text
stringlengths 1
51k
| label
int64 0
15
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
In <1993Apr20.004119.6119@cnsvax.uwec.edu> nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)
Why? How? Might makes right? How can they force their morality on me? Why
can't I do what I want? Who are they to decide? What if I disagree?
Good point, but it is being immoral in our opinion. We don't let them choose,
we make the decision that their actions are wrong for them.
For someone to lay claim to an alternative
I admit to lean toward the idea of an innate moral sense, but have little basis
for it as of yet. How far can such a concept be extended?
and
Do you mean that we could say it would be wrong for us to do such a thing but
not him. After all, he was behaving morally in his own eyes and doing what he
chose. On what basis do we condemn other societies besides, here's the buzz
words, on the idea that there are some actions wrong for all humans in all
societies?
Holding that morality is subjective does not mean
Why not? Do we have to be objective suddenly?
MAC
--
****************************************************************
Michael A. Cobb
"...and I won't raise taxes on the middle University of Illinois
class to pay for my programs." Champaign-Urbana
-Bill Clinton 3rd Debate cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu | 0 | alt.atheism |
[...deletions...]
An "Islamic Bank" is something which operates in a different fashion to
your modern bank, as I have explained here (on another thread) before.
For example, Islamic banks don't pay fixed interests on deposits, but a
return on investments (which varies according to the market, and is not
fixed like interest is).
Islamic banks are a relatively new phenomenon in the Islamic world.
There are no Islamic banks in "the West", including the USA, to my
knowledge. I doubt if the market for them exists there -- at least not
while "Islamic banks" are at a relatively early stage of their
development as is the case now. BCCI is most certainly not an "Islamic
bank" -- did BCCI ever pay a fixed interest rate on deposits? If the
answer to this question is "yes", then BCCI was not an Islamic bank, as
Islamic banks are specifically set up to _not_ pay or charge interest.
Whether some Muslims partially owned the bank or whatever is completely
irrelevant. | 0 | alt.atheism |
This response originally fell into a bit bucket. I'm reposting it
just so Bill doesn't think I'm ignoring him.
Bill,
I'm sorry to have been busy lately and only just be getting around to
this.
Apparently you have some fundamental confusions about atheism; I think
many of these are well addressed in the famous FAQ. Your generalisms
are then misplaced -- atheism needn't imply materialism, or the lack
of an absolute moral system. However, I do tend to materialism and
don't believe in absolute morality, so I'll answer your questions.
An atheist judges value in the same way that a theist does: according
to a personal understanding of morality. That I don't believe in an
absolute one doesn't mean that I don't have one. I'm just explicit,
as in the line of postings you followed up, that when I express
judgment on a moral issue I am basing my judgment on my own code
rather than claiming that it is in some absolute sense good or bad.
My moral code is not particular different from that of others around
me, be they Christians, Muslims, or atheists. So when I say that I
object to genocide, I'm not expressing anything particularly out of
line with what my society holds.
If your were to ask why I think morality exists and has the form it
does, my answer would be mechanistic to your taste -- that a moral
code is a prerequisite for a functioning society, and that humanity
probably evolved morality as we know it as part of the evolution of
our ability to exist in large societies, thereby achieving
considerable survival advantages. You'd probably say that God just
made the rules. Neither of us can convince the other, but we share a
common understanding about many moral issues. You think you get it
from your religion, I think I get it (and you get it) from early
childhood teaching.
I think you've been reading the wrong sort of comic books, but in
prying through the gobbledygook I basically agree with what you're
saying. I do believe that my mental reactions to stimuli such as "God
commanded the genocide of the Canaanites" is mechanistic, but of
course I think that's true of you as well. My reaction has little to
do with whether God exists or even with whether I think he does, but
if a god existed who commanded genocide, I could not consider him
good, which is supposedly an attribute of God.
Hmm. Yes, I think some heavy FAQ-reading would do you some good. I
have as much place discussing values etc. as any other person. In
fact, I can actually accomplish something in such a discussion, by
framing the questions in terms of reason: for instance, it is clear
that in an environment where neighboring tribes periodically attempt
to wipe each other out based on imagined divine commands, then the
quality of life will be generally poor, so a system that fosters
coexistence is superior, if quality of life is an agreed goal. An
absolutist, on the other hand, can only thump those portions of a
Bible they happen to agree with, and say "this is good", even if the
act in question is unequivocally bad by the standards of everyone in
the discussion. The attempt to define someone or a group of people as
"excluded from discussion", such that they "cannot participate", and
their opinions given "no weight whatsoever" is the lowest form or
reasoning (ad hominem/poisoning the well), and presumably the resort
of someone who can't rationally defend their own ideas of right,
wrong, and the Bible.
--
Jim Perry perry@dsinc.com Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
These are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
To the media, "religion" and "cult" have about the same relative
connotations as "government" and "terrorist group".
| 0 | alt.atheism |
I'm looking for the following article:
``The War Within: an Anatomy of Lust''
Leadership 3 (1985), pp 30-48
I've looked in the libraries of 3 UK Bible Colleges, but none of them subscribe
to the Magazine (its a US publication, btw). If anyone has access to this
article and would be willing to post me a photocopy (I presume that copyright
restrictions will allow this?), please e-mail me. Thanks, | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Hello Gang,
There have been some notes recently asking where to obtain the DARWIN fish.
This is the same question I have and I have not seen an answer on the
net. If anyone has a contact please post on the net or email me.
Thanks, | 0 | alt.atheism |
15 | soc.religion.christian |
|
Sorry, gotta disagree with you on this one Maddi (not the
resemblence to Bill. The nickname).
I prefer "Half" Bake'd Timmons
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea. | 0 | alt.atheism |
In <May.13.02.31.16.1993.1569@geneva.rutgers.edu> djohnson@cs.ucsd.edu
I'm afraid I see that question as very tendentious. Try rephrasing it:
What's more important to Christians? Love of God or love
of other human beings?
to which of course the only conceivable answer is that the one is like
the other. I am *deeply* suspicious of any "flavor" of Christianity
which would elevate one clause of the Great Commandment to a "priority"
over the other such as to claim a conflict. True, we are told to let
the dead bury the dead, to "hate" family rather than let it keep us from
following Christ. But the dichotomy here is not one between love of our
fellows and love of God, but of allowing *social* constructs to blind us
to the presense of God. It is particularly satanic to twist love of God
in such a manner as to become an excuse to treat others as on a different
level than the one who is so caught up in "love" of God.
The trouble comes in the relation of human love and human sex. Yes, it
has sometimes been the case that the Church has "taught" that all sex
was nasty, evil, sinful stuff. But when man and wife leave their parental
homes to become helpmates, living in one flesh, it is the sex that is the
vehicle of becoming "one flesh" (if you doubt me, read St. Paul on what
is wrong with frequenting prostitutes :-)). Less provocatively, what I
mean is just this: sexual bonding is a deeply founded aspect of our social
interaction, and in particular is the foundation of the institution of
marriage, so that unlike with many mammals, human males remain with and
foster the children they beget and support their children's mothers.
This is the schema behind Genesis 2:18-24 (and behind Jesus' citation of
that passage.)
[ I observe, by the way, that not all human males in fact do as
I have just described; but another thing that characterizes
human societies is our raising of *non*begotten children, not
only orphans and adoptees and the like, but products of the
quite common infidelities of humans to their spouses. We are
in this not unique in the animal world, but the full extent of
social consequences and implications is most intricate for us. ]
Yes, of course it sometimes goes "wrong" -- like all else we do, it is
infected with sin, and you find married "couples" where there is no bond,
and people so deliriously addicted to the initial stages of sexual bond
formation (the "infatuation", "falling in love" phase) that they break
any forming bond in order to keep stepping over the threshold of the deep
unity God has prepared for us, and stepping back out again right away.
Satan may indeed *use* sex as a very handy tool to corrupt human love --
but in the Edenic creation, that is not its nature, and with God's grace
under the power of Christ to make all things new it need not be a problem
for Christians (though we must be vigilant, even in Christ, as the devil
is watchful, prowling around like a roaring lion seeking someone to devour.)
So, returning to the original question, what is more important to STRAIGHT
Christians? Sex, or Christianity? Paul, clearly, tended to think that
sex was at best a distraction from Christianity (though to be charitable
to him, his context was in expectation of immediate parousia, so that the
hard TASKS of a married union -- the lifelong building and adaptation to
each other -- seemed somehow to undercut the "proper" preparation for an
immediate eschaton. Since we *do not* know the hour of return, we should
act *both* with instant readiness for that *and* with a commitiment to our
mates that proposes a long lifetime together. And telling people *not* to
bond in such a perspective strikes me as crippling us in the second clause
of the the commandment to love. I would claim that only a very few saints
have the CAPACITY to deeply love (without sexual tinges or complication,
mind you) their fellow human beings unless they have had a deeply spiritual
life in married union growing together as one flesh -- and that means in
the type case, with a persistent and continued sexual relationship. We
are human, and little good comes of trying to "mortify the flesh" to the
point of pretending to be otherwise, pretending NOT to be sexual beings.
It depends entirely on context. If that context is major hypocrisy
on the part of those who find us "stumbling blocks" I am much less of
a mind to efface myself so that they can pontificate about MY sins.
There are some people for whom a life of celibacy is a spritual gift,
and maybe even a victory against a to-them troubling sexual urge that
seems to them to lead only to sin. Nothing I say should ever be read
as demeaning such a gift. Nor the even rarer gift of love for all our
conspecifics, and indeed for all God's creation, that can develop to
the full *without* the tutoring of a spousal/helpmate marriage founded
in sex. But there is a difference between spiritual gifts and penance;
telling people that they HAVE to have a particular gift (or else? what?)
is fraught with manipulation and disregard of the differences of our
spiritual endowments from God. To one person is given the gift of
speaking in toungues, to another intepretation of toungues; to yet
another prophecy; and to still another teaching. The notion that some
*particular* gift is required of *all* is one of the earliest heresies. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
A religion is a cult which if those in power belong to it.
Actually, they're all bull shit. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Several replies to my post have said that I should get to know
Christian homosexuals before judging them. I maintain that I was not
judging them by saying that homosexuality is wrong. I would like to
look at the responces to my post and make a general sterotypical
evaluation of the people who responded to the side of Christianity
and homosexuality being compatible (admitedly not all are homosexuals
but I know that many are from their e-mail responces). I don't
normally make sterotypical assumptions about groups of people, but
since I have been asked to by many of the opposing veiw point I will.
So far people have made wild assumptions, put me down because I don't
have the resources of others, and even reverted to name calling. If
you don't think this is an acurate representation then those of you
who are homosexual Christians show me the diffrence. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
This is no less logical than the assumption that if something is
_not_ in the Bible, then it _must not_ be done. But I don't really
think that's what he's saying anyway. See below.
What about the letter to Philemon? In it Paul at least hints that a
certain slave be released. Also, slavery in those times was not the
same as the type of slavery we had in the U.S. I think a better
comparison would be to indentured servitude. I don't really want to get
into a discussion on slavery. Anyway, although it does demonstrate your
point, I don't think it is relevent, because the original poster did not
say that absence of specific condemenation proves something is not
immoral.
Back to the original poster's assertion. He is not in fact making
the logical error of which you accuse him. He stated the fact that the
Bible does not say that babies cannot be baptized. Also, we know that
the Bible says that _everyone_ must be baptized to enter Heaven.
_Everyone_ includes infants, unless there is other Scripture to the
contrary, i.e. an exception. Since there is no exception listed in the
Bible, we must assume (to be on the safe side) that the Bible means what
it says, that _everyone_ must be baptized to enter Heaven. And so we
baptize infants.
To summarize, you accused the original poster of saying if something
is not forbidden by the Bible, then that proves it is OK; i.e. if
something cannot be disproven, it is true. He rather seemed to be
asserting that since the Bible does not forbid, _you cannot prove_,
using the Bible, that it is _not_ OK. There is a difference between
proving whether or not something can be proven or disproven (there are
theories on provability in the field of Logic, by the way) and actually
proving or disproving it. The other logical error we must avoid falling
into is the converse: that if something cannot be proven, then it is
false. This seems to be the error of many _sola scriptura_ believers.
I think the only thing that can be proven here is that one cannot use
Scripture alone to prove something either way about infant Baptism,
although the evidence seems to me to favor it. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
John E. King (king@ctron.com) posts a whopping one liner:
* "The modern theory of evolution is so inadequate that it deserves to be *
* treated as a matter of faith." -- Francis Hitching *
I have a few points to make about the above posting.
1. Science is not based on and does not consist of "quotes" from either
real or alleged experts. Critical reasoning, evidence and (if possible)
experimentation are necessary. Creationists frequently display a massive
confusion about this by merely quoting both non-experts and experts alike
(some of the latter quotes are in fact false) and steadfastly refusing to
follow any kind of rigorous scientific procedure. This strongly suggests
that (a.) their claims completely lack any scientific merit and (b.) they
are aware of this fatal deficiency. Of course, you may not actually be a
creationist and this may not be your real intent.
2. You have failed to identify Hitching and the surrounding context of his
statement. Why is that? If Hitching is a scientific illiterate then the
quote would merely display his profound ignorance of evolutionary biology.
Creationists are frequently known to quote real scientists out of context
and to fabricate statements that they subsequently attribute to legitimate
scientists. Of course, you may not actually be a creationist and this may
not be your real intent.
3. Evidence supporting the alleged inadequacies of "the modern theory of
evolution" would be a much more powerful argument than a contextless one
line quote from an unidentified nobody. It is also important to note that
disproving biological evolution does not automatically prove some alternate
claims any more that disproving that the earth is shaped like a hockey puck
proves that it is a hyperbolic paraboloid. Creationists seem rather fond
of diving (head first) into this logical fallacy. Of course, you may not
actually be a creationist and this may not be your real intent.
4. Since evolution is central to virtually all of modern science, an attack
on evolution (either the fact or the theory) really represents an attack on
science. While the theory will unquestionably continue to evolve (B^) the
fact of evolution will not ever go away. Creationists lost the battle long
ago (more than 100 years in fact) but are simply too willfully ignorant and
irrational to acknowledge the fact. Of course, you may not actually be a
creationist and you may not really be that ignorant.
Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub (kv07@IASTATE.EDU) asks:
* Neither I, nor Webster's has ever heard of Francis Hitchings. Who is he? *
I, like Hitchings, am not to be found in Webster's B^). Francis Hitchings
is a scientifically illiterate creationist (or perhaps he is just playing the
part of one) who wrote a quite ignorant book attacking evolution ("The Neck of
the Giraffe"). In that publication he quotes a creationist (Jean Sloat Morton)
using the standard invalid creationist probability argument that proteins could
not have formed by chance. Thus not only confusing abiogenesis with evolution
(the two are quite independent) but also concluding with a "non sequitur" (i.e.
the conclusion "does not follow"). [pp 70-71] Hitchings also misquotes Richard
Lewontin in an effort to support creationism. [pp 84]
Hitchings book was reviewed by National Park Service ecologist David Graber
in the Los Angeles Times (and repeated in the Oregonian). The article was
titled "`Giraffe' sticks scientific neck out too far". Excerpts include :
"Francis Hitchings is not a biologist." "He goes after Darwin like Mark
Antony after Brutus. He flips from scientific reasoning to mysticism and
pseudo-science with the sinuosity of a snake-oil salesman." "He suggests
a mystical `organizing principle' of life, using the similarity of organs
in different creatures as evidence [sic]."
Note that the last statement above is actually evidence FOR evolution not
against it. If John E. King is quoting from this reviewed book it wouldn't
surprise me much. It's also interesting that King had nothing to add (i.e.
he only posted a quote).
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Ken,
Then what happens when you die?
Why are you here?
What is the purpose of Your life, do you think it's
just by chance you're in the family you are in and have the
friends you have?
Why do you think your searching? To fill the void that
exists in your life. Who do you think can fill that void | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I suppose for the same reason that you do not believe in all the gods. Why
should any be any different? I use the same arguments to dismiss Koresh
as I do god. Tell me, then, why do you not believe that Koresh is the son
of god? By logic it is equally possible that Koresh is Jesus reborn.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
If I get a chance I will ask them this weekend.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The words I have underlined are at the heart of the problem. A "quick
look" doesn't do justice to the depth of the book of Jeremiah. Having
studied the Jeremiah/Ezekial period solidly for over a year at one
stage of my life, I have to say that there is a great deal of underlying
theological meaning in the judgement prophesies. Let me make one point.
The clash between Jeremiah and the "false prophets" was primarily in
the theological realm. The "false prophets" understood their relatioship
to God to be based on the covenant that the Lord made with David. It is
possible to trace within the pages of the Old Testament who this covenant,
which was initially conditional on the continued obedience of David's
descendants, came to be viewed as an unconditional promise on the part
of the Lord to keep a descendant of David's upon the throne and to never
allow Jerusalem to subjegated by any foreign power. Jeremiah was not a
Judahite prophet. He was from Anathoth, across the border in what had formerly
been Israelite territory. When he came to prophesy, he came from the
theological background of the covenant the Lord had made with Israel
through Moses. The northern Kingdom had rejected the Davidic covenant
after the death of Solomon. His theology clashed with the theology of the
local prophets. It was out of a very deep understanding of the Mosaic
covenant and an actute awareness of international events that Jeremiah
spoke his prophesies. The "judgement prophesies" were deeply loaded with
theological meaning.
In my opinion, both the Portland earthquake prophesy and the David Wilkerson
"New York will burn" prophesy are froth and bubble compared to the majestic
theological depths of the Jeremiah prophesies.
--
___
Bill Rea (o o)
-------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w--- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
So what do we have now, an integral over pain X time?
I get to lash you with a wet noodle for ever, but I only get to
cut you up with a power saw if I'm quick about it? | 0 | alt.atheism |
Note the difference here. One is saying, if *Christ* disagrees with
a Christian being gay, *Christ* can change that.
The other is saying, if *I* think being gay is wrong, that a Christian
cannot be gay, *I* need to tell them to change.
As Lois said, and as before her Paul wrote to the believers in Rome,
WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE ANOTHER'S SERVANT?
-jen
-- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
This may sound argumentative, but do the pro-homosexual crowd give the
same support to church members that are involved in incestuous relationships?
If we do a little substitution above, we get:
"although by no means all episcopalians are sympathetic to incestuous
men and women, there certainly is a fairly larget percentage (in my
experience) who are. I am good friends with an episcopalian minister
who is ordained and living in a monogamous incestual relationship. This
in no way diminishes his ability to minister -- in fact he has a very
significant ministry with the Incest association of his community..."
Do the same standards apply? If not, why not? And while we're in the
ballpark, what about bestiality? I can't recall offhand if there are
any direct statements in the Bible regarding sex with animals; does that
activity have more or less a sanction?
Please avoid responses such as "you're taking this to extremes". I would
guess that a disproportionate percentage of the inerrant Bible community
views homosexual acts with distaste in the same manner that society at
large views incest.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Cokely | (714) 833-4760 scott.cokely@nb.rockwell.com
"They came for the Davidians, but I did not speak up because
I was not a Davidian. Then they came for me..." Opinions expressed
are mine and do not represent those of Rockwell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Obviously you can replace homosexuality in the above statement by
anything from murder to sleeping late. That doesn't mean that the
same people would accept those substitutions. The question is whether
the relationships involved do in fact form an appropriate vehicle to
represent Christ's relationship to humanity. This is at least
*partly* an empirical question.
In some cases types of human relationship have been rejected because
over time they always seem to lead to trouble. I think that's the
case with slavery. One can argue that in theory, if you follow Paul's
guidelines, it's possible to have Christian slaveholders. But in
practice, over a period of time, most people came to the conclusion
that nobody can really have that degree of control over another and
not abuse it.
The message you were responding to was asking you to look at the
results from Christian communities that endorse homosexuality. (Note:
Christian homosexuals, not people you see on the news advocating some
extremist agenda). You may not want to base your decision completely
on that kind of observation, but I would argue that it's at least
relevant. You can't answer the request by asking why you shouldn't
look at the Incest association, because in fact there is no such
association. If there were, it might be reasonable for you to look at
it too. Of course that doesn't mean that the results of all such
examinations would necessarily come out the same way. Part of why
there aren't groups pushing all possible relaxed standards is that
some of them do produce obviously bad results. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
...
...
I can think of another alternative:
4) OOBE's are a form of contact with the demonic world, whereby one
intentionally or unintentionally surrenders control of his or her perceptions
to spiritual beings whose purpose is to deceive and entrap them. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
(Deletion)
Sorry, Gregg, it was no answer to a post of mine. And you are quite
fond of using abusing language whenever you think your religion is
misrepresented. By the way, I have no trouble telling me apart from
Bob Beauchaine.
I still wait for your answer to that the Quran allows you to beat your wife
into submission. You were quite upset about the claim that it was in it,
to be more correct, you said it wasn't.
I asked you about what your consequences were in case it would be in the
Quran, but you have simply ceased to respond on that thread. Can it be
that you have found out in the meantime that it is the Holy Book? | 0 | alt.atheism |
No smiley on the part about atheism, I see. Do you realize that your
statement says that I was mentioning "nonsense" about atheism? This is
hard for me to defend against if this is the claim you are making, as you
have only included the last two sentences of my post and mentioned the
first. Please address the substance of my post rather than rejecting it
out of hand.
But, because of the sometimes ambiguous nature of English, I may be
misinterpreting your wording here. Please clarify: did you or did you not
mean to call my statements about atheism "nonsense"? If so, care to back
up that claim?
OK, then. Start up the amatuer psycology again. How am I "broken"?
*YAWN* Excuse me, I don't recall any portion of my post in which I called
Christians arrogant quote me, if I did. I do remember calling Christianity
"silly" and then following that up with information that I was nine years
old when I thought that. I also said that I find faith to be intellectually
dishonest and I would like to see some sort of proof of your god's
existence. I define "faith" as "belief in the absense of any proof", BTW.
Also, I subscribe to a.a as I mentioned and we see fundies of all types
there, so in answer to your question: "no."
Finally, I'd hardly call Christianity "beseiged" in this country. I seldom
see Christians ridiculed for merely practising their religion or wearing
crosses or having Christian bumper stickers. I don't know for sure, of
course, I only say I haven't seen it happening. What I have seen happening
is my homosexual and/or friends being beat up, or preached at by people
who claim to be Christ's followers. I know that this sort of thing isn't
practiced by the majority of Christians, but it is a very vocal minority
who are doing it and I don't see comperable victimization of Christians.
The implication being that I am not self-respecting, of course. I'm not a
student of psychology, BTW, but I am a student of Creative Writing and
Linguistics, so literary analysis _is_ my forte. Also, if the implications
I see are improper, please let me know.
I'm here because I'm not sequestered in my own little atheist cubbyhole as
you seem to think atheists should be. Did it occur to you that I _don't_
think I know everything and that maybe someone will say something that
will change my life? Have you read my other posts here or did you see
"atheist" and decide it was time to poke at someone who doesn't deserve
your respect?
Aw, geez. I'm sorry, I probably am getting my back up a little too high,
here. It's just that the "nonsense" thing really annoys me. I figure you
should see my first reactions, though, since they are my true reactions to
your question.
Now, the smoothed feather version:
I seek all sorts of knowledge. That's why I came to my university. Yes, I
am looking at your religion (well, sorta, I have no idea what *kind* of
Christian you are) from the outside, and hopefully with an objective view.
I've been trying to ask reasoned questions here, because I genuinely don't
know the answers to them, but when I saw the question directed at atheists
I figured I would answer. After all, you can speculate about atheist
motives here all you want (hence the "amatuer" psychology crack), but
without an atheist, you can't be sure of even one atheist's motive.
I'm hoping people really
want to know and I was trying to show that I actually checked out several
religions and I actually read all the pamphlets people have to offer and I
actually think about these things. Instead, I'm still faced with the
implication that atheism is some kind of aberration and that only "broken"
people are atheist.
Try it from the flip side: I posit that atheism is the natural
state and only broken people are theists. I offer as proof that so many
people witness from horrible lives which picked up as soon as they
discovered their religion, that religion is regional (if people didn't
follow the religion of their areas, there would be a more homogenous
mix), so many terrorists claim theistic motives, and that theists tend
to be so pushy and angry when challenged on alt.atheism. Why are religions
so successful? Because there is so much suffering in the world, which
"breaks" people.
It's an uncomfortable situation whichever way you look at it, which is another
reason I'm here, to try to see the flip side of my thinking (and also as
a watchdog for logical fallacies :).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The implication here being that atheists can't possibly know anything
about Christianity. Probably jumping at shadows again, but I think my
reaction is somewhat justified. After all, the first post suggested that
atheists are "broken", hostile people. This post confirms that someone
else believes it.
^^^^^^^^^^
Well, he got me there. I am a strong atheist, because I feel that lack of
evidence, especially about something like an omnipotent being, implies
lack of existence. However, I haven't met the strong atheist yet who said
that nothing could ever persuade him. Call me a "seeker" if you like, I
don't.
_Weak_ atheism is being ignore here, though. Some atheists simply say "I
don't believe in any god" rather than my position: "I believe that no
god(s) exist." For the weak atheist, the is no atheism to disbelieve,
because they don't actively believe in atheism. (If you think this is
confusing, try figuring out the difference between Protestants and
Methodists from an atheist point of view :).
This is another fallacy many theists seem to have, that everyone believes in
something (followed up by "everyone has faith in something"). Guess what?
My atheism ends the moment I'm shown a proof of some god's existence. Is
that really too much to ask?
Well, I guess you won't succeed in converting him or me. Why the
supposition that you will fail to convince him? (amatuer psycology on) Is
it because you yourself are unconvinced? :)
And I told you that I find faith to be intellectually dishonest. Note that
I can only speak for myself. If you find faith to be honest, show me how.
I have been unable to reconcile it so far. Maybe that's how I'm "broken"?
I tell you that I have invisible fairies living in my garden and that
you should just take my word for it. If you accept that, you are of a
fundamentally different mind than I and I really would like to know how you
think. All I ask for is proof of the assertion "God exists". Logical or
physical proofs only, please. Then we'll discuss the nature of "God".
Prayer?! Uh, oh, we'll have to revoke his atheist club card and beanie! :)
Good luck to you, as well. And, again, I apologize if the inferences I
made were inaccurate.
Muppets and garlic toast forever,
Max (Bob) Muir
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I would like to hear from people who are thinking of going to the Urbana 93
conference in December this year. I have recently received info from IFES
(International Fellowship of Evangelical Students) and am thinking about
attending although I am still not sure whether I can afford it.
I would also like to hear from people involved in IFES or IVF groups just to
hear how things are going on your campus.
Are there any news groups or groups of people who already do this.
I am involved in the Christian Fellowship at the University of Technology
Sydney in Australia. If you are interested to find out how we are going
mail me to find out. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I have some articles available on the Church and gay people, from
a pro-gay viewpoint, which might interest some of the people
participating in this thread. Please email me if you would like
to have me send them to you (warning, about 70k worth of material.
Make sure you have mailbox and/or disk space available.)
There are no short answers to the questions we've been seeing here
("how do you explain these verses?", "How do you justify your actions?")
If you've been asking and you really want an idea of the other people's
thinking, I encourage you to do some serious reading.
--
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I see no other way of interpreting them other than homosexuyality
being wrong. Please tell me how these verses can be interpreted in
any other way. I read them and the surrounding text. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Thank you. I now know at least that though I may be on drugs, at
least I'm not the only one.
Yes, this took some getting used to -- of course not having an Indian
connection, no knowledge of hindi, etc., this was not trivial for me.
I did have, thanks to the wonders of the net, "A Glossary to *Satanic
Verses*", posted to rec.arts.books by Vijay Raghavan, which explains a
lot of the Indian English constructions, Indian culture references,
even the Islamic references ("Jahilia", "Submission", the context of
the Satanic Verses incident, etc.) -- what I have only covers the
first couple of hundred pages, but it helped me get into the flow of
the novel [I can mail this to anyone interested; if anyone has
portions after part I, if they exist, I'd like to get those]. | 0 | alt.atheism |
That's fascinating. I heard that the Chinese, rather than
the Italians, invented pasta. | 0 | alt.atheism |
[...stuff deleted...]
Thank you. I thought I was in the twilight zone for a moment.
It still amazes me that many people with science backgrounds
still confuse the models and observables with what even they
would call the real world.
