Datasets:

aihpi

/

20_newsgroups_demo

like 0

Paul- You did a wonderful job of not doing anything humany possible to offend us Catholics; hopefully I can be just as careful in my wording as you were. I also don't want to extend this topic into an entire major issue of debate (anymore than it already is), but just a note or two: 1. Please don't talk about Jesus' "parents"--the doctrinal positions of the church an unequivocally different regarding Mary and Joseph. I (personally) have never heard of anything being attributed to St. Joseph other than his sainthood; that is, no reference *ever* to him being sinless, assumed into heaven, immaculately conceived, etc.--all these ideas apply only to Mary. 2. I would agree there is very little scriptural evidence for our doctrines about Mary. Needless to say, that presents a significant problem to those who accept the bible as the only source of doctrine. If, however, one turns to the sacred traditions of the undivided Christian Church, there is no problem finding plently of evidence that it was basically a unanimous belief among the apostles and all the early generation that Mary was assumed into heaven, body and soul, etc. etc. It wasn't until the reformation that these doctrines were called into question. As far as I am concerned (again, my personaly feelings) if it's a choice between the apostles or Luther, I'll choose the apostles every time, whether or not it is recorded within the writings that the traditions of men have determined to be "the bible".

soc.religion.christian

: I heard on the radio today about a Christian student conference where : Christians were called to "repent" of America's "national" sins, such : as sexual promiscuity. : : To which I reply: ...whoa there! : : How can I repent of _someone else's_ sin? I can't. : : And when I claim to "repent" of someone else's sin, am I not in fact : _judging_ him? Jesus equipped us to judge activities but warned us : not to judge people. "Judge not that ye be not judged." : : C. S. Lewis made the same point in an essay after World War II, : when some Christian leaders in Britain were urging "national repentance" : for the horrors (sins???) of World War II. : -- I see your point, but I cannot more strongly disagree. To repent means to turn around. We, as a nation, have behaved incredibly arrogantly toward God condoning, encouraging, and even forcing folks to participate in activity directly opposed to the written Word of God. We have arrogantly set our nation far above the God who created it and allowed us the luxury of living in this land. We have set a bad example for other nations. We've slaughtered unborn children by the millions. We have stricken the name of God from the classroom. We've cheated God out of the honor due Him at every turn, and we owe God an apology every bit as public as our sins have been. When Jesus said "Judge not that ye be not judged", he was not addressing those like John the Baptist who had repented and were calling others to repent. He was addressing those who remained in sin while heaping down condemnation on others for their sins. His message to us all was to remove the log from our own eye before removing the speck from our brother's. But He also said to rebuke and to reprove. Don't forget that this is a command too. Our problem today is that we tend to judge and condemn as though we were rebuking and we tend to neglect bringing folks back to the Lord with the excuse that we don't want to judge anyone. In truth, what we need to do is to judge less and call others to repent more and to be able to distinguish between the two in our own motives. Call sin what it is and do so openly. Let it's charge fall correctly where it should. But instead of running someone into hell over it, pull them out of their hellward path and onto the heavenward path. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "I deplore the horrible crime of child murder... We want prevention, not merely punishment. We must reach the root of the evil... It is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt from the dreadful deed... No mater what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed... but oh! thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime."

soc.religion.christian

: >Prove it. I have a source that says that to date, the civilian death count : >(er, excuse me, I mean "collateral damage") is about 200,000. : : I have _never_ seen any source that was claiming such a figure. Please : post the source so its reliability can be judged. This figure would not simply be deaths by bombing, but also death later from disease (the sewer system of Baghdad was deliberately targeted) and starvation. I believe (but when I get a copy of the latest research in June or July) that this was the figure proposed in the Census Bureau report on the matter. The report was suppressed and the CB attempted to sack the author of the report, but failed due to procedural technicality. The author is now on permanent leave.

alt.atheism

> Can't someone describe someone's trinity in simple declarative > sentences that have common meaning? I offer him four attempts. First is an essay by me (largely indebted to Attempts Two and Three), obtainable by sending the message GET TRINITY ANALOGY to LISTSERV@ASUACAD.BITNET or to LISTSERV@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU Second is a couple of books by Dorothy L Sayers: a play called THE ZEAL OF THY HOUSE, and a non-fiction book called THE MIND OF THE MAKER. The play can be found in the book FOUR SACRED PLAYS, and also in various other collections, including one called RELIGIOUS DRAMA (Meridian Books) and one called BEST PLAYS OF 1937. Third is the book MERE CHRISTIANITY by C S Lewis, particularly the last section, called "Beyond Personality". Fourth is a book called THEOLOGY FOR BEGINNERS, by the Roman Catholic writer Frank Sheed. I will say that I do not find Sheed's approach altogether satisfying, but I know some persons whose minds I respect who do.

soc.religion.christian

From Bit.listserv.christia Zane writes... From: FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET (zane of dhahan) Subject: Christianity in Crisis Date: Wed May 12 14:43:19 1993 "Frank, first of all, thanks for all of the great Scripture verses. It was a pleasure to read them." MY REPLY... You are welcome, Zane. Zane... "I am sure nothing that I will say will change your mind about it... but I would like to ask you if the book in question really does anything for you. I mean, were you all caught up in the word/faith thing, but now that you have read the book you've been rescued from all of the error and pain that will result in your Christian life?" MY REPLY... (1) When I first became a Christian, I entered into the Word/Faith movement. It was easy. I wasn't grounded in the Word of God and sound doctrine. When I visited Christian book stores, the cheapest books I could find to buy were the .50 and $1.00 books by Hagin and others. Consequently, I began receiving Hagin's monthly magazine (and they still send it to me), and also Copeland's (also, still sent to me). It wasn't until I read a booklet by Jimmy Swaggart called _Hyper Faith: The New Gnosticism_ that I began to realize the teachings I were partaking of were error. I started reading the Bible more and studying more. Sure enough, Jimmy was right in many points. As part of my experience, I am alerting Christians, particularly new Christians, that these teachings are heretical and they need to do as the Bereans did in Acts 17:11 - check these teachings out with Scripture! (2) My brother in law was involved in a Word/Faith "cult" in my area - it's leader is real good friends with Benny Hinn. Rather then going into much detail about this, suffice it to say he was deceived, mistreated, and has now fallen into atheism. I'm still praying for him (Phil. 1:6). (3) The assistant pastor at the church I teach adult Sunday School in has been a `follower' of Copeland for 15 years. He has thousands of tapes by the Faith teachers. In the class recently, I quoted several of the teachers' heretical statements to his surprise. Since then, I've been able to talk to him at length about these issues. (4) The leader of the Women's Group at my church is a Benny Hinn `fan'. Recently, I found that she has been lending _Good Morning, Holy Spirit_ to women in the church. That prompted my quotes in Sunday School, as well as my lending CIC to people in the church. I'm well aware of the abuses and heresies perpetrated in this movement and have an urgency in my heart and life to warn people about the heresies. What heresies? A. Jesus became sin - took on the very nature of the devil, and became one with him. B. Jesus' death on the cross wasn't enough to atone. C. Jesus was dragged to hell after His death, was beat and abused by Satan and demons, thus finishing our atonement. Satan was ruling over Him there. D. Jesus was `born-again' in hell. E. Jesus died spiritually, lost His divinity, and reassumed it after the resurrection. F. We are gods. These are heresies. Documentation will be provided re: these teachings upon request. Zane... "Or what does it do for you? Is it preventing you from going out and joining up with the word/faith movement which you'd been contemplating joining for so long, but now that you've read the book, you've been saved from all of that?" MY REPLY... It wasn't _Christianity In Crisis_ that helped me; it was a booklet by Swaggart that I mentioned above. But CIC is MUCH, MUCH better - tremendous documentation and insights. Zane... "I don't have a nice Scriptural answer for why I believe it is at best un- profitable for Christians to engage in this type of activity - heresy hunting." MY REPLY... Why do you call it "heresy hunting"? "Hunting" implies it isn't readily accessible or available. This movement is the fastest growing movement in Christendom. Hagin has sold over 40 million books and booklets. Hinn has sold more books in the last couple of years than Swindoll and Dobson combined. Fred Price has the largest church in terms of seating capacity in the USA. Doesn't sound like much "hunting" is needed. It is Scriptural to expose doctrinal error. I gave some verses to you before. More can be given. Most of the epistles were written due to error (doctrinal, practical) in the churches. The early church had numerous councils to expose error and heresy. It's not a new thing. Remember Luther? Zane... "I would like to point out though, that historically those who hunt heretics often end up causing a bigger mess than the heretics... but this is my un- documented opinion." MY REPLY... (1) If you can provide documentation, it would be appreciated. (2) Read Ephesians 4:11-16, esp. vss. 13 and 14 and tell me what causes disunity and immaturity in the body. EPH 4:13-14 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting.... Disunity, contrary to popular opinion, isn't caused by exposing error; it's caused by error. Zane... "There are many who probably give no place for seeing the Scriptures as documenting a Spiritual development or growth in its writers - but I would suggest that the fiery Paul of the letter to the Galatians mellows and matures into the one who loses all for the sake of Love in the End." MY REPLY... Most scholars believe Paul wrote 2 Timothy last. Let's examine his admonitions to Tim to ascertain how mellow he had become... 2TI 1:13-15 Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us. This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me, among whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes. 2TI 2:15-18 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some. 2TI 2:24-26 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will. 2TI 3:6-9 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was. 2TI 3:12-17 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2TI 4:2-5 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. 2TI 4:14-15 Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm. May the Lord repay him according to his works. You also must beware of him, for he has greatly resisted our words. Zane... "The picture I have of Paul is not of one who goes out of his way to destroy the ministry of wolves... but of one who teaches the sheep, with many tears, the necessity of absolutely not allowing themselves to be transformed into wolves to protect themselves." MY REPLY... ACT 20:26-31 "Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. "For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. "Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. "For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. "Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. "Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears. Zane... "For all the warning Paul does, it is of note that he never once drops a name of a wolf.... - but I will admit he cries in his beard at the end over those who have abandoned him - everyone in Asia wasn't it ?" MY REPLY... Paul mentioned names... 1TI 1:18-20 This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, having faith and a good conscience, which some having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. 2TI 1:15 This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me, among whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes. 2TI 2:16-18 But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some. 2TI 4:10 for Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world, and has departed for Thessalonica--Crescens for Galatia, Titus for Dalmatia. 2TI 4:14-15 Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm. May the Lord repay him according to his works. You also must beware of him, for he has greatly resisted our words. So did John... 3JO 1:9-10 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us. Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church. Jesus also singled out teachings and doctrines... REV 2:14-16 "But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality. "Thus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. 'Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth. REV 2:20-23 "Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. "And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. "Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. "I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works. Zane... "I question too, the purposes of those who write books and build ministries on the faults - deliberate or otherwise - of others. Maybe if they would wander around in the desert eating locust and honey, or barely cakes...with no worldly goods at stake, money to be made, or no reputations to maintain... I would question their motives - conscious or otherwise - less." MY REPLY... I won't comment on this because it deals with the intangible motives of others. But even if they had bad motives, remember what Paul said... PHI 1:15-18 Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from good will: The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice. Zane... "If we want to be true to the admonitions of Scripture - many of which you list - about protecting ourselves and the flock from wolves and winds of doctrines, I suggest we start by allowing the wolf-program in our own noetic pasture to be nailed to the Cross." MY REPLY... Please explain. Zane... "Secondly, I suggest any heresy hunting be restricted to our own fellowships - which in the strict Scriptural sense is the local city-church." MY REPLY... If heresy was not being propagated over the mass media, then it may not be needed to go mass media with the exposure. Unfortunately, heresy is being taught not just in Copeland's church or Hagin's or Hinn's or Price's, but all over the radio, in print, etc. No pastor or church leader knows what materials the sheep are feeding on outside the church. It's imperative that leadership be made aware of this, and CIC does just that. Also, let's examine a passage of Scripture... * EPH 4:11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, * EPH 4:12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, These ministry gifts that the Lord installs in the church are not just for one individual church, but for "the body of Christ". Paul was an apostle - he traveled all over distilling his message. He was also a teacher - 1CO 4:17 For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church. 1CO 7:17 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches. Also - 1CO 12:28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. * EPH 4:13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; Notice that the "Five-Fold" ministries are going to be around "till" the church is in "unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God to a perfect man". This, I believe will not occur fully until the Lord Jesus returns (see 1Cor. 13:9-12). But God wants the body to continue on maturing. What hinders maturity and unity of the body? * EPH 4:14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, It's clear that false doctrine, integrated into the church "by the trickery of men" causes (1) disunity [the thing we are striving for] and (2) spiritual immaturity - the church continues in spiritual childhood when Christians are "tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine". The "Five -Fold" ministry, of which there does not appear to be clear Scriptural denominational boundaries ("pastors" appear responsible for their individual flock), is to deal with these doctrines (when necessary) in their struggle to equip the body. All believers are called to do this to a degree... JUD 1:3-4 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. Zane... "If you'll notice, in Scripture the heresy hunters that went from Church to Church and area to area, were the "bad guys" and they went after the "good guy" namely Paul - who they considered to be the arch heretic." MY REPLY... They were themselves heretics trying to discredit Paul who was preaching contrary to what they taught! Zane... "Let's face it, the wolves are here for a reason. And we are here for the Reason. And let's hope the wolves become sheep, and the sheep, lambs." MY REPLY... Yes! 2TI 2:24-26 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will. AMEN! Frank

soc.religion.christian

Hypostasis [I've explained it here before. If you want the full document, ask me by mail --Rex] "Questions arise as we begin to think about LOGOS and what His inner consciousness was composed of. We need to clarify the two natures of Christ briefly. The divine nature, which has existed eternally, did not undertake any essential changes during the incarnation which would cause a conflict with the attributes of God, the foremost of these being His immutability. This would mean that it remained impassable, that is, incapable of suffering and death, free from ignorance and insusceptible to weakness and temptation. In the realm of the divine nature it is better to say that the Son of God became that which was not absolute-and in Himself. The result of the incarnation was that the divine LOGOS could be ignorant and weak, could be tempted and suffer and die, not in His divine nature, but by the derivation of His possession of a human nature. This would mean that both the properties of the divine nature and the human nature are properties of the person, and therefore ascribed to the person. By this reason we can say that the person can be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, yet at the same time be also a man of limited power, knowledge, a man of sorrows, subject to human wants and miseries. There is, however, no penetration of one nature into the other. Deity can no more share the imperfections of humanity than humanity can share in the essential perfection of the Godhead. We are not to assume that there is a double personality due to the possession of the double natures. Christ's human nature is impersonal, in that it attains self-consciousness and self-determination in the personality of the God-man. We must now differentiate between the person and the nature of the Man. Nature is defined: "the distinguishing qualities or properties of something; the fundamental character, disposition or temperament of a living being, innate and unchangeable." Nature is then, in essence, the substance possessed in common, in as such the Trinity have one nature. There is also a common nature of mankind. Personality, on the other hand, is the separate subsistence of nature, with the power of consciousness and will. It is for this reason that the human nature of Christ has not, nor ever had, a separate subsistence, that it is impersonal. LOGOS, the God-man, represents the principle of personality. It is equally important to see that self-consciousness and self-determination do not, as such, belong to the nature. It is for this reason that we can justifiably say that Jesus did not have two consciousness or two wills, but rather one. It is theanthropic, an activity of the one personality which unites in itself the human and the divine natures, being that neither the consciousness nor the will are simply human or simply divine." [The quotation given above is not identified, and it's not entirely clear to me what position Loren is taking on it. Just for clarity, let me note that the view expressed in it is one of the classic Christological heresies -- monothelitism. That's the position that Christ's two natures were not complete, in that there was only one will. In most cases (which I think includes this example), it was the human will that was regarded as missing. Normally people who talk about Christ's human nature as being "impersonal" mean it in a somewhat more abstract sense. That is, they are using "person" as hypostatis, not in the usual English sense of personality. In this use, the doctrine is called "anhypostasia". Personally I think anhypostasia is just a more sophisticated way of denying that the Logos took on humanity fully. However it has never been formally ruled a heresy, and in fact has been held by influential theologians both ancient and modern (e.g. Athanasius). But the quotation above appears to be going farther than even Athanasius went, into the realm of the overtly heretical.

