text
stringlengths 1
51k
| label
int64 0
15
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
Perhaps it's prophetic that the week "Where are they now?" appears and
I can claim to be a still-active old-timer, my news software gets bit
rot and ships outgoing articles into a deep hole somewhere... Anyway,
here's a repost:
These days you don't have to fall far behind... Last Monday
(admittedly after a long weekend, but...) I had 800+ messages just in
those few days. Aside from a hiatus while changing jobs last Fall
I've been here since 1990.
Hell, Norway? The rubber room at the funny farm? Seminary? It is
not given to us to know... | 0 | alt.atheism |
That is an assumption on your part. Where is your proof that one always will
degenerate into hating the sinner, because he hates the sin.
I am reminded of the Civil Rights movement in America. It is true that many
individuals hated the proponents of racism. It is also true that many
individuals hated segregation and discrimination with their whole heart and
never degenerated into hating the individuals who practiced it. Dr. King's
message was this. Love the individual, the loving of the individual would
transform him into a friend. However, this did not take away his hatred for
segregation. His hatred for injustice.
I would ask, "Did John the Baptist practice love when he criticized the Jewish
Leaders of his day?" Did Jesus Practice love when he threw the moneychangers
out of the temple?
We must have at least a distase for sin. We must in order to fight it in
ourselves. Also we must be ready for the call from God to call sin by its
right name. Jesus loved everyone, but he called sin by its right name.
It is true that love for others is to guide every step of our walk, but it is
also true that sometimes the love for God calls us to stand up for truth.
--
"Competition is the law of the jungle.
Cooperation is the law of civilization." -- Eldridge Cleaver | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Or a religion is a cult that got co-opted by people who are better at
compartmentalizing their irrationality.
Peter | 0 | alt.atheism |
Yes, unless the observer is at rest with respect to the singularity at
infinite distance away. But an observer on a close approach to the BH will
see the particle go in in finite time.
Peter | 0 | alt.atheism |
Alan> 2. We can also analyze to whom the Lord is addressing: "Marvel
Alan> not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again" (John 3:7).
Alan> Here Jesus is clearly directing his remarks to Nicodemus -- a
Alan> ruler of the Jews (not a child).
Yes, but Jesus also made a very general and doctrinal statement
in the same conversation:
"Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."
(John 3:6)
Clearly infants are not born of the spirit. Thus, without baptism
they are unspiritual. They are not born with the image of God, but in
Adam's fallen image (cf. Gen 5:3). They have no righteousness of
their own, just as adults have no righteousness of their own. There
is only the imputed righteousness of Christ, which believers receive
through faith.
Alan> 3. We can ask ourselves why the Lord would even introduce the
Alan> concept of spiritual re-birth through baptism if newborn babies
Alan> weren't free from sin?
Your point is a little obscure here, but I think you are saying
that Christ used the "innocence" of newborn babes as a metaphor
for spiritual re-birth. But this is not what he did.
If you look at the text, he did not speak
of spiritual re-birth but of spiritual birth. We are
born of the Spirit once, not twice or several times.
We are also born of the flesh once. The Lord makes it
clear that these are separate and different events.
It is true that other Scriptures refer to spiritual
birth as re-birth because it is a second birth
(for example, Titus 3:5). But it is not a second
*spiritual* birth.
The only thing the two births have in common is the concept of birth,
which is used as a symbol of `new life' -- not of innocence. When an
infant is born (or conceived) a new life is begun--but it is neither
innocent nor righteous. Similarly when that same individual is
baptized, or perhaps when they believe prior to baptism, they begin a
new life in Christ (Romans 6:3, Colossians 2:12, Titus 3:5, Ephesians
2:5). Then the believer has God's assurance of the forgiveness of
their sins, and of Christ's imputed righteousness.
For references, see
The Augsburg Confession Article II, Original Sin,
The Apology to the Augsburg Confession,
Article II, Original Sin,
the Formula of Concord, Article I, Original Sin, and
Luther's Large Catechism, Part 4, Baptism.
For something more recent, see "Baptized into God's Family: The
Doctrine of Infant Baptism" by Andrew Das, available from Northwestern
Publishing House. Andrew is a graduate of Concordia Lutheran
Seminary, St. Louis, and is now pursuing doctoral studies at Yale
Divinity School. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Q. Should teenagers have the freedom to choose what church they go to?
My friends teenage kids do not like to go to church.
If left up to them they would sleep, but that's not an option.
They complain that they have no friends that go there, yet don't
attempt to make friends. They mention not respecting their Sunday
school teacher, and usually find a way to miss Sunday school but
do make it to the church service, (after their parents are thoroughly
disgusted) I might add. A never ending battle? It can just ruin your
whole day if you let it. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Ouch, this is a good question. To me, not existing is worse
than existing no matter what, so I will modify this question to be:
would I be a Christian if it made no eternal difference in my
reward or punishment? I hope this is in the same spirit you want.
I personally am very goal oriented. It is hard for me to do things
that do not achieve some goal. However, to relate this to sports,
only after I learned to not care about the score did I become
a good basketball player. I had to learn to go all out no matter
the situation. Perhaps this lesson is relevent. After all,
only if I can give up my life can I keep it, only if I am
humble can I achieve glory. Only if I concentrate on living
my life now the best I can will I be afforded life eternal.
I think you have illuminated the true meaning of "saved by faith."
But what is my answer? Right now I would remain a Christian.
However, was that always my answer? That's the problem. Heaven
and hell are good motivators at certain stages of maturity.
And I admit there are certain times when perhaps I bite my
tongue and put up with something in the hope of a better day,
i.e. I mentally trade present happiness for future happiness.
I hope the cynics and skeptics do not read more into that
than appropriate, but I am trying to be honest.
I think these kinds of questions are extremely fruitful. I guess it
depends on how one views knowledge and learning. By stripping
ideas to simple, straightforward, opposing concepts we can
determine levels of importance. By analyzing the theoretically
absurd we can gain a better understanding of the actually absurd. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[ in response to a question about why Jesus' parents would be sanctified
beyond normal humanity]
I would think that simply being pregnant with the incarnation of the
Almighty God would be enough to make Mary blessed among all women, whether
or not she had special spiritual attributes. I find that the more special
Mary needs to be, the less human Jesus gets. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
From article <May.14.02.11.36.1993.25219@athos.rutgers.edu>, by tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard):
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Bill, ever heard of secular humanism? Please check out what
this stands for, and then revise your statements above.
Cheers,
Kent
| 0 | alt.atheism |
I read somewhere that Kurt Goedel argued that the ontological argument
for God's existence was logically reasonable (or something to that
effect).
Does anyone know if this is true, and have a citation?
Thanks. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
>By the way, news.announce.newusers has an article (can't remember which
>one) that recommends reading a newsgroup for 1 month before posting.
>This makes sense because you get an idea who the players are and what
>the current discussions are about.
>Am I the only one who followed that advice?
No, I spent a month just reading, too, mainly because I did not know
much about the way atheists think. I even printed out the FAQs and
discussed it with a friend before I started posting.
Alt.atheism deals with religious issues (more appropriately, lack of
religious beliefs), which are by their very nature very controversial.
It makes sense to read what is being discussed and how just to make
sure you are not repeating something others have said better.
Petri
| 0 | alt.atheism |
:
: .
: It's my understanding that the U.S. Supreme Court has never
: given a legal definition of religion. This despite the many
: cases involving religion that have come before the Court.
: Can anyone verify or falsify this?
: Has any state or other government tried to give a legal
: definition of religion?
According to the legal practices of today's America, I imagine the legal
definition of religion, if defined, may resemble the following:
"Any system of belief or practice to which people are committed
for the benefit of society which must, in the opinion of secular
thought, be isolated from political and educational influence."
"Should any system of belief or practice to which people are
committed be harmful or void of any benefit to society in the
opinion of religious thought as defined in the previous paragraph,
isolation of such from political and educational influence would
constitute unreasonable censorship and an unlawful violation of
civil rights." | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Anyone who thinks being gay and Christianity are not compatible should
check out Dignity, Integrity, More Light Presbyterian churches, Affirmation,
MCC churches, etc. Meet some gay Christians, find out who they are, pray
with them, discuss scripture with them, and only *then* form your opinion.
--
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The initiations ceremony for Knights ous is almost
as secretive as that for the Mafia.
What are the phases of initation and why the secretiveness?
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
(Deletion)
It has. There is a guy running around in Switzerland who claims to have
been conceived similarly. His mother says the same. His father is said to
be a bit surprised.
But anyway, there have been a lot of Messiahs, and many have had a similar
story about their birth. Or their death. A list of Messiahs could be quite
interesting.
I would wonder why an omnipotent god pulls such stunts instead of providing
evidence for everyone to check. And the whole question is absurd.
Wouldn't you feel bad if you'd find out that stones are sentient, and that
you have stepped on them all your life? And wouldn't you feel bad when you'd
see the proof that Jesus was just a plot of Satan?
You've forgotten the pride factor.
The argument is a fallacy. It is like "thanks for reading this far" on the end
of a letter. Most religions claim that they won't fizzle because they contain
some eternal truth. So does Christianity. Since there are old religions it is
no wonder to find old religions that have it that they would last. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Maybe you should dig a little further Charles. Hislop's scholarship was
accepted by the Bristish Oriental Institute which, at the time, was the premere
Institute for Oriental studies. As I've stated over and over, I've checked
out about 25% of his references (most are now out of print or in private
libraries) and the likes of Wilkerson and Layard hold their own merit. THey
too came to the same conclusions and if you will trouble yourself, you will
find that their knowledge of the mysteries have yet to be surpassed. Both were
highly honored by the British Oriental Museum. Wilkerson is known as one of
the leading archeologist in the history of Egyptiology and Layard is still
being refered two after 200 yrs of archeology in the Mesopotamian regions. He
was recently refered to in a TIME article on Babylonian archeology.
Phony scholarship is when you review their references and find that they have
misquoted or misrepresented the conclusions. Hislop did not. His conclusions
do not tickle the ears, that much is self evident. But to assert that his
conclusions are "spurious" is without merit. He gave references to all his
conclusions and as I have stated, for the last 25 years I have used his
conclusions in debates at RC seminaries and brotherhoods, not to mention the
individual priests and bishops that I have talked to one on one. No counter to
Hislops scholarship was made. The only rebuttals were against his conclusions
because they do totally undermined the claims of the RCC. He was showing that
the intitution of the RCC was based on the mysteries (which others have shown
even to this day in various articles and topics). THe tongues movement in
Corinth was a direct result of the mysteries entering into the church. If it
was so in Corinth, why could they not have an influence in Rome, the city of
seven hills?
Also, you do not have to listen to his conclusions, you can draw your own
conclusions by looking at the customs, artifacts, the cerimonial dress, the
docrine of purgatory, etc from the vantage of the mysteries. You don't even
have to be a believer to see the parallels. Just one example. THe mitre.
Where did it come from? Why is it shaped the way it is? What are the two
tails that hang down the back represent? Was this an ancient head dress from
an earlier culture and why was it in Rome at the time of the beginnings of the
church of the State of Rome? Does it have pagan history behind it, and if so,
why did the RCC chose regardless?
Any lay person of middle eastern religion can answer these questions. Even the
scriptures themselves refer to it. All Hislop did was collect the information
from all the various sources and put them in one binding. There is no lack of
scholorship in that.
Please tell me why you discredit this man by your accusation, yet present no
evidence supporting it. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Paul Fortmann submitted a sermon by Peter Hammond on PRAYING FOR
JUSTICE that spoke of the positive value of the Imprecatory
(Cursing) Psalms.
In this connection, I recommend to the membership the book
REFLECTIONS ON THE PSALMS, by C S Lewis, with special reference to
the chapter on "Cursing in the Psalms." | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The dogma of the Assumption does not state whether or not Mary died a
physical death before being taken into Heaven. Catholics are free to
believe what they wish, whether it be that she was taken still alive, or
after having died. I lean somewhat toward the latter myself. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I think this should be illuminating to all. Let me make a first
suggestion. When Arabic words, especially technical ones, become of use
let us define them for those, especially atheists, to whom they may not be
terribly familiar. Please also note that though I did initially refer
to Khomeini as a heretic for what I understood to be a claim -- rejected
by you since -- of personal infallibility, I withdraw this as a basis
for such a statement. I conditionally retain this reference in regard
to Khomeini's advocacy of the thesis of the infallibility of the
so-called "Twelve Imams," which is in clear conflict with the Qur'an
in that it places the Twelve Imams in a category of behavior and example
higher than that of the Muhammad, in that the Qur'an shows that the
Prophet was clearly fallible, as well as (it appears, given your
abstruse theological statment regarding the "natures" of the Twelve
Imams) placing them in a different metaphysical category than the
remainder of humanity, with the possible exception of Muhammad,
something which verges on the sin of association.