-jim halat
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Here's a suggestion for the logical argument FAQ. I don't think it's covered,
though the fallacy probably has a better name than the one I used: How about
it, mathew?
INCONSISTENCY AND COUNTEREXAMPLE
This occurs when one party points out that some source of information takes
stand A, which is inconsistent with B. There are two variations in which B is
either a mutually-agreed-on premise or else a stand elsewhere from the same
source. The second party fallaciously responds by saying "see, the source
really does say B, it's right here!"; this reply does not refute the allegation
of inconsistency because it does not show that the source _only_ says B.
Example of the first type: "The Koran says unbelievers should be treated in
these ways. We can both agree these are immoral." "The Koran clearly says in
this other passage that unbelievers are not to be treated that way."
Example of the second type: "There are two Biblical creation stories." "You're
wrong, since the Bible clearly describes the creation as [description]."
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Turkey Casserole
that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ... Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
-- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait) | 0 | alt.atheism |
What do you accept as a fact -- the roundness of the earth (after
all, the ancient Greeks thought it was a sphere, and then Newton said
it was a spheroid, and now people say it's a geoid [?])? yourself
(isn't your personal identity just a theoretical construct to make
sense of memories, feelings, perceptions)? I'm trying to think of
anything that would be a fact for you. Give some examples, and let's
see how factual they are by your criteria (BTW, what are your
criteria?).
"Gravity is _not_ a fact": is that a fact? How about Newton's
and Einstein's thoughts about gravity -- is it a fact that they had
those thoughts? I don't see how any of the things that you are
asserting are any more factual than things like gravity, atoms or
evolution.
In short, before I am willing to consider your concept of what
a fact is, I'm going to have to have, as a minimum, some examples of
what you think are facts.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
While this is essentially a discussion of reincarnation in the context of
Christianity Gerry Palo has made some comparisons to Asian religious
beliefs on this topic which have simplified the Asian idea of karma
to the point of misrepresentation.
There are significant differences in the idea of karma among Hindus,
Jains, Buddhists (and even among the various Buddhist traditions.)
To refer to karma as a system of reward for past deeds is totally
incorrect in the Buddhist and Jain traditions. Karma is considered to
be a moral process in which intentions (either good or evil) shape
a person's predilections for future intention and action and
produce a person who is more prone to good than evil, or the opposite --
"reward" has nothing to do with it. Both Jainism and Buddhism are atheistic
so there is no deity to dispense rewards or punishments. Karma is usually
described in terms of seeds and reaping the fruit thereof. In fact "As you
sow, so shall you reap" is found in the Pali Canon as I recall, the metaphor
of natural growth is explicit.
Hinduism, or some sects in that tradition, are I believe much more
deterministic and involve concepts closer to reward and punishment being
theistically inclined.
In point of fact, the Theravadin Buddhist tradition of Southeast Asia
considers karma as only one of five influences in human life, and in
fact from their point of view they would be unable to explain the mechanics
of karma without the element of free will.
Also in Eastern religions there is a difference between reincarnation and
rebirth, which is essentially absent in Western considerations.
Isn't Origen usually cited as the most prestigious proponent of reincarnation
among Christian thinkers? What were his views, and how did he relate them
to the Christian scriptures? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
"We however, shall be innocent of this sin, and will pray with earnest
entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the
numbers of His elect."
-St. Clement, Bishop of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, 59.2, (c. 90 AD)
"Ignatius also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia,
which is worthy of all felicitation, blessed as it is with greatness by
the fullness of God the Father, predestined from all eternity for a
glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen in true
suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God..."
-St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians, Address,
(c 110 AD)
"We say therefore, that in substance, in concept, in orgin and in
eminece, the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, gathering as it does
into the unity of the one faith which results from the familiar
covenants .... those already chosen, those predestined by God who knew
before the foundation of the world that they would be just."
-St. Clement, Patriarch and Archbishop of Alexandria, Miscellanies,
7.17.107.3, (c 205 AD)
Of course the doctrine was explained more fully later on by Sts.
Augustine, Aquinas, etc., but the seeds were ther from the beginning.
I think you are reading it wrong. I say those who are not saved are not
saved on account of their own sins. It is not because God did not give
them sufficient grace, for He does do so, in His desire that all men
might be saved. However, as only some are saved - and those who are
saved are saved by the grace of God, "not by works, lest any man should
boast" - the others are damned because of their obstinacy in refusing to
heed the call of God. They are damned by their own free will and
chosing, a choice forseen by God in His causing them to be not
predestined, but reprobated instead.
Certainly God does not distribute grace evenly. If He did, no one could
have their heart hardened (or rather, harden their heart, thus causing
God to withdraw His grace). But, you are correct - the world is divided
into those who God knows to be saved, and those God knows to be on the
road to perdition. THe key is that God knows it and we do not. Thus,
no one can boast in complete assurance that they are one of the elect
and predestined. But no one who is a Christian in good standin should
doubt their salvation either (that shows a lack of trust in God).
You must admit it is possible. Anyway, why would you want something in
the hear and know, when you can recieve 100 fold in heaven? Better to
lay up your treasure in heaven is what Jesus said.
This is not to condemn the rich, but simply to point out that those who
are rich are frequently very evil or immoral, so God must give them
their blessing know, as they have chosen. Remeber, Jesus promised
tribulation in this world, and hatred of others because we are
Christians. He did not promise heaven on earth. He promised heaven.
Not really. Unless you do penance here on earth, you will have to do it
in Purgatory, as Paul pointed out (1 Corinthians 3.15). Those with
poorer works, though still done with good intentions, will only be saved
through fire (the damned will of course go into fire immeadiately, for
whatever good they did was not for God but for self (dead works)). Of
course, the Church gives indulgences, has Confession, and Annointing of
the Sick to remove sin and the the vestiges of sin, so there is really
little excuse for ending up in Purgatory - it is a last hope for the
somewhat lazy and careless as I said above in referring to Paul.
And no comments were taken as flames. You are one of the more polite
people I have talked to over the net.
Andy Byler | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[...etc...]
I am becoming increasingly convinced that most of us take Paul's illustration
about one body / many parts far too narrowly. It is easy to say that the one
body represents a particular sect of Christianity (generally our own), and
the parts are clearly the various offices of ministry. There is a place for
that. But having met people who are walking closeely with God in a wide
variety of doctine - Catholic, Protestant, liberal, conservative, Orthodox,
etc. - I am willing to encompass a wide spectrum of views within the
context of the 'body of Christ.' And I am equally sure that one day, after
we shug off this mortal coil, when we no longer see through a glass darkly
but see clearly, face to face, we will all be ashamed at some of the things
we held as truth. We ought all fellowship, worship, and serve where we are
called, and understand that where we are called may not be where everyone
else is called.
One of the fathers of the reformation (help me out - can't recall the name)
put it quite succiently:
In essentials, unity.
In nonessentials, liberty.
In all things, charity.
While I agree with Lewis (Mere Christianity) that calling oneself a Christian
implies some basic, fundamental standards of belief if the word is to mean
anything at all, I think most of us define the bounds of essentials a bit
too broadly, deny the place for liberty in questionable issues near those
bounds, and ignore the requirements of charity all together.
Me? I attend a Vineyard church, speak in tongues, am effectively an
inerrantist, though I'll grant some inaccuracy in translation, am moderately
pre-mill, and evangelical. But, I'm not ready to damn those who use icons,
say mass in latin, uphold the Virgin Mary (though I really don't believe
that she was sinless), vote on Church membership, or insist on baptism for
salvation. Of course, I think my doctine is pretty close to the truth -
why would I follow it if I believed something else was closer to the truth?
But my understanding of the reality of a walk with Christ is continually
evolving as I spend more and more time walking with Him, studying His word,
and fellowshiping with others in the (often extended) family.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I read, much of the night, and go south in the winter.
--T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land
..............................................................................
s.w. marlatt, <>< & *(:-) Prov. 25.2
University of Colorado: marlatt@spot.Colorado.edu 492-3939
National Center for Atmospheric Research: marlatt@neit.cgd.ucar.edu 497-1669 | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Right on Keith, err, Kent.
Whadda you mean, you didn't see the smiley?
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Give me a call when you build a working model.
Then we'll talk stock options.
---
Private note to Jennifer Fakult.
"This post may contain one or more of the following:
sarcasm, cycnicism, irony, or humor. Please be aware
of this possibility and do not allow yourself to be
confused and/or thrown for a loop. If in doubt, assume
all of the above. | 0 | alt.atheism |
When I need a kick-butt God, or when I need assurance of the reality
of truth, I pray to God the Father.
When I need a friend, someone to put his arm around me and
cry with me, I pray to Jesus.
When I need strength or wisdom to get through a difficult situation,
I pray for the Holy Spirit.
I realize that the above will probably make some people cringe,
but what can I say? I think the doctrine of the trinity is
an attempt to reconcile Jesus being God and being distinct from
God, as described in the Bible.
I wonder if Jesus had been a Hindu how different the wording would be. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
What would you accept as sources? This very thing has been written
in lots of books. You could start with Erich Fromm's _The Dogma of Christ_. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Yes, I suppose that's true. Of course, notice I qualified with NEARLY
every language :-). And there are missionaries out there who can
speak every imaginable language AND dialect. But then, the fact that
not all languages have a WRITTEN gospel lends no credence to the
concept of "pentecost" type xenoglossolalia since most tongues occur not
in these places of un-written language, but rather in churches full
of people who do have a written language and a Bible in that language. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
: However greatly we extoll Mary, it is quite obvious that she is in no
: way God or even part of God or equal to God. The Assumption of our
: Blessed Mother, meant that because of her close identification with the
: redemptive work of Christ, she was Assumed (note that she did not
: ASCEND) body and soul into Heaven, and is thus one of the few, along
: with Elijah, Enoch, Moses (maybe????) who are already perfected in
: Heaven. Obviously, the Virgin Mary is far superior in glorification to
: any of the previously mentioned personages.
As I said, it is a provocative thought.
From "Answer to Job":
The logical consistency of the papal declaration cannot be surpassed
and it leaves Protestantism with the odium of being nothing but a
_man's religion_ which allows no metaphysical representation of woman.
...Protestantism has obviously not given sufficient attention to the
signs of the times which point to the equality of women. But this
equality requires to be metaphysically anchored in the figure of a
"divine" woman, the bride of Christ. Just as the person of Christ
cannot be replaced by an organization, so the bride cannot be re-
placed by the Church. The feminine, like the masculine, demands an
equally personal representation.
The dogmatizing of the Assumption does not, however, according
to the dogmatic view, mean that Mary has attained the status of a
goddess, although, as mistress of heaven...and mediatrix, she is
functionally on a par with Christ, the king and mediator. At any
rate, her position satisfies the need of the archetype. [par. 753-4]
: Jung should stick to Psychology rather than getting into Theology.
Jung made it clear that he was talking about psychology, not theology. His
comments had to do with the psychological _image_ of God and its function
in the human psyche, not about the actual existence or nature of God. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
This is a very good point. I have already made the clear claim that
Khomeini advocates views which are in contradition with the Qur'an
and have given my arguments for this. This is something that can be
checked by anyone sufficiently interested. Khomeini, being dead,
really can't respond, but another poster who supports Khomeini has
responded with what is clearly obfuscationist sophistry. This should
be quite clear to atheists as they are less susceptible to religionist
modes of obfuscationism.
So, to answer your question, the only way you can judge is by learning
more about Islam, that is by reading the Qur'an and understanding it's
basic principles. Once one has done this it is relatively easy to see
who is following the principles of Islam and who is acting in a way at
odds with Islam. Khomeini by attributing a superhuman status to twelve
muslim historical leaders is at variance with one of basic principles
of Islam, which is that no human being is metaphysically different than
any other human being and in no sense any closer to God in metaphysical
nature.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
the prophets who were there when the foundation was laid for the house of the
LORD Almighty, let your hands be strong so that the temple may be built. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I've been following this train of talk, and the question of dismissing atoms as
being in some sense "not real" leaves me uneasy.
It seems to be implied that we obseve only the effects, and therefore the
underlying thing is not necessarily real. The tree outside my window is in
this category... is observe the light which bounces off of it, not the tree
itself. The observation is indirect, but no more so than observations I have
made of atoms.
Also, what about observations and experiments that have been routinely done
with individual atoms. I am thinking in particular of atom trapping
experiments and tests of fundamental quantum mechanics such as the quantum Zeno
effect, where an individual atom is studied for a long period of time.
Some of the attempts at quantum mechanical arguments were not very satisfying
either. One has to be carefull about making such arguments without a solid
technical background in the field. What I read seemed a little confused a
quite a red herring.
Anyway, if the purpose of a public debate is to make the audience think, it
worked. After doing so, I'm willing to try to defend the following assertion
if anyone cares: | 0 | alt.atheism |
Meta-exegesis: Conviction of Sin, part II
Let me return to the question, stipulating that Paul meant his use of
_arseonkoitai_ to refer more or less exactly to the Levitical prohibition
of male-male sex. In order to bring out the problems most clearly, I'll
also stipulate (what I think is far less plausible) that Paul coined the
term for this usage. The question I want to turn to is what that would
mean for Paul's readers and for later Christians. This should be shorter
than my last note, as we will see that this question rapidly confronts us
with some of the major divisions within Christ's body, and I am not trying
to open the gates for flames across any of the terrible chasms that
separate any of us from our fellow Christians. My own biases (loosely
characterizable as "liberal") will be evident, but I am not grinding an
axe here, so much as trying to get all parties to see that it may be HARD
to reach "closure" when the issues involved strike at the heart of what we
each, in our own different ways, see as crucial to the Gospel of Christ.
So; stipulating Paul's intent, the immediate question is: HOW CAN HIS
READERS UNDERSTAND this intent? And following on that question, there is
a second one: WHAT IS OUR PROPER ACTION if we *do* manage to understand him?
Since Paul gives not a single clue about his meaning in the text of 1st
Corinthians, there are two "positive" answers and one "negative" to this
question:
+ a. Paul (or Apollos, or someone) in the apostolic community has
conveyed to the Corinthians the then-traditional Jewish condem-
nation of homosexual behavior, and Paul expects them to be
sufficiently well-tutored by this tradition that he needs no
futher explanation. [I should note that there is no evidence
in the letter, or in 2 Corinthians for such a supposition :-)]
+ b. The Spirit will teach us what Paul means (or, if not Paul,
what God means "behind" Paul's inspired word-choice.)
