testing or evaluating #>#evidence for or against it therefore dismissed because B (already believed) #>#says it is wronG/ a waste of time/ not possible. Depending on the further #>#contents of B Amalekites/Idolaters/Protestants are to be killed, this can #>#have interesting effects. #> #>Peculiar definition of interesting, but sure. Now show that a belief #>in gods entails the further contents of which you speak. Why aren't my #>catholic neighbours out killing the protestants, for example? Maybe they #>don't believe in it. Maybe it's the conjunction of "B asserts B" and #>"jail/kill dissenters" that is important, and the belief in gods is #>entirely irrelevant. It certainly seems so to me, but then I have no #>axe to grind here. #> # #The example with your neighbours is a fallacy. That *your* neighbours don't #says little about others. And there were times when exactly that happened. Nope, it's not a fallacy. It just doesn't go to the correlation you wish to see. # #And tell me, when it is not irrelevant, why are such statements about #Amalekites and Idolaters in the Holy Books? Please note that one could #edit them out when they are not relevant anymore. Because gods don't err? #What does that say about that message? Excuse me - THE Holy Books? # #And how come we had theists saying genocides ordered by god are ok. A god #is the easiest way to excuse anything, and therefore highly attracting to #fanatics. Not to mention the effect interpretation by these fanatics can #have on the rest of the believers. Happens again and again and again. A god is neither the easiest way to excuse anything, nor the only way.

alt.atheism

Aside to the moderator: I won't quote any of it, but there are several errors in the article. Not things that are just differences of opinion, but the writer just plain has his facts confused. For example, Kip McKean was *asked* to come to the Lexington church by the leaders there. He brought no team. He actually had been in Charleston, IL up to that point. He had many friends, even leaders in Gainesville, telling him not to go, because people in the Northeast weren't "open" and he'd be wasting his time and talents. Really!! (This fact was a kind of "inside joke" at one point after the church in Boston took off so well... Not open, indeed!) ;-) I could take it on point by point, but I am not in a position to know one way or the other about some things in the article. I just wanted to point out that it contains misinformation. Mark

soc.religion.christian

bruce@liv.ac.uk (Bruce Stephens) suggests different levels of acceptance of homosexuality: I would add 4': our churches should accept homosexual orientation but hold all people to certain standards of sexual behavior. Promiscuity, abuse of power relationships, harrassment, compulsivity are equally out of place in the lives of homosexual as of heterosexual people. Of course, this would bring up the dread shibboleth of homosexual marriage, and we couldn't have that! :-)

soc.religion.christian

What atheists are you talking about? IMNSHO, Abortion is the womans choice. Homosexual sex is the choice of the people involved. War is sometimes necessary. This leaves capital punishment. I oppose capital punishemnt because mistakes can happen (yes this thread went around with no resolution recently). As far as poplulation control, I think contraception and education are the best courses of action. That's because you are again making the assumption that all Atheists have some specific mindset. Mistakes can happen Bill, and I could be the victim of such a mistake.

alt.atheism

#In article <1r0fpv$p11@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> # #(Deletion) #># Point: Morals are, in essence, personal opinions. Usually #>#(ideally) well-founded, motivated such, but nonetheless personal. The #>#fact that a real large lot of people agree on some moral question, #>#sometimes even for the same reason, does not make morals objective; it #>#makes humans somewhat alike in their opinions on that moral question, #>#which can be good for the evolution of a social species. #> #>And if a "real large lot" (nice phrase) of people agree that there is a #>football on a desk, I'm supposed to see a logical difference between the two? #>Perhaps you can explain the difference to me, since you seem to see it #>so clearly. #> #(rest deleted) # #That's a fallacy, and it is not the first time it is pointed out. It's not a fallacy - note the IF. IF a supermajority of disinterested people agree on a fundamantal value (we're not doing ethics YET Benedikt), then what is the difference between that and those people agreeing on a trivial observation? #For one, you have never given a set of morals people agree upon. Unlike #a football. Further, you conveniently ignore here that there are #many who would not agree on tghe morality of something. The analogy #does not hold. I have, however, given an example of a VALUE people agree on, and explained why. People will agree that their freedom is valuable. I have also stated that such a value is a necessary condition for doing objective ethics - the IF assertion above. And that is what I'm talking about, there isn't a point in talking about ethics if this can't be agreed. #One can expect sufficiently many people to agree on its being a football, #while YOU have to give the evidence that only vanishing number disagrees #with a set of morals YOU have to give. I'm not doing morals (ethics) if we can't get past values. As I say, the only cogent objection to my 'freedom' example is that maybe people aren't talking about the same thing when they answer that it is valuable. Maybe not, and I want to think about this some, especially the implications of its being true. #Further, the above is evidence, not proof. Proof would evolve out of testing #your theory of absolute morals against competing theories. Garbage. That's not proof either. #The above is one of the arguments you reiterate while you never answer #the objections. Evidence that you are a preacher. Name that fallacy.

alt.atheism

: > : Precisely my position. : As a newbie, I tried the point-by-point approach to debate with : these types. It wasted both my time and my lifespan. Ignoring : them is not an option, since they don't go away, and doing so : would leave one with large stretches of complete anonymity in this : group. Bob, I've posted here long enough to see your name a few times, but I can't recall any point by point approach to anything you've contributed. But I'm old (probably senile) and I may have just forgotten, if you could post an example of your invincible logic, it might jog my memory.

alt.atheism

Well here's how I prepared. I got one of those big beach umbrellas, some of those gel-pack ice things, a big Coleman cooler which I've loaded up with Miller Draft (so I like Miller Draft, so sue me), a new pair of New Balance sneakers, a Sony Watchman, and a couple of cartons of BonTon Cheddar Cheese Popcorn. I haven't decided what to wear yet. What does one wear to an eternal damnation?

alt.atheism

Why don't you cite the passages so that we can focus on some to discuss. Then, following Jesus, you can make fools of us and our "logic". Indeed, if you can justifiably make this assertion, you must be a genius in logic and making fools of us should be that much easier.

alt.atheism

: Ok, a few days back, the below-included message was posted stating: : : > I believe with everything in my heart that on May 3, 1993, the city of : >Portland, Oregon in the country of the United States of America will be hit : >with a catastrophic and disastrous earthquake... : : By now, we know that this did not come to pass.... : : ...I don't think it's particularly : glorifying to God to say things like "Well, I THINK the Lord is telling me...", : ..Such statements seem to me to be an attempt to get a spiritual thrill should : the guess happen to come true, without risking the guilt of false prophecy : should it fail to come to pass. I do not believe genuine prophecy was ever : like this. Comments? : I agree. People should not be misled to believe "thus sayeth the Lord" by innuendo or opinion or speculation. Speak directly. If the Lord has given you something to say, say it. But, before I declare "thus sayeth the Lord", I'd better know for certain without a shadow of a doubt that I am in the correct spiritual condition and relationship with the Lord to receive such a prophecy and be absolutely certain, again, without the tiniest shadow of a doubt that there is no possibility of my being misled by my own imaginations or by my hope of gaining recognition or of being misled by the wiles of the devil and his followers. Mistakes in this area are costly and dangerous. For me, my greatest fears in this area would be the following: 1--that the people would be misled 2--that people would lose respect for christianity 3--that true prophecy would be clouded by all the false prophecies 4--were God to call me to be a prophet and I were to misrepresent God's Word, my calling would be lost forever. God's Word would command the people never to listen to or fear my words as I would be a false prophet. My bridges would be burnt forever. Perhaps I could repent and be saved, but I could never again be a prophet of God. In the light of this, it is critical that we speak when the Lord says speak and that we be silent when the Lord says to be silent lest we deprive the world of God's Word and hide it under a bushel either by our inappropriate, cowardly silence or by our false statements. And because of this, it is critically important that we remain close to the Lord, in His Word, and in prayer, and filled with the Spirit of God so that we know the difference. In this day and age, sinners spout off their mouths left and right judging one another, claiming "rights" that are not theirs, denying rights that do indeed belong to others, demanding equal respect for all the "gods" of this world, and uttering every form of falseness that promises to make one feel good. It's time that we christians give an example of honesty that stands out in contrast against this backdrop of falsehood. When we say, "thus sayeth the Lord", it happens. When we pray, prayer is answered because we prayed right. When we say we're christians, we really mean it. Dan -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "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."

soc.religion.christian

Interesting idea. Regular televeision seems to do this sort of thing too with politically correct shows.

soc.religion.christian

> I would rather spend an eternity in Hell than be beside God in > Heaven knowing that even one man would spend his "eternal life" > being scorched for his wrongdoings.... Stephen, I suspect that when you and I use the word "Hell," we have different concepts in mind. When you encounter references to Heaven in terms of crowns and harps and golden streets, I trust that you do not suppose (or suspect Christians of supposing) that the golden streets are to be taken literally, still less that they are what the concept of Heaven is all about. Why then should you suppose that about the "fires" of Hell? Have you read the novel ATLAS SHRUGGED? Do you remember the last description of James Taggart, sitting on the floor beside the Ferris Persuader? This comes close to a description of what is meant by Hell in my circles. If the image of fire is often used in this connection, there are two reasons that occur to me. The first reason is that it conveys the idea of Hell as something that any rational being would earnestly wish to avoid (as any rational being would wish to avoid the fate of James Taggart -- but the latter image is meaningful only to those who have read ATLAS SHRUGGED, a smaller audience than those who have played with matches). The second reason is the history of the Hebrew word "Gehenna," one of the words translated "Hell" in the New Testament. It refers to the valley of Hinnon, outside Jerusalem. In early days, it was a place where the Canaanites offered human sacrifices (burned alive) to Molech. Later, it was made a garbage or refuse dump, where fires burned continually, consuming the trash of the city of Jerusalem. "To be cast into Gehenna" or "to burn in Gehenna" thus became a metaphor for "to be rejected or discarded as worthless." Lest you think that identifying Hell with the fate of James Taggart is my own private fancy, I commend to you the book THE GREAT DIVORCE, by C S Lewis. It discusses Heaven (no harps) and Hell (no flames). It is shorter than ATLAS SHRUGGED, and available at most bookstores and libraries.