Alaikum Wassalam, | 0 | alt.atheism |
: Lets talk about principles. If we accept that God sets the
: standards for what ought to be included in Scripture - then we
: can ask:
: 1. Is it authoritative?
"Authoritative" is not a quality of the writing itself- it is a statement
by the community of faith whether it will accept the writing as normative.
: 2. Is it prophetic?
How is "prophecy" to be defined? If it is "speaking forth" of God's message,
much of the apocrypha must surely qualify.
: 3. Is it authentic?
Again, by what standard? Is "authenticity" a function of the authors? the
historical accuracy?
: 4. Is it dynamic?
What is this supposed to mean? Many of the apocryphal books are highly
"dynamic" -thought provoking, faithful, even exciting.
: 5. Is it received, collected, read and used?
By whom? Of course the apocryphal books were received (by some),
collected (or else we would not have them), read and used (and they still are,
in the Catholic and Orthodox churches).
: On these counts, the apocrapha falls short of the glory of God.
This is demonstrably false.
: To quote Unger's Bible Dictionary on the Apocrapha:
: 1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and
: anachronisms.
So do other books of the Bible.
: 2. They teach doctrines which are false and foster practices
: which are at variance with sacred Scripture.
"False" by whose interpretation? Those churches that accept them find no
contradiction with the rest of scripture.
: 3. They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of
: subject matter and styling out of keeping with sacred Scripture.
This is a purely subjective evaluation. The apocryphal books demonstrate
the same categories and forms of writing found in the other scriptures.
(In fact, one could argue that the apocryphal "Additions to the Book of
Esther" act rather to bring the "unscripturelike" book of Esther more into
line with other books.)
: 4. They lack the distinctive elements which give genuine
: Scripture their divine character, such as prophetic power and
: poetic and religious feeling.
Have you ever read the Wisdom of Ben Sira or the Wisdom of Solomon? They
exhibit every bit as much "poetic and religious feeling" as Psalms or
Proverbs.
[deletions]
: How do you then view the words: "I warn everyone who hears the
: words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to
: them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
: And if anyone takes away from this book the prophecy, God will
: take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the
: holy city" (Rev 22.18-9)
: Surely this sets the standard and not just man-made traditions.
These words clearly were meant to refer to the book of Revelation alone,
not to the whole body of scripture. Revelation itself was accepted very
late into the canon. The church simply did not see it as having a primary
role of any kind in identifying and limiting scripture.
: It is also noteworthy to consider Jesus' attitude. He had no
: argument with the pharisees over any of the OT canon (John
: 10.31-6), and explained to his followers on the road to Emmaus
: that in the law, prophets and psalms which referred to him - the
: OT division of Scripture (Luke 24.44), as well as in Luke 11.51
: taking Genesis to Chronicles (the jewish order - we would say
: Genesis to Malachi) as Scripture.
Jesus does not refer to the canon for the simple reason that in his day,
the canon had not been established as a closed collection. The books
of the apocrypha were part of the Septuagint (which was the Bible of
the early church). The Hebrew canon was not closed until 90 c.e.
The Torah (Pentateuch/ "Law") was established in Jesus' day, as were
the Prophets (with the _exclusion_ of Daniel). The Writings, however,
were still in flux. Jesus does not refer to the Writings, only to the
Psalms, which were part of them. The books of the apocrypha were all
part of the literature that was eventually sifted and separated.
To argue that Jesus is referring to the Jewish canonical order in Luke 11:51
is weak at best; he is not quoting scripture, but telling a chronological
story. And, as mentioned above, the Hebrew canon (especially in the
present order) did not exist as such in Jesus' day. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I wouldn't punish him with eternal torture if he didn't love me. But then
I;m a decent chap. It seems your god isn't.
I've looked, and he wasn't. Another promise broken.
Lying bastard! How do you know what effort I have and have not given?
Can anyone eaplain what he's just said here?
Peter | 0 | alt.atheism |
Note that "scientific evidence" in this area does not prove any conclusions.
There has been evidence to suggest that a certain part of homosexual's
brains are different from heterosexuals- but that proves very little.
Also notice that the apostles did not have with them the "scientific
evidence" linking certain genes with alcoholism, or stealing with certain
genetic problems. Even if they did have scientific evidence, I doubt it
would have stopped them from communicating the teaching from the Holy
Spirit that these things are sinful.
This reminds me of a conversation with a professor of mine. He said
something very true. Christianity teaches that we should not give in
to our every inclination. Most people do give in to their leanings.
In Christianity, we have the concept of struggling with the flesh,
and bringing it into submission. One person may have a problem with
his temper, and having a murderous heart, another may have a problem
with homosexuality, another may be inclined to greed. But God offers
us the opportunity to be more than conquerers.
The preying mantis bites the head off of her mate after she mates
with him. Is it natural for a woman to do the same thing to her husband?
The Bible is concerned with human morality, and only touches on animal
morality as it relates to humans. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
But if He/She did you would probably consider it rape.
Obviously there are many Christians who have tried and do believe. So .. ?
No one asks you to swallow everything, in fact Jesus warns against it. But let
me ask you a question. Do you beleive what you learn in history class, or for
that matter anything in school. I mean it's just what other people have told
you and you don't want to swallow what others say. right ... ?
The life , death, and resurection of Christ is documented historical fact. As much
as anything else you learn. How do you choose what to believe and what not to?
I could argue that George Washington is a myth. He never lived because I don't
have any proof except what I am told. However all the major events of the life
of Jesus Christ were fortold hundreds of years before him. Neat trick uh? | 0 | alt.atheism |
I am doing research on atheism, part of which involves field research here
on the net. The following is a survey directed towards all readers of this
group, intended to get data about the basis of atheistic belief. I would
seriously appreciate it if each and every one of you would fill it out and
mail it back to me at mtabbott@unix.amherst.edu.
First of all, I've tried to structure questions that can be answered in a
variety of ways, with varying amounts of detail; it's possible to give
succinct answers to most everything, but there's enough here to keep most of
you typing for hours, I'm sure. As much detail as you want to give me (I mean
it) is great, but it's also important for me to have as broad a base of
individuals as possible, so even minimal responses are far better than nothing
-- it's a short survey if you just answer the questions without elaboration.
Secondly, I hope some of the questions don't come off as obnoxious; I know that
phrases like "What would convince you of the existence of God" imply that I am
a seminary student intent on proving you all to be ignorant Godless heathens.
In fact, I'm not too sure about the existence of a higher power myself, so my
use of "God" is a question of locution rather than ideology -- it's easier
than just repeating "a deity or higher power" every time.
Also, I tend to use a lot of anthropological buzzwords like "belief system"
although I know some of you might contend that you don't have ANY beliefs, but
are skeptical towards everything. I understand; but you know what I mean.
Think of such buzzwords as abbreviations for the rather unweildy phrases
required to get the precise idea across.
Lastly, thanks! Please fill out as much as you can, in as much detail as
you can, and send them to me. My research and I thank you.
---------------
Where would you place your beliefs, on the spectrum
Theism <--> Agnosticism <--> Weak Atheism <--> Strong Atheism?
Feel free to elaborate on your specific beliefs.
In what, if any, religious tradition were you raised? Did you ever believe
in the existence of a God? (Several of the following questions presume
that the answer to this is "yes;" if you've always been an atheist, or at
least never a theist, you may have to modify the question/answer somewhat.)
How serious was your/your family's involvement?
How and when did you start to doubt the tenets you were raised to believe?
How and when did your "final break" with your beliefs, if any, occur? I
realize that this is often more of an ongoing process than an "event" per se;
whatever the case, just describe it in whatever detail you wish.
What contact with other atheists have you had; before and after (and during)
your "conversion" to atheism? (Certainly your involvement with alt.atheism
counts -- how have net discussions affected your beliefs?)
To what extent do you think other atheists have influenced you in your
beliefs? Did you come by your beliefs through discussion, through
independent means, or by some combination of the two or other means?
Are you convinced that your beliefs were acquired through wholly rational
means (proofs of the non-existence of God, etc), or was it perhaps, at least
in part, through other means (alienation from mainstream religion, etc)?
To what extent do you feel you "understand" the universe through your beliefs?
What phenomena of the universe and of human existence (anything from physical
phenomena to the problem of the existence of evil in human affairs) do you
feel are adequately dealt with by your beliefs, and where are they lacking as
an explanatory method?
What would it take for you to question, or change, your beliefs? What would
convince you of the existence of God, what would convince you of the
plausibility of God's existence, and so forth? How dynamic are your beliefs
-- are they constantly changing; have they stayed more or less the same for
some time?
Are you involved in a career or education in science? To what extent do you
think science has influenced your beliefs? (Issac Asimov claimed that science
was the new "secular religion," and that "scientists are, in a very real sense,
the new priesthood." Do you see the pursuit of science as having a quasi-
religious base, or even a religious element?)
---------------
This survey is intended to get data from a broad range of individuals, but
also to help me narrow down the field to a small group of people whose
ideas and histories could be very useful to me. Would you be willing to have
me, on the basis of this survey, write you to find out more about you and your
beliefs? If not, fine; your filling out the survey alone is great.
---------------
Thanks again. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about what
I'm doing with this data, or if you have anything to say in addition to what
I've asked about above. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Is there room for nudists? After all, if you believe most upstanding
moral churches, nudity IS a sin...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 0 | alt.atheism |
Well I am one of those (apparently) odd people who can sometimes
control their dreams. For example, I might decide before going to
sleep that I want to repeat a favourite dream, or dream about a
specific place. Or if I am having an unpleasant dream, I can often
(not always) redirect events to something more pleasant.
I guess I think that the same standards apply in these "directed"
dreams as apply in waking fantasies or real life (ref Jesus teaching
about looking at a woman lustfully being the same a committing
adultary).
When my normal dreams display themes that I would not conciously chose
to dream about, I take that as a sign that all is not well with my
"inner life" - maybe I have underlying tenstions/fears that need to be
resolved, or maybe its straightforward sin. In either case, the cause
needs to be resolved.
In fact, either case is pretty rare. I don't
often remember dreams that I don't chose to have. When I do, they
almost always tell me something important.
I also almost never dream in pictures, and especially not in colour
(in fact I've had precisely one full colour picture dream that I can
remember, and it was definately spiritually important)
I tend to dream in sound, with the odd blurred image, in black and
white.
Interesting topic - I'll be fascinated to read other responses.
Alison | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
EXACTLY!! Read that one sentence in there..."to the degree
that means other than the death penalty and military operations are
sufficient to keep the peace, then these non-violent provisions are to
be preferred..."
I don't believe that it is necessary for us to murder criminals to keep
the peace; the Church in the United States feels the same way, thus the
reason that the Catholic Church has opposed every execution in this
country in recent memory.
So what is justifiable? As you stated very explicitly from the new
Catechism, the only justifiable case is when it is necessary to keep
the peace. Since that does not apply *at all* to this country, the
logical conclusion (based on your own premises) is that one must be
opposed to *any* form of capital punishment in America.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I don't necessarily disagree with your assertion, but I disagree with
your reasoning. (Faith = Bad. Dogma = Bad. Religion -> (Faith ^ Dogma).
Religion -> (Bad ^ Bad). Religion -> Bad.) Unfortunately, you never
state why faith and dogma are dangerous.
If you believe faith and dogma are dangerous because of what happened in
Waco, you are missing the point.
The Branch Davidians made the mistake of confusing the message with the
messenger. They believed Koresh was a prophet, and therefore believed
everything he said. The problem wasn't the religion, it was the
followers. They didn't die because of faith and dogma, they died because
of their zealotry (or, in the case of the children, the zealotry of their
parents).
So Christians are totally irrational? Irrational with respect to their
religion only? What are you saying? One's belief in a Christian God does
not make one totally irrational. I think I know what you were getting at,
but I'd rather hear you expand on the subject.
Again, this statement is too general. A Christian is perfectly capable of
being a philosopher, and absolutely capable of changing his/her mind. Faith in
God is a belief, and all beliefs may change. Would you assert that atheists
would make poor philosophers because they are predisposed to not believe in a
God which, of course, may show unfair bias when studying, say, religion?
So, Christianity is a prison, eh? Ever heard of parole? You have read far
too much into this subject. A Christian is one who follows the religion
based on the teachings of a man named Jesus Christ. Nowhere does this
definition imply that one cannot change one's mind. In prison, however,
you can't just decide to leave. One is voluntary, the other is not. The
two are not compatible.
I prefer to think of religion as a water pistol filled with urine. 8^)
Seriously, though, some (but certainly not all) religions do condemn
groups of people. The common target is the "infidel," a curious being
who is alternately an atheist, a non-<insert specific religious
affiliation here>, a person of a different race, or an Egyptian. 8^)
Please explain how "just because" thinking kills people. (And please
state more in your answer than "Waco.")
I'll see your conscientious peacenik and raise you a religious
zealot with bad acne. 8^) By the way, I wasn't aware mass suicide
was a problem. Waco and Jonestown were isolated incidents.