soc.religion.christian

Has anyone read this important book? If so, what are your feelings about it? Frank

soc.religion.christian

(Dear Moderator: Would you add this to the BCC faq?) In case there are any ex-members of the "Boston Church of Christ" looking for a support organization, here's the number of "BostonEX" in Burlington, MA: 617-272-1955. -------- s.r.c readers in New England may be interested in seeing a series of news reports about the BCC in the 6 pm nightly news on Channel 5 (WCVB, Boston), for the next few days (starting Wed, 5/19).

soc.religion.christian

I disagree. In the end, the *individual* is responsible for his/her own irrationality. The individual's belief in some dogmatic religion is a symptom of that irrationality. Atheists and agnostics, I would imagine, but yes, that was my point. An atheist would theoretically be just as ill-equipped to study the philosophy of religion as a Christian, and yet there is a persistence of atheists among the ranks of philosophers. Therefore, the conflict between one's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and the ability to be a philosopher must not be as great as you assert. The fact that most philosophers may be non-religious was a secondary point. As opposed to science practiced by theists? Be careful here. Science does have a built-in defence against faith and dogma: skepticism. Unfortunately, it is not foolproof. There is that wonderful little creature known as the "theory." Many of us believe in the theory of evolution. We have no absolute proof that this theory is true, so why do we believe it? Because it "makes more sense than...?" There is quite a bit of faith involved here. Well, not ALL current beliefs are deficient, but basically I agree. Ideally, this is true. In reality, though, you have to acknowledge that scientists are human. Scientists have egos and biases. Some scientists assume a particular theory is true, refuse to admit the flaws in that theory because of ego problems or whatever, and proceed to spend their time and money trying to come up with absolute proof for the theory. Remember cold fusion? Not really. I agree that we spent far too much money on the Waco crisis ($7,500,000 I believe), especially considering the outcome. My point was that mass suicides in the U.S. are rare (Jonestown was in Guyana, incidentally, although we footed the bill for the clean-up), and the U.S. has far more important issues to address. Compare the number of U.S. citizens who have died in mass suicides with, say, the number of U.S. soldiers who died during one week of the Vietnam War and you will see my point.

alt.atheism

Thanks for the letter, your comments helped some. As to the last comment, I certainly realize that it was not intended to sound that way. I am still trying to understand *how* a spiritual being colud truly be one and three at the same time. All of the descriptions of this are either Platonic or sound like special pleading (sort of, "they appear to be three seperate beings in all ways, but really they are one, trust me"). Neither of these is acceptible to me. The fact is, so far the only descriptions of the trinity that makes any *sense* to me are the modalistic ones, such as Modalistic Monarchianism or "Economic Trinitarianism". [I can accept that the three aspects are intrinsic to the nature of God, so I perhaps lean more towards the latter]. I am trying, here, to see if anybody can come up with another description that is both orthodox and believable. -- sarima@teradata.com (formerly tdatirv!sarima) or Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com

soc.religion.christian

: Consequently, : this verse indicates that she was without sin. Also, as was observed at : the very top of this post, Mary had to be free from sin in order to be the : mother of Jesus, who was definitely without sin. If the mother of Jesus had to be without sin in order to give birth to God, then why didn't Mary's mother have to be without sin in order to give birth to the perfect vessel for Jesus? For that matter, why didn't Mary's grandmother have to be without sin either? Seems to me that with all the original sin flowing through each person, the need for the last one (Mary) to have none puts God in a box, where we say that He couldn't have incarnated Himself through a normal human being. My God is an all powerful God, Who can do whatever suits His purpose. This includes creating a solar system and planet earth with the appearance of great age; providing a path through the Red Sea for the children of Israel that does not depend on the existence of a ridge of high ground and a wind blowing at the right speed and direction; and the birth of Himself from a normal sinful person without being tainted by her original sin. I see far too much focus on the "objects" of religion and not nearly enough on the personal relationship that is available to all believers with the Author of our existence, without the necessity of having this relationship channeled through conduits to God in the form of Mary, Apostles and a Pope. : Note that the idea of Mary being conceived without Original Sin, i.e. the : Immaculate Conception, is distinct from the idea of Mary not having sinned : during her lifetime, which is a separate doctrine and, I believe, also : held by the Catholic Church. If Mary was born without original sin, and didn't sin during her lifetime, how is she any different from Jesus? This means the world has had two perfect humans: one died to take away the sins of the world; the other gave birth to Him? I would certainly want to see some scriptural support for this before I would start praying to anyone other than God. Everything I have ever read from the bible teaches me that Jesus was and is the only sinless Lamb of God, not His mother, grandmother........ : Hope this is useful to you. Very useful in helping me understand some of the RC beliefs. Thank you.

soc.religion.christian

Okay, I see smilies, so this isn't supposed to be a serious post. On the other hand, I would suppose it does has some motivation behind it. Apparently the idea is to poke fun at religion, but there is presumably some sort of reasoning behind it. As an argument, this statement is worthless. Presuming the Qur'an is a perfect religious text (whatever that might be) there is still plenty of room for disagreement about its implications for issues far from essentials. I've already responded to the question of how a judgment might be made between two people who in fact _do_ disagree about Islam, which doesn't presume anything about the Qur'an other than its having sufficient clarity for all important disputes about the basic principles of Islam. This hardly constitutes a claim that no two people could have disagreements about _all_ issues relevant to Islam.

alt.atheism

This is too often true. Many people try to place this as a "higher" sin. However... A big part of the problem is that many of the homosexuals and people advocating acceptance of homosexuality in churches do not consider (active) homosexuality a sin. I don't often see the attitude of "forgive me and I will try to change". Instead I see "there's nothing wrong with my life and I can be a good Christian, so it must be you who have an illness because you don't accept me". Christians can and will accept homosexuals, just as they will accept *any* sinner. Sure, it may be natural to some people to be homosexual - but it is also perfectly natural for everyone to sin! I was born with a desire to sin, but I work to prevent myself from sinning. It's much less common now, but I *still* have urges to lash out in anger. There also may not be a sudden disappearance of sinful desires (or ever!), so it is sad to see people leave the church when they are discouraged that they are still homosexual after several years.

soc.religion.christian

> When Elizabeth greeted Mary with the words: "Blessed art thou > among women" (Luke 1:42), it appears that this places Mary > beyond the sanctification of normal humanity. But Deborah says (Judges 5:24): > Blessed among women shall be Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite, > Blessed above all women in the tents. It can doubtless be taken that Jael's slaying of Sisera was a type of Mary's victory over sin. But even if we take Deborah's words as applying prophetically or symbolically to Mary, they must still be applicable literally to Jael. We may well take them to mean that God used her as a part of His plan for the deliverance of His people, and that she has this in common with Mary. But we have no reason to suppose that they mean that she was sinless, and thus no reason to take the like expression applied to Mary as proof that she was sinless.

soc.religion.christian

Dear fellow Christians, I had a dinner last night with a bible study group which I am in. We had a discussion about the difference between Christianity and Islam. And I was shocked to hear that our bible study teacher said that Mohammad was indeed a prophet but of Satan. I said, "What??" I did not believe that, because I have some moslem friends who are so kind and nice, even sometimes I feel I wish I could be like them (in my point of view, they don't sin as much as I do). How come if they were under Satan, they could have such personalities. To tell you the truth, I don't know much about Islam. But I know that they believe in God, they believe in the day of judgement. Now I'm asking you what your opinions about Islam and its teaching. IMPORTANT : I do not want to discuss whether they are saved or not. I do not want to discuss about politic related to Islam. P.S: I post this in bit.listserv.christia, soc.religion.christian, and bit.listserv.catholic. In Christ, our Lord, Smile......... Jesus loves you....... Tabut Torsina TORSINA@ENUXHB.EAS.ASU.EDU [Let me start by saying that this is not the right newsgroup for a discussion of Islam, since there's a group for that. But I suspect the point your teacher was making was not specifically about Islam. Indeed it's going to be impossible to see what he was getting at within your groundrules, since the question of whether non-Christians are saved is at the heart of it. The classic Christian view, which I think most people believed until the last century or so, was that Christianity (and of course Judaism) was the only religion founded by God, and that all other religions worshipped false gods, and came from Satan. This is more or less a corollary of another traditional view that no one but Christians (and possibly Jews) will be saved. This need not mean that there's no truth in any other religion, nor that all of their members are intentionally Satanic. After all, in order to be an effective snare, Satanic alternatives would have to be attractive. Thus they might contain all kinds of truth, wisdom and spiritual insights. They would be missing only one thing -- knowledge of salvation through Christ. If this is the background of your teacher's remarks -- and I suspect it is -- that means that a discussion of Islam is not necessarily relevant. The point is not that there's anything intrinsically wrong with it. It may teach a fine code of behavior, and its practitioners may all be wonderful people. But if salvation requires being a follower of Christ, it could still be a Satanic invention. This is a reasonable deduction from the classic Protestant position. Christianity says that salvation isn't a matter of being kind and nice. Those are good things, and we should encourage them. But no one is able to do them enough to be saved. Salvation requires Christ. (Please forgive me for doing this in Protestant terms. There's a Catholic equivalent to this that has similar implications, but in different terms.) A religion may be quite attractive in all visible ways. But if it doesn't have Christ, it's like a diet that consists of food that looks wonderful, tastes great, but is missing some essential food element so that you end up dying. Let me be clear that I am not specifically advocating this position. What I'm trying to do is (as usual) to clarify issues. Indeed it is now relatively uncommon for Christians to believe that all other religions are Satanic. Most Christians regard such beliefs as an unfortunate vestige of the past. This is part of a general move within Christianity in the last century or so to a non-judgemental God. Christians now find it hard to believe that God would allow anybody other than a really rotten person to end up in hell, and they find it hard to envision that real malignant spiritual forces are at work in the world doing things like creating superficially attractive alternatives to Christianity. Whether there is actually a sound basis for the shift is a decision that people need to make for themselves.

soc.religion.christian

"Hate the sin but love the sinner"...I've heard that quite a bit recently, .... My question is whether that statement is consistent with Christianity. I would think not. Hate begets more hate, never love. .... In the summary of the law, Christ commands us to love God and to love our neighbors. He doesn't say anything about hate. In fact, if anything, he commands us to save our criticisms for ourselves. .... - Scott I too dislike the phrase "Hate the sin, love the sinner". Maybe the definite article is also part of the problem, since it seems to give us license to fixate on our brother's peculiar pecadillo which we have managed to escape by a common grace of heredity, economic situation, or culture. Our outrage at evil is too often just a cheap shot. That said, I don't think Scott has adequately explored the flip side of this coin, namely the love of righteousness. In the Beatitudes, Jesus blessed those who hungered and thirsted for righteousness. In the New Testament, it is never enough just to behave well, one should always actively desire and work for the cause of good. In that sense, it should be impossible to remain dispassionate about evil and its victims, even when these are its accomplices as well. Maybe "mourn sin, love sinners" catches the idea slightly better than "hate", but only slightly, since grief usually implies a passive powerless position. A balanced Christian response needs grief, love, and carefully measured, constructive anger. Jesus has all three. The European pietists during WWII whose response to Nazi atrocities was devoid of anger do not fare well as role models, however much love or grief they exemplified. My sister is an actress in New York and a Christian. A few years back, Jack, her long-time professional friend and benefactor, died of AIDS, impoverished by medical bills, estranged from his family, and abandoned by most of his surviving friends. Only my sister and brother-in-law were there with him at the very end. In her grief over Jack's death, my sister found quite a few targets for anger: callous bureaucracies, the rigid self-protective moralism of Jack's family, the inertia in Christians' response to AIDS, and, yes, even Jack's own lapse in morality that eventually cost him his life. Jack himself shared that last anger. Brought up with strong Christian values, he was contrite over his brief dalliance with promiscuous sex long before his AIDS appeared. (I imply no moral judgement here about Jack's innate sexual orientation, n.b.) Maybe the hardest job is making our anger constructive.

soc.religion.christian

You don't need any counterfeit athiest's myth to make religion appear absurd. You need only read any of friendly Christian Bill Conner's posts.

alt.atheism

Well, here is something I wrote some time ago in response to a similar question. I hope it helps: [Begin repeat of previous post] As for the scripture mentioned I agree that it does seem to be a problem, not only for eternal marriage but marriage in general. Luke's version has Jesus saying that the children of this world marry and are given in marriage but not those who will attain the kingdom of heaven. It almost sounds like marriage disqualifies one for salvation. (Matthew and Mark both omit this statement.) I think the accounts are not as clear as they might be. Let's have a look at the incident and see if we can come up with some reasonable ideas of what it means. The scriptures involved are Mat 22:23-30, Mark 12:18-25, and Luke 20:27-36. What happened was that the Sadducees, who did not believe in the resurrection, thought they could trap Jesus. They made reference to the "Leverite" marriage which required the brother of a man who died without children to take the widow to wife and raise up children. The children would be considered children of the deceased, just as though the woman's first husband had fathered them. It seems obvious from this that the woman was still considered in a way to be the wife of her first husband. However, the Sadducees concocted a scene in which 6 brothers of the deceased each in his turn failed to father children by the widow. They seem to imply that the Leverite marriage was equal to the first for they ask, "Whose wife shall she be in the resurrection?" At this point it seems obvious that if she is anybody's wife, it is the first husband. After all, had she borne children they would have been credited to him regardless of which brother was the biological father. It is possible Jesus was refering to this when he says, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures or the power of God." (Mat 22:29, compare Mark 12:24, phrase not in Luke's account). Anyway, the Sadducees ask, "Whose wife will she be in the resurrection, seeing that all 7 had her?" Jesus answer is that, "In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage..." (Mat 22:30) "When they rise from the dead they neither marry..." (Mark 12:25) "They which are accounted worthy to obtain that world neither marry..." (Luke 20:35) All 3 accounts go on to say, "but are as the angels in heaven" or the equivalent. I find this last not very helpful since the Bible does not define angels nor give any idea what their life is like. (Some ministers claim that they are sexless, different that humans etc. but I can find no Biblical support for this.)