- c. We *don't* know, and cannot guess to within any better pre-
cision here than, for comparison, in the parallel use by Paul,
in the same passage of the word _pleonektai_ ("those who have
more" -- if you think that _areseonkoitai_ is "obvious" from
its roots, try cutting your teeth on *this* word! The NEB
translates it as "grabbers") or even _methusoi_ ("drunkards"
-- at least this has the advantage of being a common insult,
so that at least there is *some* hint as to its meaning!)
The three positions more or less -- if I can be allowed some exaggeration
for the sake of argument -- define a classical Catholic attitude towards
tradition, one form of Protestant _sola scriptura_, and a liberal/critical
demand for evidence. All three positions have strengths and weaknesses.
_ad_ a: It is unquestionable that the gospel was preached in and by the
community of Christ's disciples and their successors, and that
our NT scripture itself emerges from this communal tradition.
But it's also the case that we know little or nothing about this
tradition until almost a century after Paul, which is to say that
we have access to the tradition only after several generations of
possibly confused transmission. The scripture is itself our only
documentation of the tradition in the critical era.
_ad_ b: If we are NOT born of water and Spirit [to revert to John in an
attempt to explain Paul :-)], then we have no more hope of under-
standing the gospel than Nicodemus had; neither the traditions of
men nor the vain elevation of our own reason can prevent the Spirit
from blowing where it will -- the Paraclete is a kamikaze. But
the downside of Protestant belief in the efficacy of the Spirit
as our guide in scripture is that the wing of Protestantism that
takes this most seriously is also the most fragmented over divergent
understanding supposedly derived from the "clear" Word of God.
[Note: classical Lutheran, Calvinist and Anglican thought
constrains scripture to be read *within* tradition, even
while reserving judgment against tradition out of scripture;
the more bizarre forms of "I will read Scripture my way"
are primarily a fringe aspect of "cultic" Protestantism.]
The main problem with this approach is that there is apparently no
means for ONE person to convey to another what that one may feel
*is* teaching received from the Spirit; and history shows incredible
conflict between Christians on this point, each in his own mind
"convinced" that he is led by the Spirit. No one can seriously
urge point b without SOME sense of its potential for setting Christian
against Christian. To what purpose?
_ad_ c: The critical approach has the distinct advantage that when it can
reach a conclusion, it can lay out the data in a way which is open
to all. The weakness is an obvious corollary: this is not usually
possible. :-)
[If I may say a word here, out of my own already acknowledged bias;
one complaint against critical methodology is that it "dissolves"
faith -- but surely a "faith" that cannot honestly face the evalu-
ation of evidence has problems which mere theology is helpless to
address.]
Anyway, there is a serious and unfortunate possibility of schism between
"liberal" and "conservative" positions, mostly on the basis of extreme
zealots of positions b and c. A Catholic sense of authority and tradition
tends to constrain arguments of b contra c to secondary position, so that
despite horrendous strains Rome is NOT as likely to find these issues as
ultimately divisive as the Protestant world will. And Anglicans will (I
predict) muddle through on the _via media_, attempting to give each position
its due, but no more than its due.
Second question. Suppose tradition tells us, and lots of "spiritual"
Christians tell us, and critical thought at least admits as possible,
that Paul is refering to a flat, universal Levitical prohibition against
male-male sex. What then? Again, we can abdicate our personal responsi-
bility to tradition, and let it dictate the answer. But it's precisely
where inherited traditions are NOT questioned that they're most dangerous.
We have EXAMPLES of Christ questioning the Pharisees and THEIR use of
tradition (despite his urging, in Matthew 23:2 that we are to heed them).
We have EXAMPLES of Peter, and more radically still Paul, jettisoning the
traditions that THEY were led by the Spirit to call into question. Jesus
and Peter and Paul do not so much "throw out" tradition as subject it to
radical criticism, on a couple of very basic grounds:
"the weightier demands of the law: justice and mercy and good faith"
(Matthew 23:23)
and "On these two commandments [love God & neighbor] hand the whole Law,
and the Prophets, also."
(Matthew 22:40)
If there is a fundamental (because derived from Christ) validity in the
challenge to *some* traditions, a validity that led the first generation
to go so far as to waive application of the Torah to gentile converts
(vastly beyond anything that is directly deducible from Jesus' reported
words and deeds), it signifies to me a certain failure of the imagination
to *postulate* that *only* the traditions that we have specific challenges
against are in fact open to challenge.
All traditions passed *through* men are traditions *of* men. That God may
lead us even so, that these traditions are a source of our spiritual
instruction I will freely grant. But tradition is inherently human, and
inherently corruptible (and given the Fall, corrupt). Nothing in it is
immune to challenge, when the Spirit shows us a failure in justice, mercy
and good faith. Nothing may ultimately stand unless it DOES follow from
love of God and love of neighbor.
I am perfectly willing to grant that I could be blind to my own sin. That
the Spirit may have taught another what She refuses to teach me (or I am
too dense to learn). That tradition *might* have value here. But what I
*know* of tradition is that on one occasion, some superstitious Christians
appealed to Justinian after an earthquake in Asia Minor, and scapegoated
"sodomites" as the "cause" of the earthquake, so that legislation was
passed making homosexual behavior a capital offense. If that is in
accord with the gospel of Christ, then I am no Christian. That is human
tradition at its most hateful and vicious. And I see nothing all that much
different in all the unbidden eruptions onto USENET of people who are quick
to condemn but slow to understand. If that is the leading of the Spirit,
then I want no part of it. But what I have found in obedience to the Lord
is that I am, myself, TOTALLY dependent on the witness of other Christians,
for the truth that lives in the Body of Christ.
And I say to all who doubt that gay Christianity is from God what Gamaliel
said to doubting Pharisees who would have suppressed the earliest Church:
"be careful how you deal with these people... If this enterprise,
this movement of theirs, is of human origin it will break up of
its own accord; but if it does in fact come from God you will not
only be unable to destroy them, but you might find yourselves
fighting against God."
[Acts 5:36...39]
All I ask is that you listen to your traditions, and read your scriptures
with a mind and soul OPEN to the Spirit, and to the past history of our
first Christian witnesses' willingness to challenge tradition and OTHER
readings of scripture -- though read with all the authority of scribes and
rabbis -- and a submission to the declaration that all must depend on the
love of God and neighbor. Then, study the evidence; learn the history of
Christians oppressing Christians out of their traditions and eagerness to
judge where Jesus and Paul tell us NOT to judge. And let the witness of
the Spirit in the lives of your fellow Christians -- including those who
are NOT of your preference in theology -- guide you towards God's truth.
--
Michael L. Siemon I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com Most High, all of you; nevertheless
- or - you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com like any prince." Psalm 82:6-7
[There's a certain ambiguity in your discussion of position (a), as to
whether you're speaking of tradition in Paul's time or ours. I think
there are two ways to use tradition. One is to say that when Paul and
his readers share a tradition, it makes sense to interpret his words
in the context of that shared tradition. That's what makes me think
that these arguments over words turn out to be silly. We know that
Paul came out of a background that was rather Puritanical on sex.
Everything else he says on sex is consistent with that background.
The tone of his remarks on homosexuality in Rom 1 is consistent with
that background. Even if the words in the sin lists aren't the most
general terms for homosexual activity (and it seems to me that there's
some evidence that they are not), they are just one more piece of
evidence for something we would probably be willing to believe with no
evidence at all -- that Paul shares the common Jewish rejection of
homosexuality.
But when you identify (a) with the Catholic position, that's rather a
horse of a different color. The Catholic position involves a
continuing church tradition. Arguments specific to that tradition
might be (1) we can get guidance on how to interpret Paul's original
meaning from tradition, e.g. the way the Church Fathers interpreted
him, and (2) we gain confidence that his prohibitions still apply in
our time because of the universal judgement of the church between his
time and ours. I think this is a somewhat different use of tradition.
A radical Protestant might be willing to use known 1st Cent.
tradition to illuminate Paul's original meaning, but not use the
Catholic position to answer the question of what our own attitude to
homosexuality should be. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I would just like to point out that the particular command not to eat
or fellowship with Gentiles is not found in the Old Testament. This
was part of the "hedge built around the law." It was a part of Peter's
tradition, and not the Scripture. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
: This figure, is far below all the other figures I have seen. If it
: is indeed accurate, then how do you explain the discrepancy between
: that figure, and other figures from international organizations?
: Most figures I have seen place the hit ratio close to 70%, which is
: still far higher than your 35%. Or does your figure say a bomb
: missed if the plane took off with it, and the bomb never hit the target,
: regardless of whether or not the bomb was dropped? Such methods
: are used all the time to lie with statistics.
Answering the last sentence, claimed that they had a success rate of 80%
without initially explaining, until pressed, that this meant that 80%
of the aircraft came back having dropped their bombs somewhere, regardless'
of whether they had hit the intended target, or indeed anything al all. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Ethics deal with individuals. Morals deal with groups.
Please describe these "number of ways" in detail. Then explain any
contradictions that may arise.
The sentence, "Yes, it's possible, but it is difficult." Humans survived
"in the wild" for hundreds of thousands of years.
Answer the question, Keith. Is homosexuality detrimental to the survival
of the species? | 0 | alt.atheism |
I asked around in one of the areas you suggested yourself, and presented
the information I got. No mention of US landmines was given.
Okay, so you are going to blindly believe in things without reasonable
evidence? I didn't realize you were a theist. I am doubting a claim
presented without any evidence to support it. If you are able to present
real evidence for it, then great. But unsupported claims, or even claims
by such and such news agency will not be accepted. If you want to
stick to the sheer impossible, instead of the merely difficult, then
fine.
The statement that if such a fact is classified, then you
can't prove it, is a simple matter of pragmatics and the law. If you
have access to classified information that you know to be classified,
and you reveal it, there is a good chance that you or someone else
(the person who revealed it to you), is going to jail.
I never said that you couldn't prove it to my satisfaction, I merely
said that it was difficult. (Who said I try and make things easy
for people I am arguing with :) (Unless of course, they need the
handicap).
| 0 | alt.atheism |
I see a parallel between what I will stupidly call the "homosexual"
issue and the "atheist" issue. Please take no offense at these
comparisons.
The homosexual "feels" things that I admit I do not "feel".
He learns that these feelings are classified as homosexual feelings
and learns of a model of sexuality that seems to apply to
his feelings, which he then can fit with his experiences.
That is, this model gives him a sense of understanding his
situation. Models that do not match up with what he knows he
feels will be discarded. However, one wonders if once accepting
the idea of his being gay and deciding what exactly that
means he will analyze all his feelings and experiences based on
the definition he has already accepted, which of course validates
his model.
If that was hard to understand now listen to my parallel.
The Christian "feels" things that an atheist claims he does not
feel. The Christian accepts the Christian theology as the true
description of what his feelings mean. Once accepting this
model he interprets his experiences with regards to this model
which of course validates his Christianity.
As a reminder, I am a Christian, a Catholic, I don't hate
homosexuals or atheists, but am just trying to understand
them. I only compare them because they are both so foreign
to me. Am I as blind to the homosexual as the atheist seems
blind to me? Or am I as prejudiced against atheistic denial of
religious experience as the homosexual is prejudiced against
attempts by society to deny his sexuality?
Or am I just out to lunch, again? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell) writes,
But that is exactly what I was asking. If the Homosexual community (is that
the proper term?) has decided that Christianity is not against Homosexual
behaviour but rather condones it then how do they interpret these verses. I
guess what I am really looking for is a "homosexual" response. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
----- Begin Included Message -----
The following teaching is brought to you on behalf of Malcolm Smith
Ministries, a ministry dedicated to leading believers everywhere into a
knowledge of the love of God. If you would like more info on the ministry,
and/or would like to comment on whether you found this teaching beneficial,
e-mail to Randy Hunt at rlhunt@hou.amoco.com.
LOVE IN THE MORNING (Psalm 90:14)
by Malcolm Smith
Moses wrote this prayer at a weary time in the history of Israel. A generation
before the time of its writing, the people of Israel had stood at Kadesh,
gateway to Canaan, and made the fateful choice to go their own way rather
than God's way. They refused an adventure of faith in God which would
have given them Canaan, the homeland of promise. God honored their
decision, and said they would wander in the desert only a few miles from the
land of promise until they were all buried in the sand. The young decision-
makers of that fateful day were between twenty and thirty years old, and
destined to be dead within forty years... bleached bones in the desert by the
time they were seventy-- eighty, at the most. The lives of these wanderers
had been unending sadness. Moses described it as ending each year with a
sigh (v. 9). The fact that they knew, give or take a few months, when they
were going to die, underscored the meaninglessness of their existence.
Whatever heights of success they reached, they would be a heap of bleached
bones within forty years. The only ones to live outside of that depression of
hopeless disbelief were Joshua and Caleb, who had stood against the nation
at Kadesh and had God' s promise of one day entering the land. The
forty-year period was finally drawing to an end. The new generation, those
who were children at Kadesh, were now grown and eager to take the
inheritance their parents had refused to enjoy. In the light of this, Moses
prays...it is time for a new day to begin and the days of misery to be over.
All these years, as Moses had walked with these moaning and complaining
people through the wilderness of their exile, he had carried a double burden.
His was not only the sadness of living in less than what could have been; but
he also knew why they had chosen as they had at Kadesh. The problem was
that they were ignorant of the character of their God. If asked. "Who is your
God?" they would have described Him as the God who is Power. When
Aaron had created their concept of God in an idol. he chose a calf. or young
bull--a symbol of power, of virility. In their minds, God was the young bull
who had impaled Pharaoh on his horns and gored Egypt's gods as He led
Israel to Sinai. But when man worships a God of power, His miracles grow
thin and even boring. After miracle food on the desert floor and water
gushing miraculously from the solid rock through the desert wasteland, the
God of Almightiness becomes "ho-hum --What' s next on the miracle menu?"