Mass suicides are far from common.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
You can tell your friend from me that I was in a publisher's
warehouse one time and saw thousands of copies of The Joy of
Cooking and every one of them was syllable-perfect.
I have since sold all I own and become a follower of The Joy
of Cooking. The incident I mentioned convinced me, once and
for all, that The Joy of Cooking is inspired by god and the
one true path to his glory. | 0 | alt.atheism |
From a parallel thread. Much about definitions of bombs, etc. deleted.
[...]
Mathew, I agree. This, it seems, is the crux of your whole position,
isn't it? That the US shouldn't have supported Hussein and sold him arms
to fight Iran? I agree. And I agree in ruthlessly hunting down those
who did or do. But we *did* sell arms to Hussein, and it's a done deal.
Now he invades Kuwait. So do we just sit back and say, "Well, we sold
him all those arms, I suppose he just wants to use them now. Too bad
for Kuwait." No, unfortunately, sitting back and "letting things be"
is not the way to correct a former mistake. Destroying Hussein's
military potential as we did was the right move. But I agree with
your statement, Reagan and Bush made a grave error in judgment to
sell arms to Hussein. So it's really not the Gulf War you abhor
so much, it was the U.S.'s and the West's shortsightedness in selling
arms to Hussein which ultimately made the war inevitable, right?
If so, then I agree.
[more deleted.]
Regards, | 0 | alt.atheism |
: The willingness of true believers
: to die for their belief, be it in Jesus or Jim Jones, is
: well-documented, so martyrdom in and of itself says little.
It does say something about the depth of their belief. Religion has
both deluded believers and con men. The difference is often how far
they will follow their beliefs.
I have no first hand, or even second hand, knowledge of how the
original apostles died. If they began a myth in hopes of exploiting
it for profit, and followed that myth to the death, that would be
inconsistent. Real con men would bail out when it was obvious it would
lead to discomfort, pain and death. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Since this is alt.atheism, I hope you don't mind if we strongly disagree...
: The fact is God could cause you to believe anything He wants you to.
: But think about it for a minute. Would you rather have someone love
: you because you made them love you, or because they wanted to
: love you. The responsibility is on you to love God and take a step toward
: Him. He promises to be there for you, but you have to look for yourself.
Indeed, "knock and it shall be opened to you". Dan, why didn't this work?
I firmly believed in god for 15 years, but I eventually realised I was
only deluding myself, fearful to face the truth. Ultimately, the only reason
what kept me believing was the fear of hell. The mental states I
had sillily attributed to divine forces or devil's attempts to
destroy my faith were nothing more than my imagination, and it is easy
to achieve the same mental states at will.
My faith was just learned fear in a disguise.
: Those who doubt this or dispute it have not givin it a sincere effort.
God is demanding too much. Dan, what was it I believed in for 15 years?
If sincere effort is equivalent to active suspension of disbelief -
what it was in my case - I'd rather quit. If god does not help me to
keep the faith, I can't go on.
Besides, I am concerned with god's morality and mental health. Does
she really want us to _believe_ in herself without any help (revelations,
guidance, or anything I can feel)? If she has created us, why didn't
she make the task any easier? Why are we supposed to love someone who
refuses to communicate with us? What is the point of eternal torture
for those who can't believe?
I love god just as much as she loves me. If she wants to seduce me,
she'll know what to do.
: Simple logic arguments are folly. If you read the Bible you will see
: that Jesus made fools of those who tried to trick him with "logic".
: Our ability to reason is just a spec of creation. Yet some think it is
: the ultimate. If you rely simply on your reason then you will never
: know more than you do now.
Your argument is of the type "you'll know once you try".
Yet there are many atheists who have sincerely tried, and believed
for many years, but were eventually honest enough to admit that
they had lived in a virtual reality.
What else but reason I can use? I don't have the spiritual means
Christians often refer to. My conscience disagrees with the Bible.
I don't even believe I have a soul. I am fully dependent on my
body - indeed, I _am_ this body. When it goes up with flames, so
does my identity. God can entertain herself with copies of me
if she wants.
: To learn you must accept that which you don't know.
What does this mean? To learn you must accept that you don't know
something, right-o. But to learn you must _accept_ something I don't
know, why? This is not the way I prefer to learn. It is unwise to
merely swallow everything you read. Suppose I write a book telling
how the Great Invisible Pink Unicorn (tm) has helped me in my
daily problems, would you accept this, since you can't know whether
it is true or not?
Note that the GIPU is also omnipotent, omnipresent, and loves just
about everyone. Besides, He (and She) is guiding every writer on this planet,
you and me, and not just some people who write legendary stories
2000 years ago.
Your god is just one aspect of His and Her Presence.
Petri
| 0 | alt.atheism |
As I understand, that number is deceptive. The reason is that the money
cost was in non-oil sales for the most part. Iraq still is not allowed
to sell oil, or do many of the things under the initial sanctions, but
is still surviving.
Of the ~93% (I have heard figures closer to 80%, but I won't quibble your
figures), most was dropped in carpet bombing of regions only occupied by
enemy troops. A B-52 drops a lot of bombs in one sortie, and we used them
around the clock. Not to mention other smaller aircraft using dumb
munitions.
2. The Patriot uses a proximity fuse. The adjusted figures for number
of Patriot kills of SS-1 derivitives is ~60-70%. That figure came
not from some fluke in the Pentagon, but a someone working with such
stuff in another part of DoD.
3. The statement precision bombing was the norm, is true around areas
where civilians were close to the target. We dropped by tonnage very
little bombs in populated regions, explaining the figures.
This figure, is far below all the other figures I have seen. If it
is indeed accurate, then how do you explain the discrepancy between
that figure, and other figures from international organizations?
Most figures I have seen place the hit ratio close to 70%, which is
still far higher than your 35%. Or does your figure say a bomb
missed if the plane took off with it, and the bomb never hit the target,
regardless of whether or not the bomb was dropped? Such methods
are used all the time to lie with statistics.
I have _never_ seen any source that was claiming such a figure. Please
post the source so its reliability can be judged.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
[I write:]
#>>> Imagine that 1000000 Alterian dollars turn up in your bank account every
#>>> month. Suppose further that this money is being paid to you by (a) your
#>>> big-hearted Alterian benefactor, or (b) a bug in an Alterian ATM. Let's
#>>> suppose that this is a true dichotomy, so P(a)+P(b)=1. Trouble is, Alterius
#>>> is in a different universe, so that no observations of Alterius are possible
#>>> (except for the banks - you couldn't possibly afford it ;-)
#>>>
#>>> Now let's examine the case for (a). There is no evidence whatsoever that
#>>> there is any such thing as a big-hearted Alterian benefactor. However,
#>>> P(exists(b-h A b)) + P(not(exists(b-h A b)) = 1. On the grounds that
#>>> lack_of_evidence_for is evidence_against when we have a partition like
#>>> that, we dismiss hypothesis (a).
#>>>
#>>> Turning, therefore, to (b), we also find no evidence to support that
#>>> hypothesis. On the same grounds as before, we dismiss hypothesis (b).
#>>>
#>>> The problem with this is that we have dismissed *all* of the possible
#>>> hypotheses, and even though we know by construction that the money
#>>> arrives every month, we have proven that it can't, because we
#>>> have dismissed all of its potential causes.
#
#>> That's an *extremely* poor argument, and here's why.
#>>
#>> Premise 1: "...this money is being paid to you by [either] (a) your big-
#>> hearted Alterian benefactor, or (b) a bug in an Alterian ATM".
#>>
#>> Thus each monthly appearance of the bucks, should it happen, is an
#>> observation on Alterius, and by construction, is evidence for the
#>> existence of [either the benefactor or the bug in the ATM].
#>>
#>> Premise 2: no observations on Alterius are possible.
#
#> #> (except for the banks - you couldn't possibly afford it ;-)
#>
#> You forgot to include this. My premise is actually:
#>
#> Premise 2: The cardinality of the set of possible observations on Alterius
#> is one.
#
#>> This is clearly contradictory to the first.
#
#> Not if you state it properly.
#
#>> Trouble is, on the basis of premise 2, you say that there can be no evidence
#>> of [either the benefactor or the bug], but the first premise leads to the
#>> conclusion that the appearance of the bucks, should it happen, is evidence
#>> for the existence of [either the benefactor or the bug].
#>>
#>> Voila, a screaming contradiction.
#
#[with my highlights - SC]
#> But in a strawman argument. There is only evidence for OneOf(Benefactor,Bug).
#> No observation to distinguish Benefactor from Bug is possible. That is
#> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#> not evidence for Bug, and neither is it evidence for Benefactor. Nor
#> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#> is true to say that this hypothetical universe appears exactly as
#> if there were no Benefactor/Bug (two statements, both would be false).
#
#This is still contradictory. It reduces to
#
# (1): Alterian dosh arriving in my account is due to [benefactor or bug].
#
# (2): this is not evidence for [benefactor], neither is it evidence for
# [bug] (meaning that it doesn't lend more weight to one than to the
# other)
#
# (3): therefore no evidence can exist for [benefactor] and no evidence
# can exist for [bug].
#
#But (3) relies on a shift in meaning from (2). When you say (paraphrased)
#in (2) that this is not "evidence for [benefactor]", for example, what you
#mean is that it's no *more* evidence for [benefactor] than it is for [bug].
Yes, that's what I mean.
#In (3), however, you've shifted the meaning of "evidence for [benefactor]"
#so that it now means `absolute' "evidence for [benefactor]" rather than
#`relative' "evidence for [benefactor]" w.r.t. [bug].
Not really, I meant evidence that would tend to one over the other. I
think this is just a communications problem. What I am trying to say,
in my clumsy way, is that while I buy your theory as far as it relates
to theism making predictions (prayer, your 'Rapture' example), I don't
buy your use of Occam's razor in all cases where A=0.
In my example, one couldn't dismiss
[benefactor] or [bug] on the grounds of simplicity - one of these is necessary
to explain the dosh. I brought up the 'one-by-one dismissal' process to
show that it would be wrong to do so. From what you're saying in this
post, it seems you agree, and we're talking at cross-purposes.
#(3) is still in contradiction to (1).
#
#Some sums may help. With B = benefactor, b = bug, d = dosh arrives in account:
#
# (1) implies P(B+b | d) = 1
#
#Assuming that P(Bb | d) = 0, so it's either the benefactor *or* a bug
#which is responsible if the bucks arrive, but not both, then
#
# P(B+b | d) = P(B | d) + P(b | d)
#
#so
#
# P(B | d) + P(b | d) = 1
#
#but (3) implies that
#
# P(B | d) = 0 and P(b | d) = 0.
No, this isn't what I meant. P(B | d) = 0.5 and P(b | d) = 0.5, with
necessarily no new observation (we've already seen the dosh) to change
those estimates. I was trying to say (again, in my clumsy way) that
it would be _wrong_ to assign 0 probability to either of these. And that's
precisely what use of the Razor does in the case of gods - gods are
one class of hypothesis (there are many others) belonging to a set of
hypotheses _one_of_which_ is necessary to explain something which otherwise
would _not_ be satisfactorily explained. It can be thrown out or
retained on grounds of non-rational preference, not of science or statistics.
Alternatively, one could chuck out or retain the lot, on the grounds
that the answer can't be known, or that the notional probability estimates
are effectively useless, being equal (agnosticism/weak atheism).
#> As they do when the set M is filled by "the universe is caused by x",
#> where x is gods, pink unicorns, nothing, etc. - and no observation
#> tends to one conclusion over the other.
#
#Exactly the point I was making, I think. So we don't "throw out" any of
#these, contrary to your assertion above that we do.
Some people do, Simon, and they think they are doing excellent science.
My sole point was that they aren't.
#>> Only observations which directly contradict the hypothesis H[i] (i.e. x
#>> where P(x | H[i]) = 0) can cause P(H[i]) to go to zero after a finite
#>> number of observations. Only in this case do we get to throw any of the
#>> hypotheses out.
#
#> Exactly my point, though I may have been unclear.
#
#You said the diametric opposite, which I guess is the source of my confusion.
I was merely trying to illustrate the incorrectness of doing so.
#> What I'm trying to say is that while you are correct to say that absence of
#> evidence can sometimes be evidence of absence, this does not hold true for
#> all, or perhaps any, versions of theism - and it isn't true that those for
#> which it does not hold can be discarded using the razor.
#
#On the contrary, those for which it does not hold are *exactly* those which
#can be discarded using the Razor. See my post on the other branch of this
#thread.
Then you seem to be guilty of the contradiction you accuse me of. If
the razor holds for gods, then it holds for all like hypotheses. Which
means that you're assigning P(x | H[i]) =0 for all i, though we've already
established that it's not correct to do so when SUM(P(x|H[i]))=1 over
all i.