soc.religion.christian

Absolutely not. I went through a "journey" of lukewarm Christianity, agnosticism, atheism, agnosticism, and now (although I know my faith is less than what it should be) Christianity again. I think it's a path many of us take.

soc.religion.christian

You should wear your nicest boxer shorts and bring plenty of SPF 45+ sunscreen. I'll grab my bathing suit, towerl and some veggie hotdogs and we can have bonfire cookout!! Does that sound good enough to you, Dean? EVERY a.a poster is invited!!!

alt.atheism

But in this case I said I hoped that BCCI was *not* an Islamic bank. But in this case I said I hoped that BCCI was *not* an Islamic bank. But in this case I said I hoped that BCCI was *not* an Islamic bank.

alt.atheism

Proof positive that some people are beyond satire.

alt.atheism

I haven't read this entire thread, but, if someone hasn't tossed this out yet, then here it is: 2 Samuel 12:21-23 (RSV) : "Then his servants said to him, `What is this thing that you have done? You fasted and wept for the child while it was alive; but when the child died, you arose and ate food.' He [David] said, 'While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows whether the LORD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?' But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.'" Anyhow, many interpret this to mean that the child has gone to Heaven (where David will someday go). I don't claim to know for sure if this applies to all babies or not. But even if it's just this one, what would you say to this?

soc.religion.christian

For your information, I checked the Library of Congress catalog, and they list the following books by Francis Hitching: Earth Magic The Neck of the Giraffe, or Where Darwin Went Wrong Pendulum: the Psi Connection The World Atlas of Mysteries

alt.atheism

BR> From: wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) BR> Newsgroups: alt.atheism BR> Organization: DGSID, Atlanta, GA BR> Since you have referred to the Messiah, I assume you BR> are referring to the New Testament. Please detail BR> your complaints or e-mail if you don't want to post. BR> First-century Greek is well-known and BR> well-understood. Have you considered Josephus, the Jewish BR> Historian, who also wrote of Jesus? In addition, BR> the four gospel accounts are very much in harmony. It is also well known that the comments in Josephus relating to Jesus were inserted (badly) by later editors. As for the four gospels being in harmony on the issue of Jesus... You know not of what you speak. Here are a few contradictions starting with the trial and continuing through the assension. Acts 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." Matt. 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field." Before the cock crow - Matthew 26:34 Before the cock crow twice - Mark 14:30 MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept. MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly. LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew. LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice. JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew. (This is interesting because Matthew quotes a prophesy that was never made! Not the only time he does this either...) MAT 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; zechariah 11:11-13 (nothing in Jeremiah remotely like) What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial? scarlet - Matthew 27:28 purple John 19:2 Mark says the third hour, or 9 a.m., but John says the sixth hour (noon) was when the sentence was passed. Matthew -- This is Jesus the king of the Jews Mark -- The King of the Jews Luke -- This is the king of the Jews John -- Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews vinegar - Matthew 27:34 wine with myrrh - Mark 15:23 Matthew said many stood far off, including Mary Magdaline, Mary the mother of James, and the mother of Zebedee's children. Mark and Luke speak of many far off, and Mark includes Mary Magdeline and Mary the mother of James the less. John says that Jesus's mother stood at the cross, along with her sister and Mary Magdalene. Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded u the ghost." Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." Matthew says that the veil of the temple was rent, that there was an earthquake, and that it was dark from the sixth to the ninth hour, that graves opened and bodies of the saints arose and went into Jeruselem, appearing to many (beating Jesus to the resurection). Mark and Luke speak of darkness and the veil of the temple being rent but mention no earthquake or risen saints. John is the only one who mentions Jesus's side being peirced. Matthew says the Jews asked Pilate for a guard to prevent the body from being stolen by the disciples, and for the tomb to be sealed. All of this was supposedly done, but the other gospels do not mention these precautions. Depends where you look; Matthew 12:40 gives Jesus prophesying that he will spend "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth", and Mark 10:34 has "after three days (meta treis emeras) he will rise again". As far as I can see from a quick look, the prophecies have "after three days", but the post-resurrection narratives have "on the third day". Matthew says Sunday at dawn, Mark says the sun was rising, and John says it was dark. MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. MAT 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. MAT 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: MAT 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. MAT 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. MAR 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. LUK 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. Matthew says the guard was paid to tell this story, but no other gospel makes this claim. Matthew says an angel at the tomb told the two Marys and that Jesus also told them, to tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee. The disciples then went to a mountain previously agreed opon, and met Jesus there. This was his only appearance, except to the women at the tomb. Matthew only devotes five verses to the visit with the disciples. Mark says that Jesus walked with two of the disciples in the country, and that they told the rest of the disciples, who refused to believe. Later he appeared to the 11 disciples at mealtime. Luke says two followers went, the same day that Jesus rose from the dead, to Emmaus, a village eight miles from Jeruselem, and there Jesus jioned them but was unrecognised. While they ate a meal together that evening, they finally recognised Jesus, whereopon he dissapeared. Returning at once to Jeruselem, they told the disciples of their experience, and suddenly Jesus appeared among them, frightening them, as they thought he was a spirit. Jesus then ate some fish and honey and then preached to them. John says Jesus appeared to the disciples the evening of the day he arrose, in Jeruselem, where they were hiding. He breathed the Holy Ghost opon them, but Thomas was not present and refused to believe. Eight days later Jesus joined the disciples again at the same place and this time he convinced Thomas. Once more Jesus made an appearance to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias but again was not recognised. After telling them to cast their netson the other side of the boat, Jesus becomes known to them and prepares bread and fish for them. They all eat together and converse. The book of acts further adds to the confusion. It says that Jesus showed himself to the apostles for a period of 40 days after his resurection (thus contradicting Matthew, Mark, Luke AND John) and spoke to them of things pertaining to the kingdom of God: "And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud recieved him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, two men stood by them in white apparel: Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken from you into heaven, shall so comein like manneras ye have seen him go into heaven" Acts 1:3-11 Paul outdoes every other "authority" by saying that Jesus was seen by 500 persons between the time of the resurection and the assension, although he does not say where. He also claims that he himself "as one born out of due time" also saw Jesus. 1 Cor 15:6-8. Matthew says nothing about it. Mark casually says that Jesus was recieved into heaven after he was finished talking with the disciples in Jeruselem. Luke says Jesus led the desciples to Bethany and that while he blessed them, he was parted from them and carried up into heaven. John says nothing about it. Acts contradicts all of the above. (See previous section) MAT 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. MAR 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. LUK 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. 1 thessalonians 4:15-18 1 Corinthians 15:5 (12) Matthew 27:3-5 (minus one from 12) Acts 1:9-26 (Mathias not elected until after resurrection) MAT 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2 Kings 2:11) "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man." (John 3:13) As you can see, there are a number of contradictions in the account of the trial, crucifiction and resurection of Jesus. If these are good witnesses, you would think that they could get SOME of these important details right! (In fact, I cannot find very many points on where they AGREE. You would think that they could at least agree on some of the points they were supposedly observing!) Because of the fact that there is so much contradiction and error, the story of the resurection as presented cannot be taken as literal truth. (Due to the nature of the story, I doubt if it should be taken as ANY sort of truth.)

alt.atheism

Surely it was intended as wit. By the way, which "atheist cause" were you referring to, Bill?

alt.atheism

Cute characterization Bill; however, there is no inconsistency between the two statements. Even if one believes that religion is "primitive, simple-minded and unscientific, anti-intellectual and childish", one can still hold the view that religion also adds an unnecessary level of complexity to the explanation. The ideas themselves don't have to be complex before being excised by Occam's Razor, they only have to add unnecessarily to the overall complexity of the description. I think the non-essential part of an explanatory system is one that adds no predictive capability to the system. Huh? ^^^^^ Watch it, your Freudian Slip is showing

alt.atheism

Fred Gilham asks whether it is true that Goedel wrote a version of the ontological argument for the existence of God. Yes, it is true. Someone has published a rebuttal pointing out certain flaws in the argument, and recently Professor C Anthony Anderson, of the Philosophy Department of the University of Minnesota, has written a revised version of the argument, perhaps free of flaws, and at any rate free of the flaws complained of in the original version. He has sent me a copy, which I still have (I saw it last week when I was looking for something else), and when it surfaces again I can supply particulars. My guess is that it is being published (or already has been) in the Journal of Symbolic Logic.

soc.religion.christian

You are quite confident that essences do not exist. How do propose to define beings? Can a thing can be *one* without definition? Can a being have a definition and know essence? What about properties? Do beings have properties? Does God have properties? Does numbers exist in reality as abstract entities or do we invent them? See my post in alt.messianic about the possibilities of tri-theism from a phiolosophical point of view.