soc.religion.christian

Michael> The kind of interpretation I see as "incredibly perverse" is Michael> that applied to the story of Sodom as if it were a blanket Michael> equation of homosexual behavior and rape. Since Christians Michael> citing the Bible in such a context should be presumed to have Michael> at least READ the story, it amounts to slander -- a charge Michael> that homosexuality == rape -- to use that against us. and Michael> It is just Michael> as wrong (though slightly less incendiary, so it's a Michael> secondary argument from the 'phobic contingent) to equate Michael> homosexuality with such behavior as to equate it with the Michael> rape of God's messengers. Let's review the Sodom and Gomorrah story briefly. It states clearly that the visitors were angels. But "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. They called to Lot, `Where are the *men* who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.' " For the rest of the story the angels are referred to by the men of Sodom and by Lot as *men*. Furthermore we know from Gen 18:20,21 that the Lord had already found Sodom guilty of grievous sin--before the angels visited the city. It is clear that the grievous sin of Sodom and Gomorrah involved homosexual sex. It appears that the men had become so inflamed in their lust that they had group orgies in the public square--which simply indicates the extremity of their depravity. It does not show that lesser degrees of homosexuality are not sinful, as Michael would have us believe. Ultimately our understanding of God's will for sexuality comes from the creation story--not solely on the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. He created us male and female, and instituted marriage as a relationship between one male and one female, "Therefore a man will leave his father and mother, and be united with his wife, and they will become one flesh." This marriage relationship is the only sexual relationship which God blesses and sanctions. He regulates and protects the marriage of man and woman, and even uses it as a picture of the relationship between himself and his church. But we find not one word of blessing or regulation for a sexual relationship between two men, or between two women. Everything else that we find in the Bible about sexuality derives from or expresses God's will in instituting and blessing marriage. Thus the Levitical code, which was given only to the Jews, forbade incest, homosexuality, bestiality; the Ten Commandments forbade adultery and the coveting of our neighbor's wife; other commandments forbade rape. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were regarded as sexually immoral and perverse (Jude 7) because they abandoned and/or polluted the marriage relationship. Thus also Paul regarded homosexuality as `unnatural', Romans 1:26,27--not because this was simply Paul's opinion, but because it was contrary to God's purpose in creating us male and female. Michael> Christians, no doubt very sincere ones, keep showing up here Michael> and in every corner of USENET and the world, and ALL they Michael> ever do is spout these same old verses (which they obviously Michael> have never thought about, maybe never even read), in TOTAL Michael> ignorance of the issues raised, slandering us with the vilest Michael> charges of child abuse or whatever their perfervid minds can Michael> manage to conjure up, tossing out red herrings with (they Michael> suppose) great emotional force to cause readers to dismiss Michael> our witness without even taking the trouble to find out what Michael> it is. Really, have you no better response to `slander' than more slander?

soc.religion.christian

I will remind this list that I have a booklet on Fatima I will send to any one who wants it. It is "Our Lady of Fatima's Peace Plan from Heaven". It is 30 pages in length and includes the Fatima story. If you want one or more, let me know.

soc.religion.christian

Actually, I find the stuff about JC being a carpenter more interesting. Is there an independent source for this assertion, or is it all from the Christian Bible? Is there any record at all of anything he built? A table, a house, some stairs (Norm Abrams says the real test of a carpenter's skill is building stairs with hand tools). Did he leave any plans behind for, say kitchen counters and cabinets? Did he build his own cross? If so, did he use pressure-treated lumber? Gotta use that pressure-treated anywhere that wood meets concrete, but it holds up better anyway for mose outdoor applications. I keep seeing these bumper-stickers that say "My boss is a Jewish Carpenter," but they're always on the back of Ford Escorts, and a real carpenter's apprentice would probably drive a pickup, so I'm out for verification that he really was a carpenter. Dean Kaflowitz

alt.atheism

I'd appreciate some support for this statement. I'm not sure it really makes sense to me. I've heard this frequently - what exactly is Pascal's wager? I don't know. You point out that your mother's treatment upset you, and see inconsistencies in various religions. I'm not sure if that constitutes broken-ness or not. It certainly consititutes disillusionment.

soc.religion.christian

With the Southern Baptist Convention convening this June to consider the charges that Freemasonry is incompatible with christianity, I thought the following quotes by Mr. James Holly, the Anti-Masonic Flag Carrier, would amuse you all... The following passages are exact quotes from "The Southern Baptist Convention and Freemasonry" by James L. Holly, M.D., President of Mission and Ministry To Men, Inc., 550 N 10th St., Beaumont, TX 77706. The inside cover of the book states: "Mission & Ministry to Men, Inc. hereby grants permission for the reproduction of part or all of this booklet with two provisions: one, the material is not changed and two, the source is identified." I have followed these provisions. "Freemasonry is one of the allies of the Devil" Page iv. "The issue here is not moderate or conservative, the issue is God and the Devil" Page vi." "It is worthwhile to remember that the formulators of public school education in America were Freemasons" Page 29. "Jesus Christ never commanded toleration as a motive for His disciples, and toleration is the antithesis of the Christian message." Page 30. "The central dynamic of the Freemason drive for world unity through fraternity, liberty and equality is toleration. This is seen in the writings of the 'great' writers of Freemasonry". Page 31. "He [Jesus Christ] established the most sectarian of all possible faiths." Page 37. "For narrowness and sectarianism, there is no equal to the Lord Jesus Christ". Page 40. "What seems so right in the interest of toleration and its cousins-liberty, equality and fraternity-is actually one of the subtlest lies of the 'father of lies.'" Page 40. "The Southern Baptist Convention has many churches which were founded in the Lodge and which have corner stones dedicated by the Lodge. Each of these churches should hold public ceremonies of repentance and of praying the blood and the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ over the church and renouncing the oaths taken at the dedication of the church and/or building." Page 53-54.

alt.atheism

You asked me to look over here, but I was on my way back anyway :-) #[reply to cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)] # #>If morals come from what is societally accepted, why follow that? What #>right do we have to expect others to follow our notion of societally #>mandated morality? Pardon the extremism, but couldn't I murder your #>"brother" and say that I was exercising my rights as I saw them, was #>doing what felt good, didn't want anyone forcing their morality on me, #>or I don't follow your "morality" ? # #I believe that morality is subjective. Each person is entitled to his #own moral attitudes. Mine are not a priori more correct than someone #elses. This does not mean however that I must judge another on the #basis of his rather than my moral standards. While he is entitled to #believe what his own moral sense tells him, the rest of society is #entitled to pass laws spelling out punishments for behavior that is #offensive to the majority. Why? Your last statement. Why? By which authority? #Most criminals do not see their behavior as moral. The may realize that #it is immoral and not care. They are thus not following their own moral #system but being immoral. For someone to lay claim to an alternative #moral system, he must be sincere in his belief in it and it must be #internally consistent. Why? Your last statement. Why are these things necessary? And believe me, a belief in terrorism can be both sincere and frighteningly consistent. #Some sociopaths lack an innate moral sense and #thus may be incapable of behaving morally. While someone like Hitler #may have believed that his actions were moral, we may judge him immoral #by our standards. Holding that morality is subjective does not mean #that we must excuse the murderer. Trouble is, this would sound just fine coming from someone like Hitler, too. (I do *not* mean any comparison or offence, David.) Try substituting the social minority of your choice for 'sociopath', 'Hitler', and 'murderer'. No logical difference. Someone like you, vs. someone like Hitler. Zero sum.

alt.atheism

[referring to Mary] I have quite a problem with the idea that Mary never committed a sin. Was Mary fully human? If it is possible for God to miraculously make a person free of original sin, and free of committing sin their whole life, then what is the purpose of the Incarnation of Jesus? Why can't God just repeat the miracle done for Mary to make all the rest of us sinless, without the need for repentance and salvation and all that? I don't particularly object to the idea of the assumption, or the perpetual virginity (both of which I regard as Catholic dogma about which I will agree to disagree with my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ), and I even believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, but this concept of Mary's sinlessness seems to me to be at odds with the rest of Christian doctrine as I understand it.

soc.religion.christian

I don't see how this logically follows. True enough, Mary received a blessing beyond any granted in all the history of humanity by being privileged to be the mother of the Savior. It says nothing about Mary needing to be a "blessed person" _first_ in order that she might thereby be worthy to bear the Son of God. Again, I think the problem is that as humans we can't comprehend how the sinless Incarnation could spring from sinful human flesh and God's Spirit. Rather than simply accept the gracious miracle of God, we must needs try to dope out a mechanism or rationale as to how this could be. Mary's own words, "...my spirit rejoices in God _my Savior_, for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden,..." sound like the words of a human aware of her own humanity, in need of a Savior, similar to what David proclaimed in his psalms...not the words of a holy being with no further need for God's grace. I really apologize for harping on this, I don't suppose it's important. It's just that I see Mary and Joseph and the Baby reduced to placid, serene figurines I feel we lose the wonder in the fact that God chose to come down to you and I, to be born of people like you and I, to share our existence and redeem us from it's fallenness by his holy Incarnation.

soc.religion.christian

That's funny, I thought you were making a statement about what people think. In fact, I see it quoted up there.

alt.atheism

[reply to frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)] If the Good is undefined (undefinable?) but you require of everyone that they know innately what is right, you are back to subjectivism. Ditto here. An evaluative statement implies a value judgement on the part of the person making it. Pretty perceptive, that Prof. Flew. Please explain how this helps. I don't see your argument. This makes no sense either. Flew is arguing that this is where the objectivist winds up, not the subjectivist. Furthermore, the nihilists believed in nothing *except* science, materialism, revolution, and the People. And also not the position of the subjectivist, as has been pointed out to you already by others. Ditch the strawman, already, and see my reply to Mike Cobb's root message in the thread Societal Basis for Morality.

alt.atheism

(Deletion) (rest deleted) That's a fallacy, and it is not the first time it is pointed out. For one, you have never given a set of morals people agree upon. Unlike a football. Further, you conveniently ignore here that there are many who would not agree on tghe morality of something. The analogy does not hold. One can expect sufficiently many people to agree on its being a football, while YOU have to give the evidence that only vanishing number disagrees with a set of morals YOU have to give. Further, the above is evidence, not proof. Proof would evolve out of testing your theory of absolute morals against competing theories.

alt.atheism

Mathew: Could you let us know when this happened, so I can see if my version is as up-to-date as possible? I try to re-save the FAQs once in a while, but otherwise I ignore their regular postings, so I wouldn't generally notice such a change. And I like to stay current. Thanks,

alt.atheism

I'm very grateful for scott's reflections on this oft-quoted phrase. Could someone please remind me of the Scriptural source for it? (Rom. 12.9 doesn't count, kids.) The manner in which this little piece of conventional wisdom is applied has, in my experience, been uniformly hateful and destructive.

soc.religion.christian

I define faith as "belief, in the abscense(sp?) of evidence". I also include in "evidence" past experiences. Because I have no past experience in a god actually having an effect on my life and because I have never seen evidence for any god beyond what can be explained without the neccessity of a god or which is more convincing than the many fictional works I have read (And other reasons), I do not believe in any god(s). From what I have seen, some people reconcile this lack of evidence by using faith. It is faith in that sense (the only way I _currently_ understand the word "faith") that I find intellectually dishonest. Pascal's wager goes something like this: Premise #1: Either there is or there isn't a God. Premise #2: If God exists, He wants us to believe and will damn us for not believing. Premise #3: If God does not exist, then belief in God doesn't matter because death is death, anyway. Conclusion: Belief in God is superior to non-belief because non-belief damns us to eternal punishment if we are wrong, while belief in God only wastes a little time in life if we are wrong. Sound pretty straightforward and is logically sound. The problem is, Premise #1 presupposes 1:1 odds between belief and non-belief. This is flat out wrong, because of the sheer number of religions out there and the fact that, for the most part, the religions are mutually exclusive. I have heard theists referred to as "99% atheists" because they believe in their god (or gods) to be the _one_ god (or set of gods). The consequence of this is "what if I pick the wrong god?" Suddenly, the odds don't look so good because picking the wrong god or wrong doctrines of a god still leaves you with the possibility of being wrong and being damned to another god's version of hell. I don't see how "disillusionment" enters into it. You see, I presented my mother's treatment of me to show the cause of my questioning my atheism, a questioning which continues to this day. I had already been an atheist for five years before having any contact with my mother's version of Christianity. If anything, I had become somewhat disillusioned with atheism (uh, oh, I thought, What if there *is* a God?). Yes, in a way, I have also become disillusioned by many religions, simply because I had thought at one time that they had all the answers, if I only found the right one. I'm still looking, but each time I look in a different place, I become a little stronger in my attitude (belief, if you will, no faith, though, it's based on the evidence of past experience) that I'll never find a religion which has all the answers. Sorta like looking for Easter eggs. The more time it takes you to find the next one, the more convinced you become that you may already have found all the eggs you're going to find. Someone else mentioned that critisism isn't going to make me think any more highly of Christians. I have a contrary position: Constructive critisism will likely improve my attitude towards Christians. Abusive critisism will turn me off. No accusations to you, Mr. Sapienza. I merely slipped that into this post because I forgot to reply to that one. Muppets and Garlic Toast forever. Max (Bob) Muir

soc.religion.christian

soc.religion.christian

All children are born pure, i.e., without sin. However, most saints would view a pregnancy outside of marriage as an occasion of mourning. (Some church members would be much more judgmental, but that is *their* problem.) In situations where welfare assistance is provided through our Church, bishops usually require that the family be making some effort to live the Gospel standards and provide for themselves. However, there are occasions when assistance is provided because of the children in the home. As a former bishop of mine said, "Children are always worthy before God." I am not sure what you mean by the term "bastards" in this context. Latter-Day Saints believe that through the temple ordinances the family unit may be preserved in eternity. If you use genealogical material or software produced by the Church, you may notice a section for "temple ordinances." Within that section there should be a spot for signifying "BIC" which stands for "born in the covenant." The children born to couple sealed (married) within the temple are "born in the covenant" and are eligible to be part of that eternal family unit. Children born to other couples (whether in a civil marriage or not) would have to be sealed to their parents after their marriage is solemnized for eternity. Supposing a child were born to a woman out of wedlock, he or she could be sealed to his or her parents at a later date or adopted into any eternal family unit (which may include one of the birth parents). I can't say if this principle of adoption was revealed at the same time as the sealing ordinances, but it has been accepted for the ~15 years I have been in the Church. I would tend to discount any admonitions from the Church authorities against having children out of wedlock because even though there are provisions within the Lord's plan to recover what we have done wrong the Church does not want to give anyone the impression we can sin and repent at our leisure.

soc.religion.christian

David Hammerslag asked: How do you (Mormons) reconcile the idea of eternal marriage with Christ's statement that in the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage (Luke, chapt. 20)? Several explanations for this seeming contradiction have been proposed, but most LDS scholars whose opinions I have studied take more or less one of the following three positions: (1) Jesus was talking to a group of people (Sadducees) who were trying to trip Him up with what they felt was a silly hypothetical situa- tion that ridiculed the concept of a resurrection (something they didn't believe in). These people -- and those associated with them ("Now there were with us seven brethren", Matt. 22:25) -- would not be receptive to such higher blessings as eternal marriage. Hence, the people in the story would likely not be married in the eterni- ties; but that doesn't mean other, more faithful people could not have this blessing. (2) Jesus was making a distinction between the state or condition of =being= married, and the process of =becoming= married. The latter activity (marrying and giving in marriage) will not take place in the eternities, because all eternal marriages will be taken care of before then. (3) The account as we have it (in all three of the synoptic Gospels) is missing something that would make its real meaning clearer. Note that we (LDS) do not believe in Biblical inerrancy, so we do not in general feel obliged to reconcile each and every Bible text with modern revelation through Joseph Smith and other latter-day proph- ets. Nor are we particularly upset that the account in question was not significantly revised in the "Joseph Smith Translation" or "Inspired Version" of the Bible, since we do not believe this work was completed or that failure to revise a passage in the JST con- stitutes divine approval of that passage as it stands in the KJV.