#> Simply put, anyone who claims to have a viable proof of the existence or
#> non-existence of gods, whether inductive or no, is at best mistaken, and
#> at worst barking mad.
#
#Luckily I make no such claim, and have specifically said as much on numerous
#occasions. You wouldn't be constructing a strawman here, would you Frank?
#Although that doesn't, of course, rule out my being barking mad in any case
#(I could be barking mad in my spare time, with apologies to Cleese et al).
#
#But I think you miss the point once again. When I say that something is
#"evidence against" an hypothesis, that doesn't imply that observation of
#the said something necessarily *falsifies* the hypothesis, reducing the
#estimate of P(H | data) to zero. If it *reduces* this quantity, it's still
#evidence against H.
No, I got that. I'm talking about the case when A=0. You're clearly
correct when A!=0. And I'm not constructing a strawman (though it's
certainly possible that I've misunderstood what you're saying). However,
by any standards, a system that says when A=0, gods are highly unlikely,
and when A!=0 gods can be dismissed using the Razor, is a system purporting
to be an inductive proof that gods either don't exist, or are unnecessary
to explain any or all phenomena. In my experience, systems such as this
(including those which purport to prove that gods exist) always contain
a fallacy upon close examination. If that's not what you're saying, then
please put me straight. | 0 | alt.atheism |
IMO, the influence of Stalin, or for that matter, Ayn Rand, invalidates your
assumption that theism is the factor to be considered. 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. 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?
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?
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 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.
I don't understand this. Can you formalise your argument? | 0 | alt.atheism |
Note: the following article is submitted on behalf of someone (Frank
daniels) who has difficulty posting to s.r.c, email replies to
daniels@math.ufl.edu
I am unable to post to the bitnet groups.
Here is a capsule history of the Shepherding/Discipleship Movement in
the Churches of Christ (i.e. Crossroads/Boston):
I could trace the Movement back as far as 1800, and indeed some of its
roots go back that far, but these were really "influences" on the Movement,
and not the actual movement, per se.
I will start in c.1920.
In that day, there were 'white' churches and 'colored' churches in
nearly every area (due to segregation). Modern Pentecostalism was developing
as a predominantly 'colored' phenomenon. Here, there was great fanaticism,
emphasis on emotional experiences, and belief in a personal guidance and
indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Many 'white' Protestant churches were growing into what became known
as conservative fundamentalism. By the 1940s, the evangelical movement was
in full swing, and many groups were becoming part of it.
When the civil rights movement grew stronger (in the 1950's and
1960's),
many 'white' church groups began to be influenced by the 'black' churches and
by what was going on there. This spread started in the most liberal of groups
and spread to the more conservative ones by the late '60's. In 1969, even the
Catholic Church was displaying evidence of influence by the other
groups...still
evident today.
The Churches of Christ are (and were) a very conservative Protestant
group. When the influence from outside began to reach the CofC in c.1965, it
was generally not appreciated. Conservative groups are very strongly
resistant
to change, and the new movement was VERY different from the CofC status quo.
The magazines put out at that time by CofC folks tell the story as it
unfolds. New ideas came into the CofC. There was a big push to reach out to
college students, young adults, and teens. Some called this the Campus
Evangel-
ism Movement. Emotions, generally not highly regarded in the CofC at large,
played a more important role in the new movement. In some places, people
began
to speak in tongues (as their Pentecostal predecessors did).
This was met with extreme criticism from within the Churches of
Christ.
In some places, people were fired from their jobs for speaking in tongues or
for
advocating the "Holy Spirit Movement", another name for the new branch. The
term "Underground Church of Christ" also came into use because these people
had
to hide their differences (or they might be ostricised).
There were several congregations, however, whose leaderships were
receptive to the new ideas (at least in part; the tongues-speaking never
really
caught on). One of these was the 14th Street Church of Christ in Gainesville,
FL. Campus Ministry had already been regarded as important at 14th Street,
and
the new ideas seemed to be very helpful tools for evangelism. They also
seemed
to put vitality into the church, which many felt had been lacking.
In October of 1967, the 14th Street congregation hired Chuck Lucas to
be its Campus Minister. By 1970, he would move to being the congregation's
(lead) Minister. In the late 60's/early 70's, the congregation worked with
many
other groups. They held Bible discussions at Daytona Beach during Spring
Break.
They organized talks in the fraternities on the University of Florida campus.
They also worked with UF sports people.
In 1972, the congregation ordered a larger building to be constructed.
When it was finished, the group moved and changed its name (now no longer
appropriate). It became the Crossroads Church of Christ from then on, a name
that would become legendary.
By this time, Crossroads was basically the only CofC whose programs
were fully aligned to the new movement. While they didn't start it, they
continued it and were responsible for where it wound up going.
By 1975, none of the other Churches of Christ in the area felt that
they could cooperate with Crossroads, due to what they recognized as doctrinal
problems at Crossroads.
Crossroads had begun to heavily emphasize, and later require
attendance
at all church functions. It was seen as a good thing for each member to have
at least one close relationship, a person with whom you would share all of
your problems, pray, and get help from. The concept was called Prayer
Partners,
which later became Discipleship Partners and also later became mandatory. The
leadership was assigning prayer partners to people for a while.
The book called "The Master Plan of Evangelism" was a strong influence
on Chuck Lucas. He (and the group) believed that it was every person's duty
and life purpose to carry out the great commission. Crossroads was growing
in number, and numbers became VERY important (some would say all-important).
A person who "was evangelistic" was "spiritual". Evangelism meant
inviting people to Crossroads events; if you did this a lot and some of them
converted, then you were "spiritual". There were sermons about how if you
bought groceries, the cashier and bag boy ought to receive invitations to
services. Everyone at your job ought to receive invitations. Since these
people needed Jesus, you should be "aggressive"--don't take 'no' for an
answer.
If you did not evangelize enough, you came to be called "lazy" or
"unspiritual".
By the end of the decade, the Prayer Partner system was integrated
into
a structure. The Elders and Ministers were on top (like a big pyramid). Then
the group leaders, Bible study leaders, and members. Everyone who came in had
someone placed over them.
It is at this time, 1978-1980, that the bad press about Crossroads
began to circulate. The problem with rape on the University of Florida campus
was tremendous, but Crossroads was considered a bigger and more immediate
problem. There were many complaints about the congregation and its "pushy"
evangelistic tactics. Crossroads was considering the other Churches of Christ
to be "dead" churches, which aggravated them; it was aggressively recruiting
out of the other church groups (denominations), which aggravated THEM.
By this time, Crossroads had grown numerically to the point (1100)
where not only did they believe that they would soon need a new building, but
also they were sending out "planting" [create a new church] and
"reconstructing"
[reorganize an existing church] teams to other cities. By this time, the
Crossroads Movement was underway.
A group was sent to the 30-member Lexington Church of Christ in
Boston,
MA. The team was headed up by Kip McKean, who had been converted out of a
fraternity by Crossroads (in Gainesville). Kip held a still stronger view of
church authority, which he believed was heavily vested in the Evangelist(s),
and not so much in the Elders. He had been fired in 1977 from the
congregation
that he had been working at when the elders there found numerous things wrong
with his theology, including the practice of what came to be called one-over-
one
Christianity. [Called this by critics]
In the first year, half of the 30 people felt that they did not want
to
be a part of the new congregation. They left. But others began coming into
the new Boston Church of Christ.
Ah, but I'm ahead of myself.
At Crossroads, the heavy-handed system had begun to take its toll on
the members. Many have said that they felt that they were working hard, but
they were not achieving the results that were so important. The numbers were
dropping. From 1978, Crossroads membership declined steadily. The leadership
began to tighten the reigns on the congregation, who was seen as being largely
"unproductive" and "unfruitful". The "fruit" passages in the NT were
interpreted
as referring to new converts. If you were not bearing fruit, said John 15,
you
would be cast into the fire! [Boston still teaches this.]
If you love your neighbor, you'll save his soul (invite him to church
and convert him). If you're not doing that, you don't love your neighbor.
And if you don't love, you're in danger of backsliding. The logical arguments
continue in this vein.
In 1985, Chuck Lucas was fired from his job as minister, due to
recurring
sins in his life. These struggles were never revealed to the congregation at
large, although many people outside the congregation had heard about them.
For
by now, there was very little contact (on a friendship level) between most
Crossroads members and those outside. [If you have contact, your focus should
be on converting them. Bring them to a Bible Study.]
Chuck's replacement was Joe Woods, who was fully supportive of the
Boston system. As Boston grew in number, they began to offer 'training'
sessions
for other ministers. Joe went to Boston to be trained and returned to Cross-
roads ready to emphasize the "total commitment" to the church that Boston and
Kip McKean were now emphasizing. Eventually, in Fall of 1987, the Elders at
Crossroads (now 2 in number--Dick Whitehead and Bill Hogle) made a decision.
Boston was demanding that all of the other churches in the movement come under
the direction of the church in Boston. The Elders refused, citing their
belief
that each church should be autonomous (something true in all non-Boston
Churches
of Christ). Perhaps there was also some degree of offense done here, since
Crossroads was no longer the 'example' to the rest of the Movement. The group
now numbered about 800, while Boston was now larger (in membership).
The Churches of Christ generally teach that baptism is a necessary
element of salvation. At Crossroads, they taught what was called 'Lordship'
baptism: you had to understand the commitment involved before you could be
baptized. You had to 'count the cost'. At Boston, they took this a step
further. If at some time you became "unproductive", then your spirituality
was suspect. People would begin to ask you if you REALLY understood what you
were getting into. Anyone who said 'no' had their baptism deemed invalid:
they
hadn't counted the cost properly. They still had to be baptized. Others
called
this "rebaptism", and Crossroads didn't approve of this practice.
When Crossroads announced that it would not follow Boston, many of its
members left Crossroads and went to Movement-related ministries, which were
now called Discipling Ministries. You were either discipling (evangelizing)
or
you were "dead". They also used the nickname "Movement of God" for a while.
By Summer of 1988, Crossroads was withdrawn from the Movement and now
stood alone. They had few to no allies in the mainstream Churches of Christ,
and now none in the Movement.
Boston, however, continued to chart its course in the direction that
they had been following. They sent "reconstruction teams" to many cities,
which
usually meant that they split the church there. They stopped acknowledging
other
churches of Christ as Christians and began to call themselves the "remnant".
The "remnant" of the Jews in the OT are those who are saved by God. It was
felt that the "remnant" today represents all the Christians. Sometimes they
would simply call their Movement "the church".
They usually took the name of the city for their name, implying to the
other Churches of Christ that Boston did not recognize their existence. Many
campuses have now formally forbidden Boston ministries from recruiting there
due to the number of complaints. In some cases, it has been documented that
Boston ministries have lied to University officials in order to continue to
have
access to the campus. Any resistance that they experience is termed "perse-
cution", which all true Christians are expected to experience. Are you really
a Christian if you're not being persecuted?
The numbers at Boston peaked at c.3000 in 1989. Since then, they have
fought to remain steady. I have heard a tape of Kip McKean shouting at the
leaders for failing to fulfill the Great Commission (their life's purpose) as
God commanded them. Their Christianity is highly centered on commands and
obedience.
Crossroads once was called a cult. Boston is now recognized by the
Cult Awareness Network and other national and international groups as a cult,
under a formal definition, because of the techniques which they employ. The
term "cult" is usually differentiated from "sect" by the practice of those
techniques. The techniques which they employ are recognized by many as being
techniques of destructive pursuasion, also used by other Shepherding
Discipleship groups. [Robert Jay Lifton, Margaret Thaler Singer, and many
others have written about the topic.] These techniques include guilt
motivation,
emotional manipulation, loaded language, the aura of sacred science (a sort
of mystic element seen in everyday events), and others.
I have no particular axe to grind against the Movement. I have numer-
ous friends who are still part of the Movement. I have never had a 'falling
out' with anyone in the Movement. I disagree with many things which they
teach.
I recognize the psychological damage done by being involved in such a system.
I hold no loyalty to the mainstream Churches of Christ and do not defend their
mistakes either.
I want to point out, though, that unlike in many other systems which
are in other ways similar, the Leadership of the Boston Movement are as much
victims of the system as the members. We do not have a leader who enjoys
manipulating his people. The leaders believe what they teach, and they feel
accountable for the activites (and spiritual welfare) of the members. When
members do not evangelize to their expectations, for example, the leaders feel
personally responsible as well. The leaders are not out for money or power.
They want to evangelize the world in their lifetime.
I have said too much, but there is much more to say. There are many
examples I could give and quotes from other sources (including Boston
bulletins)
that I could include. But this is too long already. You may post this if
you so desire.
Frank D.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
...
The so-called Athanasian Creed has never been a recognized standard of faith
in the Orthodox Church. It was introduced (without the Filioque) in certain
service-books in the 17th and 18th centuries at a time when there was a
strong Western influence on Orhtodoxy. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[much deleted]
[much deleted]
It bugs me when I see this kind of nonsense.