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.

soc.religion.christian

This neatly eliminates the need for a savior and "proves" that we can be saved by works alone! If we have no original sin, then it is possible for us to save ourselves by not sinning. I understand the reasoning behind your argument, but it leads to sheer folly. Original sin is the reason we need faith to be saved.

soc.religion.christian

Just a quick comment. As a baptist clergyperson, I find the idea of such a "baptism" (if the news report is in fact accurate, and they seldom are regarding religion) offensive. The pastor here seems to have a most unbaptist view of baptism- one that seems to demand the ceremony even when comprehension and choice are absent. We do baptize converts, but no one who has been deceived into hearing the word is likely to be a convert. If in fact the grace of God might work in such a situation, there is no harm done in waiting a day or two. Baptist believe in regenerate membership. Did this church include these half-baked (at best) converts into their church fellowship? Or do they somehow feel there is some validity in dunking them and turning them loose? This kind of "evangelism" is certainly not baptist, and probably not very christian, either.

soc.religion.christian

Yes, but no more than he is worth. :-). Seriously: Jerome is merely (and grandly) another Christian witness, to be taken for what he can tell us. He is one in the community of saints. You seem to wish for a greater polarization and dichotomy between Catholic and Protestant thought than seems to me, from a historical perspective, to be valid. To be sure, Rome rejects (some significant aspects of) Protestant thought just as vehemently as Protestants reject (some significant aspects of) Roman thought. Other than some peoplw who apparently try to embody the greatest extreme of this rejection, on either side, there is not quite so vast a gulf fixed as casual observers seem to assume. Ecumenical consultations between Rome and the Lutherans, as well as those between Rome and the Anglican communion (to which I belong) show very nearly complete convergence on understanding the basic theological issues -- the sticking points tend to be ecclesiology and church polity. Thus, for example, as you go on to say: Many of us do not regard a papal decretal as having any necessary (as opposed to political) significance. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't. You misread me if you think that my communion, at least, "throws out" the deuterocanonical books. Nor do I think you should overstress the sense in which the more Reformed may do so. I seriously suggest you rethink what you are saying here. It verges on, and could be taken as, anti-Semitic in the worst sense. The "unbelieving" Jews were, according to what I understand as a Christian, the chosen people of God, and the recipients of His pre-Incarnational revelation. I think they have some say in the matter. The Javneh meeting should not be over-interpreted. A recent magisterial study titled _Mikra_ (I don't have more citation information on hand, sorry) produced primarily from the background of Christian (rather than specifically Jewish) scholarship suggests strongly that the Javneh meeting mostly resolved a lingering question, where in practice the canon had long been fixed on the basis of the scrolls that were kept in the Temple, and thereby "made the hands unclean" when used. The list of "sacred books" that may be drawn up from Josephus and other pre-Yavneh sources correspond (plus or minus one book, if I rememeber the chapter correctly) to the current Jewish canon of Tanakh. All of this is not to "throw out" the deuterocanonicals (what, by the way, is YOUR position about the books the Greeks accept and Rome does not? :-)) -- just to observe that the issue is complex and simply binary judgment does not do it justice.

soc.religion.christian

Note: I am breaking this reply into 2 parts due to length. I agree that there are no verses that have gone unchallenged by gay rights activists. But if there are zero verses that "'clearly' address the issues," doesn't that mean that there are also no verses that clearly *support* your case? Are you sure you want to say that there are zero verses that clearly address the issues? The story in Genesis 19 tells of the citizens of Sodom demanding an opportunity to "know" the two men who were Lot's guests; the fact that the Sodomites became angry when Lot offered them his daughters could be seen as indicating that they were interested only in homosexual intercourse. Yes, what they wanted was rape, homosexual rape, and everybody agrees that that is wrong. Some Christians believe that the homosexual aspect of their desire was just as sinful as the rape aspect of their desire. The passage does not say what it was that so offended God, whether it was the homosexuality, or the intended rape, or both, but I believe that it is only fair to consider all the possible alternatives in the light of related Scriptures. I do not believe that those who believe God was offended by both the homosexuality and the rape are trying to say that homosexuality is itself a form of rape. You seems to take the view that the *only* sin described in Gen. 19 is in the fact that the Sodomites wanted to commit rape, and that it is unfair to "stigmatize" their homosexuality by associating it with the sin of rape. I can see how you might reach such a conclusion if you started from the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, but then again we're not supposed to start from our conclusions because that's circular reasoning. If God is in fact opposed to homosexual intercourse in general, then the more probably interpretation is that He was at least as offended by the Sodomites' blatant homosexuality as He was by their intent to commit rape. Later on I will document why I believe the Old Testament portrays God as One who despises *any* homosexual intercourse, even if both partners are consenting adults. The moderator found my proposal to be circular in that he regarded the church as the proper authority for determining what *kinds* of marriages would be legitimate, and thus the church's refusal to recognize "perverted" marriages was circular reasoning. My questions, however, had nothing to do with the church ordaining new kinds of marriages, and so his argument was something of a straw man. In terms of my original question, the precise definition/translation of "porneia" isn't really important, unless you are trying to argue that the Bible doesn't really condemn extramarital sex. I'm not sure the moderator was trying to do that. In any case, I think both you and the moderator have missed the point here. When Jesus was asked about divorce, He replied, "Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh'? Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." (Mt. 19:4-6). I read here that the sexual union of a man (male) and his wife (female) is a divinely-ordained union. In other words, the institution of heterosexual marriage is something ordained and established by God--not by men, and not by the church, but by God. Men are not supposed to dissolve this union, in Jesus' words, because it is not something created by men. This is not circular reasoning, this is just reading God's word. I read in the Bible that God ordained the union of male and female. I do not read of any similar divinely-ordained union of two males or two females. Granted, there have been uninspired men who have ordained "alternative" unions (isn't Caligula reported to have "married" his horse?), but the only union that Jesus refers to as "what God has joined together" is the heterosexual union of a man and his wife. (Pardon me for mentioning Caligula. I know that's probably inflammatory, and I should save it for the discussion on bestiality, in part 2 of this post. Please hold off on passing judgement on me until you have read that section of my reply.) Anyway, my original question was not whether we should translate "porneia" in a way that condemns only a select few kinds of extramarital sex, my question was: given that heterosexual marriage is the only union described by the Bible as divinely-ordained, and given a Biblical prohibition against sex outside of marriage, is homosexual intercourse sinful? Of course, I see now that first we need to ask whether the Bible really condemns sex outside of marriage. You seem to be trying to argue that only certain kinds of extramarital sex (and other sins) are really wrong: Alternatively, it may be that the definition of such terms as "porneia" and all the rest was, in Paul's day, what we would call a FAQ; i.e. the Law, as the "tutor" appointed by God to lead us to Christ, had just spent some sixteen centuries drumming into the heads of God's people the idea that things like homosexual intercourse were abominations that deserved punishment by death. Perhaps Paul didn't go into detail on what "porneia" &c were because after 1600 years he considered the question to have been dealt with already. Perhaps the reason God's apostles and prophets did not devote a great deal of time defining a distinct, New Testament sexuality was because He did not intend any significant changes in the sexuality He had already established by the Law. I'll discuss the Law and homosexuality in greater detail below, but I just wanted to point out that the New Testament's failure to develop a detailed new standard of sexuality is not necessarily evidence that God does not care about sexual conduct--especially after 1600 years of putting people to death for practicing homosexuality! And how do you define an "obsessively driven" mode of sexual behavior? How do you determine the difference between obsessive sexual behavior and normal sex drives? Is the desire to have "sinful" sex an obsessively driven mode of behavior? I think you see that this is circular reasoning: Why is it defined as sinful? Because it is obsessive. What makes it obsessive? The fact that the person is driven to seek it even though it's sinful. Or is it obsessive because it is a desire for that which society condemns? Once again, that's circular: Why is it defined as obsessive? Because the person wants it even though society condemns it. Why does society condemn it? Because it is obsessive. You seem to be trying to limit the Bible's condemnation of "porneia" to only "perverted" sex acts, but I don't think you can really define "perverted" without falling into exactly the same circularity you accuse me of. What, then, is Paul condemning when he declares that "Fornicators...shall not enter the kindgom of heaven"? I think you misunderstood me: I was not trying to make an argument on some technical definition of "porneia", I was raising the issues of the sinfulness of extramarital sex and the lack of any Scriptural evidence of a homosexual counterpart to the divinely-ordained union of heterosexual couples. Please remember what you just said here for when we discuss bestiality, in part 2. I am glad you asked. Would you agree that if God condemns homosexual intercourse even among those who are not under the Law of Moses, then this would show that God's condemnation of homosexual acts goes beyond the ritual law? If I can show you from Scripture that God punished the homosexual behavior of people who were *not* under the Law of Moses, would you agree that God's definition of homosexual intercourse as an abomination is not limited to just the ritual law and those who are under the Law? I've been having a private Email discussion with a 7th Day Adventist on the subject of the Sabbath, and my main point against a Christian sabbath-keeping requirement has been that nowhere in Scripture does God command Gentiles to rest on the sabbath, nor does He ever condemn Gentiles for failing to rest on the Sabbath. This illustrates the difference between universal requirements such as "Thou shalt not kill", and requirements that are merely part of the (temporary, Jews-only) Law of Moses, such as the Sabbath. The point you are trying to make is that you think the classification of homosexual intercourse as "an abomination" is *just* a part of the temporary, Jews-only Law of Moses. I on the other hand believe that it was labelled by God as an abomination for Gentiles as well as Jews, and that He punished those guilty of this behavior by death or exile. Here's why: Back in Genesis 15, God promises to give Abraham all the land that was then in the possession of "the Amorite"--kinda hard on the Amorite, don't you think? But in verse 16 we have a clue that this might not be as unjust as it sounds: it seems God is going to postpone this takeover for quite a while, because "the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete". Remember, this is all long before there was a ritual law. What then was the iniquity the Amorite was committing that, when complete, would justify his being cast out of his own land and/or killed? Go back and look at Lev. 18 again. Verses 1-23 list a variety of sins, including child sacrifice, incest, homosexuality, and bestiality. Beginning in verse 24, God starts saying, "Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for _by_all_these_ _things_ the nations which I am casting out before you _have_ _become_defiled_. For the land has become defiled, therefore I have visited its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants... For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people." Notice that God says the Gentile nations (who are *not* under the ritual Law of Moses) are about to be punished because they have "defiled" themselves and their land by committing "abominations" that include incest, bestiality, and homosexuality. Flip ahead two chapters to Lev. 20, and you will find these same "abominations" listed, and this time God decrees the death penalty on anyone involved in any of these things, including, specifically, a man "lying with another man as one lies with a woman" (Lv. 20:13). Their "bloodguiltiness" was upon them, meaning that in God's eyes, they deserved to die for having done such things. According to Lev. 18:26-29, even "the alien [non-Jew] who sojourns among you" was to refrain from these practices, on penalty of being "cut off [by God?] from among their people." Under the circumstances, I believe it would be very difficult to support the claim that in the Old Testament God objected only to the intended rape, and not the homosexuality, in Sodom. Since God took the trouble to specifically list sex between two consenting men as one of the reasons for wiping out the Canaanite nations, (not homosexual rape, mind you, but plain, voluntary gay sex), I'd say God was not neutral on the subject of homosexual behavior, even by those who had nothing to do with the Mosaic Covenant. According to II Tim. 3:16, all Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness; thus, I believe that even though we Gentile Christians are not under the Law, we can learn from studying it. If a certain action is defined as a sin because it is a violation of the Law, then it is a sin only for those who are under the Law (for example, in the case of Sabbath-keeping). Where God reveals that certain actions are abominations even for those who are not under the Law, then I conclude that God's objection to the practice is not based on whether or not a person is under the Law, but on the sinfulness of the act itself. In the case of homosexuality, homosexual intercourse is defined by God as a defiling abomination for Gentiles as well as Jews, i.e. for those who are not under the Law as well as for those who are. Thus, I am not at all trying to say that Gentile Christians have any obligation to keep any part of the Law, I am simply saying that God referred to homosexuality as a sin even for those who are not obligated to keep the Law. If this is so, then I do not think we can appeal to our exemption from the Law as valid grounds for legitimizing a practice God has declared a bloodguilty abomination that defiles both Jew and Gentile. (continued in Part 2)