And a God of power can be as unpredictable as a young bull calf. He might
be all they need, but then...who knows? If He has all power, He has a right
to do whatever He wants, whenever He wants. The only person these people
had known who had absolute power was Pharaoh, and men's lives had hung
on the whim of his moods, which could change with the wind. They believed
God could work His wonders on their behalf, but they did not know HIM
and, so, could not trust Him. Israel had a God based on what He DID, His
acts; Moses knew the heart of God, the motivation behind the acts. From the
day of his encounter at the burning bush, Moses had been fascinated by God.
At Sinai, he asked to be shown His glory...to know who He really was. He
had seen what God had done; he wanted to know who God was. This
request was granted, and Moses was given a glimpse of God's glorious
Person. He had come to know the heart of God as compassion and
lovingkindness (Exodus 34:6,7). The word "lovingkindness" is not to be
understood as a human kind of love. It speaks of the kind of relationship
arising out of the making of a covenant. It can only be understood as the
love that says, "I will never leave you nor forsake you." Lovingkindness is as
tenacious as a British bulldog; when the world walks out, this love digs in its
heels and refuses to leave.And it is not human romantic love, based on
feelings and rooted in emotions. It is a love of covenant commitment and,
therefore, operates quite apart from feelings. God's love is not an emotion
that wavers day by day; it is the total commitment of His Being to seek our
highest and best, and to bring us to our fullest potential as humans. God
does not see something good and beautiful in us which arouses His feelings
of love toward us...we do not woo Him and cause Him to fall in love with
us! If that were the case, the first ugly, sinful thing we did would cause Him
to reject us. He is Love, and He loves us because of who He is-- not
because of who we are. He does not love what we do, but He is committed
to us, pursuing us down every blind alley and bypath of foolishness. He will
not let us go. His is a love that is not looking for what it can get out of us--
but a committed love that searches for opportunities to give to us. It is
saying to the recipient, "For as long as we shall live, I am for you." The God
who has revealed Himself to man through Scripture and, finally, in Jesus--in
His coming, and in His death and resurrection--is the God who is
lovingkindness. Thus He loves us and gives Himself to us...He will never
leave us nor forsake us. Tragically, many believers have never seen Him as
love; they see Him as power. No one will come to faith by just seeing
miracles. Miracles point to who He is, and that is when faith springs in the
heart. Israel did not see God as lovingkindness; they saw His acts of power.
Moses knew His ways, the kind of God He was, and the love that He had for
these people. Because of their total lack of understanding of His love, they
could not trust Him to be their strength in taking the land. Faith is born out
of knowing the love He has for us; it is the resting response to the One who
gives Himself to us. He is not the force, and to call Him the Almighty is to
miss His heart. He is Love who is the Almighty and the Infinite Force. If
man is to make force or raw power work for him, he must depend on
knowing the forrnula and have faith in it. But the power that issues from
love demands faith in the Person of love Himself. The forty years of
meaningless wandering was a monument to a people who had never come to
know the God of love. At this point, with the new generation and the
possibility of enjoying all that God promised, Moses prays verse 14. The
language Moses uses is reminiscent of a baby having slept secure in its
mother's love, now waking to look up into the delight of her eyes. It is
waking to the consciousness of being loved... watched over, cared for,
protected, fed, and cleaned, day and night, by the mother. Suppose we were
to ask, "What has the baby done to deserve this?" or, "Have arrangements
been made for the child to repay the parents for this inconvenience?" Our
questions would be considered unnatural, even immoral. The child was
conceived in love, anticipated and prepared for with love's excitement, a love
that has been to the gates of death to bring it into being. The parents' love is
unconditional, spontaneous...it has nothing to do with the looks of the child
or its performance. So God is love. He loves us unconditionally,
spontaneously. We were conceived in His imagination and fashioned after
His image, to be brought to where we are at this moment by the blood of the
Lord Jesus. It is slanderous, and immoral, to even ask what we must do to
earn and deserve that love. The child discovers its personhood and identity
through the eyes and touch, through the cuddles, of its parents' love. It is a
scientific fact that a baby who is not touched and held will probably die or, if
it survives, will have severe emotional problems. And a person who has been
held and loved will still never know the true meaning of life without the
embrace and knowledge of love from God. Moses prays that the new
generation will learn to wake every morning, resting with total confidence in
the love of God. and will receive all His promises and blessings with joy and
gladness. Significantly, Moses prays that they will be SATISFIED with His
love. "Satisfied." in the Hebrew language. is a rich picture word describing
being filled with an abundance of gourmet food. It is also used to describe
the earth after the rain has soaked it and all the vegetation has received
enough water. Moses prays that they will awaken every morning to be
drenched in the life-giving love of God. That sense of satisfaction is the
lifelong quest of every man and woman. When we are satisfied in our
deepest selves, many of our emotional--and even our physical--problems
disappear. Man seeks that sense of satisfaction which comes from feeling
that he is fulfilled as a human being...his hours have meaning, which make
sense out of the ordinary and mundane. Apart from God, man seeks this
satisfaction through intellectual pursuit, through the exciting of the
emotions, and through the feeding of his body...he will even seek it in
religious exercise. But man will always be dissatisfied until he is responding
to the love of the living God. Only in knowing God's love will the rest of life
make sense. As the forty years drew to a close and the land of promise again
became the inheritance to be taken, Moses prayed this psalm. I find it
fascinating that he should pray and ask God for a daily revelation of His
love. Considering the awe with which the people held Moses. one would
think he could have lectured them on the subject of lovingkindness and, by
the knowledge they gained, they would live in it. But Moses knew
better. God is the only one who can make known to us His love. We won't
find it in a religious lecture or a formula which we can learn and use to
manipulate Him. Nor is it in a beautiful poem to titillate our emotions and
give us God feelings. It is God, himself, the Lover, who must open our eyes
and satisfy us with His love. This prayer is man, in helplessness, asking God
to make the love He is real in our hearts. Moses' prayer was partially
answered in the next generation and seen in the exploits of faith which
worked by love in The Book of Judges. But it would not be answered in its
fullest dimensions until the coming of the Holy Spirit, who pours out the
love of God in our hearts (Romans 5:5). In the history of the early Church,
we read of the Holy Spirit "falling upon" the believers. This is an ancient
expression that, in modern English, means to give a bear hug. It is used in
Luke 15 to describe the father running to the prodigal and "falling on his
neck and kissing him." The Holy Spirit is God hugging you in your deepest
self and smothering you with divine kisses at the deepest level of your
being. This is not a one-time experience to be filed in our spiritual resumes.
Moses prayed that morning by morning we would awaken to the realization
that we are loved. The world, and much of our religious training, has taught
us to perform in order to be accepted. We have spent far too long living in a
state of doing in order to find satisfaction for ourselves...to find acceptance
and love from others, and from God. We now come humbled to receive love
we cannot earn...to be still and let Him tell us we are loved: to let the Holy
Spirit descend into us, pouring out the love of God. We come in stillness to
think on and repeat His words of love to our minds. which have been jaded
with the doctrine of "perform to be accepted." We begin to realize that He
loves us as we are, and gives meaning and purpose to all of life. I challenge
everyone reading this to begin each day, from the moment you open your
eyes, by celebrating the God of love and praying this prayer. You may not
feel anything, but SOMETHING ALWAYS HAPPENS. I was X-rayed the
other day. I did not see or feel anything, but I noted that the technicians kept
behind protective walls. They know you cannot be exposed to those rays
without being affected. So it is as we consciously begin our day knowing
that we are loved. Such experiential knowledge will produce, according to
Moses, "joy and gladness all our days." Joy is the result of a life that is
functioning as God intended us to function when He made us. You might say
that joy is the hum of an engine that is at peak performance. Man' s highest
performance is to rest in the love God has for him... the hum will be joy, and
the result will be endless creativity arising from the sense of meaning he now
has in life. Stop wandering in the wilderness. Be satisfied with His love and,
in joy, day by day, receive all His promised blessings.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I read an article about a poll done of students at the Ivy League
schools in which it was reported that a third of the students
indentified themselves as atheists. This is a lot higher than among the
general population. I wonder what the reasons for this discrepancy are?
Is it because they are more intelligent? Younger? Is this the wave of
the future? | 0 | alt.atheism |
I have no problem with the idea that catechumens be dismissed before
the Eucharist. They were not considered qualified to participate.
Does the dismissal in the early church mean that the eucharist was a
secret? I mean, was it:
you don't have to stay; from now on, only the membership can
participate; you really don't have to hang around; yes, I know
you're obliged to keep up attendance to qualify, but now is an
exception, okay?
or was it:
you may not stay; what happens next is secret
When we have had reason to conduct business meetings after church,
we've made it clear that only members can vote. But we've always been
happy for non-members to stay and observe.
Do you have evidence for intentional secrecy? (Other than rumours,
which will always happen when you have an underclass doing things not
approved of by those in power?) | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome
all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.
Luke 10:19
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The 24 children were, of course, killed by a lone gunman in a second story
window, who fired eight bullets in the space of two seconds...
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Fred Gilham asks (May 11) whether it is true that Kurt Goedel wrote
a version of the ontological argument for the existence of God.
Yes, he did. He did not publish it, but it will be published by the
Oxford University Press in German and with English translation in
Volume 3, due to appear this fall, of his Collected Works.
Meanwhile, you can find a summary, or perhaps the whole thing, in an
article by Jordan Howard Sobel called "Goedel's ontological proof"
in the book ON BEING AND SAYING, edited by Judith Jarvis Thompson
(sp?), published by the MIT Press in 1987.
Professor C Anthony Anderson of the Philosophy Department of the
University of Minnesota has written an article, "Some Emendations of
Goedel's Ontological Proof," which appeared in the magazine FAITH
AND PHILOSOPHY, v. 7 (1990): 291-303. It discusses some objections
that various critics have raised against Goedel's proof, and offers
a revised version of the proof that is not vulnerable to these
objections. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Much of the Haight-Ashbury crowd probably had pre-existing
dissatisfactions with their lives -- dissatisfactions ameliorated by
mumbo-jumbo about 'new realities'. The only change I experienced after
LSD was to gain the knowledge that I didn't enjoy how LSD twisted my
perception.
--
Mark Pundurs | 0 | alt.atheism |
> Public revelation, which is the basis of Catholic doctrine, ended
> with the death of St John, the last Apostle. Nothing new can be
> added.
Every so often, the Pope declares that some departed Christian is
now in Heaven, and may be invoked in the public rites of the Church.
It is my understanding that Roman Catholics believe that such
declarations by the Pope are infallible. I see three possibilities:
1) The Church has received a Public Revelation since the death
of (for example) Joan of Arc.
2) The Church was given a list before the death of St John
which had Joan's name on it.
3) There is no public revelation about Joan, and Roman
Catholics are free to doubt that she died in a state of grace, or
even that she is a historical character. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
My last response in this thread fell into a bit-bucket and vanished
(though appearing locally). I'll repost it, since I always feel
slighted when someone appears to ignore one of my postings in a
conversational thread, I don't want Rob to think I'm doing so. Since
this is now dated, however, don't feel compelled to respond...
I suspect you meant this in context of the Jewish tradition you have
been referring to; one problem with a highly-interpreted tradition
like this is what happens when a schism occurs, and over time certain
large and influential branches of the heretical group come to favor
exactly a "face value" interpretation...
While the context of the time is important, value judgments must
ultimately be according to current understanding, or at least to some
base standard (relative stability/success of a society, e.g.). This
is obviously true in comparing it to practices of surrounding people,
for instance: according to the Bible, the surrounding people were
immoral savages with repulsive and inhuman habits. We need to look
rather at what those peoples were *really* like. For instance, in
what way is it better to worship a single god whose presence is
symbolically strongest in a tent or temple over multiple gods some of
whose presence is symbolically represented in a statue? By the
Bible's own terms idolatry is inherently evil, but I see no evidence
that the followers of the various other religions of the area and time
were particularly bad people, relative to the people in the Bible.
Sounds good, but it presupposes teeth-rending neighbors, which I see
no support for. One can argue that post-facto assertion of inhumane
neighbors can be used to make moral points, but that doesn't mean that
the actual neighbors really were inhuman. More to the point, such
dehumanization of the people across the river or over the mountain, or
even of a different people dwelling among us, is all too common.
Note that I'm speaking of historical interpretation here, for instance
claiming that Hammurabi's "an eye for an eye" was primitive brutal
retribution, while Moses' version was an enlightened benign fine
(because the tradition has since interpreted the phrase that way). As
of 3000 years ago or so, they probably both meant the same thing.
I don't belittle the accomplishments, particularly the intellectual
ones, of the Jewish people. I have given up on trying to think by
analogy, since I don't know of any other 'tribe' that is at all
similar (the closest I can think of are the Romany, but I don't know
enough about them to make a meaningful comparison). I think a
tradition of reflective study, of flexible rather than dogmatic
interpretation, is a good thing. I think that with such an attitude a
case could be made that you could have done as well starting with a
1943 Captain America comic (or whatever the Babylonian equivalent
would have been).
--
Jim Perry perry@dsinc.com Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
These are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Have any of you read Harold Camping's book "1994?"? It's about
biblical evidenc that points to September of 1994 as the probable time
of Christ's second coming It's a very informative book and a must read
for all Christians. You can get i at your local bookstore for only
$14.95.
Peace! | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[I'm going to cut "Rex"'s ramblings down a bit.]
[...]
Rex, there are literally hundreds of thousands of 32nd degree
Masons in this country, and thousands of 33rds. If nasty stuff was
really going on, don't you think you'd have more than a couple of
disgruntled members "exposing" it? Heck, if what you say is true, then
Rev. Norman Vincent Peale is an Osiris worshiper.
[...
Long quote from someone named Hislop (source not given) deleted. I'm
attempting to extract from it the relevent points:
* Osiris is actually Nimrod, a Babylonian Deity.
* "It is admitted that the secret system of Free Masonry was originally
founded on the Mysteries of the Egyptian Isis, the goddess-mother, or
wife of Osiris."
* The Babylonian Nimrod and Osiris are both connected with the building
trade, ie, with Masonry.
* Nimrod, as the son of Cush, was a negro. [isn't this refering to a
Biblical Nimrod, rather than the Babylonian god?]
* ...there was a tradition in Egypt, recorded by Plutarch, that 'Osiris
was black'.
...]