First, there is no reasonable evidence linking Masonry to ancient
Egypt, or even that it existed prior to the late 14th century (and
there's nothing definitive before the 17th).
Second, worship of Osiris is not, nor has it ever been, a part of
Masonic practice (we are strictly non-denominational).
You said it!
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Yup, I think you're right. My mistake. Now, how do I make
an "R" backwards using a computer keyboard?
I'll bet the gods know how (this is alt.atheism, after
all). Tell you what, if all my "R"s start coming out
backwards when I type from now on, I'll become a believer.
(And that's not asking for miracles. If I asked for a miracle,
I'd ask for a real miracle, like for Pat Buchanan to become
an out-of-the-closet drag queen - well...maybe that wouldn't be
so miraculous, but I think he'd look fabulous in a feather
boa and a sequined hat like Mia Farrow wore in Gatsby.) | 0 | alt.atheism |
What we call today the "Old Testament" was being written up to approx-
imately 168 BCE, according to most modern scholars. Aside from the book of
Daniel, the whole OT predates Alexander (the Great). These books were written
(predominantly) in Hebrew.
There were also other books being written at about this time and later
by Greek-speaking, or "Hellenistic", Jews. These books are those which are
reckoned by many denominations as "Apocrypha".
Before the closing of the Writings, the third part of what is today
called the canon, all of the books were in use by Jews of the day. However,
there were those who reckoned (based on Zech. 13) that prophecy had ceased.
This faction maintained that there were no true prophets in their day. They
also maintained that literature of a prophetic character could not be genuine
teachings from God.
By the time of c.65 CE, another faction had entered the mess. Christians
had come in claiming that THEIR writings were also suitable to be read in
synagogues and used for worship. Therefore, the Palestinian Jewish leaders
got together and stated that the books written from the time of Ben Sira (Sirach)
onward were not sacred writings. They justified this from Zech. 13. In
particular, they said, the writings of the Christians (called heretics) were
not inspired.
At about 90 CE, they codified things further by closing the canon in
somewhat of an official sense at the Council of Jamnia. A few books (Ecclesi-
astes, Song of Songs, Esther) made it in after that date, but these were those
which had been written prior to the official cut off point (the time of Ben
Sira) for inclusion that they had established in order to keep out the Christian
and Hellenistic writings.
Jerome excluded the 'apocrypha' because they were not in use by Jews
of his day and because they were (except for Sirach) not found in Hebrew in his
time. His criterion for separating them from the other pre-Christian writings
was not based on 'inspiration'. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
In the course of discussing the Sabbath with some folks,
I came across something that was completely new to me,
and I thought I'd offer it for comment.
To keep this as brief as possible, let me state my
observation as a declarative statement, and then whoever
wants to can comment on it. Basically, what I think
I've observed is that the phrase "the Ten Commandments",
as used by Moses, is not a reference to Ex. 20:1-17, but
rather a reference to ten distinct discourses from Ex.
20:1 through Ex. 31:18. That is, the phrase "the Ten
Commandments" should more accurately be translated "the
Ten Discourses", of which the passage we call the "Ten
Commandments" is really only the first.
I'm not completely convinced that the above is true, but
for purposes of discussion, let me argue it as though I
was sure.
Arguments supporting the above idea:
1) There aren't really ten commandments in Ex. 20:1-17.
In order to get 10 commandments, you have to get two of
them out of verses 3-6, and the verses themselves do not
support such a division because they are all about not
worshipping other gods. That is, verse 3 commands to
have no other gods, and verse 5 commands to not worship
the idols mentioned in verse 4. You can't violate
verses 5-6 without violating verse 3, indicating that
the whole passage is one command, and leaving us with
only Nine "Commandments". I could go on at length about
this, but for now I'll just stop with this summary.
2) There ARE ten speeches between Ex 20:1 (the beginning
of the traditional "Ten Commandments") and Ex 31:18
(where God actually gives Moses the two tablets with the
Ten Commandments/Discourses written on them). I break
these ten down as follows: 20:1-17; 20:22-26; 21:1-23:33;
25:1-30:10; 30:11-16; 30:17-21; 30:22-33; 30:34-38;
31:1-11; and 31:12-18. In most cases, each of these
passages begins with some variation of the phrase, "And
the LORD spoke to Moses, saying..." The exception is
Ex. 21:1, which begins "Now these are the ordinances
which you are to set before them..."
3) The word translated "commandments" in the phrase
"the Ten Commandments" isn't really the word for
"commandment", its the word for a speech, or an
utterance. It's a word often used for longer discourses
rather than individual statements; for instance, when
combined with the word 'yom' (day), this word is
translated "Chronicles" in such phrases as "now the rest
of the acts of so-and-so, are they not written in the
Chronicles of x?..." The word for "commandment" is
freely used throughout the books of Moses, and perhaps
it is significant that when Moses spoke of the Ten X's,
he appears to have avoided the word for commandment and
chosen instead a word associated with discourses longer
than just a single command.
4) God tells Moses that He is going to give him the
stone tablets "with the law and the commandments" (Ex
24:12), yet He does not give Moses the tablets until He
has finished all ten discourses on Mount Sinai. If the
Ten Commandments were only Ex. 20:1-17, it is not
immediately clear why God would wait several days and
nine more discourses before giving these tablets to
Moses. On the other hand, if we have the Ten Discourses
written on the tablets, then it makes perfect sense that
God would not give Moses the tablets until He had
finished delivering all Ten Discourses.
5) When Moses did get the tablets, he found that both
tablets were written on both sides (Ex. 32:15). If
these Ten "Commandments" were only the first 17 verses
of Ex. 20, God would have had to have written in LARGE
letters! Not that He couldn't have, of course, but it
does seem more likely to me that this is a reference to
two tablets containing ten discourses written in normal-
sized letters.
6) In II Cor. 3, Paul seems to specifically single out
the "commandments written on stone" as being the
"ministry of death", "that which is fading away," and
"the ministry of condemnation." With the possible
exception of the commandment about the Sabbath, it is
difficult to see why Paul would refer to the commands in
Ex. 20:1-17 as being temporary, "fading away"-type
commandments. This is less of a problem if the stone
tablets should happen to have included all of the
commandments from Ex 20 through Ex 31.
Arguments against this idea:
The main argument against this idea, aside from the fact
that it contradicts a long-standing tradition, is that
in Dt 5:22, Moses says, after quoting the commands in
Ex. 20:1-17, "These words the LORD spoke...and He added
no more. And He wrote them on two tablets of stone and
gave them to me." This appears to identify the words
just quoted as being the only contents of the two stone
tablets.
That was my first impression, anyway. However, after
some thought, I noted that a great deal hinges on how
you understand the phrase "These words." If Moses meant
"These words *which I have just related to you* were
spoken by God" etc., then that would mean that only the
traditional "Ten Commandments" were on the stone
tablets. If, however, Moses was making a parenthetical
comment--"These words *which I AM NOW telling you* were
spoken by God" etc.--then that's quite different.
I did note that in the Dt 5 account, Moses tells of
being given the stone tablets BEFORE telling of the
people asking Moses to represent them before God,
whereas in the Exodus account, the people asked this of
Moses between the first and second discourses, several
days BEFORE God gave Moses the stone tablets. This
reinforces the idea that Moses' remarks in Dt 5:22ff
were intended as a parenthetical remark, rather than a
strictly chronological account of when God wrote what,
and at what point He stopped adding to what was on the
tablets.
Summary: all things considered, I find it somewhat more
likely that the nine commands in Ex 20 are really only
the first of what Moses regarded as the Ten Discourses
of God. I don't know if anybody has ever espoused this
idea before; it's brand-new to me. So, while I lean
towards accepting it, I would be very interested in
hearing any comments and criticisms anyone may care to
offer. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
This is true. The statement didn't say anything about Christians in general.
It specifically said "strict fundamentalist" Christians. It reflects a
common perception that people have about fundamentalists being strict
disciplinarians. Whether or not this perception is justified is another issue.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
What you call "the Trinity and the Catholic church's definition
of it" is precisely the result of the first Christians getting
together and trying to find an acceptable answer to your
question "what is a Christian?". I can't see what you are
objecting to: someone is saying what historians of all beliefs
would agree on, and you are calling him a closed-minded bigot?
You really ought to say what you mean by "belief in Jesus
Christ". It is not a wording that is sufficient to describe a
Christian. Muslims believe in Jesus Christ although they
believe he was a prophet and not the incarnated Son of God. But
followers of Eastern religions might be quite happy to say that
Jesus was the incarnation of God - along with large numbers of
other historical and mythical figures.
So perhaps you ought to rephrase your question and say
precisely what it is in the traditional definitions of what it
is to be a Christian, as handed down by the Universal Church,
you object to but regard as unnecessary for being a Christian. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Before you finalize your file in the FAQs (or after), you might want to
correct the typo in the following:
It seems one or the other end of the rating scale should be identified with
"homosexual".
As a personal note, I guess I differ with you on the question of work
entering human life as a result of sin.
Before the fall (Gen 2:15) "And the LORD God took the man, and put him into
the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it." which I would call "work".
For me, the difference introduced by sin is the painful aspects of work added
at the fall (I take the cursing of the ground in vs.17-19 to apply to the
work for sustenance). In a way, some view "work" as a blessing (Ecclesiastes
is a fun book! - for melancholies).
I hope I do not sound caustic, maybe you can enlighten me further.
Well, this is certainly a delicate subject, and I guess you accomplished what
you state as your purpose "It summarizes arguments for allowing Christian
homosexuality", not for me the most noble goal, but you are writing a FAQ.
I wonder if you might temporize the apparent "sentence" of the specific
homosexual you propose (arguably tenuously define).
Perhaps that would be true of "celibacy from homosexual relations", or
refrainng from their choice relationships, but that does not forbid
heterosexual. Could they not have/enjoy heterosexual relations "for what it
was worth"? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I am writing a paper on religion and how it reflects
and or affects modern music. This brief questionaire is summary of
the questions I would like answered. A response is requested and
can be mailed to me directly at:
gtd259a@prism.gatech.edu
*PLEASE MAIL - DO NOT POST*
Thanks in advance,
Matt Kressel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1.) How do you feel about groups like Diecide, Slayer, and Dio who
freely admit to practicing satanism and preach it in their songs?
2.) How do you feel about groups like Petra, old Stryper, Whitecross,
and Holy Soldier who promote and sing about Cristianity?
3.) How do you feel about groups like Front 242, XTC, Revolting Cocks,
Minor Threat, and Ministry who condone and sing about atheism?
4.) How do you feel about bands like Shelter who preach the Hare
Krishna religion and other minority(but not unheard of) religions?
5.a) Do you feel there is any difference between promoting music that
supports Cristianity and music that condones satanism?
b) Why do you feel this way?
6.) What types of music do you listen to?
7.a) How often do you purchase music?
b) How often does that music contain lyrics with undertones in
religion?
8.a) Do you feel that music one listens to affects the way one views
a particular religion? Religion in general?
b) How does it affect the way you view your religion? All religions?
9.) FEEL FREE TO ADD ANY COMMENTS HERE
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
But it's STILL HAPPENING. That's the entire point. Only last month, John
Major hailed it as a great victory that he had personally secured a sale of
arms to Saudi Arabia. The same month, we sold jet fighters to the same
Indonesian government that's busy killing the East Timorese.
It's all very well to say "Oops, we made a boo-boo, better clean up the
mistake", but the US and UK *keep* making the *same* mistake. They do it so
often that I can't believe it's not deliberate. This suspicion is reinforced
by the fact that the mistake is an extremely profitable one for a decrepit
economy reliant on arms sales.
No, I thought both were terrible.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
No, that's the point of evolution, not the point of "natural
morality". Unless, of course, as I have suggested several
times already, "natural morality" is just a renaming.
But your "yes?" is actually stronger than this. You are
agreeing that "every time an organism evolves cooperative
behaviour" you are going to call it a "natural morality."
Bee dance is a naturally developed piece of cooperative behaviour. | 0 | alt.atheism |
...
Thanks for posting the exact wording which I had not seen
previously. The part I quote above seems to me to indicate
disapproval of capital punishment - it is to be used only when
other means are not sufficient; I would say this is a stronger
restriction than saying that capital punishment is useable when
justifiable. I would certainly say there are cases where a
crime justifies death (perhaps this is the Old Testament
interpretation), but my reverence for life would say that I
would oppose the actual infliction of the death penalty (a New
Testament interpretation?). It is a matter for debate whether
the death penalty works to keep the peace in a way that
non-violent provisions do not. I don't believe it does, and I
would certainly observe that in the USA, where you have the
death penalty, there is a far higher murder rate than here in
the UK, where we do not. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
#|> #
#|> #False dichotomy. You claimed the killing were *not* religiously
#|> #motivated, and I'm saying that's wrong. I'm not saying that
#|> #each and every killing is religiously motivate, as I spelled out
#|> #in detail.