soc.religion.christian

I agree, with the exception that I don't preach ignoring our cultures. In Revelation 2-3, we see that in the first century church, there was one congregation in each major city. So there was one unified church. Now in each city, there were people of different cultures. Naturally, they formed something of a stew, with different members having different heritages. Nevertheless, they were ONE body. They met together, sometimes as smaller groups in their homes and sometimes in bigger groups in places such as the temple courts. Now in a particular city, then and now, you will find that there is a common language associated with that region. For instance, in Rome, Latin was spoken. In the United States today, English is spoken. So it would make sense that congregations in different cities would speak the common language and not necessarily Latin. Naturally, you would expect the lead evangelist to preach in the common language. In the first century church, there were probably many people in the congregation who could speak a given tongue to translate the message for people of foreign ethnic groups. Today, however, you don't see people speaking in tongues to translate sermons, even in so-called Pentacostal churches. We do have a modern day equivalent though -- bi-lingual speakers. Now in the unified church of which I am a member - sometimes called the International Churches of Christ, when we all meet together on Sundays, there are headphones on people who don't speak English from which they hear an ongoing translation of the sermon in their native tongue. Neat idea, huh? Now, we meet in different size groups in a random sort of way on Sundays, so sometimes there will be a meeting of only Haitians or of Spanish- speaking people, for example, who will hear an evangelist preach in their native language. In addition, we meet in small groups a couple of times during the week for Bible discussion groups and Devotionals. So someone who speaks a different language will almost always be with people who also speak his language (assuming the congregation is large enough) for those meetings. As for the people who speak the common language, they can keep in touch with their culture, if they want, but they will also have equally deep friendships among their church relationships with people of many various nationalities. The action of letting Catholics worship in a native language instead of Latin? Indeed not! See my second paragraph in response to the second clipping of your article. However, if you mean the action of forming denominations based on a culture, then the purpose of the church has been indeed thwarted. I'll assume the second possiblility when answering your next clipping. You have met some needs of people, certainly, by helping them to be proud of their cultural heritages when most denominations didn't. Yet you have largely isolated yourselves from having quality "Christian" friendships outside your nationality (and your denomination). We shall certainly give people a place to feel comfortable with their heritage. However, we will do this in a way that does not destroy church unity, but rather encourages friendships among all disciples. It sounds like these groups have wonderful intentions, but they are going about things in the wrong way. And names like the African Methodist Episcopal Church still make me cringe, although not as much as before. I understand that there was more racism in the past that caused such groups to be formed, but now we should try to unite. I know that it's hard for many people on this newsgroup to imagine there being only one body of people on earth, but it is quite possible, and I am working to make it happen. However, what might be a smaller step towards unity, would be taking the word "African" out of your denomination's name. Then perhaps someday a long time off, you can also remove the "Methodist Episcopal" part also, and simply be part of "the Church". There shall be one church, for the sake of unity, AND it shall be useful in helping students new to America make the transition in culture, language, and thought. We shouldn't make a new denomination to try to solve problems. The whole denominational mindset only causes more problems, sadly. Thank you for the invitation. That shows me that you indeed have the heart to spread the gospel of Jesus as well as take part in your cultural heritage. Thank you also for responding to my post. I know (all too well) how they can be very time-consuming. The whole idea of celebrating your culture is paved with good intentions, but I still feel that you must restore and preserve unity at the same time. My own church, the Boston church, has the acapella singing that you mentioned in your post, yet doesn't limit expression of my Mexican culture, even though I am in the MIT Campus ministry and not the Spanish (speaking) Zone. I have made a commitment to God that I will go to the Sunday services of my church, because I know that my brothers and sisters here are fully devoted in love for God as his disciples. I don't believe in tongues, as you may have already picked up on, because of my understanding of Biblical Christianity. However, I am certainly willing to visit your congregation provided that it doesn't interfere with my normal worship. Since you also live in Cambridge, I also extend an invitation to you to visit our services as often as you like. You can meet the MIT students at the Student Center (across from 77 Mass. Ave.) at 9AM on Sundays to leave for worship or simply call me after Wednesday night to find out where the service will be held on a particular day. My number is 225-7598, but will be 354-1357 in a few weeks from now and for the rest of the summer. Our service normally last from 10AM to noon, but occasionally are later or earlier (1-3 times per year). Definitely! Let's also strive to grow in obedience to the Lord through being men and women after God's own heart.

soc.religion.christian

Why don't you ask the approx. two million British Muslims who break it five times a day and have never ever been prosecuted under it? Then ask how easy it is to hold a Christian church service in Saudi Arabia.

alt.atheism

Without quoting at length from the preceeding post, I'd just like to say that I find it a much more appropriate way of dealing with issues like the Holocaust and Bosnia that asserting that "God is punishing them." The activity of God is always _redemptive_, which means "restoring what has been lost, broken, or distorted." So, God does not _will_ the brokenness, lostness, distortion, genocide, poverty, etc, but is nonetheless capable, willing, and active to restore, heal, mend, and redeeem.

soc.religion.christian

Do we attach some meaning of the Israelites entering "the promised land" to Christianity? I submit God did not hold the children responsible when the adults chose to follow the bad report of the 10 spies over Joshua and Caleb. This is recorded for us in Deuteronomy 1:39 "Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it." At least to me it seems there was/is an age, or point in maturity where they were/are held responsible, and could not enter the "Promised Land", younger ones were not held to the same "rules", at least not by God.

soc.religion.christian

Sounds like you were going to a different Penn State or something. Kampus Krusade for Khrist is very vocal here, but they really have little power to get anything done. Sometimes it seems like there are a lot of them because they're generally more vocal than their opposition, but there really aren't that many Krusaders. The liberals tend to keep to themselves if they can help it, since all they really want is to be allowed to go about their own lives the way they want to. ...so you don't hear from or about most of them. The bible-bangers stand out because they want everyone to be forced to live according to bible-banger rules. The Krusaders certainly don't run this place. I'd say we've got a rather average mix. of people here.... much like the rest of the U.S. And just like everywhere else, some factions are louder than others.