soc.religion.christian

Surprise, surprise. I sure didn't lose any sleep over it, and I live there. Suppose someone said that he was sure that he would return from death, in glory and power, flying in the clouds with the host of heaven,soon, within the lifetimes of those then standing with him - and 2000 years went by without any such event. [He also asserted, so they say, himself to be God.] 2 questions: 1) Is that one of those "false prophecies" you were talking about? 2) Does that make the speaker a false prophet? Uhh, Has it occurred to you that there is no way to know any of these things, for certain, "without the tiniest shadow of a doubt"? That people who thought they did have also been deluded? Those of us who believe in actually being able to _CHECK_ our opinions have an out - we can check against some external reality. Those who assert that beliefs entertained without evidence, or even despite evidence have a special virtue (ie. "faith") are out of luck -- and this is the result. You want to demonstrate Christian honesty? Great. Start with the prophecy above - what can we conclude about the speaker?

soc.religion.christian

Who is Ram Das? According to his brochures, he is a.k.a. Richard Alpert, PhD, and is somehow associated with the: Seva Foundation 8 N. San Pedro Road San Rafael, CA 94903 and the: Hanuman Foundation 524 San Anselmo Ave #203 San Anselmo, CA 94960 He speaks publically on such topics as "Consciousness & Current Events," and has written some books and recorded some tapes on similar subjects. Why do I care? My wife wants to go to one of his lectures. When I asked why, she said Ram Das was "the greatest spiritual leader of our time!" Several years ago my wife got involved with a religious cult, and we went through 9 months of hell that almost ended our marriage before she quit. Let's just say I'm concerned about this Ram Das and her interest, especially so with the recent religious cult events from Texas. I need information - solid and real - so I know what I'm dealing with. If you have any information about Ram Das or the organizations shown above, I would be very interested in your correspondence. Please reply via e-mail to me at: scott%hpsdde@SDD.HP.COM Thank you! -- Scott Roleson

soc.religion.christian

It's not scriptural, but comes from the patristic age, I think: something about "amare errantem, interficere errorem", which sounds more like "love the errant, slay the error". No doubt someone else will know in particular who minted the phrase. If I had to guess, I'd blame :-) St Augustine, who seems to have had a gift for aphorism.

soc.religion.christian

I'd like to field this one, if I may. Although I am a believer in and follower of Christ, my experiences with religion haven't been all that positive. In fact, there was one point in my life when, for about three days, I simply _couldn't_ believe in the existence of God. Anyway, when I look back upon the troubles I've had, they seem to fall into two categories -- impulses to unbelief that resulted from logical contradictions, and impulses to unbelief that resulted from frustration with God. The first category doesn't occur to me much anymore, as I have worked through most of the arguments for the non-existence of God. But way back when, these would cause me some problems, and I would have to struggle with my faith to continue to believe. I can see where others less stubborn than I (and I do mean stubborn. Stubborness has often been the only thing standing between me an atheism from time to time) would fail. The second category arises out of some long-term personal difficulties and the struggle to live my life as God would have me live it WITHOUT living my life as others would tell me how God would have me live it. A good example of this is my struggle with the more radical Christians I meet. I am not, nor have I ever been, "on fire for Chirst," and I don't think I ever want to be. Nevertheless, I am not "lukewarm" about my faith, so I don't really fit in with the mainstream either. Quite naturally, I feel a lot of anxiety about my dislocation within Christian society, and it can lead to a lot of internal tension, when I want to do what I _know_ is right, but when another part of me believes that what I want to do is wrong because all the other Christians think so to. Quite naturally, this tension has a destructive effect on my relationship with God, and during all of this internal strife, there's atheism sitting there like the promised land -- no rules, no responsibilities, no need to live up to anyone's expectations but my own. Complete freedom. Of course, it's all an illusion, but nevertheless, it's a very appealing illusion, especially when the so-called "people of God" are behaving like total twits. I can easily understand why someone would go that route, and would be hostile to ever coming back. IMHO, many of the former-Christians-turned-atheists-who-are-now-actively- hostile-to-Christianity are so because their experience with Christ and God wasn't a very peaceful one, but one of mind-control and "shut-up-and-do-what- you're-told-because-we-know-what's-best-for-you-because-it's-God's-will-and- you're-to-young-to-know-what-God's-will-is-yet" courtesy of some of Christ's more overzealous followers. A final reason why people become atheists is because Christians do not have a very good reputation right now. One of the things that attracted people to Christianity in the ancient days was the love that Christians obviously had for one another and the world around them. Unlike the rest of the world, Christian communities actively cared for their poor, and the Christian rich did not trod on the backs of their poorer brothers, but bent down to help them. Christians were known for living exemplary lives, even if they were thought to be traitors to the state because they wouldn't sacrifice to the emporer. Nowadays, courtesy of the media and some Christian leaders who lost Christ on their way to power, people see Christians as sexually-repressed hippocritical busibodies who want to remake society into a facist version of their own moral view. There are a lot more reasons why people become atheists, but I don't have time to go into them right now.

soc.religion.christian

IMHO this are going from bad to worse. 3-in-1, 1-in-3 was bad enough. I do not like a God who prays to Himself. I refuse to believe Jesus prayed to Himself -- let's get real, if the scriptures say He prayed to the Father, then the Father IS someone different than the Son. I have no problems with multiple Gods. To me, the whole context of the scriptures co-heirs with Christ; that we will be like Him. Co-heirs share all things equally--including knowledge, power, dominion etc. When I am like Him (Christ), I will be the same as HE is--and He is a God. If God cannot do this, the His is not all powerful--and He is NOT God. If He will not, He is a Liar--and He is NOT God. But if He does, He is the greatest of all the Gods.

soc.religion.christian

DN> I think I took on this 'liar, lunatic, or the real thing' DN> the last time. Or was it the time before? Anyway, let DN> somebody else have a turn. I can't debate it with a DN> straight face. Or perhaps for something completely DN> different we could just ridicule him or gather up all the DN> posts from the last two times we did this and email them to DN> him. As an aside, can you believe that somebody actually DN> got a book published about this? Must have been a vanity DN> press. I would recomend to anyone out there to visit your local Christian bookstore and become aware of the stuff they sell. Quite interesting. Most of the stuff is far from intelectual. (About the level of Chick pamphelets...) If it is a common fundie bookstore, it should have at least one section about how you should hate Wiccans, Pagans, Catholics, Mormons, rock musicians, and anyone else who is not as fanatical as them. (Hate for the "Love of God(tm)"!) It is even more interesting watching the people who frequent such places. Very scary people. They hear voices from "God" telling them whatever they want to hear. (If they were not Christians, most of them would be locked away. Maybe this is why Federal money was reduced to Mental institutions by the reagan administration... Had to get their religious leaders out...) "Where would Christianity be if Jesus got eight to fifteen years, with time off for good behavior?" New York State Senator James H. Donovan on Capitol Punishment Alan

alt.atheism

Hi Bruce. How do you reconcile this practice with Ezekiel 18? Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him." Is Ezekiel 18 not translated correctly in your eyes perhaps? Sincerely, Aaron Cardenas P.S. I too am bothered to see offensive words being posted on this newsgroup. Obscenity is out of place for anyone who wants to live by the Bible (Eph 5:4). Moderator: I would appreciate your not letting posts with foul language through, which has happened at least twice lately. Thank you.

soc.religion.christian

: : If the Bible is such incredible proof of Christianity, then why aren't : the Muslims or the Hindus convinced? : : If the Qur'an is such incredible proof of Islam, then why aren't the : Hindus or the Christians convinced? If God exists, why aren't atheists convinced? --

alt.atheism

This idea, that the Reformers somehow were the first to bring the Bible to the people in their own language, is a myth. Many vernacular translations of the Bible existed long before the Reformation. The Vulgate Bible, which is still the official version of the Bible for the Catholic Church, was itself a translation in the common (i.e. vulgar == vulgate) tongue of its day, Latin, and had existed for about a millenium before the Reformation. It might also be noted that the printing press was not even invented until the same century as that in which the Reformation occurred.

soc.religion.christian

Great start. I realize immediately that you are not interested in discussion and are going to thump your babble at me. I would much prefer an answer from Ms Healy, who seems to have a reasonable and reasoned approach to things. Say, aren't you the creationist guy who made a lot of silly statements about evolution some time ago? Duh, gee, then we must be talking Christian mythology now. I was hoping to discuss something with a reasonable, logical person, but all you seem to have for your side is a repetition of the same boring mythology I've seen a thousand times before. I am deleting the rest of your remarks, unless I spot something that approaches an answer, because they are merely a repetition of some uninteresting doctrine or other and contain no thought at all. [..] I have to congratulate you, though, Bill. You wouldn't know a logical argument if it bit you on the balls. Such a persistent lack of function in the face of repeated attempts to assist you in learning (which I have seen in this forum and others in the past) speaks of a talent that goes well beyond my own, meager abilities. I just don't seem to have that capacity for ignoring outside influences.

alt.atheism

This is the story of Kent, the archetype Finn, that lives in the Bay Area, and tried to purchase Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason". This man was driving around, to Staceys, to Books Inc, to "Well, Cleanlighted Place", to Daltons, to various other places. When he asked for this book, the well educated American book store assistants in most placed asked him to check out the thriller section, or then they said that his book has not been published yet, but they should receive the book soon. In some places the assistants bluntly said that they don't know of such an author, or that he is not a well known living author, so they don't keep copies of his books. Such is the life and times of America, 200+ years after the revolution. Cheers, Kent

alt.atheism

| | > Mary at that time appeared to a girl named Bernadette at | > Lourdes. She referred to herself as the Immaculate Conception. | > Since a nine year old would have no way of knowing about the | > doctrine, the apparition was deemed to be true and it sealed | > the case for the doctrine. |Bernadette was 14 years old when she had her visions, in 1858, |four years after the dogma had been officially proclaimed by the |Pope. | | Yours, | James Kiefer I forgot exactly what her age was but I remember clearly that she was born in a family of poverty and she did not have any education, whatsoever, at the age of the apparitions. She suffered from asthma at that age and she and her family were living in a prison cell of some sort. She had to ask the 'Lady' several times in her apparitions about what her name was since her confessor priest asked her to do so. For several instances, the priest did not get an answer since Bernadette did not receive any. One time, after several apparitions passed, The Lady finally said, "I am the Immaculate Conception". So, Bernadette, was so happy and repeated these words over and over in her mind so as not to forget it before she told the priest who was asking. So, when she told the priest, the priest was shocked and asked Bernadette, "Do you know what you are talking about?". Bernadette did not know what exactly it meant but she was just too happy to have the answer for the priest. The priest continued with, "How did you remember this if you do not know?". Bernadette answered honestly that she had to repeat it over and over in her mind while on her way to the priest... The priest knew about the dogma being four years old then. But Bernadette did not know and yet she had the answer which the priest finally observed and took as proof of an authentic personal revelation of Our Lady to Bernadette. (Note: This Lady of Lourdes shrine has a spring of water which our lady requested Bernadette to dig up herself with her bare hands in front of pilgrims. At the start little water flowed but after several years there is more water flowing.)

soc.religion.christian

Cool, then we can discuss the increase in radio and TV use, the increase in the use of fossil fuels, the increase in air travel, and consumption of processed bread, and you can instruct us on which of them causes increased depression.

alt.atheism

I recall reading somewhere that a number of bishops spent a great deal of time debating the topic of "how many angels could fit on the tip of a needle". Does anybody have a reference to this? Thanks

soc.religion.christian

[...] That brings up an interesting question. If this interpretation is correct, how would these people be getting into Heaven before Jesus opened the gates of Heaven?

soc.religion.christian

Ouch. I guess I didn't. Sorry. But my comment was just more 'irony' into the fire. Cheers, Kent

alt.atheism

You may not think that it is fair, but how many sins do you know of that affect only the sinner? Is it fair for us even to be able to get into Heaven? Do we have a _right_ to Heaven, even if we were to lead sinless lives? Anyway, your argument seems to be saying, "If _I_ were God, I certainly wouldn't do things that way; therefore, God doesn't do things that way." Isaiah 55:8-9: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Original Sin is biblical: Romans 5:12-14: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come." 1 Corinthians 15:22: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

soc.religion.christian

This has troubled me for a long time and needs to be dealt with. From a long article Available through an individual on this newsgroup. About scripture being against homosexuality: ------------------------------------------ When we are less homophobic we will see that what we know as gay and lesbian people, engaging in loving, voluntary erotic relations with each other, aren't even mentioned. [in the Bible, tk] ------------------------------------------ This frightens me (not in the homophobic sense, but intellectually), especially because it was written by someone from a homosexual church. So, if my interpretation is different than theirs, I am homophobic! This can't be right. Disagreement in interpretation of the Bible and/or rejection of homosexual acts is not tantamount of homophobia.

soc.religion.christian

bobbe@vice (Robert Beauchaine;6086;59-323;LP=A;YAyG) Pontificated: I would guess that you either mean that you don't have a problem swearing aligance to a non-existant being or that you are being deliberatily dense (considering what group this is). It doesn't come "quite naturally" to nonbelievers such as myself or even to followers of other religions. Would you say it would be quite natural if you were forced to swear by "Allah" or "Budda"?

alt.atheism

which Kenneth Engel challenges: I will wimp out and admit that I never liked the metaphor of Jesus "paying" for our sins in the sense that many Christians accept as literal. The point is that God understands the suffering we go through, not just intellectually like when we watch the Somalians on TV, but _really_ understands, He can "feel" our pain. This fact is manifested by Jesus' life. We can argue that someone in history might have suffered more than Jesus, we can think of more horrible torture than crucifixion, we can think of cases of betrayal and fruitless effort leading to worse despair, but the main point is that Jesus is in the trenches with us, He is in everyone, whatever I do to the least of humanity I do to Him, and whatever I do for the least of humanity I do for Him. Now, to reconcile this with the existence of hell is beyond my capabilities, but that wasn't my goal. Thankfully our moderator is surprising. As I re-read this I must admit that this is more of a description of my faith than an explanation, but perhaps that's all I can do, hopefully that's all I have to do.