#|>
#|> Which killings do you say are religously motivated?
#
#For example, I would claim that the recent assassination of four
#catholic construction workers who had no connection with the IRA
#was probably religously motivated.
#
#|> At the time
#|> of writing, I think that someone who claims the current violence is
#|> motivated by religion is reaching.
#
#What would you call is when someone writes "The killings in N.I
#are not religously motivated?"
I'd say it was motivated by a primitive notion of revenge, and by
misguided patriotism. Otherwise, I'd have to wonder how come mainland
catholics are not killed by mainland protestants, and southern
catholics are not killed by southern protestants, and so on. Take away
all plausible causes bar religion, and the violence diminishes markedly.
Gee, why _is_ that?
#|> Now, it's possible to argue that
#|> religion *in the past* is a major contributing factor to the violence in
#|> the present, but I don't know of any evidence that this is so - and I'm
#|> not enough of a historian to debate it.
#
#Given that the avowed aim of the IRA is to take Northern Ireland
#into a country that has a particular church written into its
#constitution, and which has restriction on civil rights dictated
#by that Church, I fail to see why the word "past" is appropriate.
The country also has a different official language written in its
constitution (and vice versa :-) - maybe they're motivated by a love of
Irish poetry. Your argument is fallacious, jon.
For what it's worth, I agree with all that you say about Ireland above,
and more.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Considering what you quoted and refered to was blank, I must say:
touche!
Of course, you are correct, there is no atheistic mythology employed
on this board. Or, if there is, it is null and void.
---
Private note to Jennifer Fakult.
"This post may contain one or more of the following:
sarcasm, cycnicism, irony, or humor. Please be aware
of this possibility and do not allow yourself to be
confused and/or thrown for a loop. If in doubt, assume
all of the above. | 0 | alt.atheism |
--
Kevin makes a good point here, and when that theists miss all-too-often. That
is, the belief in a diety is not necessarily coupled with agreement/love of
that diety, so really they have yet another bit of convincing to do just beyond
belief.
I guess the standard argumet goes something like: well, once you believe in
God, you know God is love, and you will choose to love him-- if it wasnt so
widely accepted and asserted it'd be laughable...
best regards,
--Adam | 0 | alt.atheism |
[some big deletions]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Another in a string of idiotic generalizations. Gad, I'm surprised I got
this far down in the post. I guess some just like seeing their names up on
a CRT.
Like me :-)
Phil Trodwell | 0 | alt.atheism |
Actually, I just think he's confused. *I'm* going to hell because I'm Gay,
not becuase I don't believe in God.
(I wonder if that means I can't come to Tammy & Deans picnic?) | 0 | alt.atheism |
Are you sure you want to include Chalcedon here? I presume that you
mean the description of Jesus as fully human and fully devine. Almost
everyone would consider the majority of Copts and Armenians, and the
Jacobites, as Christians, yet for 15 centuries it has been maintained
that they disagree with the Formula of Chalcedon. Those that wouldn't
consider them Christians are most likely to object that these communities
don't require a personal commitment to Jesus, which is only tangentially
related to the Formula of Chalcedon.
--
Thanks, John Kolassa, kolassa@bio1.bst.rochester.edu | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I have not seen this book, though I have had several people quote it in
support of some tendentious assertions they were making, so I have become
curious about it.
I don't want to malign this Hislop fellow, whoever he may be, as I have only
heard the arguments at second hand, but both of the arguments seemed to turn
on false etymology that SEEMED to be derived from Hislop.
I would be interested in knowing more about these things.
The first one claimed that the word "church" was derived from the Greek
"cyclos", and that it was therefore related to the worship of "Circe".
I don't know if Hislop is the source of this assertion, but it does seem to
be based on false etymology.
The second claimed an etymological relationship between "Ishtar" and
"Easter", which seemed to be even more fanciful and far-fetched than some
of the wilder notions of the British Israelites.
Regarding the latter, as far as I have been able to find out, "Easter" is
derived from the old English name for April - "Eosturmonath". The Venerable
Bede mentioned that this was associated with a goddess called "Eostre", but
apart from that reference I have not been able to find out anything more
about her. It also seems that the term "Easter" is only used by the English
and those they evangelized. The Germans, for example, also use the term
"Ostern", but Germany was evangelized by English missionaries.
So I would be interested in any evidence of "Easter" being used for Pascha
by people who do not have any kind of connection with the ancient Anglo-
Saxons and their offshoots. Such evidence might support the claims of those
who appear to derive the theory from Hislop.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Well I agree with you in the sense that they have no "moral" right to inflict
these rules, but there is one thing I might add: at the very least, almost
everybody wants to avoid pain, and if that means sacrificing some stuff for a
herd morality, then so be it.
Right, and since they grew up and learned around us, they have some idea of our
right and wrong, which I think must, in part, be incorporated. Very rarely do
you see criminal behaviour for "philosophical reasons"
(stuff deleted)
--
best regards,
--Adam | 0 | alt.atheism |
On a similar note, a good friend of mine worked as a clerk in a
chain bookstore. Several of his peers were amazing, one woman in
particular:
A customer asked her if they had _The Autobiography of Benjamin
Franklin_. "Who's it by?" was her first question. Then, "Is he
still alive?" Then, "Is it fiction or non-fiction?"
Finally my friend intervened, and showed the guy where it was.
It makes one wonder what the standards of employment are. | 0 | alt.atheism |
acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu (Turin Turambar, ME Department of Utter Misery)
said re. Dan Schaertel's article [if I followed the quoting right]:
I think it may also be worthwhile pointing out that if we
take the appellation `Rabbi' seriously then Jesus had a full
grasp of contemporary `scripture'
Mat21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures...
Mat22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing
Mat22:29 the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Following from this, he would have been in a wonderful
position to fulfil prophesies, and the NT says as much:
Mat26:54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled,
Mat26:54 that thus it must be?
Mat26:56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the
Mat26:56 prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples
Mat26:56 forsook him, and fled.
If the books comprising the referred-to `scripture' had not
been accessible then it probably would be a different
matter. | 0 | alt.atheism |
...
Regarding the first paragraph, I would say that I didn't write it. I
don't believe that unbaptized babies are put in Hell. I don't even
believe in Hell. At least, I don't believe in a fiery place where
there will be "gnashing of teeth". | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
My feeling on baptism is this: parents baptize their baby so that the
baby has the sanctifying grace of baptism (and thus removal of original
sin) on its soul in the event of an unexpected death.
That is, the parents speak on behalf of the child which is too young
to speak on its own. This should not surprise anyone: don't parents
*always* do what they believe is the best for their baby? Why would
that apply to the baby's physical needs only but not his/her spiritual
needs to have God's grace?
The purpose of confirmation is for the baby (now young adult) to
decide to re-affirm for himself/herself the promises that his/her
parents made at baptism. That is where accepting Jesus into your
heart comes in. In baptism, the parents ask Jesus to come into their
baby's heart; at confirmation the child repeats that request
independently. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
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.
What's left? Healthy flaming. I'm sure on occassion I've
appeared to be little more than a caustic boob to some of the
Bobby types. But why waste breath arguing with someone whose most
rational though process involves his excretory system?
And I stand by my record of recognizing these people long before
most of the rest of the group. So let's see what this Timmons
character has in store for us...
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Maddi: >>
No, no, no! I've already been named by "Killfile" Keith.
My nickname is Maddi "Never a Useful Post" Hausmann, and
don't you DARE forget it, "Half".
You really should quote Ivan Karamazov instead(on a.a), as he was
the atheist.
--
Maddi Hausmann madhaus@netcom.com
Centigram Communications Corp San Jose California 408/428-3553 | 0 | alt.atheism |
Sure, a person could have great respect for Jesus and yet be an
atheist. (Having great respect for Jesus does not necessarily mean
that one has to follow the Christian [or Muslim] interpretation of
his life.) | 0 | alt.atheism |
: : So in conclusion it can be shown that there is essentially no
: : logical argument which clearly differentiates a "cult" from a
: : "religion". I challenge anyone to produce a distinction which
: : is clear and can't be easily knocked down.
: How about this one: a religion is a cult which has stood the test
: of time.
Just like history is written by the `winners' and not the `losers.'
From what I've seen of religions, a religion is just a cult that
was so vile and corrupt it was able to exert it's doctrine using
political and military measures. Perhaps if Koresh withstood the
onslaught for another couple of months he would have started
attracting more converts due to his `strength,' hence becoming a
full religion and not just a cult.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
I replied to this query via e-mail, but I think there are some
issues that are worth discussing in public.
I would recommend you to take a look at
1) your dictionary
2) alt.atheism FAQ files
to notice that atheism is _not_ a belief system, and what is common
to all atheists is not a belief, but a _lack of belief in deities_.
I cannot imagine how anyone could do research on atheism without
paying careful attention to this issue.
IMHO, this is a poor method to do any real survey, although I'm sure the
replies might keep you amused for hours.
No, I do _not_ know what you mean. If you are surveying our individual
philosophies, fine, but that's not strictly atheism. Atheism is not
just another, godless version of the theistic explanations for life,
the universe and everything. It is not a belief system, and it could
hardly be called a philosophical system.
Once more: Atheism is characterised by lack of belief in deities.
Do not twist the meaning, or assume that we have some kind of
philosophy we all agree on.
Some comments on your questions:
I would also like to hear more about this. Have we been able to 'convert'
anyone?
This question contains a contradiction in terms. _Beliefs_
cannot be acquired rationally - if they could, they would not be
beliefs! You also seem to have rather strange ideas of how people become
atheists - those who are alienated from religion do not necessarily
become atheists, they just think very little about religion. It seems
it requires a considerable time of honest inquiry to find out that
religions are actually intellectually dishonest virtual realities.
Those who have never had beliefs will certainly find this question
quite odd - how can lack of belief be acquired? When did I acquire
lack of belief in the Easter Bunny? (I did believe in Santa, though ;-))
This question does not make any sense, since atheism does not deal with
these issues - it is not a worldview, or a philosophy, or a belief system.
Sigh, why haven't I seen a good, well-thought survey in the Usenet
for three years... and what is the point of doing surveys in the net,
anyway? Just to abstract some opinions?
Petri
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Throw away the FAQ. We can all just ask Mr O'Dwyer, since he can
define the thing that the rest of us only talk about. | 0 | alt.atheism |
It isn't. And I wasn't aware that this O'Hair chick was a reader of
a.a., so that doesn't support your assertion that the argument is
"the whole basis of a great many HERE rejecting...". | 0 | alt.atheism |
(Deletion)
Well, that is certainly different, but it looks as if there is a translation
found for everything. By the way, I am most surprised to hear that night and
day move in an orbit. | 0 | alt.atheism |
If I remember correctly Prometheus books have this one in stock,
so just call them and ask for the book.
Cheers,
Kent | 0 | alt.atheism |
That is not an "atheism mythology" in any sense of the word.
"Religious paradoy" would be significantly more appropriate.
The 2nd part is rendered null and void by the simple fact that I
do know several "strong" atheists. I am sure that others do. I myself am
"strong" in the sense that I find the standard concept of God without any
meaning. Any attempt to bring meaning either results in the destruction of
the viability of language, or in internal self contradiction.
The concept of strong atheism is not just a whimsical fantasy. They,
and I, exist.
Your strawman is pointless and weak.
---
Private note to Jennifer Fakult.
"This post may contain one or more of the following:
sarcasm, cycnicism, irony, or humor. Please be aware
of this possibility and do not allow yourself to be
confused and/or thrown for a loop. If in doubt, assume
all of the above. | 0 | alt.atheism |
This sounds to me like a sort of generic modalism (in the the three phases
of water are but different modes of behavior of the same physical stuff).
It certainly does not seem to me to describe the orthodox position.
[Of course, I suppose that the medieval view of water may have been
different, but now we know that the phases of water are just different
*behaviors* of the same physical stuff - different modes, not different
identities - but perhaps the medieval people did not know that].
This is clearly Modalistic Monarchianism, since these three aspects depend
solely on point of view, and are do not really represent actual variety
within the person.
Do you now begin to see why
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Everywhere we see and hear about christianity (due to its
evangalistic nature). Witnessing, spreading the gospel, etc.
But what I want to know is...
"Why should I (or anyone else) become a Christian?"
(In twenty five words or less).
Zeros and Ones will take us there....
peace. plastic. 1993. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Let me guess: you're not a psycho-analyst in real life, but you play
one on alt.atheism. Right?
Is ESP something you have been given by God?
---
Private note to Jennifer Fakult.