There is a long tradition in Masonry of claiming ancient lineage
for the order, on the flimsiest of grounds. This dates right back to
the Constitutions of 1738, which cite Adam as the first Mason. I've
seen other claims which place Masonry among the Romans, Greeks, and
Egyptians, and Atlanteans. I even have a book which claims to prove
that Stonehenge was originally a Masonic temple.
Claims prove nothing. Where's the beef, Rex?
[...Claims ex-Mason showed him leopard skin he wore in lodge]
I'd have to check this. The tomb paintings I remember don't show
this.
Can you give ancient citations for this? The druids were suppressed
over 2000 years ago. What's your point?
This whole "leopard skin" business sounds bizarre. I have not yet
gone through the Scottish Rite (which contains all of those "higher
degrees" anti-Masons get so excited about, and which was invented in
the 1750's), but I know enough people who have (and who are good
Christians), that I reject your claim.
Not so much a 'slap in the face' as 'a weary feeling of deja vu'. I'm
going through a very similar argument over on soc.culture.african.american.
Why don't you try reading some serious books on Masonic history, such
as Hamill's "The Craft"?
Because we got honest. If you can come up with actual evidence that
Masonry existed prior to 1390, I'd be VERY impressed (actually,
anything earlier than 1630 would be pretty good.)
Peter Trei
ptrei@mitre.org | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
What is the basis of the idea of hell being a place of eternal
suffering? If it is Biblical, please reference.
Here's my train of thought: If God is using the Earth to manufacture
heavenly beings, then it is logical that there would be a certain
yield, and a certain amount of waste. The yield goes to Heaven, and
the waste is burned (destroyed) in Hell. Why is it necessary to
punish the waste, rather than just destroy it?
Peace and joy, | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Exactly. Although this may be a dissapointing answer, there has to be an
interplay of the two. Personal Ethos and Societal Morality. A person's
self-generated/learned set of beliefs are usually expressed on a purely
mental/verbal level, and don't usually find expression in society except in an
impure (not in the sense of bad :) ) state. Sometimes this has to be so.
Also, what if one feels oneself to be part of more than one society, in a very
real sense? To use the obvious example, there is a political society, and a
racial society, and a gender society, and sometimes they do not always agree on
every issue...
Yes. Perhaps with an infamous "do what you want so long as it doesn't hurt
others?" The problem with this is that it is merely saying what you CAN do: it
is not a morality in that it doesn't propound any specifically preferred
behaviours.
I'll add a hearty "me two". However, one could just as well say just because
certain actions are moral does not make them legal: one still doesn't really
get an impression of which one is truly "right".
best regards, | 0 | alt.atheism |
I'm about to revise my resume and was wondering if I should put on there the
fact that I'm a Christian. Give me some input on what you think.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Ezek 22:26 God seems to be upset with the priests who have made no
difference between the holy and the profane. This brought to my mind a
sermon I heard recently in which the speaker said "God's second name does
not begin with a D" referring, I believe, to use of God's holy name and
titles as swear words. I was also reminded of the experience of Moses at
the burning bush when God told him "Take off your sandals, for the place
where you are standing is holy ground."
These and other texts seem to imply that God's people must treat holy
things differently from other "common" things, or "make a difference"
between holy and common things.
The obvious questions are
What makes something holy? and How are Christians (primarily) supposed to
make this difference between holy and common things? (e.g. God's name,
the Holy Spirit, the Holy Bible, etc.) | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I have already made the clear claim that
Don't mind my saying this but the best example of obfuscation is to
condemn without having even your most basic facts straight. If you
want some examples, go back and look at your previous posts, where
you manage to get your facts wrong about the fatwa and Khomeini's
supposed infallibility. | 0 | alt.atheism |
[stuff deleted]
Actually, you get a ton of weapons and ammunition, 70-80 followers, and hole
up in some kind of compound, and wait for . . . . :-) | 0 | alt.atheism |
This thread si starting to get really silly. Such nonsense do not
belong in s.r.c and it really hurts me to read some of the posts on
this issue.
We chose to believe whetever we want, but we are not allowed to define
our own Christianity. we see in parts. If you see something that I do
not see, or vice versa, it does not give me the right to play jokes on
your belief!
There is no wonder that your "miracle" does not work. You designet it
yourself, and even if you were able to collect a group of people like
the one you describe, I see no reason why your "miracle" should really
happen. God is the one who does miracles, not humans!
After all we are all on the same way, or at least, we are all headed
for the same goal, following different paths. Remember that we are
going to spend eternity together. If I can not stand your view here on
earth, how can I possibly stand spending eternity together with you?
Tongues is a question of belief. Not wether you believe in Jesus, but
if you believe that He is able to give you this gift. Just as any
other of the gifts mentioned in the Bible. But there is no evidence in
the Bible that people who do not accept these gifts are in any way
better than others.
Maybe some of the people who have received spiritual gifts are more
interested in glorifying themselves than glorifying God, I don't know.
But if this is the case, it still does not suggest that the gifts are
faked.
In the Bible you will find that Jesus did not always do miracles. He
said that "I do nothing, except what my father tells me." Perhaps it
woulkd be for the best of all if we where all able to live by that
example!
In Him,
Bjorn | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Some years ago -- possibly as many as five -- there was a discussion on
numerology. (That's where you assign numeric values to letters and then add
up the letters in words, in an effort to prove something or another. I can
never make any sense of how it's supposed to work or what it's supposed to
prove.)
Somebody posted a long article about numerology in the Bible, saying
things like "this proves the intricate planning of the Scriptures, else
these patterns would not appear".
Then there was a brilliant followup, which was about numerology in all the
other numerology posts. Stuff like "The word `numerology' adds up to 28,
and the word appears 28 times in the posting! Such elegant planning!
Further, the word `truth' ALSO adds up to 28; the writer is using these
numerological clues to show us that we reach truth via numerology!"
(These examples are made up by me just as examples.)
I really liked that reply, because it did such an excellent job of showing
that these patterns can be found in just about anything. However, I did
not save a copy of it. I do not remember the author. I'm only 90% sure
that it was posted to this newsgroup.
BUT, on the off chance that somebody remembers it and saved it, or that the
author is reading here, I wanted to know if anyone could send me a copy. (I
think it should be made into an FAQ, if we can find it.)
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The following was published in the May 15th Rocky Mountain News. I
guess I have some REAL ethical problems with the practices at this
church. I understand that Baptism is an overriding factor. I also
understand that this is not an honest way to proceed. Unfortunately,
this is becoming more typical of congregations as the Second Coming is
perceived to approach.
There is a real element of disparation in this 'make it happen at any
cost' style of theology. I wonder where TRUST IN THE LORD fits into
this equation?
Baptisms draw parents' ire -- Children at church carnival in Springs
told they'd be killed by bee stings if they didn't submit to religious
rite.
By Dick Foster -- Rocky Mountain News Southern Bureau
Colorado Springs -- Outraged parents say their children were lured to
a church carnival and then baptixed without their permission by a
Baptist minister.
Doxens of children, some as young as 8 years old and unaccompanied by
their parents, thought they were going to a carnival at the
Cornerstone Baptist Church, where there would be a big water fight,
free balloons, squirt guns and candy.
Before that May 1 carnival was over, however, children were whisked
into a room for religious instruction and told they should be
baptized. In many cases they consented, although they or their
families are not of the Baptist faith.
The baptisms by the church have angered many parents, including
Paulette Lamontagne, a Methodist and mother of twin 8-year-old girls
who were baptized without her knowledge or consent.
'My understnading was they were going to a carnival. I feel that's a
false pretense,' said Lamontagne. Her daughters said the minister
told them they would be killed by bee stings if they were not
baptized.
Cornerstone church officials defended their actions.
'We take our instructions from the word of God and God has commanded
us to baptize converts. No one can show me one passage in the Bible
where it says that parental permission is required before a child is
baptized,' said Dan Irwin, associate pastor of the Cornerstone Baptist
Church.
Church officials did not tell parents their children would be baptized
because 'they didn't ask,' Irwin said.
Many other parents also felt they were simply sending their children
to a carnival at the invitation of their children's friends who were
members of the Cornerstone Church.
Police said chhurch officials had broken on laws in baptizing the
children, but indicated the parents could pursue civil action.
-------------------------------------------
Aren't these the same behaviors we condemn
in the Hari Krishnas and other cults?
[I think the issues are more complex than the newspaper account
mentions. First, I'm not entirely sure that parental consent is
absolutely required. This would be extremely difficult, because of
the clear commandment to obey parents. But if an older child insisted
on being baptized without their parents' consent, I might be willing
to do it. However this would be a serious step, and would warrant
much careful discussion. The problem I find here is not so much
parental consent as that there was nobody's consent. Whether you
believe in infant baptism or not, baptism is supposed to be the sign
of entry into a Christian community. If there isn't a commitment from
*somebody*, whether parent or child, and no intent to become part of
the Church, the baptism appears to be a lie. Furthermore, it is
likely to raise serious practical problems. What if the child is from
a baptist tradition? Normally when he reaches the age of decision, he
would be expected to make a decision and be baptized. But he already
has been, by a church claiming to be a Baptist church. So does he get
rebaptized? Neither answer is really very good. If not, he's being
robbed of an experience that should be very significant to his faith. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
(This is a continuation of an earlier post)
(I am sorry you found this offensive. It was not my intent to offend. I was
leading up to another point, which I discuss in more detail below.)
I can see you have a revulsion for bestiality that far exceeds my distaste for
homosexuality. Certainly if I spoke about homosexuality the way you speak of
bestiality, nobody would have any trouble labelling me a homophobe. Let me ask
this gently: why are you so judgemental of other people's sexual preferences?
What happened to "No doubt I am free to do anything"? I think you have a
serious double standard here. When you describe a comparison between
homosexuality and bestiality as "slimey" and "sleazy", you are making an
implicit judgement that bestiality is perverted, sinful, disgusting,
unnatural--in short, all the things that society once thought about
homosexuality. Not all people share your view. You claim not to know any
sincere zoophiles, but this does not mean that they do not exist. They even
have their own newsgroup: alt.sex.bestiality. Are you going to accuse them
all of being mere "jokers"?
I notice you deleted the main point of my comment: the fact that the only
Biblical condemnations of bestiality occur in connection with the Levitical
prohibitions against homosexuality. While there are some New Testament
passages that can arguably be taken as condemning homosexuality, there are none
that condemn bestiality. One of your main points seems to be that Christian
homosexuality is acceptable due to the lack of any "clear" New Testament
statements against it; if this is a valid argument, then should not Christian
zoophilia be made that much more acceptable by the fact that the New Testament
makes no reference, clear or unclear, to the subject at all?
I am quite serious here. If I am going to accept homosexuality as Biblically
acceptable on the basis of your arguments, then I am going to be fair and apply
the same standards to everyone else's declared sexual preferences as well. If
the arguments you make for homosexuality can be applied to other sexual
preferences as well, I'm going to apply them and see what comes up. I'm not
trying to "torpedo a serious issue" by using what you label "a ridiculous
joke". I posted a question about how we should interpret Biblical guidelines
for Christian sexuality, and I don't think such a question is "irrelevant" in a
group called "soc.religion.christian". The Bible discusses homosexuality and
bestiality together in the same context, and therefore I feel I have a good
precedent for doing the same.
I don't know whether it makes any difference, but for the record, this is not a
side issue for me. I believe loving one another includes not encouraging
people to defile themselves, therefore it is of high importance to determine
whether God regards certain sexual acts as defiling. I can read in the New
Testament that "God has joined together" heterosexual couples, and that the
marriage bed is undefiled. I can read in the Old Testament that homosexual
intercourse and bestiality defile a person whether or not that person is under
the Law. If gay Christians can validly put aside the Old Testament standards
of defilement, then I want to know so that I can fairly apply it to all the
sexual practices that defiled a person in the old days. I don't think it's
right to take just bits and pieces of the Law and try and apply them to
Christians today, e.g. bestiality still defiles you but homosexuality doesn't.
That was pretty much what you said earlier, right? You used different
examples, but I think you said essentially the same thing about it being wrong
to apply only certain parts of the Law to Christians.
It was not my intent to stir up such an emotional reaction. I personally don't
get all that upset discussing alternatives to the monogamous heterosexual
orientation; I'm afraid I naively assumed that others would have a similar
attitude. Please note that I have never intended to equate homosexuality with
child abuse. I have merely noted that, for all the lack of "clear" NT
condemnation of homosexuality, there is an even greater lack of NT condemnation
(or even mention) of bestiality, a practice which a number of people (e.g. on
alt.sex.bestiality) consider to be their true sexual orientation.
This is an excellent question, and I pray that you will not treat it as a mere
rhetorical question, but will genuinely seek to discover and understand the
answer. I recommend you begin with a little introspection into why you
yourself have much the same attitude towards zoophilia. Why do you find
bestiality so repugnant that you regard it as slanderous to even mention in
connection with other alternative sexual orientations? Why do you not apply
all the same verses about love and tolerance to zoophiles the way you apply
them to homosexuals?
Is it because you automatically experience a subjective feeling of revulsion at
the thought? A lot of people have the same experience at the thought of
homosexual intercourse. Is it because you regard the practice as socially
unacceptable? A lot of people regard homosexuality as socially unacceptable.
Do you feel that it violates the traditional Judeo-Christian standard of sexual
morality? Many people feel that homosexuality does. Do you feel the Bible
condemns it? Many people think the Bible says more to condemn homosexuality
than it does to condemn bestiality. Why then do you think comparing bestiality
with homosexuality is insulting to homosexuality? If you can honestly answer
this question, you will have come a long way towards understanding why many
people feel the same way about homosexuality as you feel about bestiality.
Also please note that I am not in any sense condemning *people*. I am merely
pointing out that when I read the Bible I see certain sexual *practices* that
the Bible appears to condemn, e.g. sex outside of marriage. When I say I think
adultery and pre-marital sex are sinful, do you take that as me failing to love
my neighbor? When you treat bestiality as something disgusting and
unmentionable, are you disobeying "repeated orders not to judge or condemn
others"? When you say other Christians are guilty of sinning by condemning you
and judging you, are you by that accusation making yourself guilty of the same
offense? Or are you and I both simply taking note about *practices* the Bible
brands as sinful, and leaving the judgement of the *people* up to God?