soc.religion.christian

Heres a nice story to help explain the virtues of purity, innocence and modesty, and their importance. The Most Beautiful Virtues This story is an excerpt taken from The Basket of Flowers by Johann Christoph von Schmid In a certain little market town, over a hundred years ago, there lived an upright and intelligent man named Jacob Rede. He was married to a most virtuous young woman and they lived happily in a humble home which was in the midst of a large, beautiful val- ley. After living many, happy years together, Jacob's wife died, leaving him alone with only one friend...his daughter Mary. Even as a child Mary was uncommonly pretty; but as she grew in years, her piety, her innocence, her modesty and her unfeigned kindne ss towards all she came in contact with, gave to her beauty a rare and peculiar charm. Her face was lighted up with a look of such indescribable goodness, that it seemed almost as though one looked upon an angel. Mary's greatest delight was the beautiful garden and her favour- ite flowers were the violet, the lily and the rose. Jacob loved to point to them as emblems of the virtues most becoming to her gender. When she once, early in March brought the first violet to Let the modest violet, my dear Mary, be to you an image of humil- ity and of the benevolence that does good in secret. It clothes itself in the tender colours of modesty; it prefers to bloom in retired grots; it fills the air with its fragrance while remain- ing hidden beneath the leaves. May you also, my dear Mary, be like the retiring violet, avoiding vain display, not seeking to attract the public eye, but preferring ever to do good in quietude and peace. One morning when the roses and lilies were in full bloom and the garden appeared in its richest array, Jacob said to his daughter, as he pointed out a beautiful lily, which was beaming in the morning sun: Let the lily my dear child, be to you the emblem of purity. Look how beautiful, how pure and fair it is! The whi- test linen is as nothing compared with the purity of its petals: they are like the snow. Happy the maiden whose heart is as pure and as free from stain. But the purest of all colours is also the hardest -5- to preserve pure. Easily is the petal of the lily soiled; touch it but carelessly or roughly and a stain is left behind. In the same way, a word or a thought may stain the purity of innocence! Let the rose my dear Mary, be to you an emblem of modesty. More beautiful than the colour of the rose is the blush that rises to the cheek of a modest girl. It is a sign that she is still pure of heart and innocent in thought. Happy is the maiden whom the suggestion of a thought that is indelicate, will cause to blush, as she is thus put on her guard against the approach of danger. The cheeks which readily blush will remain for a long time with their roseate hue, while those which fail to blush at the least indelicacy of thought will soon become pale and wan, and go before their time to the grave." Among the many fruit trees that adorned the garden there was one that was prized above all the others. It was an apple tree, not much larger than a rose bush, and stood by itself in the middle of the garden. Mary's father had planted it the day that she was born and every year it bore a number of beautiful apples. Once it blossomed earlier than usual and with unusual luxuriance. The tree was one mass of blossom. Mary was so delighted with it that she went every morning as soon as she was dressed to look at it. Once, when it was in full bloom, she called to her father Look father, how beautiful! Was there ever such a lovely mingling of red and white? The whole tree looks like one huge bunch of flowers! The next morning she hastened into the garden to feast her eyes once more upon the tree. But what was her grief to see that the frost had nipped it and destroyed all its flowers. They were all become brown and yellow and when the sun came forth in its strength they withered and fell to the ground. Mary wept bitter tears at the sight. Then said the father: Thus, does sinful pleasure destroy the bloom of youth. Oh my child, never cease to remember how dreadful it is to be seduced from the path of right! Behold in the example of the apple tree an image of what would happen if you were to wander from the way - if the hopes your conduct hitherto has raised in my heart should vanish, not merely for a day or year, but for life. Ah, then how much more bitter would be the tears which I would shed over your lapse from virtue than those which now course down your cheeks! Life would have no joys for me: with tears in my eyes I should -6- go down sorrowfully to my grave. As he spoke, the tears stood in his eyes; Mary was deeply moved, and the words he uttered made so profound an impression upon her mind that she never forgot them. Under the eyes of a father so loving and wise, and amid the flowers of her garden, Mary grew daily in stature and intelli- gence - blooming as a rose, pure as a lily and retiring as a violet, and as full of promise as a tree laden with blossom. Happy was the old man at all times to behold how plenteously the fruits of his garden rewarded his diligent toil; but with how much more happiness and content did he mark the gracious effect produced upon the heart and mind of his beloved daughter by his pious teaching and example. Jacob plucked several roses and lilies, tied them together in a bunch and gave them to Mary with the words: The lily and the rose, sister flowers as they are, belong the one to the other; both incomparable in their beauty, they are ren- dered still more lovely by being together. In the same way my dear child are innocence and modesty twin sisters of virtue and cannot be separated The greatest and most powerful guardian of purity is the thought of the presence of God

soc.religion.christian

Interesting question, esp since I remember *wishing* with all my heart that this *were* true so that I wouldn't have to be a "good Christian" anymore. "Christianity" was terribly hard, the only reward was Heaven and (maybe, sometimes, if I was really good) acceptance; I wanted a way out. What Jesus has done for me since I found Him (some 6 months ago) I do not want to lose. Period. That said, I originally interpreted the What-If as "if Christ never mentioned Sheol and weeping and gnashing of teeth, if Christ preached that those who did not follow him died and stayed dead and at that point forever ceased to exist...." I believe that we can only be complete through Christ. Do you think that Buddhists can also be complete? -jen --

soc.religion.christian

... If we take things this literally then we must also forbid women from speaking in church. Paul while led by the holy spirit was human and could err. I find it interesting that CHRIST never discussed the issue of homosexuality, certainly it existed back then and if it was a serious transgression CHRIST would have condemned it. I find it disturbing that the modern church spends its energy trying to stamp out something that CHRIST didn't consider worth a single word of condemnation. CHRIST repeatedly warns us against judgement. Don't we risk "judgement in equal measure" when we condemn people who GOD himself did not judge when he walked on the earth? -- | The love of CHRIST is contagious! --+-- |

soc.religion.christian

Persons interested in the tongues question are are invited to peruse an essay of mine, obtainable by sending the message GET TONGUES NOTRANS to LISTSERV@ASUACAD.BITNET or to LISTSERV@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU

soc.religion.christian

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. What would you call is when someone writes "The killings in N.I are not religously motivated?" 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. You don't have to hand us a bunch of double-talk about what I was "seemingly" attacking. I *quoted* what I was attacking.

alt.atheism

Ok, let me see if I can get all this out concisely. I am on an information gathering venture regarding the various expressions of Christianity/churches there are. My husband and I come from very different, but completely Christian backgrounds. I was a Lutheran when I met him and he was a born and raised Church of Christ member. At first I agreed with a lot of what the C of C was about, I wanted to move from the liturgical based Lutheran church to something a little more Biblical based. However over the last year, I've been regretting changing to the Church of Christ for a number of reasons - for one thing I am not a fundamentalist and believe that a few things in the Bible are socio-cultural in nature and don't relate to the Christian doctrine. One of my sorest spots is the role of women. I believe that through Mary and other women, Chris validated women as worthy disciples - but in the C of C the writings of Paul are taken without exception and I am told that I am not an equal partner in my marriage but the lesser member, I am to submit to my husband in all things (if I hear that verse one more time....) and I am not to take an active role in anything which might be construed as putting me in authority over men (ie leading prayers, conducting Bible studies etc). The last straw was when the Elders at our church came down on one of our college groups because it was all-women and they wanted a man to lead the study. Also my husband and I really resent the way everyone at our church feels that if you aren't a conservative republican - you aren't a REAL Christian (I got told that nobody who voted for Clinton should call themselves a Christian). Hence we are subjected during the service to long prayers calling for things we flatly dont agree with. We are also don't agree with the C of C's dread of any new "movement" being led by the young people. So, we have been church hunting with NO success. I want a reasonably biblical based church where women are viewed as whole people no matter what their calling ( C of C really looked down on career women). Christopher is looking for a church with deeply rooted religious convictions, with adult baptism and a church where the members still bring their Bibles to service. We are so confused here and we're drifting around trying to find a place where we both feel loved and can express our faith honestly and without reservation. If anyone can point us in a direction we'd be thrilled! I'm afraid that it will be very hard for me to go back to C of C and even harder for me to stay churchless for long. any responses would be welcome the diel family

soc.religion.christian

> Paul repeatedly talks about the "thorn" in his side. Some think > it refers to lust, others pride, but who knows? Whatever the > thorn was, apparently it was not compatible with Christianity, > yet does that make his epistles any less? Paul mentions his "thorn" (SKOLOPS, actually a sharp stake) in 2 Corinthians 12:7-9 + And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of + revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of + Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. Three + times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; + but he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my + power is made perfectr in weakness." He does not explain what it was, but it need not have been a moral problem. One guess is that Paul had a disorder of the eyes. He ordinarily dictated his letters, and then added a personal note and his signature. At the end of the letter to the Galatians, he says, "See, I am writing in large letters with my own hand," or else, "See what a long letter I have written with my own hand." If the former translation is adopted, it seems that Paul could not write in the small script of a practiced writer, but needed to make his letters larger, and this suggests eye problems. Again, he says to the Galatians (4:13-15), + You know that it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached + the gospel to you at first; and although my condition was a trial + to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an + angel of God.... For I bear you witness that, if possible, you + would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me. Perhaps this last line means simply, "You would have done anything for me, not withholding your most precious possessions (your eyes)." But in that case, we would expect some wording like, "If I had needed them." "If it were possible" sounds as though the bodily ailment was connected with his eyes. William Barclay, in his volume on Acts, makes a more specific suggestion. Before Paul preached in the highlands of Galatia, he had been preaching in the coastal areas of Asia Minor. If he had had a malarial attack while there, a doctor would have advised him to leave the low country and head for the hills. Malaria might well have given him both severe headaches and blurred vision.

soc.religion.christian

+ I will put enmity between you [the Serpent] and the woman, and + between your seed and her seed, she [can also be read he] shall + crush your head and you shall bruise her [or his] heel. + -Genesis 3.15 In the Hebrew of Genesis 3:15, the gender is clearly masculine. + HE shall crush your head, and you shall bruise HIS heel. The Latin has feminine forms, only by an accident of grammar.

soc.religion.christian

Yes, atheists tend to claim self control and self ownership. Are you saying that theists claim to not have self control? I don't think atheists are "dominantly arrogant." They don't claim some god that has supremacy over all of mankind. Now this claim would be arrogant, but atheists don't claim it. Most atheists do claim to own themselves. I think any disagreement with this claim of self ownership would be supremely arrogant.

alt.atheism

Yeah, but these were not the wives. The wives came from Nod, apparently a land being developed by another set of gods.

alt.atheism

: > : >I think you're letting atheist mythology confuse you on the issue of : (WEBSTER: myth: "a traditional or legendary story... : ...a belief...whose truth is accepted uncritically.") : How does that qualify? : Indeed, it's almost oxymoronic...a rather amusing instance. : I've found that most atheists hold almost no atheist-views as : "accepted uncritically," especially the few that are legend. : Many are trying to explain basic truths, as myths do, but : they don't meet the other criterions. Andrew, The myth to which I refer is the convoluted counterfeit athiests have created to make religion appear absurd. Rather than approach religion (including Christainity) in a rational manner and debating its claims -as the are stated-, atheists concoct outrageous parodies and then hold the religious accountable for beliefs they don't have. What is more accurately oxymoric is the a term like, reasonable atheist. Bill : >Divine justice. According to the most fundamental doctrines of : >Christianity, When the first man sinned, he was at that time the : You accuse him of referencing mythology, then you procede to : launch your own xtian mythology. (This time meeting all the : requirements of myth.) Here's a good example of of what I said above. Read the post again, I said, "Acoording to ...", which means I am referring to Christian doctrine (as I understand it), if I am speaking for myself you'll know it. My purpose in posting was to present a basic overview of Christain doctrines since it seemed germane. Bill : >with those who pretend not to know what is being said and what it : >means. When atheists claim that they do -not- know if God exists and : >don't know what He wants, they contradict the Bible which clearly says : >that -everyone- knows. The authority of the Bible is its claim to be : ...should I repeat what I wrote above for the sake of getting : it across? You may trust the Bible, but your trusting it doesn't : make it any more credible to me. : If the Bible says that everyone knows, that's clearly reason : to doubt the Bible, because not everyone "knows" your alleged : god's alleged existance. Again I am paraphrasing Christian doctrine which is very clear on this point, your dispute is not with me ... Bill : >refuted while the species-wide condemnation is justified. Those that : >claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God or that His will is : >unknown, must deliberately ignore the Bible; the ignorance itself is : >no excuse. : 1) No, they don't have to ignore the Bible. The Bible is far : from universally accepted. The Bible is NOT a proof of god; : it is only a proof that some people have thought that there : was a god. (Or does it prove even that? They might have been : writing it as series of fiction short-stories. As in the : case of Dionetics.) Assuming the writers believed it, the : only thing it could possibly prove is that they believed it. : And that's ignoring the problem of whether or not all the : interpretations and Biblical-philosophers were correct. : 2) There are people who have truly never heard of the Bible. : 3) Again, read the FAQ. 1) Here again you miss the point. The Bible itself is not the point, it's what it contains. It makes no difference who accpets the Bible or even who's unaware of its existence, Christians hold that it applies universally because mankind shares the same nature and the same fate and the same innate knowledge of God. 2) See above 3) If you read my post with same care as read the FAQ, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Bill : >freedom. You are free to ignore God in the same way you are free to : >ignore gravity and the consequences are inevitable and well known : >in both cases. That an atheist can't accept the evidence means only : Bzzt...wrong answer! : Gravity is directly THERE. It doesn't stop exerting a direct and : rationally undeniable influence if you ignore it. God, on the : other hand, doesn't generally show up in the supermarket, except : on the tabloids. God doesn't exert a rationally undeniable influence. : Gravity is obvious; gods aren't. As I said, the evidence is there, you just don't accept it, here at least we agree. Bill : >Secondly, human reason is very comforatble with the concept of God, so : >much so that it is, in itself, intrinsic to our nature. Human reason : >always comes back to the question of God, in every generation and in : No, human reason hasn't always come back to the existance of : "God"; it has usually come back to the existance of "god". : In other words, it doesn't generally come back to the xtian : god, it comes back to whether there is any god. And, in much : of oriental philosophic history, it generally doesn't pop up as : the idea of a god so much as the question of what natural forces : are and which ones are out there. From a world-wide view, : human nature just makes us wonder how the universe came to : be and/or what force(s) are currently in control. A natural : tendancy to believe in "God" only exists in religious wishful : thinking. Yes, human reason does always come back to the existence of God, we're having this discussion are we not? Bill : >I said all this to make the point that Christianity is eminently : >reasonable, that Divine justice is just and human nature is much : >different than what atheists think it is. Whether you agree or not : YOU certainly are not correct on human nature. You are, at : the least, basing your views on a completely eurocentric : approach. Try looking at the outside world as well when : you attempt to sum up all of humanity. Well this is interesting, Truth is to be determined by it politically correct content. Granted it's extremely unhip to be a WASP male, and anything European is contemptable, but I thought this kind of dialogue, the purpose of a.a, was to get at the truth of things. But then I remember the oxymoron, reasonalble atheist, and I understand.

alt.atheism

: BULLSHIT!!! In the Gulf Massacre, 7% of all ordnance used was "smart." The : rest - that's 93% - was just regular, dumb ol' iron bombs and stuff. Have : you forgotten that the Pentagon definition of a successful Patriot launch : was when the missile cleared the launching tube with no damage? Or that a : successful interception of a Scud was defined as "the Patriot and Scud : passed each other in the same area of the sky"? : : And of the 7% that was the "smart" stuff, 35% hit. Again - try to follow me : here - that means 65% of this "smart" arsenal missed.