"This post may contain one or more of the following:
sarcasm, cycnicism, irony, or humor. Please be aware
of this possibility and do not allow yourself to be
confused and/or thrown for a loop. If in doubt, assume
all of the above. | 0 | alt.atheism |
There's a difference between believing in the existence of an entity,
and loving that entity. God _could_ show me directly that he exists,
and I'd still have a free choice about whether to love him or not. So
why doesn't he?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Anthoney kax@cs.nott.ac.uk
Don't believe anything you read in .sig files. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Could you speak up? I can't hear you....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 0 | alt.atheism |
Well, again, I am doing as much as the poster I was replying too. I am
quite busy and really don't have the time to respond in full scholarly
form to every accusation that is flippantly made by someone who's
being clearly antagonistic.
I have considered it. But if someone spreads falsehoods out of
ignorance then they are still spreading falsehoods. Those falsehoods
generally do not come out of nowhere but are produced by people
who know that what they are saying is (at _least_) not the whole
truth. I still consider such spreading of falsehoods propaganda
on some level.
Bob, I never accused you of having your head up your ass! It takes
me quite some time in dealing with someone before accusing them of
having their head up their ass. I was accusing the original poster
(Benedikt, I believe) of being so impaired.
Cheers, | 0 | alt.atheism |
Personal attacks?
Deliberate misinterpretation of a persons statement? (By cutting out
the part of the statement, he tries to blunt the thrust of the sentence.
He never addresses the issue of extreemist peace people not holding true
to their ideals.)
Ignoring the challenge? (He ignores the challenge that extreemists for
peace tend to be quite insistent that everyone accept their ideals for
the world, and have even turned quite violent. (Witness, Chicago, summer
1968)).
Paranoia? (He assumes that anyone who argues against his viewpoint must
"masturbate over Guns'N'Ammo.")
Fire up the Oven, it isn't hot enough!
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Well, as I remember Jacoby's "Mythmaker" talks about this to cite
one source -- but I'm not sure if all Christians have read this book.
In addition my social experiences is from being raised and educated
as a Lutheran, having a lot of Christian friends, and I even
have played in two Christian rock bands!
So, over to you, do you have any counter claims, sources et
rest that shows that Christianity does not have the concept
of a social promise that is independent on the social status?
Cheers,
Kent | 0 | alt.atheism |
Interesting point. The Bible doesn't say "hate the sin".
It tells to avoid sin, resist sin, even, when necessary, denounce sin.
But not hate.
--
:- Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist : *****
:- Artificial Intelligence Programs mcovingt@ai.uga.edu : *********
:- The University of Georgia phone 706 542-0358 : * * *
:- Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A. amateur radio N4TMI : ** *** ** <><
[The following passages all talk about God or people God approves of
hating sin or some other action. Ps 119:113 also talks about hating
the sinner. I believe there are other passages that would talk about
hating someone who is evil, but I didn't turn them up in this search
(which was on the word "hate" in the KJV, though I've crosschecked
each passage in the NRSV).
Ps 97:10, 101:3, 105:25, 119:104, 113, 128, 163, , 139:21-22
Prov 6:16, 8:13
Isa 61:8
Amos 5:15
Zec 8:17
Rev 2:6 | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
"I'm afraid I'm going to have to kill you. Don't worry, though; as a Loving
Christian, I guarantee that I will regret the fact that I have to kill
you, although I won't regret the actual killing."
False dichotomy.
That's because they weren't even attempted.
You want to know why it bothers me that thousands of innocent people were
maimed or killed by bombing at the end of WW2, when it was far from clear
that such bombing was necessary?
And why-is-it-that-way? Who set things up to be that way?
No, just the ones that have oil. Or the ones that look like they might make
a success of Communism.
I don't see that getting UN forces to East Timor is any harder than getting
them to Iraq.
Fine. Write to your Congressman and to President Clinton. China's status as
"Most Favoured Nation" comes up for renewal in June. Point out that the US
shouldn't be offering favourable trading terms to such a despicable regime.
I doubt anything will happen. Clinton's keener on trade sanctions against
Europe.
[ Unbelievable comments about the Rodney King case deleted ]
Any idea how many kill files you just ended up in?
The ends justify the means, eh?
The same tired old misunderstanding. Moral relativism means that there is no
*objective* standard of morality. It doesn't mean you can't judge other
people's morals. Christ on a bike, how many times have we tried to hammer
that into your head?
Obviously not, as I am an atheist. I don't think you'd get on with Jesus,
though; he was a long-haired lunatic peace-nik, was he not?
Right. Unfortunately for you, it turned out that my opinions on the matter
were entirely consistent in that I condemned the bombing of Dresden too.
I think you're being a bit glib with your explanation of the blanket bombing
policy, too. You make it sound as though we were aiming for military targets
and could only get them by destroying civilian buildings next door. As I
understand it, that is not the case; we aimed deliberately at civilian
targets in order to cause massive damage and inspire terror amongst the
German people.
Oh, come on. With wars like the Falklands fresh in people's minds, that sort
of propaganda isn't going to fool anyone.
Yes? And what about the millions of casualties the Russians suffered? It's
hardly surprising the US didn't lose many men in WW2, given that you turned
up late.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
From article <May.13.02.28.48.1993.1471@geneva.rutgers.edu>, by creps@lateran.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps):
Just a little issue of semantics:
Would it not be better, then to call it "pre-determination"?!
--
RRRRR OO BBBBB :
R R OO OO B B :
R R OO OO B BB : Robert Pomeroy
R RR O O B B :
RRRR O O BBBBB : u2i02@keele.ac.uk
R R O O B B :
R R OO OO B BB : 1993
R R OO OO B B :
R R OO BBBBB :
My address }
during } Hawthorns Hall, KEELE, Staffordshire, ST5 5AE. England.
term-time. }
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
RAPTURE - OCTOBER 28, 1992
WHAT TO DO IN CASE YOU MISS THE RAPTURE
I. STAY CALM AND DO NOT PANIC
Your natural reaction once you realize what has just occurred is to
panic. But to do so is absolutely useless now. If you had wanted to get right
with God before the rapture, you could have, but you chose to wait. Now your
only chance is to stay on this earth and to endure to the end of the
Tribulation. "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be
saved." - Matthew 24:13
II. REALIZE YOU ARE NOW LIVING DURING THE GREAT TRIBULATION
The Great Tribulation is a seven year period starting from the time of
the rapture until Christ's second coming. Also know as "the time of Jacob's
(Israel's) trouble" (Jere 30:7) and "Daniel's Seventieth Week" (Dan 9), this
period will be unparalleled in trouble and horror.
III. GATHER AS MANY BIBLES AS YOU CAN AND HIDE THEM
Soon after the Antichrist becomes the leader of the European Community
(the revived Roman Empire), Bibles will be confiscated and owning a Bible will
be tantamount to treason. The Bible, however, will be your most valuable
possession during the Tribulation.
IV. READ THE BIBLE LIKE YOU HAVE NEVER READ IT BEFORE IN YOUR LIFE
Since all of your Bibles may be confiscated, even if you are careful, it
is imperative that you read the Word until you memorize whole passages and can
quote them. It is especially important to read Daniel, Luke 21, Matthew 24,
Revelation, and Amos, for these books describe the events you can expect to
unfold before you.
V. PRAY LIKE YOU HAVE NEVER PRAYED BEFORE IN YOUR LIFE
Pray until the power of God comes strongly upon you - pray and pray
and pray. Only by reading the Word and praying will you gain the spiritual
strength to be able to withstand the torture you may have to endure for the
sake of Christ.
VI. DO NOT TAKE THE MARK AT ANY COST - EVEN IN FIT MEANS YOU AND YOUR LOVED
ONES DIE AS MARTYRS
After the Antichrist becomes the leader of the European Community, he
will institute a world economic system, designed so that you cannot buy, sell,
or eat unless you take his mark or the number of his name. Money will be
useless. "And he causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and
slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that
no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast,
or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding
calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number
is 666" - Revelation 13:16-18.
The Antichrist will implement the greatest slaughter in all of
humanity. Think of the various ways people have been tortured and killed
in the past, such as the Holocaust.
[or maybe the crusades? -M]
You cannot even imagine the horror that will take place under the Antichrist's
rule; it will be much worse than anything in history (Matt 24:21) "...I saw
under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and
for the testimony which they held. And a white robe was given to each of
them: and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer,
until both the number of the fellow servants and their brethren, who would be
killed as they were, was completed." Revelation 6:9, 11.
His targets will be Jews and Christians who do not worship his image
or take the mark on their forehead or right hadn/ "...And I saw the souls of
those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of
God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark
on their foreheads or on the hands." - Revelation 20:4. He will use every
form of torture and humiliation in order to force you to renounce Christ. Nor
will he hesitate to use your loved ones against you, even your children,
torturing and killing them in front of you so that you will be tempted to take
the mark.
If you take the mark or worship the Antichrist or his image, however,
you will be consigned to the second death, which is the Lake of Fire.
[Sung about so eloquently by Johnny Cash...-M]
You cannot be redeemed. It is better to endure torture for a short while and
gain eternal life then [sic] to endure eternal torment in the Ring^H^H^H^H Lake
of Fire. "...If anyone worships the Beast and his image, and receives his
mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink the wine of
the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His
indignation. An [sic] he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the
presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb." -Revelation
14:9-10
[and probably in the presence of season-ticket holders; special hats given to
the first 5,000 at the stadium --M]
VII. SET A PLAN IN MOTION FOR SURVIVAL
Although you may not be able to hide from the Antichrist's government
until the end of the Tribulation, all of the time you gain in hiding is
important for your spiritual growth and strengthening, since only those who are
extremely strong in Christ can suffer and die for His sake.
The first thing to do is move out of the city and into a rural or
mountainous area, for the Antichrist's control will come last to the least
populated areas. Take a good radio or TV with you so that you can stay
attuned to events and discern the time schedule of the Tribulation.
["As you can see on the weather map, heavy currents of Tribulation will sweep
into our area by daybreak. Expect delays on I-95 outbound, and perhaps school
closings" --M]
Store water and food, because you will not be able to purchase anything without
the mark. Water in lakes and streams will be polluted by radioactive waste
from nuclear warfare and will eventually turn into blood.
[Get a good water filter. --M]
Bring different types of clothing for all seasons, as well as flashlights,
batteries, generators, and First Aid supplies. In short, learn how to
survive and live off the land as the pioneers did.
VIII. TRUST NO ONE
There will be secret agents everywhere, spying for the Antichrist's
government. Be on the lookout.
[Perot supporters take note --M]
IX. WATCH FOR THE ANTICHRIST
It is important to realize who the Antichrist is and what he is up to,
for he will deceive many into thinking that he is a great world leader who will
bring peace and prosperity to a world hungry for it. We can infer from Daniel
11 certain characteristics of this man. Popular during the first three and a
half years of the Tribulation, he will dominate the airwaves. He will be
physically appealing, highly intelligent, with Christ-like charisma and
personality. An international politician, military tactician and economic
expert, his word will be peace; he will make a treaty with the Jews, which
he will break after three and a half years. He will have such supernatural
power that a mortal wound to his head will be healed. Even the very elect will
be deceived. If you do not pray and read the Bible, you too will be deceived.
[Dominate the airwaves? Perhaps Howard Stern or Rush Limbaugh...-M]
The antichrist will have a companion, the False Prohphet [sic], who
will make an image in the likeness of the Antichrist and cause it to speak.
All who refuse to worhsip [sic] the image will be killed. The final three and
a half years will be absolutely insane, with demonized spirits everywhere.
X. DO NOT GIVE UP HOPE!
The seven years of Tribulation will end with the triumphant return of
Christ. The Antichrist will be defeated. Be steadfast and endure, and you
will be rewarded greatly in Heaven.
Start reading the Bible and praying fervently now. The salvation of
your sould depends upon it. Determine that, come what may, you will not take
the mark or worship the Antichrist. You still have a chance to be saved or
remain saved, but this time you will have to be "faithful unto death."
May God find you ready in the hour of his glorious return!
******************************************************************************
Mike Cluff * "Christianity is Stupid.
v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms * Give up." -Negativland
UB Language Perception Laboratory *
******************************************************************************
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea. | 0 | alt.atheism |
genealogical
old
Well, since my wife is (in your gentle term) a "bastard", I can
probably speak with a bit of authority on this. Any "stigma"
associated with children conceived and/or born out of wedlock rests
solely upon the parents--they've committed a sexual transgression for
which they should repent. The child itself has no a priori limitations
on him or her; indeed, the concept of blaming the child for the
parents' sins is one most Mormons would find appalling; note that LDS
theology rejects original sin, as the term is usually defined, and the
subsequent need for infant baptism (cf. Moroni 8 in the Book of
Mormon). Indeed, LDS doctrine goes one step further and in some cases
holds parents responsible for their children's sins if they have
failed to bring them up properly (cf. D&C 68:25-28; note that this
passage applies it only to members of the LDS Church).
Also note that there is no "big genealogical book in Salt Lake City".