I'm not sure what you mean by the above two paragraphs. If you mean that Jesus
is the Truth, and that He accepts sinners, and does not reject them, then I
agree. If we were not sinners, then we would not *need* a Savior. Our
salvation in Christ, however, does not mean that sin is now irrelevant for us,
and we can now do whatever we want. Nor does Christ's grace mean that those
who refer to sin as "sin" are being judgemental or intolerant. I am speaking
in general terms here, not specifically about homosexuality. If the Bible
calls something "sin", then it is not unreasonable for Christians to call it
sin too.
As applied to Christian homosexuality, I think the only definitive authority on
Christian sexuality is the Bible. If you make a list of everything the Bible
says on the subject of homosexual intercourse, I think you will find that every
verse on the list is negative and condemning at worst, and "unclear" at best.
The most pro-gay statement you could make about the list is that there is some
dispute about the New Testament verses which many people interpret as
condemning homosexual intercourse. That is, from a gay perspective, the most
positive thing you can say about the Bible's treatment of homosexuality is that
some verses fail to clearly condemn it. That's it. Jesus declared all foods
clean, the council at Jerusalem declared that Gentiles were not required to
keep the ritual Law, but nobody ever reclassified homosexual intercourse from
being an abomination deserving of death to being an accepted Christian
practice. You have verses describing homosexual intercourse as an abomination
that defiles both Jews under the Law and Gentiles not under the Law, and you
have some verses which are at best "not clear" but which some people believe
*are* clear in their condemnation of homosexual behavior, and that's the sum
total of what the Bible says about same-sex intercourse.
I can appreciate (from personal experience) your desire to have everything
simple, cut-and-dried, black-and-white, what-I-want- is-ok, and
those-who-oppose-me-are-wicked. However, I do not think the Bible makes your
case as definitively as you would like it to. In fact, I don't believe it says
anything positive about your case at all. Yes, I know the verses about loving
one another, and not judging one another, but that's not really the issue, is
it? You know and admit that there are still things that are sinful for
Christians to do, since you say it is wrong for Christians to condemn you.
Therefore, the issue is whether the Bible says homosexual intercourse is a sin.
Even if you do challenge the clarity of the New Testament verses, you are still
left with the fact that the only thing the Bible does say clearly about
homosexual intercourse is that it is an abomination that defiles both those who
are under the law and those who are not.
- Mark
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
There was an article in USA today a few months ago showing the results
of a study that actually only about 1% were homosexual. I saw another
figure that listed 2% as the figure. Of course, even if it were 99%
that would have little bearing on whether or not it is a sinful behavior.
How many people have commited other acts of fornication? How many
people have lied or sinned in other ways?
Why isn't it a specific feature of homosexuality? Paul describes
"men with men working that which is unseemly" to describe the acts.
Sure, there spirtual nature was depraved also, and like the other
sins, the idolatry, the other sexual immoraity, and the other sins
sprang from their depraved spiritual state which was a result of
man's not glorifying God as God and being thankful. Still, their
acts were shameless.
Is everything sinful specifically elaborated on in the New Testament?
Scripture does not condemn being a drug dealer. Being ruled by the
Spirit rather than the letter not only frees from legalism, it also
protects us from sins that are against the Spirit. The word is a
two edged sword that cuts both ways.
I think we must be careful before we totally throw out Leviticus.
If the Law is reflection of God's character and true holy nature, then
those who say that God endorses homosexuality run into a problem.
If homosexuality were "natural" (whatever that means) wholesome,
endorsed by God, and those who oppose sexual behavior are narrow-minded
biggots, as some would have us believe, why is there a condemnation of
it in Leviticus. This condemnation is in the midst of all the other
sex sin condemnations, and there is nothing in the text to say that this
law was limited to temple prostitution, and no good reason to believe that
this was the case. Furthermore, male homosexual sex was a death-penalty
crime!
Is every sin elaborated on in the New Testament? Take a look at
I Corinthians 5. Paul said that one of the Corinthians had broken a
law not even heard of among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's
wife. There is a prohibition against having your father's wife in
Leviticus. No other new Testament verse clearly condemns it (besides
this one.) Notice that Paul did not say that the sin was in commiting
adultery, etc.- he spoke against having one's father's wife.
Notice also that this sexual condemnation in Leviticus is not mentioned
in the specific context of paganism either. And there was no pagan
coustom mentioned in I corinthians either. As a matter of fact
taking one's father's wife wasn't even done among the Gentiles. It was
just a plain blantant sin, whether worshipping idols was involved or
not.
One of the reasons that some of us do not accept that common argument
is because Paul probably did face this and other problems. Sin can
be tough to over come, especially without supernatural power. Is
homosexual sin any more difficult to overcome that heterosexual sin,
like lusting after a married woman, or sleeping around with people of
the opposite sex? I doubt it, and even if it is, that is no excuse.
God is greater than all of it.
Another reason we reject it is because it ignores the supernatural
power of God to intervene in this kind of situation. How many
people have been set free from sin by the power of God? Sure there
may be any groups that have tried to change homosexuals and failed.
That is a reflection on the people involved in the program, and not
God's willingness and ability to change a sinner. Any program that
uses formulas may fail. What people need is the power of God to
change them, whether they are involved in homosexual sin, or any other
sin.
I don't see how you come to that conclusion. Paul's dealings with
pastorial issues encouraged people to give up their liberties in order
to spare others- not to allow people to continue in sin because it
was just too difficult. Take the example of eating meat offered to idols.
Paul felt that there was nothing wrong, in an abstract sense, with
eating the meat. Yet he advised believers to sacrifice their liberty
to eat meat in order to spare others.
But Paul never allowed people to sin because living holy was just to
tough. Paul wrote to "make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts
thereof." (Romans 13:14) Then he goes in to a discourse on how we
should sacrifice our own liberty in order to spare the consciences of others.
Suppose it were not a sin for people to practice homosexual acts.
Since others consider it to be a sin, then using Paul's approach
on pastorial issues, those who would otherwise be homosexuals should
sacrifice their liberty and be celbate or monogamously married to a
member of the opposite sex. Paul never offers a lesser sin (homosexual
"marriage") to prevent people from engaging in what may be considered
a more damaging sin.
Yet marriage itself is not a sin. marriage is holy in all- and something
that God ordains, and Paul recognizes this.
Actually, Adam was put in the garden to tend to it before he fell.
After he fell he would have to toil over the ground.
That is why we are dependent totally on God- what a vunerable and glorious
position to be it. We all must be transformed by the renewing of our
minds- and that is the only way homosexuals can walk in freedom, just
like anyone else.
I'm sure you can see how people with the opposing view see this
conclusion. It's like saying, "How should I kill myself, with gun or
aresenic? What about the person who just is overcome with a desire to
sleep with goats? Would it be better for him to sleep with one goat,
or all of them? What about the person who wants to sleep with his aunts?
Would it be better for him to sleep with one aunt or all of them?
In all these cases, the more people or animals one sleeps with, the higher
the chance that they will get a disease. But this only deals with
physical aspects of the question. Whichever sin is commited, it all
leads to spiritual death.
The issue that is most often addressed in Scripture seems to be the
actual act. Second, isn't it historical snobbery to say that
only homosexuals of this century are capable of having "loving
relationships?" There are ancient writings glorifying homosexual "love."
(btw, I am one who believes in refraining from making oathes. Also,
where do you get that tax collectors are sinners. That's certainly not
explicit. Jesus didn't tell Zachias to quit his job.)
Link Hudson.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I and many others on a.a have described how we have tried to find god.
Are you saying our efforts have not been sincere? For all the effort
I have put in, there has been no outward nor inward change that I can
perceive. What's a sincerely searching Agnostic or Atheist supposed to
do when even the search turns up nothing?
How do you "accept that which you don't know"? Do you mean that I must
believe in your god in order to believe in your god?
| 0 | alt.atheism |
I would guess that it probably has something to do with the ease of which
ideas and thoughts are communicated on a college campus. In the real world
(tm) it's easier for theists (well, people in general really) to lock
themselves into a little bubble where they only see and talk to those
people who are of the same opinion as they are. In college you are
constantly surrounded by and have to interact with people who have
different ideas about life, the universe, and everything. It is much much
harder to build a bubble around yourself to keep everyone else's ideas from
reaching you.
So, in a world where theists are forced to contend with and listen to
atheists and theists of other religions some are bound to have a change in
their beliefs over four years. There is nowhere to run.... :-)
| 0 | alt.atheism |
For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the
barrier, the dividing wall of hostility,
Ephesians 2:14
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I think that's an insightful comment. Especially when at the
same time we have people like Bill "Projector" Conner complaining
that we are posting parodies. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Alison J Wyld wrote to All:
AJW> Does anyone know of an English language edition that does not show the
AJW> verse (or even chapter) numbers.
[...]
clh> [The original NEB put verse numbers only in the margin [...]
Kenneth Wuest's expanded translation of the New Testament does the same - it puts the range of verse numbers next to the top of each paragraph. Being an expanded translation it is quite verbose though - more suitable for detailed study than for quick reading.
Mike
--- GoldED 2.41 | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
This is not at all comparable. Christianity is the main stream in
western culture. You are trivializing the experiences of others.
I remember what it was like being "different" as a Christian. We
were told all the time that we were different, and in fact that
only members of the our church were really Christians (though others
who believed in God weren't as bad as atheists), so we were a small
minority. That was nothing compared to being an atheist.
The only thing comparable would be a young child being Christian
being surrounded by staunch atheists, including parents, who
actively persecute any religious tendancies - both actual punishments
and, even worse, emotional blackmail. They would also have
to have the whole mainstream society on their side. Maybe these
conditions could have occured in the old Soviet Union* not in a
country with "under God" in its pledge of allegiance.
* I doubt it even then, because children have to be taught to be
Christians and hence must have support somewhere.
Yes. My atheism was "born of necessity." For an intellectually honest
person belief is mostly a response to evidence. Will or wishes have
nothing to do with it. I could choose to lie, or to be silent about
my true beliefs. I could no more choose to believe in the God of
Christianity than I could decide that the ordinary sky looks red to
me. Still I should be clear that I'm not equating what I went through
with what gays go through. However it is a mistake to assume that
everyone who goes through painful experiences are broken by them.
Happily some are made stronger, once we get past it.
Not without going to details and violating the confidences of some of my
childhood friends. Suffice it say to that religion does not guarantee
that a person will be happy and strong emotionally, and a repressive
upbringing can leave its scars even, or especially, on those who don't
get free of it. I doubt that any sane and sincere person doubts that and
I feel no need to defend it.
By the way I am much happier and stronger being out of the closet. In
the end it has been, as someone eloquently put it in private email, an
experience of liberation rather than disillusion. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Same old bullshit. Not being given to delusions and wishful thinking
I do not have the option of either loving or obeying that which I have
so reason to believe.
More bullshit. I assure you in my misguided youth I made a sincere effort.
It was very painful being a rational person raised in Christian home.
Many others could tell the same story. You choose not to believe anyone's
experience which contradicts your smug theories. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Kent Sandvik and Jon Livesey made essentially the same response, so this
time Kent's article gets the reply:
This begs the question of whether it ever "started"-- perhaps because
accuracy was always an intention.
It makes little difference if you have eyewitnesses or people one step away
(reporters, if you will). As I said earlier, the "telephone" metaphor is
innately bad, because the purpose of a game of telephone is contrary to the
aims of writing these sorts of texts. (Also, I would point out that, by the
standards generally asserted in this group, the distinction between
eyewitnesses and others is hollow, since nobody can be shown to be an
eyewitness, or indeed, even shown to be the author of the text.)
There is no evidence that the "original" texts of either the OT or the NT
are largely lost over time in a sea of errors, "corrections", additions and
deletions. In the case of the NT, the evidence is strongly in the other
direction: the Textus R. and the Nestle-Aland text do not differ on more
than a low level of significance. It is reasonable to assume a similar
situation for the OT, based on the NT as a model. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Deletions...
Correction. I think it was 1978. Also, contrary to earlier belief, it
is now widely accepted that not all committed suicide, but were actually
killed. In the end, they did die for a lie, but some not out of
conviction alone. Thought I try to make this point clear.
-- | 0 | alt.atheism |
Yes, there are these two senses of interpretation, and certainly our
decision to accept Scripture as inspired ultimately rests on our own
private opinion. However, when reading Scripture, we have to remember
that the Scriptures were given by God for our instruction, and that
the interpretation that matters is the one God intended. For example,
if I decide that the fact that John the Baptist is Elijah teaches the
doctrine of reincarnation, I am wrong because that is not the intended
interpretation. The prophets didn't make up this teaching; it came
from God, and we must accept it as such. This necessarily means that
our private interpretations must take a back seat to the meaning God
intended to convey. Certainly we must rely on our best efforts to
determine what this meaning is, but this very fact should make us
recognize that our private interpretations cannot be automatically
accepted as the infallible interpretation of God. We need to test the
spirits to see if they are from God. When the Holy Spirit speaks, he
says the same thing to all; he won't tell me that a passage means one
thing and tell you it means another. If the two of us come to
conflicting conclusions, we can't both be completely right. We know
our interpretations are reliable only when the Church as a whole
agrees on what Scripture means. This is how we know the doctrines of
the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, etc. infallibly. These
matters are not up for private interpretation.
This is the reason Peter goes on to talk about the deceptiveness of
the false teachers. They preferred their own private interpretation
to the God-given teaching of the apostles. It is through such private
interpretation that the traditions of men, so soundly denounced in
Scripture, are started. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Either A: God exists, or B: He doesn't. We have two choices, either
1: Believe in God, or 2: Don't believe in God. If A is true, then 2
brings eternal damnation, whereas 1 brings eternal life. If B is
true, then 1 has minor inconvenience compared with 2. Thus, it is
rational to believe in God.
This has numerous flaws, covered in the FAQ for alt.atheism, amongst
other places.
Disillusionment strikes me as an excellent reason for stopping
believing in something. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
No wonder that we don't see any detail for this claim. It is good to
remember that you have answered the statement that you are a theist
by another correspondent with that you are not a member of a denomination.
It is either stupidity or an attempt at a trick answer. Not unlike the
rest of your arguments.
I am extremely wary of the way you use words. Like in this case, there
are broader definitions of gods used by persons who are considered by
themselves and others theists. I have pointed to that in my post. You
use one of them.