alt.atheism

[to Benedikt Roseneau ] #In article <1qv6at$fb4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> # #>#The information of that is invariant under your child being a son or #>#a daughter and singing about Santa Claus. Wasn't your argument that #>#"there has to be more"? #>More than what? #More than we assume. Which is what, exactly? #>(a) Most of the people I debate disagree with my premises. Hardly debate #> otherwise. # #Your favorite point that we sense so it hs to be there has been challenged #more than once. When I did it, you said, "good question", and did not #address it. I've addressed "it" (your caricature is not my "favourite point", needless to say) at length in a previous outing, and am currently discussing it with Eric Rescorla. #>(b) There's little point in responding the same points everywhere; I do #> my best to give everyone the courtesy of a reply. # #You still repeat that point. I do? Curious, since I believe that was the first time I've ever made it. Not that repetition would imply much more than your seeming inability to understand; you ask me the same question, I'll give you the same answer, especially when in this case, I know the answer to be true. I do my best to give everyone the courtesy of a reply, but if everyone is making the same points, and I'm pushed for time, then I try to respond what I believe are the strongest formulations of those points. If that doesn't include your post, tough; this is USENET, and life is tough all over. #>(c) Since there's a great deal of responses this isn't always feasible; I #> do my best to honestly answer questions put to me. # #You drop out of debates with some posters and continue with others. You appear #with the same issue every n months, and start the dicussion at the beginning #again. I've only debated this issue twice in a.a, and occasionally in t.a. The first was in response to Simon Clippingdale's positive assertion that disagreement about moral values inexorably acknowledges that morals are relative. It doesn't. Now, Simon has dropped out of the debate for some time; I take that to mean that he is either busy, or bored with the topic. I certainly do not accuse him of dishonesty. Do you? #>(d) I can't always understand what you say # #Neither can't I understand you all the time. Usually, one asks what the other #side means. Usually, one does. Usually you're clear, but sometimes you aren't and I ask you what you mean; other times you seem to get extremely uptight and I feel that I'm debating against line noise. Sometimes I get tired, and sometimes I have other things I'd rather do. Again, this is USENET, and life is tough all over. You're going to have to deal with it. #>(e) You're starting to get personally insulting; I may not even put your name #> in the hat in future. # #That's supposed to be a threat? No, that's a simple statement, and an assertion that I am not answerable to those who offer me baseless insults. For example, those who accuse me of lying about my personal beliefs, while also complaining that I don't answer their questions. #>#Like that you what you sense is evidence for the sensed to be there. #>#If only everything would be so easy. #> #>What almost everyone senses is evidence for the sensed to be there. #>Because to all intents and purposes, it *is* there. #> #We had that argument. For one, your claim that everyone senses it #is not founded, and you have been asked to give evidence for it often. #And then, the correct statement would be it is reason to assume that it #is there unless evidence against it has been found. I have no problem with the second statement. I have provided an argument that almost everyone senses that Freedom is valuable - the only cogent objection to this came from jon livesey, and was offered by some other people too: essentially, that people disagree about fuzzy concepts such as Freedom. It's a good point, and I'm thinking about it. # #Your trick is to say, I feel A is not right, and so do many I know, #therefore A is absolutely right. It neglects the possibility that #these people consider A to be right as an effect of the same process, #restricting the claim of its absoluteness to those who have been subject #of that process. In other words, refutes it. You make the ontological #claim, you have to prove it. Nonsense. My "trick" is to say: I feel that A is better than B and so does almost any disinterested person I ask. Best evidence is therefore that A really is better than B, subject to the assumption that we can establish to our mutual satisfaction what we mean by A and B, and that the resulting system of values is self-consistent. Now get this: "really is better" is an idealisation, a fictional model, in the same sense that "real material existence" is a fictional model. It may or may not correspond to something true. It is nonetheless a useful _assumption_. Far more useful than the equally assumed relativist "trick", to wit: I feel that A is better than B, and so does almost any disinterested person I ask. However, if even one person disagrees that A is better than B, or if even one person dissents from mutually agreed definitions of A and B, then it is the case that B is better than A for that person, and nothing more can be said. I say this is useless because it inexorably implies that a supermajority seeking to maximise A cannot morally take action against someone seeking to maximise B (e.g. a terrorist). To do that would be to claim that a supermajority's carefully considered morality would be better than the terrorist's - which would, of course, be true, but a no-no for an ethical relativist. To claim that ethical relativism implies anything else is simply weasel words, and an example of compartmentalisation to rival anything in the world of religion. #>#For a similar argument, I sense morality is subjective, it does not #>#hurt me to do things that are considered to be objectively wrong by #>#others. #> #>If you mean that you do things that some others consider objectively #>wrong, and it turns out not to be the case for you - of course this #>is possible. It is neither evidence for subjectivism, nor evidence #>against objectivism (except sometimes, in a pragmatic sense). #> #It serves as a counterexample for that everything that is subject to #judgements is absolute. And as long as you don't provide evidence for #that there is something universally agreed upon there is no reason to #believe your hypothesis. I've done this: freedom, with the proviso that I still have to answer jon's objection that fuzzy concepts like freedom have no objective meaning. #Further, in order to make morality absolute, universal, or objective, #you would have to show that it is independent of humans, or the attributes #above look quite misleading. Not really. What evidence is there that _anything_ exists independently of humans? You'll be hard pressed to find any that isn't logically equivalent when applied to values. #>An analogous set of premises would be: #> #>Premise 1: Some people believe that objectively speaking the shortest #> route from my house to a bar is through the main entrance #> of the estate, and down the Malahide road. #> #>Premise 2: I checked it out, and found that the shortest route from my #> which is much closer. #> #>You would never deduce from these that there is no shortest route from my #>house to a bar; yet that is seemingly how you derive your relativist claim, #>using premises which are logically no different. #> # #No. Morals are a matter of belief so far. The people still believe that the #shortest way is through the main entrance. No agreement on *belief* here. #And in order to have an analogy you would have to show that there is a #shortest way and that there is a method to convince everyone of that it #is the shortest way indeed. In other words, your analogy works only when #one assumes that your premises are right in the first place. If not, it is #a fallacy. And if this were an argument for objectivism, you'd be right. It isn't, though, it's a demonstration that the argument you gave me is neither argument *against* objectivism, nor argument *for* relativism. Your gimmick is to assume in the first place that values aren't real, and to use this to "prove" that values aren't real. In other words, you beg the question against me.

alt.atheism

Meng, I have a better prayer: Dear God, Please save the world from the likes of these!!!

alt.atheism

It's my understanding that Romans 9:13 "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." refers not to the two individuals, but rather to their offspring, the tribe of Jacob and the tribe of Esau See Obadiah, for example. In fact, if you scan through the OT, you will find similar references to the two tribes.

soc.religion.christian

: Are you saying that their was a physical Adam and Eve, and that all humans are direct decendents of only these two human beings.? Then who were Cain and Able's wives? Couldn't be their sisters, because A&E didn't have daughters. Were they non-humans? Okay all humans are direct descendents of of a bunch of hopeful monsters. The human race didn't evolve from one set parents, but from thousands. Do you really base your atheist on -this-? : Considering that something like 4 out of 5 humans on this planet don't know instinctively that the Christian god exist, the claim of instinctive knowledge doesn't look like it hold much water. Or are you saying that the 4 billion non-Christians in the world must fight this instinctive urge to acknowledge God and JC. Did I say that people were Christians by nature or did I say that Christians hold that everyone knows of the God the Christians worship. I would have thought the distinction obvious, sorry. Read my post again and see what I -really- said; from what you've written, I think you are just being agumentative. Also your word-wrap is screwed up or you need to shift to 80 columns text ...

alt.atheism

I don't agree, but I can only speak for myself. I have a good friend whose lifestyle is very sinful. Do I hate the things she does to herself and others? Yes. Do I hate her? Absolutely not. In fact, she tells me repeatedly that I am the best friend she has in the world. I care about her very much despite the fact that I hate how she lives her life. It's very easy to fall into the progression you describe above. I've felt it with my friend more than once. There is a very important part of Christianity that you've overlooked above and makes it possible to "love the sin but hate the sinner." Before I look at someone else's life and sin, I look to myself and am as disgusted by what I see in *me* as I see in others, probably more. Self-righteousness is contradictory to Christianity and is what makes the progression you describe happen. If a Christian can truthfully quote Paul and say, "Wretched man that I am!" [Romans 7:24 (NASB)], that Christian will be able to love the sinner and hate the sin. If we have the attitude of the Pharisee who said, "I thank Thee that I am not like other men..." [Luke 18:11 (NASB)], we will hate both. -- Scott at Brandeis

soc.religion.christian

This might be better directed to s.r.c.bible-study, which I have begun reading, but since my earlier notes were posted to this forum, I will conclude here as well. A week ago, I managed to find time to consult a Septuagint Concordance and a LXX text with apparatus at the library, and I can now usefully conclude my look at the Greek words for love as used in the Christian background of the Septuagintal translation of the Jewish scriptures. The principal result is that there is a cluster of uses of the verbal noun from _erao:_, _eraste:s_ meaning "lover." This cluster occurs just where one might most expect it, in the propethic image (and accusation) of Israel as faithless spouse to YHWH. The verses in question are Hosea 2:5,7 & 10; Jeremiah 4:30, 22:20 & 22; Lamentations 1:19; and Ezekiel 16:33, 36 &37 and 23:5, 9 & 22. [ Hosea seems to have originated this usage, which Jeremiah and Ezekiel picked up; Lamentations is dependent on, though not likely written by, Jeremiah. ] The "erotic" meaning (in its allegorical use, not at all literally) is evident. So too in English, unless you complement it with a phrase like "of the arts" the word "lover" is going to have an overtone of sexual relationship. There is no surprise here, but it is worthwhile to see that standard Greek usage *does* show up in the translations from the Hebrew! :-) More interestingly, and some confirmation of my guess that later Koine usage avoided the verb _erao:_ because of its homonymy to _ero:_ (say), _eromai_ (ask), there is an error in Codex Vaticanus (normally, a very valuable witness) where a form of _erao:_ is used in a completely absurd context -- 2 Samuel 20:18, where the meaning *must* be "say." In addition to the above (and the uses I have already mentioned in Proverbs), Esther 2:17 uses the verb in its most natural application, kai e:rasthe" ho basileus Esthe:r -- and the King loved Esther and, rather more interestingly, 1 Samuel 19:2 supplies a modest degree of support to the gay appraisal of the relationship of David and Jonathan: kai Io:nathan huios Saoul e:[i]reito ton Dauid sphodra -- and Jonathan, Saul's son, loved David intensely [ I'm using the bracketed [i] for io:ta subscript, which I don't yet have a reasonable ASCII convention for. ] (The relevance of this to the gay issue is not anything implicit about the "historical" facts, but just that a quasi-official translation of the Hebrew text in the Hellenistic period makes no bones about using the "erotic" verb in this context. Given the quite general usage of _agapao:_ for erotic senses, this need not mean anything "more" than _agapao:_ alone would mean, but it DOES disambiguate the relationship, as far as this translator goes!)

soc.religion.christian

Darwin fish can be bought from: -- "JOIN THE DARWINNERS (TM) Send $6 to receive your official Evolving Fish.. wherever you want to spread the good news! Darwinners, 6671 Sunset Blvd., Ste. 1525, L.A.,CA 90028 THE GREATEST THEORY EVER TOLD!" Jenny

alt.atheism

Gregg, you haven't provided even a title of an article to support *your* contention. You also have no reason to believe it *is* an anti-Islamic slander job, apart from your own prejudices. Why, yes. What's a mere report in The Times stating that BCCI followed Islamic banking rules? Gregg *knows* Islam is good, and he *knows* BCCI were bad, therefore BCCI *cannot* have been Islamic. Anyone who says otherwise is obviously spreading slanderous propaganda. I see. If someone wants to provide references to articles you agree with, you will also respond with references to articles you agree with? Mmm, yes, that would be a very intellectually stimulating debate. Doubtless that's how you spend your time in soc.culture.islam. I've got a special place for you in my...  ...kill file. Right next to Bobby. Want to join him? The more you post, the more I become convinced that it is simply a waste of time to try and reason with Moslems. Is that what you are hoping to achieve?

alt.atheism

My girlfriend is a smoker. She has been addicted to it for quite some time. She has been tried a couple of times, but then always get back to it. Her background is non-Christian, but she's interested in Christianity. I'm a Christian and non-smoker. I would like to collect any personal stories from Christians who managed to quit. I hope that this will encourage her to keep on trying. If anybody ever had a similar problem or knows a good book on it, pls reply by email. I appreciate any kinds of helps. Thanks a lot.

soc.religion.christian

(stuff deleted) [First point. What they are doing is wrong, just as what Joseph's brothers did was wrong, just as what Judas did was wrong. They intend it for evil. If God somehow brings good out of it, that does not make them any less subject to just condemnation and punishment. Second point. Of course, God will bring good out of it. But not the same good that He would have brought if the Serbians had refrained from the sins of robbery and rape and murder. Nor does the good He purposes excuse us from the duty of doing what is right.]

soc.religion.christian

Gee, I think there are some real criminals (robbers, muderers, drug addicts) who appear to be fun loving caring people too. So what's your point? Is it OK. just because the people are nice?

soc.religion.christian

Arthur Clarke may have quoted the comment about knowing you're to be hanged in the morning concentrating a man's mind wonderfully, but the source of the comment is Samuel Johnson. (Pardon me if you already knew that.)

soc.religion.christian

It is possible that the individual saw a true prophetic vision, but that he interpreted the scale of time and space according to his material con- sciousness, translating the supersensible perceptions of a plane above that of time and space into an immediate worldly context -- and getting it wrong. Not that he did it rationally, but rather that unconsciously the perceptions became clothed in material images, instead of remaining in the realm of the potential and not-yet-time-space-bound. This difficulty of translating prophetic vision into a concrete when and where has always been difficult, even for the prophets of old. That is why their prophecies are so often subject to multiple interpretations. Likewise, the Apostles seemed to feel that the return of the Lord was to be "very soon" in the sense of perhaps the same generation. Yet the meaning of "very soon" has proven to be different than they could grasp. Prophetic vision tends to telescope time, so that things that are far off appear to be very close. Another possibility is that the vision was one of a real event preparing to happen, again in the realm of the potential-but-not-yet-manifest and which was thwarted by other forces, including possibly an act of divine mercy. There are many concrete prophecies being made these days by devout and sincere and sober Christians (and others too). It seems that great coming events are really casting their shadow before their arrival in these "apocalyptic" times. The various predictions (I'm talking about those that appear to be sincere and sober) are hard to accept, yet hard to ignore com- pletely. One has the feeling "something is about to start to get ready to begin to commence to happen". We are living, as the Chinese saying goes, in interesting times. As for how to discriminate, the Bible doesn't help much. There is an Old Testament passage (I forget where it is) that says you will know whether a prophet is true by whether or not his prophecy comes to pass. That helps eliminate the failures after the fact, but in the case of an earth- quake it is small comfort. It seems to me that all prophecies that give specific times and places and events should be suspect, not in that they are necessarily false, but in the sense stated above, that all such visions are subject to mistranslation from the plane of prophetic vision to the plane of earthly time and space. For what it is worth, Rudolf Steiner once was asked whether a modern initiate could see into the future and predict coming events. His answer was that it would be possible but then he would have to withdraw from active parti- cipation in them, including proclaiming what he saw. If this is in fact a spiritual law, then the answer to your question about how to discriminate is that the one who makes such prophecies is probably violating that law, knowingly or unknowingly, and as such his message should be considered a priori to be dubious. I.e. I would expect that those capable of making true predictions and giving accurate expression to them would not do so in the way that the prophet of the Oregon earthquake did. However, I can sympathize with the person who published the prophecy. Given the same overwhelming experience that he apparently had, I too might feel impelled, and even commissioned by God to tell my fellow human beings about what I had seen. Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)

soc.religion.christian

Here is the short answer: because only certain marriages are recorded in Heaven. Now for the long answer: In Doctrine and Covenants section 132, the chapter discussing eternal marriage (and, yes, plural marriage), the distinction between sealings under the priesthood and other marriages is revealed. When "the children of this world marry, or are given in marriage" when they receive "the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage" (Luke 20:34-35). Jesus was simply teaching that marriages "until death do you part" are not in force after death. However, the Doctrine and Covenants continues describing eternal marriage. D&C 132:19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; ... [ shortened for brevity AI] and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exhaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. The Lord told Peter "whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt 16:19). Do you doubt that Peter was given the power to perform sealings? Peter thought so because he taught that husbands and wives were "heirs *together* of the grace of life" (1 Peter 3:7). "In order to obtain the highest" (degree of celestial glory), a man must enter into this order of the priesthood" (D&C 131:2). When a man and wife are sealed they truly become "one flesh" because their eternal "increase" (destinies) are enjoined completely. Our Father has an eternal companion (and maybe more because of the plural marriage conditions of the law) who participated in our creation and is equally concerned with our progress here. There is no scriptural basis for this doctrine. If fact, the only mention of our Mother is in one verse of a hymn written early in the history of the Church: O My Father I had learned to call thee Father, Through thy Spirit from on high, But, until the key of knowledge Was restored, I knew not why. In the heav'ns are parents single? No, the thought makes reason stare! Truth is reason; truth eternal Tells me I've a mother there. Why don't we hear more about our Mother? 1. Because our Father presides under Priesthood authority (which is not a calling for Her); 2. Because we don't all (necessarily) have the same Mother it would be confusing for worship; 3. Because our Father wishes to withhold Her name and titles because of how some people degrade sacred things.

