text
stringlengths 1
51k
| label
int64 0
15
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
The Christian Reformed Church does not allow people to belong to lodges,
the Reformed Church in America does. The conservatives in both churches
are very similar, as are the "progressives". The RCA currently ordains
women; the CRC is fighting over the issue. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I get the feeling that we are debating at cross-purposes--that we
do not see the same fundamental assumptions, and this perhaps makes
my answers orthogonal to your questions. I will try again.
Perhaps you believe that nothing exists aside from objectively
observable and provable things. In that case, I cannot show you
that there is such thing as a spirit or a spiritual need--these
things do not exist in the realm of the objective, but in the
realm of the subjective.
(By a.a., I assume you mean Alcoholics Anonymous, and not alt.atheism ;)
I would not say that AA "handles" spiritual needs. Rather I would say
that AA (and other 12-step programs) help people come to terms with their
needs--ie that AA is facilitating the recovery, and that as part of the
recovery, they recognize their spiritual needs, and begin to rely on a "higher
power" (12-step's term) to fill them instead of whatever substance abuse
they had been accustomed to. (Sorry, there is no objective proof here
either--no way to take 2 identical alcoholics and try to have one recover
by fulfilling spiritual needs, and one without and externally compare the
difference--we are talking about the virtually infinite complexity of
*people* here.)
Spiritual needs could be defined as things that people need in addition to
physical requirements like air, food, sleep, etc. These are things like
the need for love and acceptance, and the need for meaning in life. If
one denies the existence of spiritual things, one would presumably call
these "emotional needs". The reason Christians call them spiritual needs
is that they have aspects that are not fulfillable except by spiritual
means--ie a person could be loved and accepted by many people, and do
many meaningful things, but still have a need for love, which can only be
satisfied by the love of God. Now the problem is that there are people who
accept the existence of these needs, and people who reject them. Since I
believe in absolute truth, some of these people are right, and the others
are wrong. So here are the 2 possibilities:
1) If Christians are right, then we all have spiritual needs--ie
we all need God. Those who do not realize that they need God are
deluded--they just haven't recognized it yet.
2) If Christians are wrong, spiritual needs are an artefact of our brain
chemicals. Well-adjusted and properly-integrated personalities do not
have such things. Christians are simply using the concept of God and
spiritual needs to mask their own inadequacies.
I hate to belabour the point, but the existence of spirits and spiritual
needs cannot be objectively demonstrated or proven, just like the existence
of God cannot. And yes, this means that there is a risk that all my subjective
evidence is manufactured by my brain chemicals. But on the other hand, I
could venture into solipsism and say that there is a risk that everything that
I appear to objectively know is really manufactured by my brain chemicals.
I suspect this is an unsatisfactory answer to a request for evidence and
demonstration of the existence of spirits and spiritual needs, but my assertion
is that such things are not objectively demonstrable. As I have said before,
I myself am on the Christian side of agnosticism, having been pushed off the
fence by subjective evidence. (And no, I was not raised a Christian, so it
is not a case of simply accepting what I was indoctrinated with.) | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
There is no reason to believe that Paul's thorn in the flesh was
a sin in his life. That makes little sense in the light of Paul'
writings taken in totality. He writes of how he presses for the
mark, and keeps his body submitted. No doubt Paul had to struggle
with the flesh just like every Christian. Paul does associate his
thorn with a Satanic messenger, and with physical infirmities and tribulation,
but not with a sin in his life. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I wrote that I thought that 2 Peter 1:20 meant, "no prophecy of
Scripture (or, as one reader suggests, no written prophecy) is
merely the private opinion of the writer."
Tony Zamora replies (Sat 8 May 1993) that this in turn implies that
it is not subject to the private interpretation of the reader
either. I am not sure that I understand this.
In one sense, no statement by another is subject to my private
interpretation. If reliable historians tell me that the Athenians
lost the Pelopennesian War, I cannot simply interpret this away
because I wanted the Athenians to win. Facts are facts and do not go
away because I want them to be otherwise.
In another sense, every statement is subject to private
interpretation, in that I have to depend on my brains and
expereience to decide what it means, and whether it is sufficiently
well attested to merit my assent. Even if the statement occurs in an
inspired writing, I still have to decide, using my own best
judgement, whether it is in fact inspired. This is not arrogance --
it is just an inescapable fact. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Yes, each is a form of the other.