The LDS Church has a massive storage facility in the nearby mountains
containing (on microfilm) vital statistic records (birth, christening,
baptism, marriage, death) gathered from all over the entire world. I
may be misremembering, but I believe they have records for some 2
billion people in that vault. At the same time, the LDS Church is
building up an on-line genealogical database. In neither case is there
some kind of "worthiness screening" as to whether someone can be
entered in. The only potential issue is that of establishing who the
parents were, and that would apply only in the case of the database.
..bruce..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce F. Webster | I love the Constitution of this land,
CTO, Pages Software Inc | but I hate the damned rascals that
bwebster@pages.com | administer it.
#import <pages/disclaimer.h> | -- attributed to Brigham Young
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[The following arrived as a separate posting --clh]
A follow-up to my own follow-up--lest anyone misunderstand, the term
"bastard" is one which I have never in 25 years of LDS Church
membership heard applied, formally or informally, to a child born out
of wedlock, and indeed would (rightly) be considered a vulgar,
offensive term. I would not have echoed the expression in my reply,
except in hopes that the poster would recognize the offensive nature
of the word in the given context. Unfortunately, after posting my
reply, I remembered that subtle points are often lost on the 'net, and
figured I'd better spell it out. ..bruce.. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
In <1qvh8tINNsg6@citation.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@citation.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W
This doesn't seem right. If I want to kill you, I can because that is what I
decide?
Not really. If whatever a particular society mandates as ok is ok, there are
always some in the "society" who disagree with the mandates, so which
societal mandates make the standard for morality?
>>
So what should be the basis? Unfortunately I have to admit to being tied at
least loosely to the "feeling", in that I think we intuitively know some things
to be wrong. Awfully hard to defend, though.
I might agree here. Just because certain actions are legal does not make them
"moral".
deficits.
--
****************************************************************
Michael A. Cobb
"...and I won't raise taxes on the middle University of Illinois
class to pay for my programs." Champaign-Urbana
-Bill Clinton 3rd Debate cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu | 0 | alt.atheism |
#|>
#|> #And in that area, what you care about is whether someone is sceptical,
#|> #critical and autonomous on the one hand, or gullible, excitable and
#|> #easily led on the other.
#|>
#|> Indeed I may. And one may be an atheist and also be gullible, excitable
#|> and easily led.
#|>
#|> #I would say that a tendency to worship tyrants and ideologies indicates
#|> #that a person is easily led. Whether they have a worship or belief
#|> #in a supernatural hero rather than an earthly one seems to me to be
#|> #beside the point.
#|>
#|> Sure. But whether or not they are atheists is what we are discussing,
#|> not whether they are easily led.
#
#Not if you show that these hypothetical atheists are gullible, excitable
#and easily led from some concrete cause. In that case we would also
#have to discuss if that concrete cause, rather than atheism, was the
#factor that caused their subsequent behaviour.
I'm not arguing that atheism causes such behaviour - merely that
it is not relevant to the definition of atheism, which is 'lack of belief in
gods'.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
[This is a response to a request for a Biblical reference about Satan
being a fallen angel. --clh]
Isaiah 14:12 | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Marhaba Nabil,
If we posit two minds in Christ, the mind of the logos and the mind of the
human Jesus, then we must admit two wills. A mind is not a mind without a
will. I know this has been dealt with in past Church prnouncements, but there
is a philosophical problem here that should examined.
T. V. Morris argued that the Incarnation can be seen like this:
_____________
(Mind of Logos)
( _______ )
( ( ) ) Here, the mind of Jesus is circumsribed by God the
( ( Human ) ) Son. God the Son has complete access to the human
( ( Mind ) ) mind but the human mind only has access to the mind
( ( ) ) of God the Son when the Son allows access. This
( (_______) ) explains why Jesus said even he did not know the
(_____________) time of the kingdom.
The human will acted in accordance with the divine will according to free
human decision. But if the human will would have decided differently than
what was intended the divine will would have interceded, but this was never
the case.
He employs some very interesting analogies to support the one person/two mind
theory. The ideas of a completely healthy version of split personality from
the field of psychology, and the intriguing ideas of being in a dream, seeing
yourself acting, knowing that is you, but also being omniscient.
The one hypostasis would be the unity of the two minds. Agreed. But I am
still waiting for Morris and others to respond to the lingering problem of two
minds making two persons. Christian analytic philosophers are breaking new
ground in explicating the rationality of Theism and the Incarnation.
====================================
Ted Kalivoda (tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu)
University of Georgia, Athens
Institute of Higher Ed. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
(Short reply to Kent Sandvik's post remarking how it is strange that
somehow Sufism is related to Islam, as [to him] they seem quite
different.)
If one really understands Islam, it is not strange that Sufism is
associated with it. In fact, Sufism is (in general) seen as the "inner
dimension" of Islam.
One of the "roots" of the word "Islam" is "submission" -- "Islam"
denotes submission to God. Sufism is the most complete submission to
God imaginable, in "annihilating" oneself in God.
(I am not a Sufi or on the Sufi path, but have read a lot and recently
have been discussing a number of things with others who are on the Sufi
path.) | 0 | alt.atheism |
Well, Michael, I don't know if clh has left them in the faq (Maybe you should
post the "how to get there map again), but I posted two or three lengthy
exegetical paper on these verses. They looked at the OT, NT and
intertestimental usages of terms in reference. I would suggest you read those
before you talk about a "need" in exegetical studies. If those aren't enough,
I could also provide "The source and NT Meaning of Apsevokoitai". Dr James
DeYoung published it in THE MASTERS SEMINARY JOURNAL in fall of '92. To read
any of these 4 papers shows that the shoe is on the other foot as far as a need
for honest exegesis.
Again, please refer to the faq file, or if you are unable to acess it, drop me
a line and I will enclose them to you.
Rexlex@fnal.fnal.gov | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
There is a contradiction related to the moral issue of polygamy in the
Mormon writings. In the book in the book of Mormon called the book of
Jacob, Joseph Smith wrote that it was an abomination to God for
David and Solomon to have many wives. Later, when Joseph Smith wrote
the Doctrines and Covenants (possibly when polygamy was becoming an
issue in his personal life) he wrote that it was not an abomination for
David to have many wives. How do Mormons answer this contradiction? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Are there any members of conservative, religious, politically active groups
(such as the Christian Coalition) out there? I come from a very liberal
background, and I'd like to talk to some conservative people out there in a
public forum (such as this one.) I frankly can't understand the rationale or
Christian basis for much of the conservative position, and I'd like to try and
learn more about this movement--after all, we're part of the same church. Is
anyone interested in explaining a bit about the conservative viewpoint?
Thanks. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[...details of US built chemical plant at Al Alteer near Baghdad...]
: However, the plant's intended use was to aid the Iraqi infrastructure.
: It is not an example of selling a weapon. May sound nitpicking,
: but are we going to refuse to sell valuable parts that build the
: infrastructure because of dual use technology?
I am contending that in this case (and in the case of the sale
of pesticides by UK companies) that they knew full well that it was to
be used for the production of chemical weapons even if that was not its
officially stated purpose.
: I personally don't think that letting Iran conquer Iraq would have been a
: good thing.
For that matter, neither do I (for the reasons you state). It is the
hypocrisy and claims the US did not help Iraq that make me angry, plus the
fact that the USA seems to believe it has the *right* to interfere where
is sees fit (i.e. has an interest) rather than a *duty* to intervene where
it is required. This is demonstrated by the failure of the US to do anything
about East Timor (and the region *is* becoming destabilised). The USA might
have done something approaching the right thing, given my reservations about
the uncessary number of civillian casualites, but for wholly the wrong reasons
and after having a hand in creating the situation.
: That in no way would affect the US later military action against Iraq.
I did not suggest it would and it would be ridiculous to assert
otherwise. I was simply indicating the USA has previously aided Iraq.
: Intel on manufacturing techniques, or something of that nature?
No, apparently data (orginally from satellites although I doubt
that Iraq would have been given the raw data) concerning troop concentrations. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Though there is a command in the law not to heed to one who prophecies
falsely, it is still possible for the one who has prophecied falsely
to prophecy truely again. Take, for example the story in Kings about the
man of God from Judah who came to israel and prophecied against a king.
The Lord had commanded him to not eat or drink till he returned home.
Another prophet wanted this man of God to stay in his house, so he
prophecied falsely that the Lord wanted the man of God to stay in his
house. While they ate and drank in his house, the Lord gave the prophet
who lied a word that the man of God would die from breaking the word of
the Lord. It came to pass. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I hope there is not one- with a subject like this you just have a spiral. What
would then be a morality of a morality of morals. Labels don't make arguments.
One really needs a solid measuring stick by which most actions can be
interpreted, even though this would hardly seem moral. For example "The best
thing for me is to ensure that I will eat and drink enough. Hence all actions
must be weighed against this one statement." whatever helps this goal is
"moral", whatever does not is "immoral"
Of course this leads such a blank space: there are so many different ways to
fulfill a goal, one would need a "hyper-morality" to apply to just the methods.
Seems to me we only consider something moral or immoral if we stop to think
about it long enough :) On the other hand, maybe it is our first gut
reaction... Which? Who knows: perhaps here we have a way to discriminate
morals. I don't instinctively thing vegetarianism is right (the same way I
instinctively feel torture is wrong), but if I thought about it long enough and
listened to the arguments, I could perhaps reason that it was wrong (is that
possible!? :) ) See the difference?
--
best regards,
--Adam | 0 | alt.atheism |
Regarding the consequences of the original sin:
Catholics believe that what Adam primarily lost by his sin, for
himself and the human race, was sanctifying grace. This is basically
a share in the Divine life. Take a rock and make it able to talk:
what God does to a human being through sanctifying grace is similar.
It makes such a one able to live on a plane that is above the powers
of any possible creature. This is the "everlasting life" that the New
Testament speaks of.
What Christ did when he came was to restore this life of sanctifying
grace to the human race. He instituted the Sacraments as the means by
which this life is given to people, and its increase fostered.
The absence of sanctifying grace at death means automatic exclusion
from Heaven. The nature of Heaven is such that it's impossible for a
human being to have any part in it without the gift of sanctifying
grace. To use my example, it would be like taking that rock and
attempting to hold a conversation with it: rocks cannot talk. Neither
can human beings live in Heaven without sanctifying grace.
This all obviously applies equally well to infants or adults, since
both have souls. Infants must be baptized, therefore, or they cannot
enter into Heaven. They too need this form of life in them, or they
cannot enter into Heaven.
Turning it around, infant baptism is good supporting evidence for the
Catholic belief in sanctifying grace. Unless Baptism causes some
change in an infant's soul, there is no particular reason to insist on
the practice. Yet infant Baptism was probably practiced by the
Apostles themselves, and was *certainly* part of the Church shortly
thereafter. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
:
: In the NT, the clear references are all from Paul's letters. In Rom
: 1, there is a passage that presupposes that homosexuality is an evil.
: Note that the passage isn't about homosexuality -- it's about
: idolatry. Homosexuality is visited on people as a punishment, or at
: least result, of idolatry. There are a number of arguments over this
: passage. It does not use the word "homosexuality", and it is referring
: to people who are by nature heterosexual practicing homosexuality.
: So it's not what I'd call an explicit teaching against all homosexuality.
That's like saying that murder is only wrong for those of us who aren't natural
murders, and stealing is only wrong for those of us who aren't natural
thieves.
Will | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Let me salute Gary Chin for speaking the gospel which is our source
of life. Any who will follow his example, and accept the priorities
Christ commands of us, that the weightier matters of the law are justice
and mercy and good faith, is my brother or sister in Christ, and I will
attend to such a person with humility and charity. We may not, in the
end, agree -- siblings often don't -- but we can at least talk.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
: Very true (length of time for discussions on creationism vs evolutionism).
: Atheists and Christians have been debating since ?? and still debate with
: unabated passion 8-).
Mike,
I've seen referrences to "Creation vs Evolution" several times in a.a
and I have question. Is either point of view derived from direct
observation; can either be scientific? I wonder if the whole
controversy is more concerned with the consequences of the "Truth"
rather than the truth itself.
Both sides seem to hold to a philosophical outcome, and I can't help
wondering which came first. As I've pointed out elsewhere, my view of
human nature makes me believe that there is no way of knowing
anyhthing objectively - all knowledge is inherently subjective. So, in
the context of a.a, would you take a stand based on what you actually
know to be true or on what you want to be true and how can you tell
the difference? | 0 | alt.atheism |
I don't think we should draw borders around newsgroups, christians
are free to read and post entries on the atheist newsgroups, and
muslims are free to so so in other groups as well.
It's up to each individual to define their time schedule concerning
postings. The problems we all have noticed on various newsgroups
is the evangelistical method of telling that 'I am right, and you are
wrong'. This is true of both theists and atheists.
Hopefully a more constructive dialogue between the groups
would help concerning assumptions and colorization of views.
Cheers,
Kent | 15 | soc.religion.christian |