soc.religion.christian

The Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to Catherine Laboure, a nun of the sisters of Charity on July 18, 1830 at Rue du Bac, Paris. Sister Catherine was awakened late that night by a small boy, age 5 or 6, who was literally glowing with some sort of interior light. The child led her to the sanctuary of the chapel where he promised the Virgin Mary was to be found awaiting her. Our Lady appeared to her and instructed her for two hours or more on matters pertaining to her life and to the future of France and the world. On November 27 Our Lady appeared again to Catherine. She instructed her to have a medal struck. She told her that those who wore this medal would enjoy special protection from the Mother of God and would receive great graces. In less than a year there were three more apparitions. In June of 1831 the medals were a reality. Many reports were received by those who wore it. Within two years of its issuing the medal was known as the "Miraculous Medal". Catherine died in 1876. Her body to this day is remarkably preserved (incorrupt). She was canonized on July 27, 1947. Her body lies in the chapel at the motherhouse on the Rue du Bac where she had her first meeting with Our Lady. The apparition on November 27 1830 was of average height and clothed in white with a veil that flowed over the head and fell to the floor. Above the altar, a pyramid painted to represent God's all knowing wisdom looked down on them. Our Lady's feet rested on a white globe and there was also a green serpent with yellow spots that she was stepping on. In her hands was a golden ball that represented the world. Great streams of light issued from her hands and she also showed Catherine an image of two hearts, the Sacred Heart wrapped in piercing thorns and her own heart punctured by a sword. The sword represented her suffering with Jesus. The apparitions announced the onset of the great battle and forewarned that a dark era lay in the immediate future. It was the apparition leading up to the recent ones. Our Lady began to dispense secrets. And with the globe she revealed herself in worldwide dispute with the forces of the dark. She told Catherine "The times are evil. Misfortunes will fall upon France. The throne will be overturned. The entire world will be overcome by evils of all kinds." Refer to books on St. Catherine for more of Our Lady's messages. A copy of the medal is also available in Catholic bookstores. I will post other Marian events every few days or so including the ones happening today which are still under investigation. These postings serve only to introduce you to these events. Please look more into them and understand the reason for the increasing number and urgency of these apparitions. --

soc.religion.christian

From the June newsletter of the Latin Liturgy Association: There is a new e-mail discussion group: LATIN-L, a forum for people interested in classical Latin, medieval Latin, Neo-Latin; the languages of choice are Latin (of course) and whatever vulgar languages you feel comfortable using. Please be prepared to translate on request. The field is open -- name your topic! In order to subscribe, BITNET users should send an interactive message of the form "TELL LISTSERV@PSUVM SUB LATIN-L [your name]". INTERNET users should send a message (without a subject line) to the address LISTSERV@PSUVM.PSU.EDU. The message should read "SUB LATIN-L [your name]". Once subscribed, one may participate by sending messages to LATIN-L@PSUVM or LATIN-L@PSUVM.PSU.EDU.

soc.religion.christian

First, you seem to assume all atheists think alike. An atheist does not believe in the existence of a god. Our opinions on issues such as capital punishment and abortion, however, vary greatly. If you were attacking the views of a particular atheist (Benedikt, I presume), then please present your argument as such and do not lump us all together. As for the issues, let's start with abortion. Personally, I do not support abortion as a means of population control or contraception-after-the-fact. However, I support the right of any woman to have an abortion, regardless of what my personal views may be, because it would be arrogant of me to tell any individual what he/she may or may not do to his/her body, and the domain of legislators should not extend into the uterus. That's my opinion, and I am sure many atheists and theists would disagree with me. I do not defend homosexuality as a means of population control, but I certainly defend it as an end to itself. I think most homosexuals would be angered to hear of anyone characterizing their personal relationship as nothing more than a conscious effort to keep population levels down. As for atheists believing all values are biological, I have no idea what you're talking about. Finally, there are the issues of war and capital punishment. An atheist can object to either one just as easily as a theist might. You seem to be hung up on some supposed conspiratorial link between atheism and population control. Could this be the "atheist cause" you were referring to a few posts back?

alt.atheism

Aaron> Colossians 2:11-12 "In him you were also circumcised, in the Aaron> putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done Aaron> by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised Aaron> with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him Aaron> from the dead." Aaron> In baptism, we are raised to a new life in Christ (Romans 6:4) Aaron> through a personal faith in the power of God. Our parent's Aaron> faith cannot do this. Do infants have faith? Let's look at Aaron> what the Bible has to say about it. Yes, let do. Try: "And if anyone causes one of these little ones *who believes in me* to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck." Mark 9:42 "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." The Colossians passage does not make faith a requirement for baptism. It merely says that in baptism we are born again, regenerated, and resurrected through faith. In the case of an infant I would say that baptism works faith in the heart of the infant--through the power of the word. The Colossians passage does make baptism a spiritual circumcision. Circumcision was the means by which a male infant was made a part of God's covenant with Israel. It was commanded to be performed on the eighth day. The early church understood this, and even debated whether baptism had to be performed on the eighth day, or if it could in fact be done earlier. Aaron> Romans 10:16-17 "But not all the Israelites accepted the good Aaron> news. For Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed our message?' Aaron> Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the Aaron> message is heard through the word of Christ." Aaron> So then we receive God's gift of faith to us as we hear the Aaron> message of the gospel. And the gospel is surely preached at any infant's (or adult's) baptism. Indeed, in a very real sense, the sacraments are the Gospel made tangible. Aaron> Faith is a possible response to hearing Aaron> God's word preached. Kids are not yet spiritually, Aaron> intellectually, or emotionally mature enough to respond to Aaron> God's word. How do you know they are not yet mature enough to have faith? Do you know this on the basis of God's Word, or from your own reason? Faith is also described as a gift from God, Ephesians 2:8,9. He gives faith to infants just as he gives it to adults, through the power of the gospel, Romans 1:6. Aaron> If you read all of Ezekiel 18, you will see that God doesn't Aaron> hold us guilty for anyone else's sins. So we can have no Aaron> original guilt from Adam. Here you show that you just don't understand original sin-- you are arguing against a straw man. Maybe you've been talking to Catholics too much. I don't know. But original sin does not consist of God's imputation of Adam's guilt to us. It consists of our inheritance of Adam's sinful nature. It is actual sin. See for example, the Augsburg Confession, Article II, and the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article II, and, for extra credit, John Knox's `The Scots confession', Article III. Aaron> Now then that we have a little more background as to why Aaron> original sin is not Biblical, let's look at some of the Aaron> scriptures used to support it. Aaron> Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through Aaron> one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to Aaron> all men, because all sinned--" Ask yourself this question. "Do infants ever die?" Then ask yourself, "If infant baptism is not valid, then where was the Christian Church during all the centuries when almost all of the baptisms were performed on infants? Were Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Zwingli, Hus, Knox, Andrae, and Chemnitz Christians? Aaron> Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time Aaron> my mother conceived me." Aaron> This whole Psalm is a wonderful example of how we should humble Aaron> ourselves before God in repentance for sinning. David himself Aaron> was a man after God's own heart and wrote the Psalm after Aaron> committing adultry with Bathsheba and murdering her husband. Aaron> All that David is saying here is that he can't remember a time Aaron> when he wasn't sinful. He is humbling himself before God by Aaron> confessing his sinfulness. His saying that he was sinful at Aaron> birth is a hyperbole. The Bible, being inspired by God, isn't Aaron> limited to a literal interpetation, but also uses figures of Aaron> speech as did Jesus (John 16:25). For another example of Aaron> hyperbole, see Luke 14:26. Who are you to say what is literal and what is not? Is a literal interpretation manifestly absurd in Psalm 51 by reason of direct contradiction with a clear passage from the Word of God? You might also compare Genesis 8:21, "The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart, `Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood...." Aaron> We see Aaron> that he did grow and become wiser in Luke 2:40 and 2:52. The Aaron> implication is that Jesus did wrong things as a child before he Aaron> knew to choose right over wrong. You are a long way from proving this (rather monstrous) assertion. All you can say is that Jesus grew in wisdom and in stature. A conclusion that he did wrong as a child is based on an extrapolation of reason, not on a direct revelation in Scripture.

soc.religion.christian

That's the whole point, David. As spirits separated from their bodies and living in the spirit world, they cannot undergo the ordinance of marriage, just as they cannot be baptized, since there is no physical body to be baptized. We perform these ordinances as proxies for them, in their behalf. Thanks for asking. Brooks *************************************************************************** * Brooks Haderlie (brh54@cas.org) * " O be wise; what can I say more?" * * Columbus, OH by way of Ucon, ID * - Jacob 6:12 * *

soc.religion.christian

For your first set of questions (regarding the energy and will of Christ) I quote to you the relevant part of the Statement signed by both Eastern (Chalcedonian) and Oriental (non-Chalcedonian) Orthodox scholars a few years ago (Both families = both Orthodox churches) : 1. Both families agreed in condemning the Eutychian heresy. Both families confess that the Logos, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, only begotten of the Father before the ages and consubstantial with Him, was incarnate and was born from the Virgin Mary Theotokos; fully consubstantial with us, perfect man with soul, body and mind ($ \nu o \upsilon \zeta $); He was crucified, died, was buried and rose from the dead on the third day, ascended to the Heavenly Father, where He sits on the right hand of the Father as Lord of all creation. At Pentecost, by the coming of the Holy Spirit He manifested the Church as His Body. We look forward to His coming again in the fullness of His glory, according to the Scriptures. 2. Both families condemn the Nestorian heresy and the crypto-Nestorianism of Theodoret of Cyrus. They agree that it is not sufficient merely to say that Christ is consubstantial both with His Father and with us, by nature God and by nature man; it is necessary to affirm also that the Logos, Who is by nature God, became by nature man, by His incarnation in the fullness of time. 3. Both families agree that the Hypostasis of the Logos became composite by uniting to His divine uncreated nature with its natural will and energy, which He has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit, created human nature, which He assumed at the Incarnation and made His own, with its natural will and energy. 4. Both families agree that the natures with their proper energies and wills ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ are united hypostatically and naturally without confusion, without change, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ without division and without separation, and that they are distinguished in ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ thought alone. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 5. Both families agree that He who wills and acts is always the one Hypostasis of the Logos Incarnate. [...] I guess that adresses your question adequately. As for your second set of questions, I am afraid they are irrelevant to the discussion (at least from my point of view) of Monophysitism. I do not see how they relate to the topic we are discussing (other than to start an endless Orthodox-RC debate which I do not plan to engage into). As a brief answer to your questions, the position of the Coptic Orthodox Church regarding the Roman pontiff, his jurisdiction, his infalability, etc. is exactly the same as all the other Orthodox churches. Peace, Nabil

soc.religion.christian

I don't think Joe was saying any such thing. However, your question on "asking Jesus to come into your heart" seems to imply that infants are not allowed to have Christ in theirs. Why must Baptism always be viewed by some people as a sort of "prodigal son" type of thing; i.e. a sudden change of heart, going from not accepting Christ to suddenly accepting Christ? Why can't people start out with Christ from shortly after birth, and build their relationship from there? After all, does a man suddenly meet a woman, and then marry her that same day? From my experiences, I've learned that all relationships must be built, including one's relationship with God. Also Joe is speaking from the standpoint that Baptism is not just a ritual, but that through it God bestows sacramental grace upon the recipient. Certainly for those with the mental faculties to know Christ it is necessary to believe in Him. However, the Sacrament itself bestows grace on the recipient, and makes a permanent mark of adoption into God's family on the soul.

soc.religion.christian

In some earlier discussions on this thread I may have given the impression that even though children didn't require baptism it wouldn't hurt if they were. To the contrary, when you baptize children before they are capable of comprehending it you deny them their opportunity to demonstrate their desire to serve God. Have any of you considered that children are not accountable for sin because they are not capable of repentance? Peter said to a group of "men and brethren," "Repent and be baptized every one of you" (Acts 2:38). Notice that he specified that if they *repent* then they may be *baptized*. In following Peter's instructions people must first demonstrate repentance (a forsaking of their sins and a desire to obey God's commands) *before* they are eligible to be baptized. Since young children are not capable of repenting, they are not eligible for baptism. And since God is both just and merciful "sin is not imputed when there is no law" (Romans 5:13), young children are not accountable for what they can't comprehend.

soc.religion.christian

[my stuff about dealing with defferences deleted] i am sorry; i did not mean to. i think i understand how your experiences were much worse than the small bit of ridicule i have had to put up with. i guess i didn't really understand before; now i do. wow, pretty conservative church. (please excuse me if this seems like a ridiculous understatement to you.) (on a side note, that "under God" wasn't in there until recently -- i believe my father, who is in his sixties, remembers saying the pledge of allegiance without that in there. i don't know the history behind that though.) emotional blackmail -- ouch. thank goodness (i'll be neutral in my thanks here :) ) i was raised in a completely tolerant household, so that i could make my own decisions! so atheism doesn't have to be taught, but christianity does. i guess i can see that, although i can see a child believing in some sort of god without anything other than his/ her own imagination as a basis. (sorry, i guess this is sort of minor) [my query about parallel between lack of choice for homosexuals and lack of choice for him as an atheist deleted] hmm, i wonder why i am a christian then? this isn't a flame, this is a real wonder. does anyone else have opinions to offer on why you believe in something that hasn't necessarily been "proven" to you? sounds like you are an atheist by nature, then. or is it possible that at least part of it is due to the apparently repressive nature of the christianity of your childhood? if this is getting too personal perhaps you should ignore it, or we can take it to email. this may have been a general remark; you do not sound broken to me, but indeed stronger. yes, i agree with that. i've seen some of the damage repressive religion can do, and as a result i intend to raise my own children as much as i can to look around before accepting one religious stand (atheism is included in this) and to _question everything_ -- this is very important. i can see that.