Charley an anarchist? No, just true words being spoken in jest.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
It might be interesting for folk to know that the Church of Scotland
(also a Presbyterian church) managed to "agree to disagree" over
women's ordination for 25 years. The reasoning was that congregations
are free to call whoever they wish, and that Ministers and Sessions
choose elders. If a congregation did not wish to have a woman, they
were not obliged to, and if a Session did not wish to, they could not
be forced to. (Note that the who issue of freedom to call on the part
of the Congregation is VERY important here - this year is the 150th
Annivarsary of the Disruption, where the church split on that very
issue, they didn't get back together for almost 80 years).
A couple of years ago on the 25 anniversary of the allowing of womens
ordination the position was changed - so that, in theory, all
ministers and elders must recognise that women can be ordained. In
theory, a minister who refused to ordain a woman to his Session, or
refused to work with a woman minister in Presbytery, could be
disciplined. In practice this has not happened, and I believe it is
unlikely to happen. My personal view is that the new legislation was
a mistake, and that the permissive (but not prescriptive) legislation
worked very well.
We are going to start going round the homosexual debate at next years
assembly. At this years, a motion was put to ban the blessing of
same-sex couples (after an Edinburgh minister did so). Our Panel on
Doctrine is currently looking at marriage, and will report next year -
the matter will be considered and debated then.
Hope this is interesting | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
<Yawn> Another right-wing WASP imagining he's an oppressed minority.
Perhaps Camille Paglia is right after all.
"I would not have any argument or problem with a peace-nik if they [...]
stayed out of all conflicts or issues"? I bet you wouldn't. You'd love it.
But what makes you think that sitting back, saying nothing about defense
issues, and letting people like you make all the decisions is anything to do
with "their ideals"?
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Anyone from Alabama knows it should be:
Is "The Bear" Catholic?
Does a Pope shit in the woods? | 0 | alt.atheism |
That was my point. If I play poker with Monopoly money I can bet
anything I want.
This is exactly why Christianity is missionary in nature,
not just out of a need to irritate. 8-)
To the people who wrote the Bible and to whom the Bible is written,
there is evidence of love, but that is a cultural bias. This is
a poor answer which you needn't rebut.
I will now pull the old bait and switch.
I think you should use the Bible to judge man, not God.
By that I mean, if your moral intuition doesn't like what
is described in the Bible, realize that such things are going on
now. I will avoid the semantic arguments about the cause of evil
and ask what are you doing to fight it? Not you specifically,
but everyone, including myself. If I don't like the genocide
in the Bible, what about the genocide that goes on right now?
To move beyond the question of a hell, realize that many people
right now are suffering. If you think hell isn't fair and are
willing to sacrifice everything just to deny its existence,
what about how life isn't fair? Right now there is a young mother
with three little kids who doesn't know how she will get through
the day. Right now there is a sixth grader who is a junkie.
Right now there is an old man with no friends and no money to
fix his TV. Instead of why doesn't God help them ask why don't
we help them. I think you are correct to challenge any Christian
who doesn't live his life with the compassion you seem to possess.
You want evidence of God. Find someone who is making a difference,
someone you admire, someone who has been through some tough times
and has come out with his head up. Ask the person how he does it. Ask
the Vietnam vet who was battle medic how he kept his mind. Ask the
woman who was pregnant at 15, kept the baby and now is a successful
business woman. Ask the doctor who has operated on a 1-1/2 pound
baby. They won't all be Christians, or even what you might
call religious, but there will be something in common.
God is not defined in the Bible, God is defined by what is
in those people's hearts. It doesn't matter if you can't give
intellectual assent to any description you've heard, they're
all wrong anyway. The compassion you already feel in your heart
is a step in the right direction. Follow that instead.
Then come back and read the Bible and you'll see that same
thing described there.
Good, I guess we only have to work on your grammar. 8-) | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
ites:
I realized that my generalizations would probably have problems
under scrutiny from various Asian points of view. They need to be
discussed in detail, indeed. But for the purposes of this newsgroup
and thread thus far and in this newsgroup, I risked oversimpli-
fication. My main purpose was to emphasize that I was not coming
from a Buddhist or Hindu point of view. As you observed, the
main context is that of Christianity. But by all means, add comments
and corrections as you find them.