Your use of definitions seems to rest on the assumption: because my
moral is objective/absolute or the other buzz words you are so fond
of, everybody will know it, and there is no need to define it more
exactly.
And as a user has shown recently, the easiest way to dispell you is
to ask you for definitions.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
I am not familiar with, or knowledgeable about the original language,
but I believe there is a word for "idol" and that the translator
would have used the word "idol" instead of "graven image" had
the original said "idol." So I think you're wrong here, but
then again I could be too. I just suggesting a way to determine
whether the interpretation you offer is correct.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
KS> This is the story of Kent, the archetype Finn, that lives in the
KS> Bay Area, and tried to purchase Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason". This
KS> man was driving around, to Staceys, to Books Inc, to "Well, Cleanlighted
KS> Place", to Daltons, to various other places.
KS> When he asked for this book, the well educated American book store
KS> assistants in most placed asked him to check out the thriller section,
KS> or then they said that his book has not been published yet, but they
KS> should receive the book soon. In some places the assistants bluntly
KS> said that they don't know of such an author, or that he is not
KS> a well known living author, so they don't keep copies of his books.
KS> Such is the life and times of America, 200+ years after the revolution.
Sigh, now I don't feel so bad. Searching for a copy in bookstores has
been a habit of mine for at least two years now. I spend a *lot* of
time browsing through bookstores, new and and used, and I've not once
seen a copy. Now, I know, all I do is pick up a phone and order the
darned thing, but come on, this is America and he's one of the founding
fathers. And no one carries his books? Sure, you can find "Common
Sense" but I think that's because it's required reading for most
colleges.
I did find one hole-in-the-wall bookstore where the owner said that they
usually carry one or two copies, but that they were currently out. I haven't
been back since so I don't know if he was telling the truth or not.
sigh...
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Until recently I always understood the term "kingdom theology" to mean the
theology of the kingdom of God, but now I have discovered that there is a
new and more specialized meaning. I gather that it is also called "Dominion
theology", and that it has to do with a belief that Christians must create a
theocratic form of government on earth before Christ will come again.
I have not come across anyone who believes or advocates this, but I am told
that it is a very widespread belief in the USA.
Can anyone give me any more information about it?
Here are some of my questions:
1. Is it the teaching of any particular denomination? If so, which?
2. Where and when does it start?
3. Are there any particular publications that propagate it?
4. Are there any organizations that propagate it? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Consider special relativity. It hasn't be proved, nor has it been
disproved. No one has a proof one way or the other, but many people
are interested in it!
I've satisfied myself that nothing could indicate absolutely the
existence of God one way or the other. The two possibilities
are supernaturalism and naturalism. Of course no set of circumstances can
be inconsistent with supernaturalism, but similarly, no set of circumstances
can be inconsistent with naturalism. In naturalism, any phenomenon that
could be described as God is considered part of the natural world, to
be studied as any other natural phenomenon (gravity, for instance).
For example, if a loud ``godlike'' voice vociferously announced, ``I
am God, I exist, and I will prove it by reversing the force of gravity,''
and if then gravity did indeed reverse, a naturalist (probably a scientist)
would say, ``Boy, we sure didn't understand gravity as well as we
thought we did, and that loud voice is something new. Perhaps we
didn't understand thunder as well as we thought we did either.''
I'm sure glad you don't know where I live, since you don't seem
to realize it is impossible for you to distinguish between voices
in your head, and God's voice.
You seem to have missed my point. Even if Jim Jones and David Koresh
were not religious people, my point remains that faith and dogma
are dangerous, and religion encourages them. Jim Jones and David Koresh
also encouraged them. My point does not rely on Jim Jones and David
Koresh being religious. | 0 | alt.atheism |
This is the most unmitigated bilge I've seen in a while. Jim Brown obviously
has possession of the right-wing token.
"In December, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told a
Senate committee that sanctions were costing Iraq $100 million per day, and
that the multinational coalition could take all the time in the world.
Iraq, he suggested, was losing badly every day it defied the UN demands,
while the community of nations won every day -- with no taking of life or
loss of life." -- FCNL Washington Newsletter.
Wrongful actions of murderers like leaders of the US government, perhaps?
Regrettable, of course; The-Way-It-Is - certainly not.
Good heavens! An escapee from Rush Limbot Land! "Conservative", my ass.
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.
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.
-s
--
"No one has attempted to calculate the costs of an execution in
Washington state, but studies elsewhere suggest it costs far more than
incarceration.
"California is spending more than $90 million annually on capital cases,
and until this year hadn't executed anyone since 1972. Texas, the national
leader in the number of executions, spends an estimated $2.3 million per
execution. That compares to an average cost of incarceration in Washington
state of $25,000 per maximum-security prisoner per year." | 0 | alt.atheism |
[reply to tgk@cs.toronto.edu (Todd Kelley)]
Agreed.
It is hard for me to understand, but quite a few professional scientists
and philosophers are theists.
But also intolerance and superstition. I'm not sure that in the balance
it is not detrimental.
Sure would! | 0 | alt.atheism |
If you don't agree with Joseph's accurate statement of the Catholic dogma
of Mary's perpetual sinlessness, then how do you interpret Luke 1:28,
And when the angel had come to her, he said, "Hail, full of
grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women."
and Luke 1:48?
...for, behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
I suppose that these verses might be interpreted to mean that Mary was
possessed of some limited quantity or quality of grace, just as some of
filled to the brim, incapable of containing more. The only other people we
know of who have an abundance of grace are those souls existing in heaven now
(another Catholic dogma, based on the communion of saints, as I explained in
an earlier post). Full of grace to me means sinless, and anyone who has
ever sinned in his life cannot be without sin in the same sense as Mary
was sinless.
As a Catholic, I too find certain of the dogmas tough to embrace. But
that's where the Catholic faith and prayer come into play. I pray God
to strengthen my will to accept the faith given the bride of Christ,
which in turn usually strengthens my community faith in His Church. And,
as you probably know, faith in Christ's Church is tantamount to faith in
Christ inasmuch as the Church is Christ's Mystical Body. A Catholic by
nature must have two aspects to his faith in Christ: (1) a personal faith in
Christ as his own personal redeemer and (2) a community faith in the Church
as the body of Christ.
--
Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock
Catechist
gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Romans 10:16-17 "But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For
Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed our message?' Consequently, faith
comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word
of Christ."
So then we receive God's gift of faith to us as we hear the message of the
gospel. Faith is a possible response to hearing God's word preached. Kids
are not yet spiritually, intellectually, or emotionally mature enough to
respond to God's word. Hence they cannot have faith and therefore cannot
be raised in baptism to a new life.
Catholics view the effects of Baptism slightly differently, and that's
one primary reason why they baptize babies. They believe that Baptism
produces a change in the soul of the baby, quite independently of any
volitional act on the part of the baby. This change in the baby's
soul gives the infant certain capabilities that he would not have
without Baptism. Since the infant does not have the use of his
intellect and will yet, these new faculties are dormant. But as the
child gets older, the gifts of Baptism come more and more into play.
Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul who sins 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."
If you read all of Ezekiel 18, you will see that God doesn't hold us guilty
for anyone else's sins. So we can have no original guilt from Adam.
Adam was given a number of gifts by God. The chief among them was
what Catholics call "sanctifying grace". (In the New Testament, the
word used for this is "charity".) By his sin, Adam lost this grace.
He didn't lose it just for himself, however, he lost it for the whole
human race. Because once he lost it, he couldn't pass it on to his
descendents.
That's why Catholics baptize babies. Through his Original Sin, Adam
lost sanctifying grace for all his descendents. Christ instituted
Baptism to give it back to everyone. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
(Deletion)
The reference to it's not yet being ethics is dubious. You have used the terms
absolute, objective and others interchangeably. Same with moral values, values,
at all, worth, measuers, and usefulness. You infer from them as if they were
the same.
To the IF. When the If is not fulfilled, your intermission is a waste of time.
Assuming that you don't intend this, it is reasonable to conclude that you
want to argue a point.
You have made a interesting statement here, namely that of the disinterested
observer. There is no such thing in morals. Probably the shortest proof for
objective and morality being a contradiction.
Fine. And that freedom is valuable is not generally agreed upon. I could
name quite a lot of people who state the opposite. (Not that that wasn't
mentioned before). In other words, you have nothing to fulfill your strong
claims with.
Clutching a straw. I don't believe in mappings into metaphysical sets were
loaded terms are fixpoints. Those who deny the morality of freedom make quite
clear what they say, their practice is telling. Yes, there are even those who
are willingly unfree. It is quite common in religions, by the way. For one,
there is a religion which is named Submission.
Don't even try to argue that submission is freedom.
If it were so, it would argue my case. But I am afraid that that is considered
proof.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Sounds as though you are confused between "what I want" and "what
I think is morally right". | 0 | alt.atheism |
I recall a discussion I had heard years ago. It went something like this:
The problem with omnipotence (at least as I perceive it) as personified by
the christian God ideal is that it is potentially contradictory. If a
manifestation such as God is truly infinite in power can God place limits
upon itself?
.
.
Some stuff I can't recall.
Then some other questions I think I recall correctly:
Can God unmake itself?
Can God make itself (assuming it doesn't yet exist)?
Has God has always existed or is it necessary for an observer to bind all of
Gods potential quantum states into reality?
Was God nothing more than a primordial force of nature that existed during
the earliest stages of universal (inflationary?) creation?
Is God a vacuum fluctuation?
Given a great enough energy density could we re-create God?
Would that make US God and God something else?
.
.
Some more stuff I don't recall concerning creating God. Followed by:
Is God self-aware?
Is it necessary that God be self-aware?
Is God a living entity?
Is it necessay that God be a living entity?
Is God unchanging or does it evolve?
.
.
Any comments? Post them so that others might benefit from the open inquiry
and resulting discussion. | 0 | alt.atheism |
> I'm leaning... SIRACH... is more directly referenced by JAMES
> than JOB or RUTH is... in any NT verse I've seen.
It would help if you mentioned chapter and verse from SIRACH and
from JAMES.
Job 5:13 ("He taketh the wise in their craftiness") seems to be
quoted in 1 Corinthians 3:19.
James 5:11 ("You have heard of the patience of Job"), while not a
quote, implies that James and his listeners are familiar with a
story of a man named Job who exhibited exemplary patience. It is
possible that the story they know is not that found in the Hebrew
Bible, but rather another similar and related story. (One has the
same problem with direct quotes.)
Again, Matthew 1:5 ("Boaz begat Obed of Ruth") tells us that Matthew
knew a story about a woman named Ruth who married a man called Boaz
and became the ancestor of David. Since Ruth is not mentioned in
the OT outside the Book of Ruth, it seems likely that Matthew was
familiar with the book and respected it, and thought Ruth important
enough to be one of the few women mentioned in the genealogy.
References like this do not prove that the NT writer considered his
OT source inspired or inerrant or canonical. But neither do direct
quotes. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Hello.
I just like to share this rosary and other prayer propagation
practice we do in my country. I am not sure if it is going on
also here in the US or any other country. In all these 4 1/2
yrs. I've been here in Illinois, USA, I have not encountered
it. May I just call it "Traveling Fatima" since I don't know
of an exact translation of what we call it in my native language.
For certain regions in a district in a town or city, an image/
statue of our Lady of Fatima is moved from one home (originating
from owner) to another. This will stay with that family for
one (1) week and this family is required to pray the rosary and
other prayers (prayer sheets accompany the image) to our Lady
of Fatima. The move will be like a simple procession of folks
picking up the image from its current 'home' after 'departing'
prayers and proceeds to move it to the next home which has the
prior notification about the move. There will be the 'receiving'
prayers at the next home to welcome our Lady of Fatima image
there. It does not have to be that only members of the family
in that home who must pray to the image. They may invite others
(or others/friends can invite themselves in ;^)) to participate
during prayer time in that 'new' home everyday for one week.
This image is moved from one family to the next within the
bounded region of that district, until it goes back to the owner
of the image.
This is probably going on around there (Philippines) right now
(or somebody correct me when exactly since I forgot) and every
year, this is part of our devotion to our Lady of Fatima.
It has been easy to facilitate this back home because it is more
likely that your next door neighbor is a Catholic and the image
then is just moved next door.
I am thinking of starting something like it in the village where
my sister and her family lives. Most of our friends and neighbors
there are Catholics and practicing ones.
I'd like to know if there are any state/community laws that this
practice will violate, whatsoever, before I go for it. Thank you
for any comments or help about this matter.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
What is the proper way to dispose of old blessed palms?
I`ve have a bunch that I`ve been holding onto. In addition,
my mom has been giving me her's. I used to give them to my
uncle who would burn them (and leave the ashes to seep into the
ground). Should I do the same? Could I just bury them? Could
I add them to my compost bin?
Thanks in advance. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
You fall if it opens, too.
Gravity: it's not just a good idea; it's the law. | 0 | alt.atheism |
[ . . .]
I am a relativist who would like to answer your question, but the way you
phrase the question makes it unanswerable. The concepts of "right"
and "wrong" (or "correct/incorrect" or "true/false") belong to the
domain of epistemological rather than moral questions. It makes no
sense to ask if a moral position is right or wrong, although it is
legitimate to ask if it is good (or better than another position).
Let me illustrate this point by looking at the psychological derivatives
of epistemology and ethics: perception and motivation, respectively.
One can certainly ask if a percept is "right" (correct, true,
veridical) or "wrong" (incorrect, false, illusory). But it makes little
sense to ask if a motive is true or false. On the other hand, it is
strange to ask whether a percept is morally good or evil, but one can
certainly ask that question about motives.
Therefore, your suggested answers (a)-(c) simply can't be considered:
they assume you can judge the correctness of a moral judgment.
Now the problem with (d) is that it is double-barrelled: I agree with
the first part (that the "rightness" of a moral position is a
meaningless question), for the reasons stated above. But that is
irrelevant to the alleged implication (not an implication at all) that
one cannot feel peace is better than war. I certainly can make
value judgments (bad, better, best) without asserting the "correctness"
of the position.
Sorry for the lengthy dismissal of (a)-(d). My short (e) answer is
that when two individuals grotesquely disagree on a moral issue,
neither is right (correct) or wrong (incorrect). They simply hold
different moral values (feelings). | 0 | alt.atheism |
This is hell. Hasn't anyone noticed?
| 0 | alt.atheism |