alt.atheism

Well, yes. This is the real mystery of the matter, and why I am rather dubious of a lot of the source theories. There are a number of places where the Masoretic Text (MT) of the OT is obscure and presumably corrupted. These are reproduced exactly from copy to copy. The DSS tend to reflect the same "errors". This would appear to tell us that, at least from some point, people began to copy the texts very exactingly and mechanically. The problem is, we don't know what they did before that. But it seems as though accurate transmission begins at the point at which the texts are perceived as texts. They may be added to (and in some situations, such as the end of Mark, material is lost), but for the most part there are no substantial changes to the existing text. You're basically trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Some people like to use the game of "telephone" as a metaphor for the transmission of the texts. This clearly wrong. The texts are transmitted accurately.

alt.atheism

See, I told you there was an atheist mythology, thanks for proving my point.

alt.atheism

Sorry, I put my foot in my mouth, concerning the church's history. It is correct to say that the Council of Hippo 393 listed the deuterocanonical books among those accepted for use in the church, and that this was ratified by the Council of Carthage, and by Pope Innoent I and Gelasius I (414 AD). "At the end of the fourth century views still differed in regard to the extent of the canon, or the number of the books which should be acknowledged as divine and authoritative. The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and the cannot be therefore regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the aposteles." "In the Western church the canon of both Testaments was closed at the end of the fourth century through the authority of Jerome (who wavered, however, between critical doubts and the principle of tradition), and more especially of Augustine, who firmly followed the Alexandrian canon of the Septuagint, and the preponderant tradition in reference to the Catholic Epistles and the Revelation; though he himself, in some places, inclines to consider the Old Testament Apocrypha as *deutero* canonical, bearing a subordinate authority." This history goes on to say that Augustine attended both the Council of Hippo and of Carthage. It is interesting to note, however, the following footnote to the fourth session of the Council of Trent. The footnote lists various Synods which endorsed lists of canonical books, but then says "The Tridentine list or decree was the first *infallible* and effectually promulgated declaration on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures." Which leads one to think that the RC canon was not official until Trent. Thus my previous erroneous statement was not entirely groundless. It is also interesting to note that the Council of Trent went on to uphold "the old Latin Vulgate Edition" of the Scriptures as authentic. Which, I would suppose, today's Catholic scholars wish the Council had never said. Also the council made no distinction between deutero-canonical and canonical books--in contrast to (Eerdman's statement of) the fourth century views.

soc.religion.christian

Oh no, not again. There is a difference between believing that God exists, and loving him. (For instance, Satan certainly believes God exists, but does not love him.) What unbelievers request in situations like this is that God provide evidence compelling enough to believe he exists, not to compel them to love him. -- "On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Leftover Turkey! On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Turkey Casserole that she made from Leftover Turkey. [days 3-4 deleted] ... Flaming Turkey Wings! ... -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

alt.atheism

On one of the morning shows (I think is was the Today Show), David Koresh's lawyer was interviewed. During that interview he flipped through some letters that David Koresh wrote. On one of letters was written in Hebrew (near the bottom of the page): koresh adonai

alt.atheism

Conviction of Sin A meta-exegetical or methodological essay I look forward to reading it. When I got to the library last week, it was with the object in view to look at some articles that have appeared over the last few years, since my previous look at the literature. Un- fortunately, they had moved the journal back-issues, so I didn't get a look at the articles I was hoping to find. I will continue to reserve my own judgment on _arsenokoitai_ until I have seen the latest scholarly work, and I can hope that REXLEX's posting may give some meat to chew on. However, what I *can* do now, is to point out the methodological issues -- what needs to be shown for anything to be concluded in this matter. If the article REXLEX posts addresses these issues, so much the better; if not, you will perhaps understand why the problem is hard. writes, _in abstractu_: [it is only a minor point, but let me make it anyway; De Young has already contradicted his own prior assertion in this abstract that the ancient analysis of these issues was concerned with actions and NOT with orientation. I doubt this will have much bearing on the article as such, but thought I should point it out from the start.] The hypothesis De Young is advancing is that Paul a) coined the word and b) his intended meaning for it was in reference to the Levitical law. The questions I wish to raise are 1.) how would one go about confirming the truth of this hypothesis? and 2.) what follows if one accepts (or stipulates, for the sake of the discussion) that it is correct? Note that b) is independent of a); I consider b) far more plausible than a), which seems merely to be a counsel of despair over finding nothing in the literature contemporary with Paul to clarify this word. So far as I know, Paul does NOT in general invent words anywhere else in his letters. Unless you have an otherwise-established pattern of coinages, it is *not* sound methodology to assume it -- particularly if he gives no hint in the immedi- ate text to "fix" the coinage's meaning for his audience. As yet, the extract presents no evidence at all. What do we need to confirm or reject the hypothesis? (which, I should say at the outset, I find somewhat plausible; I certainly know of nothing which makes it an *impossible* way of construing this problem passage.) I'm going to set aside for the moment the question of whether Paul might have coined this usage, to look at the more tractable question of what it means. For this there are, in principle, two kinds of evidence that can be adduced, internal and external. That is, we can look at the text of Paul's letter for clarification or look outside that to prior or contemporary writings that Paul might have relied on, or to derivative writings that have some claim of access to Paul's meaning. The single WORST problem with this word in Corinthians is that there IS no internal evidence for Paul's meaning. He uses the word totally without an explanation or hint as to his meaning, save that its inclusion in a list of negatives implies that it has for him SOME negative meaning. We are left, as the only "internal" clue, with the etymology or formation of the word -- which is indeed the reason that De Young (and others before him) have associated it with the Leviticus prohibition of men VERBing with other men, where VERB is some standard euphemism for having sex ("lie" in Leviticus, "bed" in Greek). One problem is that "bedders" (_-koitai_) is not, as far as I know, USED that way in Greek. THEREFORE, I offer one serious test which de Young's hypothesis *must* pass or be rejected: o find a body of Greek texts contemporary with Paul (or not much prior to his day) such that the _X-koitai_ formation implies "men who have sex with X" [obviously, the "best case" is to find such usages of _arsenokoitai_ itself.] such texts would be confirmation that the word *can* be read that way. It is worth emphasizing that compound words are NOT in general under- standable by projecting what the READER may imagine by the juxtaposition of the roots. Existence of such parallels doesn't *prove* the hypothesis correct -- but it goes a long way towards making such a usage (whether or not original with Paul in the specific case of X == _arse:n_) possible of comprehension by his readers. My "test" moves in the direction of external evidence. If Paul does NOT in his text explain his word (and he does not), then he has to expect his readers to already know the word (which stands against its being a coinage) or to expect that it mimics word formations that they *do* know, such that they can guess his meaning without too much floundering. External evidence, that is, texts other than Paul's own and lexicographic or social/historical considerations that might be adduced, then come into the picture. *If* there are other uses of the word, not dependent on Paul, which *have* sufficient internal (contextual) evidence -- or some gloss by a contemporary scribe -- to show a derogatory reference to male homosexu- ality, or similar _-koitai_ formations used in similar ways, *then* one has grounds for o denying that Paul coined the word and o assuming that his readers might understand his meaning Do you see the problem? If Paul coined the word, then he REQUIRES his readers to share enough context with him to COMPREHEND his coinage and its intent -- in this case that they would (stipulating De Young's guess) understand him to be referring to the Levitical "universal" prohibition of male-male sex (this, mind you, in a context where Paul has emphasized at least to OTHER congregations (and so one assumes to the Corinthians -- how else to explain 1 Cor. 6:12, and the Corinthians having to be pulled back from overinterpreting their freedom?) the NON applicability of Torah law to his gentile converts!) Among the considerations that make it implausible for Paul to have coined the word, its first element is archaic -- _arse:n_ is an old Attic or Ionic form of what in even classical (let alone koine) times would be assimilated as _arre:n_. To me, this implies that we are even more than usually needful of external evidence to pin down meaning and usage. What is Paul doing inventing a word in obsolete Attic formation? And if he *didn't* coin the word, but picked it up like the others in his list as common terms of derogation, then his meaning will be -- for his readers -- constrained by that common meaning (since he gives no other.) I cannot emphasize enough that Paul DOES NOT TELL US what he means by this word. We (and his original readers) are guessing. They, at least, had a contemporary context -- and maybe Paul had used this very word and explained it in great detail to them in person. But we have no trace of evidence of that, and to *suppose* it is mere fantasy. So -- we are *desperately* in need of external evidence about this word. And it seems to be exceptionally meagre. That is precisely the problem. I can think of several more or less equally plausible hypotheses about the word: a) it was a standard gutter term of abuse for (some or all, maybe very specific, maybe very general) homosexual male activities b) it was a term of abuse used by Jews about the awful homosexual Greeks (which may or may not be consciously associated on their part with the Leviticus passage) c) Paul invented the term -- and again there may or may not be an association with Leviticus in his doing so. He may or may not intend the word to have an explicit and universal application with absolute and clear boundaries. [Since none of his OTHER words in that list have such character, this last seems to me about the *least* plausible of the hypotheses I'm advancing.] Of these, I'd say off the top of my head that a) is most plausible -- but I still have reservations about that, too. If the word NEVER appears before Paul, and in later uses has some evidence of depending on Paul, then one can opt for Paul's coining it. If it does appear before him, he might *still* have coined it being unaware of prior use (in which case, his coinage is inherently confusing!) but one should normally demote c) on the basis of any earlier uses (especially if they can be shown to have been at all common in the places Paul traveled.) In either of the a) or b) cases, one has to take into account Paul's relation to the community of usage he picked the word up from -- and whether it be from the Greek or Jewish communities, Paul's relations are hardly straight- forward! There is, so far as I have yet seen, little or no external evidence to aid us in selecting one of these (or some other) hypothesis. Your guess is as good as mine (or maybe worse or maybe better, depending on a lot of things). But it remains -- so far -- guesswork. And I don't know about you, but I for one WILL NOT equate human guesswork with the will of God. By all means be convinced in your own conscience about what Paul is getting at -- as he says elsewhere on what was in HIS day a major controversy of somewhat this same character (Romans 14:22-23) "Hold on to your own belief, as between yourself and God -- and consider the man fortunate who can make his decision without going against his conscience. But anybody who eats in a state of doubt is condemned, because he is not in good faith, and every act done in bad faith is a sin." For my part, I cannot see any way to resolve Paul's meaning in the use of _arsenokoitai_ without directly applicable external evidence -- and by the nature of such external evidence, it will never reach to certainty of constraining Paul's own intent. Paul, like Humpty Dumpty (and me, and all the rest of us) *will* use words in ways that are personal choices -- and sometimes leave his readers puzzled. If that puzzlement leads you to God, it may be blessed -- if it should lead away (as some of Paul's words HAVE led some people), then Paul's intense communicative effort to contrive his meaning in our souls may have some regretable consequences. I have always found Paul to be a fantastically reliable guide -- if I read him "in the large", if I can see him lay out his position in detail and hammer it home time and time again. I am much less certain about his meaning in his many brief and cryptic passages (such as this one.) In my usual discursive way, I have gone on at great length about the first of my intended meta-exegetical points -- what would be needed to confirm that Paul a) coined or b) in any case meant the word to mean the same as the Leviticus prohibition. My second point is to *stipulate* this hypo- thesis, and follow up what it implies for both his initial readers and for later Christians. Given my verbosity, this will be tomorrow night's meditation :-)