soc.religion.christian

#>In article <1993Apr20.070156.26910@abo.fi> MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI # #># Ah, that old chestnut, your claim that moral objectivism == #>#scientific objectivism. I don't agree with it; now try proving, through #>#some objective moral test, that my disagreeing is incorrect. =) #> #> Your claim, which you have deleted now was "not universal => not objective". # # I've deleted it now, in the interest of brevity. Go back a step #and you'll see it was still in your post. Yes, that was my claim; if you #can refute it, then please do so. Firstly, an apology. You hadn't deleted your claim, and I was mistaken in saying you had. Sorry for any offence caused. Secondly, how can I refute your definition? I can only point up its logical implications, and say that they seem to contradict the usage of the word "objective" in other areas. Indeed, by your definition, an objective x is an oxymoron, for all x. I have no quibble with that belief, other than that it is useless, and that "objective" is a perfectly good word. #> So, what *is* objective? Not the age of the universe, anyway, as I show #> above. # # How many ages can the universe have, and still be internally self- #consistent? I'd be amazed if it was more than one. How many different #moral systems can different members of society have - indeed, single #individuals, in some cases - and humanity still stick together? Begging the question. People can have many opinions about the age of the universe and humanity can still stick together. You are saying that the universe has a _real_ age, independent of my beliefs about it. Why? # The age of the universe, like most scientific facts, can be #emirically verified through means that'll give the same result no matter #who performs the testing (albeit there are error bars that may be on the #largish side...). This assumes that the universe has a real age, or any kind of reality which doesn't depend on what we think. Why should an extreme Biblical Creationist give a rat's ass about the means of which you speak? #I've heard of no way to verify morality in a #consistent way, much less compute the errors of the measurement; care to #enlighten me? The same is true of pain, but painkillers exist, and can be predicted to work with some accuracy better than a random guess. I wrote elsewhere that morality should be hypotheses about observed value. If a moral system makes a prediction "It will be better if...", that can be tested, and is falsifiable in the same way as a prediction "This drug will relieve pain..." # People's *ideas* about the age of object X are *not* objective; #you can have any idea you like, and I can't stop you. Universae and #their ages is another ballgame; they are what they are, and if you #dislike some detail of them, that's a problem with your *opinion* of #them. Sure. Assume an objective reality, and you get statements like this. #I claim that morality is an opinion of ours, and as such #subjective and individual. If I'm wrong, then some more-or-less #objectively "real" thing exists, which you label "objective morality"; #can you back up this positive claim of existence? Can you back up your positive claim above? No. That's because it's an assumption. I make the same assumption about values, on the basis that there is no logical difference between the two, and the empirical basis of the two is precisely the same. #># Point: Morals are, in essence, personal opinions. Usually #>#(ideally) well-founded, motivated such, but nonetheless personal. The #>#fact that a real large lot of people agree on some moral question, #>#sometimes even for the same reason, does not make morals objective; it #>#makes humans somewhat alike in their opinions on that moral question, #>#which can be good for the evolution of a social species. #> #> And if a "real large lot" (nice phrase) of people agree that there is a #> football on a desk, I'm supposed to see a logical difference between the two? #> Perhaps you can explain the difference to me, since you seem to see it #> so clearly. # # Take a look on the desk - i.e., perform a test. If(football) THEN #(accept theory) ELSE DO (Tell people they're hallucinating). # # Now take a look at morality. See anything? If so, please inform me #which way to look, and WHY to look that particular way, as opposed to #some other. Get my drift? No. Just look. Are you claiming never to know what good means? #># *Science* is a whole other matter altogether. #> #> Says you. Prove that those who disagree are wrong? # # That's a simple(?) matter of proving the track record of the #scientific method. I think it's great, and should be applied to values. I may be completely wrong, but that's what I conclude as a result of quite an amount of thought.

alt.atheism

Paul's statement only asserts that that particular choice was not a matter of karmic fulfillment of the past, just as the fate of the man born blind (John 9) was not. There is no question here of the simplistic idea of karma as a machine that is the sole determiner of one's destiny. Even the eastern traditions, or many of them, do not say that, as one knowledgeable poster pointed out. And if in fact that Paul did not know about or believe in reincarnation does not say anything one way or another about it. Even John the Baptist, who Jesus says emphatically is Elijah (Matt 11:14), does not appear to have been aware of it, at least at the point at which he was asked. But it is interesting that his threefold denial -- to the question whether he is the Christ, the Prophet (i.e. Isaiah), or Elijah, is emphatic in the first case and very weak in the third. I would like to add once again that, while it is important to discuss the different passages that may point directly to the teaching of repeated earth lives, one way or another, what I really see as important in our time is that the subject be revisited in terms of the larger view of Christianity and Christian doctrine. For the most part, those who do accept it either reject the central ideas of Christianity or, if they are Christians, hold their conviction as a kind of separate treasure. I believe that Christianity has important new understanding to bring to bear on it, and vice versa, much that is central to Christianity takes on entirely new dimensions of meaning in light of repeated earth lives. It has a direct bearing on many of the issues frequently discussed in this newsgroup in particular. I have said openly that I have developed my views of repeated earth lives largely from the work of Rudolf Steiner. Not that I hold him as an authority, but the whole picture of Christianity becomes clearer in light of these ideas. Steiner indicated that the old consciousness of reincar- nation necessarily had to fade away that it could be renewed in later times, after a time of development of the Christ idea through the first two millenia after Christ's deed on Golgotha. In our own time, it becomes important that, having received the basic gospel of salvation, our understanding of life and of the human being can now grow to embrace the significance of this idea. For the discussions in this newsgroup, I have tried to focus on that which can be related as directly as possible to scripture and to fundamental Christian teaching and tradition.

soc.religion.christian

The cited passages are covered IN DEPTH in a FAQ for this group. That particular FAQ (I've forgotten the author) discusses the traditional vs. pro-homosexual interpretations of the passages and indicates which points have strong textual support. Perhaps the moderator might give again the instructions for retrieving the FAQ on this topic? BTW, this issue, while dealt with before, is VERY timely. One of the major Presbyterian churches in California (St. Andrews -- a MegaChurch in a rich neighborhood) is withholding their support of Synod (amounts to about 10% of the budget of the Synod, which covers all of Southern CA and Hawaii) until support for a pro-homosexual lobbying group (the Lazarus Project) is terminated. [This came from a news report on CNN yesterday -- corrections welcome.] Tim [I think it's time for me to post the FAQ. This is an issue throughout the Presbyterian Church. On the other side, one of the major churches in Cincinnati has been ordaining homosexual elders, and has ignored Presbytery instructions not to do so. And the church in Rochester where the judicial commission said they couldn't install a homosexual pastor has made her an "evangelist". These situations, as well as the one you describe, do not appear to be stable. This will certainly be a major topic for the General Assembly next month. If the church can't come up with a solution that will let people live with each other, I think we're end up with a split. Clearly neither side wants that, but I think we'll get pushed into it by actions of both sides.

soc.religion.christian

Let me say that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is central to Christianity. If you personally believe that Jesus Christ died for you, you are a part of the Christian body of believers. We are all still human. We don't know it all, but homosexual or heterosexual, we all strive to follow Jesus. The world is dying and needs to hear about Jesus Christ. Are you working together with other Christians to spread the Gospel?

soc.religion.christian

After insult, Gregg resorts to lies:

alt.atheism

This is a RFD on a proposal for a newsgroup which would promote a sharing on the "Johannine hours" as proposed each month by the monks of the ecumenical community of Taize (pronounced te-zay) in France. NAME OF PROPOSED NEWSGROUP: ========================== soc.religion.taize (Unmoderated) PURPOSE OF THE GROUP: ==================== The Taize Community is an international ecumenical community of monks based in France. Many young adults come there to search for meaning in their life and to deepen their understanding of their faith through a sharing with others. This newsgroup will allow such a sharing through a monthly "Johannine Hour" which will be posted at the beginning of each month. A "Johannine hour" involves a short commentary on a given Bible passage, followed by some questions for reflection. Any thoughts that may arise in consequence and that you wish to share with others can be posted here. We are not interested in theological debate, and even less in polemics. No expertise is required! The idea is to help one another to deepen our understanding of Scripture as it is related to our own life-journey. The idea of "Johannine hours" was born in Taize as a simple response to all those who were trying to assimilate the Bible's message in the midst of their daily life. Because of work or studies, it is often impossible to spend long hours in silence and reflection, but everyone can take an hour from time to time to enter a church, sit quietly at home or go out for a walk in the woods. There, in silence, we can meditate on a passage of Scripture to listen to the voice of Christ. During the time of silence, it is important to concentrate on what we understand and not waste time worrying if, in some Biblical expressions, we find it difficult to hear the voice of Christ. The idea is to communicate to others what we have understood of Christ, not burdening them with our own hesitations but rather telling them what has brought us joy, what has led us to run the risk of trusting more deeply. Perhaps those who read and think about the "Johannine Hours" in this newsgroup could share their reflections and discoveries with others. The important thing is the complementarity between two aspects, the personal aspect of silent, personal reflection and the communal aspect of sharing, which through Usenet makes us a part of a worldwide network. BACKGROUND OF THE TAIZE COMMUNITY: ================================= The following provides some background information on the life and vocation of the Taize (pronounced te-zay) community. "A PARABLE OF COMMUNION": August 1940, with Europe in the grip of World War II, Brother Roger, aged 25, set up home in the almost abandoned village of Taize, in Eastern France. His dream: to bring together a monastic community which would live out "a parable of community", a sign of reconciliation in the midst of the distress of the time. Centering his life on prayer, he used his house to conceal refugees, especially Jews fleeing from the Nazi occupation. AN INTERNATIONAL AND ECUMENICAL COMMUNITY: Taize's founder spent the first two years alone. Others joined him later and at Easter 1949, seven brothers committed themselves together to common life and celibacy. Year by year, still others have entered the community, each one making a lifelong commitment after several years of preparation. Today, there are 90 brothers, Catholics and from various Protestant backgrounds, from over twenty different countries. Some of them are living in small groups in poor neighbourhoods in Asia, Africa, North and South America. The brothers accept no donations or gifts for themselves, not even family inheritances, and the community holds no capital. The brothers earn their living and share with others entirely through their own work. In 1966, Sisters of Saint Andrew, an international Catholic community founded 750 years ago, came to live in the neighbouring village, to share the responsibility of welcoming people in Taize. TAIZE AND THE YOUNG; THE INTERCONTINENTAL MEETINGS: Young adults, and less young, have been coming to Taize in ever greater numbers since 1957. Hundreds of thousands of people from Europe and far beyond have thus been brought together in a common search. Intercontinental meetings take place each week, Sunday to Sunday, throughout the year and they include youth from between 35 and 60 countries during any one week. The meetings give each person the opportunity to explore the roots of their faith and to reflect on how to unite the inner life and human solidarity. The meetings in summer can have up to 6,000 participants a week. Three times every day, the brothers and everybody on the hill come together for common prayer in the Church of Reconciliation, built in 1962 when the village church became too small. "A PILGRIMAGE OF TRUST ON EARTH" The community has never wanted to create a "movement" around itself. Instead, people are called to commit themselves in their church at home, in their neighbourhood, their city or village. To support them in this, Taize has created what it calls "a pilgrimage of trust on earth". At the end of each year, the pilgrimage has a "European meeting" which brings together tens of thousands of young adults from every part of Europe for several days in a major city. There have also been meetings in Asia and in the United States. Every year, Brother Roger writes an open letter to the young. Usually completed during a stay in one of the poor regions of the world, these are translated into thirty languages and provide themes for reflexion for the following year. NOTE: Discussion on the creation of this newsgroup will take place in news.groups. For any further information contact: Brother.Roy@almac.co.uk brother.roy@almac.co.uk

soc.religion.christian

When they're not important, yes. All scientists do. Otherwise science would never get anywhere. Hang about -- not atomic interactions in general. Just specific ones which are deemed unimportant. Like gravitational interactions between ions, which are so small they're drowned out by electrostatic effects, and so on. Oh, probably. They still make people memorize equations and IR spectra. Maybe in a few decades they'll discover the revolutionary "data book" technique.

alt.atheism

Anton LaVey's interpretation of Satanism has always puzzled me. I read his "Satanic Bible" a few years ago for a social studies project, as well as a book by Arthur Lyons called "The Cult of Devil Worship in America." The latter included a very interesting interview with the Black Pope in which he did indeed say that Satan was merely an instrument for one to realize the self. When I refer to Satanism, I am referring to the mishmash of rural Satanic ritualism and witchcraft which existed before the Church of Satan. I don't consider LaVey's church to be at all "orthodox," nor do I consider its followers "satanists." LaVey combined the philosophies of Nietzsche, Crowley, and Reich, slapped in some religious doctrine, added a little touch of P.T. Barnum, and christened his creation the Church of Satan. No doubt the title was a calculated attempt to attract attention...I suppose he could have just as easily called it the Church of Free Sex. At any rate, it worked (for a while). In its heyday, the Church had a huge following, including such Hollywood celebrities as Sammy Davis, Jr. and Jayne Mansfield. (I have a picture of LaVey with Sammy, by the way.) I find the idea of a Satanist not believing in Satan about as credible as a Christian not believing in Christ. But if you include the Church of Satan, then I suppose I need to alter my definition. Webster's Dictionary and The American Heritage Dictionary will have to do the same.

alt.atheism

Once again, this posting has been delayed for about a week by falling between some software cracks... [Here follows an introduction to the controversial incident, and an apologetic explanation purporting to show why it couldn't actually have happened. The historicity of the episode doesn't matter to what follows] I don't know whether I'm quoting Gregg or Zakaria below. Anyway, back to current affairs, Among others; this incident is not something Rushdie or Watt or anyone else dug up from nowhere, it is a well known story, a myth if you will, known (according to Umar Khan) to "Every Muslim school boy and girl", and so presumably to Rushdie, and to Gibreel Farishta. Yes, this is what writing fiction is all about. Rushdie was writing about a crisis of faith, and chose this myth to present it, by placing the actor "Gibreel" in the role of the angel whose name he took. Rushdie was not writing a history or theology book, and nowhere claims or implies that this is what actually happened. It's somewhat like stories woven around the relationship between Jesus and the reformed prostitute Mary Magdalene (another myth). Or those referring to the Arthurian mythos, or the Grail legend, or the Wandering Jew, or dozens of others. If you can stand to read the work of a blasphemer, consider Salman Rushdie's children's book "Haroun and the Sea of Stories" for an idea of the way a storyteller -- a specific storyteller -- works with existing story lines. No. Muhammad's [Mahound's] integrity is not really impugned in this part of the story, and there's no reason to think this was Rushdie's intent: Gibreel, as the archangel, produces the verses (divine and satanic), though he doesn't know their provenance. It is not implied (in a straight reading) that Muhammad influences them: " *Not my voice* I'd never know such words I'm no classy speaker never was never will be but this isn't my voice it's a Voice. Mahound's eyes open wide, he's seeing some kind of vision, staring at it, oh, that's right, Gibreel remembers, me. He's seeing me. My lips moving, being moved by. What, whom? Don't know, can't say. Nevertheless, here they are, coming out of my mouth, up my throat, past my teeth: the Words. Being God's postman is no fun, yaar. Butbutbut: God isn't in this picture. God knows whose postman I've been." It's ambiguous: is Mahound somehow manipulating Gibreel? Is it Satan? Or something else? The answer is not given. To be sure, the question is raised. This novel explores faith and the role of revelation in religion, among other things. Addressing loss of faith implicitly raises questions about the truth of revelation, but this novel proposes no answers, at least not directly. The very existence of a newsgroup named "alt.atheism" raises the same questions, more forcefully, and does propose some answers, which is the real relevance. If Rushdie's mild fictional exploration is "filth and lies", and he "asked for what he got", are we next on the fatwa list? (That's a rhetorical question, of course.) -- Jim Perry perry@dsinc.com Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC These are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.

alt.atheism

[Someone quoted the following. I've removed the name because it's not clear which name goes with which level of quote. --clh] On the basis of these examples I would say that Joe Moore was only wrong in claiming Augustine as a prime mover of the sin=sex view. These quotes clearly equate sexuality with defilement and incontinance, even within the marriage relationship (else they would not apply to Mary after her marriage to Joseph). So Joe's assignment of the reasoning behind the concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary does seem to be supported by these quotes.

soc.religion.christian