soc.religion.christian

You forgot one thing "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Mark

soc.religion.christian

[This is SWF in another indirect post via Dan]. predicitions if you have some many types of happen again may predict reaction There are several problems here. First, you are discussing only experimental procedures. Observational procedures are also useful. The main criterion is attempting to verify an idea by using it to make prediction about as-yet unmade observations. The observations could be the result of an experiment, or they could be obsevations of activity occuring spontaneossly in nature, or they could even be observations of the lasting results of events long past. All that matters is that the observations be *new*. This is what prediction is about in science - it is *not* about predicting the future except in this very restricted sense. Secondly, repeatability can also take many forms. It is really just the requirement that independent observers be able to verify the results. The observation of a fossil is 'repeatable', since any qualified observer may look at it (this is why the specimens are reqtined in a museum). Also, there is the implicit prediction that future fossil finds will correspond to the current one. New fossils are found often enough that this is tested regularly. Many times a new fossil actually falsifies some conclusion made on the basis of previous fossils. Unfortunately for you, the models that were falsified have alway been peripheral to the model of evolution we now have. (For instance, the front legs of Tyrannosaurus rex turned out to have tremendous muscles, rather than being weakly endowed as previously believed). So, in fact, histoircal science findings *are* repeatable in the necessary sense. Just becuase you cannot go out and repeat the original event does *not* make it impossible to make valid observations. [This is not to say that biologists would not go coo-coo if extra- terrestrial life were discovered - that could make the determination of the process of abiogenesis relatively easy]. -- sarima@teradata.com (formerly tdatirv!sarima) or Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com

alt.atheism

>Subject: hate the sin... >Date: 12 May 93 08:27:08 GMT >"Hate the sin but love the sinner"...I've heard that quite a bit recently, >My question is whether that statement is consistent with Christianity. I >would think not. Hate begets more hate, never love. If you are questioning whether or not "hating sin" is consistent with Christianity; I ask you to consider the following Scripture: Romans 12:9 "Let Love be without hypocrisy. Hate what is evil, cling to what is good." What is it that Paul, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is calling us to hate? Would God call us to do something that would eventually lead to hating our fellow man; especially when he commands us to do the opposite, to love your fellow man? >Consider some 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. That has not been my experience. I've not found myself hating anybody as a result of hating the sin that may be in their life. As a sinner myself, I find myself having more compassion for the person. Jesus too, since the Bible teaches that he was tempted in every way that we are, is able to have compassion on us when we our tempted and fall. Jesus is our very example of HOW to hate the sin but love the sinner. In the account of the woman caught in adultery (John 8), Jesus had compassion on the woman; BUT he also called her to leave her life of sin. This is what it means to love sinners but hate their sin; it means loving them unconditionally, while at the same time calling them to leave their sin. >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). The blame for this can not always be laid at the feet of the Christian. I have seen and been guilty of taking offense by someone merely pointing out my sin and calling me to repent of it. It was not unloving for the Christian to call me out of sin; in fact, I believe it was the most loving thing that that person could have done. He loved me enough to want to spare me the consequence of remaining in my 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. Again, I don't think that you can lay the blame for this at the feet of the Christian. If we have loved them as Jesus loved sinners (exemplified in John 8) and the sinner hates us for it, then we have done the best we can. We will have extended to them the most perfect expression of love and they will have rejected it. Now it we hate the sin but forget to love the sinner, then indeed, we will, ourselves, be in sin. >In the summary of the law, Christ commands us to love God and to love our >neighbors. He doesn't say anything about hate. I would like to encourage you to do a word study on HATE in the New Testament. I really think that you will be surprised. >In fact, if anything, he commands us to save our criticisms for ourselves. Criticism is very different from calling a sinner to repent. Hope this helps, In Christ, Tony Balsamo --

soc.religion.christian

Ever since I was a kid and learned to tell when I was in a dream I have used my dreams for fantasies or working out problems. In my dreams I have done everything from yell at my mom to machine-gunning zombies, not to mention myriad sexual fantasies. I have deliberately done things that I would never do in real life. I understand the need to control ones thoughts, but I always felt that dreams were format free, no morals, no ethics, no physical laws, (though sometimes I would have to wake myself up to go to the bathroom.) Is this an incorrect attitude? Rather than weakening my inhibitions, I could argue that I got certain things "out of my system" by experiencing them in dreams. By analyzing a dream I can determine if I have a problem with a certain situation, i.e. in a dream something will be exagerated that I can then contemplate and see if it really bothers me or not. I can't believe that other people don't do the same. It seems silly to attach moral significance to dreams. I think that this is entirely different from out of body experiences, which I have never had. Contradictions welcome.

soc.religion.christian

: When Elizabeth greeted Mary, Elizabeth said something to the effect that : Mary, out of all women, was blessed. If so, it appears that this : exactly places Mary beyond the sanctification of normal humanity. The phrase is "eulogemene su en gunaixin"- "blessed are you among women." There is nothing to indicate that this is an exceptional or unique status, only that _as a woman_ Mary was blessed. Adding the word "all" is not a fair reading of the text. There are some good reasons for the church's veneration of Mary, but they cannot depend on this verse.

soc.religion.christian

I didn't say to visit some "nice" homosexuals. I said "visit some congregations of Christians..spirit-filled believers.." Praise the Lord that we are all members of the same body. Let us agree to disagree.

soc.religion.christian

...execellent examples of Luther's insane rantings deleted... Gee, I'm *sooooo* surprised that they don't teach this part of his ideology in high schools today.

alt.atheism

Not true. Only an observer at rest at infinite distance from the black hole will see the particle take infinite time to reach the horizon. In the particle's own reference frame, it takes a very finite time to reach the horizon and the singularity. The math does indeed predict this. Take a look at Mitchner, Thorne, and Wheeler's _Gravitation_. Peter Walker

alt.atheism

Gaining entry into heaven cannot be done without first being cleansed by the blood of Jesus. Sin cannot dwell in heaven. It is against the natural laws of God. Being converted to christianity means being baptized by the Holy Spirit. You cannot get to heaven by good works only. Because of the union with the holy spirit, the man's behavior will change. If there is true union he will not desire to be homosexual. Fornication and homosexuality will leave your life if you are truly baptized by the holy spirit. It's not to say that we don't stumble now and then.

soc.religion.christian

: >Atoms are not objective. They aren't even real. What scientists call : >an atom is nothing more than a mathematical model that describes : >certain physical, observable properties of our surroundings. All : >of which is subjective. : > : >-jim halat : This deserves framing. It really does. "[Atoms] aren't even real." : Tell me then, those atoms we have seen with electron microscopes are : atoms now, so what are they? Figments of our imaginations? The : evidence that atoms are real is overwhelming, but I won't bother with : most evidence at the moment. You would have us believe that what the eye perceives as images are actaully there - as perceived? This may be interesting. I thought that an electron microscope was used because no wavelength of "light" can illuminate any "object" of atomic scale. If this image is to have useful resolution, wouldn't the illuminating sources wavelength have to be several orders of magnitude less than size of thing observed? If an atom is a "probablity cloud", lower resolutions would give the appearance of solidity, but it seems fairly certain that an atom is not an object is any conventional sense. Obviously I am not a physicist, but the question does have ramification of a philosophic nature. Anyway, just a stray thought, carry on ...

alt.atheism

[reply to kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)] Jeez, can't he get anything straight. I told him to wait for three days. GOD

alt.atheism

I bought a copy of The Satanic Verses when there was talk of the British Government banning it. There's nothing interests me in a book more than making it illegal. However, it's still sitting on my shelf unread. Perhaps I'll get round to it soon. I've still got a pile of Lem, Bulgakov and Zamyatin to go through; I don't find nearly enough time to read. In fact, there are far more interesting things to do than I can ever find time for; how anyone ever manages to be bored is beyond me. If I didn't have to sleep, maybe I could manage it. mathew

alt.atheism

Someone referred to my FAQ essay on homosexuality. Since it hasn't been posted for some time (and I've modified it somewhat since the last time), I'm taking this opportunity to post it. There is another entry in the FAQ containing comments by some other contributors. They can be retrieved from ftp.rutgers.edu as pub/soc.religion.christian/others/homosexuality. It contains far more detail on the exegetical issues than I give here, though primarily from a conservative point of view. ---------------------------- This posting summarizes several issues involving homosexuality and Christians. This is a frequently asked question, so I do not post the question each time it occurs. Rather this is an attempt to summarize the postings we get when we have a discussion. It summarizes arguments for allowing Christian homosexuality, since most people asking the question already know the arguments against it. The most common -- but not the only -- question dealt with herein is "how can a Christian justify being a homosexual, given what the Bible says about it?" First, on the definition of 'homosexual'. Many groups believe that there is a homosexual "orientation", i.e. a sexual attraction to members of the same sex. This is distinguished from actual homosexual sexual activity. Homosexuals who abstain from sex are considered by most groups to be acceptable. However in a lot of discussion, the term 'homosexual' means someone actually engaging in homosexual sex. This is generally not accepted outside the most 'liberal' groups. In this paper I'm going to use 'homosexual' as meaning a person engaging in sexual acts with another of the same sex. I haven't heard of any Biblical argument against a person with homosexual orientation who remains celebate. I think most people now admit that there is a predisposition to be homosexual. This is often called a 'homosexual orientation'. It is not known whether it is genetic or environmental. There is evidence suggesting each. The best evidence I've seen is that homosexuality is not a single phenomenon, but has a number of different causes. One of them is probably genetic. There are several groups that try to help people move from being homosexual to heterosexual. The best-known is Exodus International". The reports I've seen (and I haven't read the detailed literature, just the summary in the minority opinion to the Presbyterian Church's infamous report on human sexuality) suggest that these programs have very low success rates, and that there are questions about how real even the successes are. But there certainly are people who say they have converted. However this issue is not as important as it sounds. Those who believe homosexuality is wrong believe it is intrinsically wrong, defined as such by God. The fact that it's hard to get out of being a homosexual is no more relevant than the fact that it's hard to escape from being a drug addict. If it's wrong, it's wrong. It may affect how we deal with people though. If it's very difficult to change, this may tend to make us more willing to forgive it. One more general background issue: It's common to quote a figure that 10% of the population is homosexual. I asked one of our experts where this came from. Here's his response: Kinsey (see below) is the source of the figure 10 percent. He defines sexuality by behavior, not by orientation, and ranked all persons on a scale from Zero (completely heterosexual) to 6 (completely heterosexual). According to Kinsey, one-third of all male adults have had at least one experience of orgasm homosexually post puberty. Ten percent of all adult males have most of their experiences of homosexually. That was in 1948. The percentages held true in a followup study done by the Kinsey Institute, based on data in the early seventies but not published until the early 80s or so, by Bell and Weinberg, I believe. I can't put my hand on this latter reference, but here is the online information for Kinsey's own study as it appears in IRIS, the catalog at Rutgers: AUTHOR Kinsey, Alfred Charles, 1894-1956. TITLE Sexual behavior in the human male [by] Alfred C. Kinsey. Wardell B. Pomeroy [and] Clyde E. Martin. PUBLISHER Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders Co., 1948. DESCRIP xv, 804 p. diagrs. 24 cm. NOTES "Based on surveys made by members of the staff of Indiana University, and supported by the National Research Council's Committee for Research on Problems of Sex by means of funds contributed by the Medical Division of the Rockefeller Foundation." * Bibliography: p. 766-787. OTHER AUT Pomeroy, Wardell Baxter, joint author. * Martin, Clyde Eugene, joint author. SUBJECTS Sex. * U. S. -- Moral Conditions. LC CARD 48005195 This figure is widely used in all scholarly discussions and has even been found to hold true in several other cultures, as noted in the recent NEWSWEEK coverstory "Is this child gay?" (Feb. 24, 1992). A journalist is running the rounds of talk shows this season promoting her book that allegedly refutes Kinsey's study, but the scholarly world seems to take her for a kook...... I've seen some objections to the Kinsey's study, but not in enough detail to include here. (If someone would like to contribute another view, I'd be willing to include it.) Most Christians believe homosexuality (at least genital sex) is wrong. Not all, however. A few denominations accept it. The Metropolitan Community Churches is the best-known -- it was formed specifically to accept homosexuals. However the United Church of Christ also allows it, and I think a couple of other groups may as well. The Episcopal Church seems to accept it some areas but not others. In churches that have congregational government, you'll find a few congregations that accept it (even among Southern Baptists, though the number is probably only one or two congregations). But these are unusual -- few churches permit homosexual church leaders. How carefully they enforce this is another issue. I don't have any doubt that there are homosexual pastors of just about every denomination, some more open than others. As to the arguments over the Biblical and other issues, here's an attempt to summarize the issues: The most commonly cited reference by those favoring acceptance of homosexuality in previous discussions has been John Boswell: "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality", U Chicago Press, 1980. The argument against is pretty clear. There are several explicit laws in the OT, e.g. Leviticus 20:13, and in Rom 1 Paul seems pretty negative on homosexuality. Beyond these references, there are some debates. Some passages often cited on the subject probably are not relevant. E.g. the sin which the inhabitants of Sodom proposed to carry out was homosexual *rape*, not homosexual activity between consenting adults. (There's even some question whether it was homosexual, since the entities involved were angels.) It was particularly horrifying because it involved guests, and the responsibility towards guests in that culture was very strong. (This is probably the reason Lot offered his daughter -- it was better to give up his daughter than to allow his guests to be attacked.) If you look through a concordance for references to Sodom elsewhere in the Bible, you'll see that few seem to imply that homosexuality was their sin. There's a Jewish interpretive tradition that the major sin was abuse of guests. At any rate, there's no debate that homosexual *rape* is wrong. I do not discuss Leviticus because the law there is part of a set of laws that most Christians do not consider binding. So unless NT justification can be found, Lev. alone would not settle the issue. The NT references are all in Paul's letters. A number of the references from Paul are lists of sins in which the words are fairly vague. Boswell argues that the words occuring in these lists do not in the lists (i.e. I Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1:10) are /malakos/ and /arsenokoitai/. Unfortunately it is not entirely clear what the words actually mean. /malakos/, with a basic meaning of soft, has a variety of metaphorical meanings in ethical writing. Boswell suggests "wanton" as a likely equivalent. He also reports that the unanimous interpretation of the Church, including Greek-speaking Christians, was that in this passage it referred to masturbation, a meaning that has vanished only in the 20th Cent., as that practice has come to be less frowned-upon. (He cites references as late as the 1967 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia that identify it as masturbation.) He translates /arsenokotai/ as male prostitute, giving evidence that none of the church fathers understood the term as referring to homosexuality in general. A more technical meaning, suggested by the early Latin translations, would be "active mode homosexual male prostitute", but in his view Paul did not intend it so technically. For a more conservative view, I consulted Gordon Fee's commentary on I Cor. He cites evidence that /malakos/ often meant effeminate. However Boswell warns us that in Greek culture effeminate is not necessarily synonymous with homosexual, though it may be associated with some kinds of homosexual behavior. Given what Boswell and Fee say taken together, I suspect that the term is simply not very definite, and that while it applies to homosexuals in some cases, it isn't a general term for homosexuality. While Fee argues against Boswell with /arsenokotai/ as well, he ends up suggesting a translation that seems essentially the same. The big problem with it is that the word is almost never used. Paul's writing is the first occurence. The fact that the word is clearly composed of "male" and "f**k" unfortunately doesn't quite tell us the meaning, since it doesn't tell us whether the male is the subject or object of the action. Examples of compound words formed either way can be given. In theory it could refer to rapists, etc. It's dangerous to base meaning purely on etymology, or you'll conclude that "goodbye" is a religious expression because it's based on "God by with ye". However since Boswell, Fee, and NIV seem to agree on "homosexual male prostitute", that seems as good a guess as any. Note that this translation misses the strong vulgarity of the term however (something which Fee and Boswell agree on, but do not attempt to reproduce in their translation). In my opinion, the strongest NT reference to homosexuality is Romans 1. Boswell points out that Rom 1 speaks of homosexuality as something that happened to people who were naturally heterosexual, as a result of their corruption due to worshipping false gods. One could argue that this is simply an example: that if a homosexual worshipped false gods, he would also fall into degradation and perhaps become heterosexual. However I find this argument somewhat forced, and in fact our homosexual readers have not seriously proposed that this is what Paul meant. However I am not convinced that Rom 1 is sufficient to create a law against homosexuality for Christians. What Paul is describing in Rom 1 is not homosexuality among Christians -- it's homosexuality that appeared among idolaters as one part of a whole package of wickedness. Despite the impression left by his impassioned rhetoric, I'm sure Paul does not believe that pagans completely abandoned heterosexual sex. Given his description of their situation, I rather assume that their heterosexual sex would also be debased and shameless. So yes, I do believe that this passage indicates a negative view of homosexuality. But in all fairness, the "shameless" nature of their acts is a reflection of the general spiritual state of the people, and not a specific feature of homosexuality. My overall view of the situation is the following: I think we have enough evidence to be confident that Paul disapproved of homosexuality. Rom 1 seems clear. While I Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1:10 are not unambiguous and general condemnations of homosexuality, they do not seem like wording that would come from someone who approved of homosexuality or even considered it acceptable in some cases. On the other hand, none of these passages contains explicit teachings on the subject. Rom 1 is really about idolatry. It refers to homosexuality in passing. The result of this situation is that people interpret these passages in light of their general approach to Scripture. For those who look to Scripture for laws about issues such as this, it not surprising that they would consider these passages to be NT endorsement of the OT prohibition. For those whose approach to the Bible is more liberal, it is not surprising that they regard Paul's negative view of homosexuality as something that he took from his Jewish upbringing without any serious reexamination in the light of the Gospel. As readers of this group know by now, the assumptions behind these approaches are so radically different that people tend to foam at the mouth when they see the opposing view described. There's not a lot I can do as moderator about such a situation. A number of discussions in the past centered around the sort of detailed exegesis of texts that is described above. However in fact I'm not convinced that defenders of homosexuality actually base their own beliefs on such analyses. The real issue seems to rest on the question of whether Paul's judgement should apply to modern homosexuality. One commonly made claim is that Paul had simply never faced the kinds of questions we are trying to deal with. He encountered homosexuality only in contexts where most people would probably agree that it was wrong. He had never faced the experience of Christians who try to act "straight" and fail, and he had never faced Christians who are trying to define a Christian homosexuality, which fits with general Christian ideals of fidelity and of seeing sexuality as a mirror of the relationship between God and man. It is unfair to take Paul's judgement on homosexuality among idolaters and use it to make judgements on these questions. Another is the following: In Paul's time homosexuality was associated with a number of things that Christians would not find acceptable. It was part of temple prostitution. Among private citizens, it often occured between adults and children or free people and slaves. I'm not in a position to say that it always did, but there are some reasons to think so. The ancients distinguished between the active and passive partner. It was considered disgraceful for a free adult to act as the passive partner. (This is the reason that an active mode homosexual prostitute would be considered disgraceful. His customers would all be people who enjoyed the passive role.) This supports the idea that it would tend not to be engaged in between two free adult males, at least not without some degree of scandal. Clearly Christian homosexuals would not condone sex with children, slaves, or others who are not in a position to be fully responsible partners. (However Fee's commentary on I Cor cites some examples from ancient literature of homosexual relationships that do seem to involve free adults in a reasonably symmetrical way. Thus the considerations in this paragraph shouldn't be pushed too far. Homosexuality may have been discredited for Jews by some of these associations, but there surely must be been cases that were not prostitutes and did not involve slaves or children.) Some people have argued that AIDS is a judgement against homosexuality. I'd like to point out that AIDS is transmitted by promiscuous sex, both homosexual and heterosexual. Someone who has a homosexual relationship that meets Christian criteria for marriage is not at risk for AIDS. Note that there is good reason from Paul's general approach to doubt that he would concede homosexuality as a fully equal alternative, apart from any specific statements on homosexuality. I believe his use of the Genesis story would lead him to regard heterosexual marriage as what God ordained. However the way Paul deals with pastoral questions provides a warning against being too quick to deal with this issue legally. I claim that the question of how to counsel homosexual Christians is not entirely a theological issue, but also a pastoral one. Paul's tendency, as we can see in issues such as eating meat and celebrating holidays, is to be uncompromising on principle but in pastoral issues to look very carefully at the good of the people involved, and to avoid insisting on perfection when it would be personally damaging. For example, while Paul clearly believed that it was acceptable to eat meat, he wanted us to avoid pushing people into doing an action about which they had personal qualms. For another example, Paul obviously would have preferred to see people (at least in some circumstances) remain unmarried. Yet if they were unable to do so, he certainly would rather see them married than in a state where they might be tempted to fornication. I believe one could take a view like this even while accepting the views Paul expressed in Rom 1. One may believe that homosexuality is not what God intended, that it occured as a result of sin, but still conclude that at times we have to live with it. Note that in the creation story work enters human life as a result of sin. This doesn't mean that Christians can stop working when we are saved. The question is whether you believe that homosexuality is in itself sinful or whether you believe that it's a misfortune that is in a broad sense due to human sinfulness. If you're willing to consider the latter approach, then it becomes a pastoral judgement whether there is more damage caused by finding a way to live with it or trying to cure it. The dangers of trying to cure it are that the attempt most often fails, and when it does, you end up with damage ranging from psychological damage to suicide, as well as broken marriages when attempts at living as a heterosexual fail. This is going to depend upon one's assessment of the inherent nature of homosexuality. If you believe it is a very serious wrong, then you may be willing to run high risks of serious damage to get rid of it. Clearly we do not generally suggest that people live with a tendency to steal or with drug addiction, even though attempts to cure these conditions are also very difficult. However these conditions are intrinsically damaging in a way that is not so obvious for homosexuality. (Many problems associated with homosexuality are actually problems of promiscuity, not homosexuality. This includes AIDS. I take for granted that the only sort of homosexual relationships a Christian would consider allowing would be equivalent to Christian heterosexual relationships.) In the course of discussing this over the last decade or so, we've heard a lot of personal testimony from fellow Christians who are in this situation. I've also seen summaries of various research and the results of various efforts for "conversion". (Aside from the Presbyterian report mentioned above, there's an FAQ that summarizes our readers' reports on this question.) The evidence is that long-term success in changing orientation is rare enough to be on a par with healing miracles. The danger in advising Christians to depend upon such a change is clear: When "conversion" doesn't happen, which is almost always, the people are often left in despair, feeling excluded from a Church that has nothing more to say but a requirement of life-long celibacy. Paul recognized (though in a different context) that such a demand is not practical for most people, and I think the history of clerical celibacy has strongly reinforced that judgement. The practical result is that homosexuals end up in the gay sex clubs and the rest of the sordid side of homosexuality. Maybe homosexuality isn't God's original ideal, but I can well imagine Paul preferring to see people in long-term, committed Christian relationships than promiscuity. As with work -- which Genesis suggests wasn't part of God's original ideal either -- I think such relationships can still be a vehicle for people sharing God's love with each other. There's an issue of Biblical interpretation underlying this discussion. The issue is that of "cultural relativism". That is, when Paul says that something is wrong, should this be taken as an eternal statement, or are things wrong because of specific situations in the culture of the time? Conservative Christians generally insist on taking prohibitions as absolute, since otherwise the Bible becomes subjective -- what is to stop us from considering everything in it as relative? When looking at this issue, it's worth noting that no one completely rejects the concept of cultural relativism. There are a number of judgements in the New Testament that even conservative Christians consider to be relative. The following judgements are at least as clear in the Bible as anything said on homosexuality: - prohibition against charging interest (this occurs 18 times in the OT -- it's not in the NT, but I mention it here because until relatively recently the Church did consider it binding on Christians) - prohibition against swearing oaths - endorsement of slavery as an institution - judgement of tax collectors as sinner We do not regard these items as binding. In most cases, I believe the argument is essentially one of cultural relativism. Briefly: - prohibition of interest is appropriate to a specific agrarian society that the Bible was trying to build, but not to our market economy. - few people believe that American judicial oaths have the same characteristics as the kind of oaths Jesus was concerned about - most people believe that Paul was simply telling people how to live within slavery, but not endorsing it as an institution - for people believe that the IRS is morally equivalent to Roman tax farming The point I'm trying to make is that before applying Biblical prohibitions to the 20th Cent., we need to look at whether the 20th Cent. actions are the same. When Christian homosexuals say that their relationships are different than the Greek homosexuality that Paul would have been familiar with, this is exactly the same kind of argument that is being made about judicial oaths and tax collectors. Until fairly recently Christians prohibited taking of interest, and many Christians regarded slavery as divinely endorsed. (Indeed, slavery is one of the more common metaphors for the relationship between God and human beings -- Christians are often called servants or slaves of God.) I am not trying to say that everything in the Bible is culturally relative. Rather, I'm trying to say that *some* things are, and therefore it is not enough to say that because something appears in the Bible, that ends the discussion. We need to look at whether the action we're talking about now has the same moral implications as the one that the Bible was talking about. If Christians want to argue that there are reasons to think that the prohibitions against homosexuality are still binding, I'm willing to listen. Those who claim that the question doesn't need to be looked at are kidding themselves (unless they are part of the small minority who really obey all the rules listed above). One thing that worries me is the great emotions that this issue creates. When you consider the weakness of the Biblical evidence -- some laws in Leviticus, a passage in Rom whose subject matter is really idolatry rather than homosexuality, and a couple of lists whose words are ambiguous -- the amount of concern this is raising among Christians seems rather out of proportion. This should suggest to people that there are reasons other than simply Biblical involved. This is true on both sides -- clearly homosexual Christians are as strongly motivated to find ways of discrediting the Biblical arguments as conservative Christians are to find Biblical arguments. But I can't help feeling that the Bible is being used by both sides as a way of justifying attitudes which come from other sources. This is a dangerous situation for Christians. On the other side of the issue, I would like to note some problems I have with the pro-homosexual position as it is commonly presented. One of the most common arguments is that homosexuality is biologically determined. I.e. "God made me homosexual", and I have no choice. I think "God made me homosexual" is a fine view for people who already believe on other grounds that homosexuality is acceptable. But I don't see it as an argument for acceptability.

soc.religion.christian