I wrote a longer reply addressing some of your points, but decided
to not post it. Perhaps it would be more appropriate for soc.religion.
eastern. Instead I just add the following couple of items about karma
and reincarnation as I see the matter from an anthroposophical and
a Christian point of view.
1. Karma is not simple reward and punishment dealt out by a "judging
deity".
2. Reincarnation is not the same as being born again.
3. Reincarnation is not the same as the resurrection of the body.
4. Reincarnation and karma do not contradict the fundamental teachings
of Christianity about God, the fall, the being. incarnation, death,
and resurrection of Christ, his coming again, sin, grace, forgiveness,
salvation, and the last judgement.
Origen's work was mostly lost. He was not anathematized, to my knowledge,
but his writing comes down largely in fragments and quotations from enemies.
Perhaps someone else can comment on Origen. I don't know if there
is a specific statement about reincarnation from him, but from what I do
know about him he probably did hold to the teaching in one form or another.
I don't know too much about the history of the idea of reincarnation in
the Church. However, I heard an interesting story about Pope John Paul II
from an astronomer who teaches at the University of Cracow. The Pope likes
to go to Poland for a scientific conference every couple of years so he
can relax and talk Polish to friends and fellow countrymen. My acquaintance,
an anthroposophist, related the fact that Woitila knew about Steiner and
Anthroposophy from his early days. Before he became a priest he was an
actor in a dramatic company in Cracow whose leader was a pupil of Steiner
and based his acting and directing methods on Steiner's indications. Part
of the work was the study of the basic works of anthroposophy. Well,
going to this conference with him a few years ago, the astronomer and another
Polish anthroposophist thought they would ask the Pope what he thought about
Anthroposophy. They chickened out at the last minute, but one of them did ask
him what he thought about reincarnation. The Pope smiled and said,
"Actually there have been quite a few good Catholics who believed in
reincarnation," and he proceeded to name several from the earliest times
to modern times. Then he changed the subject. My Polish friend did not
say whether Origen was among those he mentioned.
Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com) | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Larry -
Thanks for the reply, but this isn't quite the same thing. Like I said before,
I can understand why non-Christians would be denied *access* to holy
ceremonies, but the ceremony itself (communion) was not secret. In fact, all
four gospels record the first "breaking of the bread" in some detail.
Communion was a fellowship meal, and it was (and still should be, in my
opinion) inappropriate to invite those who did not share in the fellowship of
the Body of Christ. The fact that unbelievers, denied access to these communal
meals, began to imagine all sorts of secret and debased rituals during
communion does not by any means imply that the early Christians were in fact
hiding shameful things from the general public. In fact, I think if you read
some of the early church fathers, you will find that they were not at all
bashful about describing what went on during communion. That's why it seems
funny to me when Mormons, who claim to be the only true restoration of 1st
century Christianity, insist on hiding certain rituals on the grounds that they
are "too sacred."
- Mark | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The following is a juxtaposition of part of an ancient text known as
"de Sacramentis", usually attributed to St. Ambrose of Milan, and the
canon of the traditional Catholic Mass of the Roman rite. The
conclusion from this comparison is that the central part of the
traditional Roman canon was already fairly well in place by sometime
in the late 4th century.
Taken from "The Mass of the Western Rites", by the Right Reverend Dom
Fernand Cabrol, Abbot of Farnborough, 1934, without permission.
Excerpted from Chapter VI: THE MASS AT ROME, FROM THE FIFTH TO THE
SEVENTH CENTURIES. The paragraph at the end is from the book, not me.
Sorry about the long lines.
Joe Buehler
-----
TEXT OF DE SACRAMENTIS ROMAN CANON ROMAN CANON
(about 400 AD) (1962 AD) (English translation)
Te igitur ... (omitted here)
Memento Domine ...
Communicantes ...
Hanc igitur oblationem ...
Fac nobis (inquit sacerdos), Quam oblationem tu Deus, in Do thou, O God, deign to
hanc oblationem ascriptam, omnibus, quaesumus, bless what we offer, and
ratam, rationabilem, benedictam, adscriptam, make it approved,
acceptabilem, quod figura ratam, rationabilem, effective, right, and
est corporis et sanguinis acceptabilemque facere wholly pleasing in every
Jesu Christi. digneris: ut nobis corpus et way, that it may become
sanguis fiat dilectissimi for our good, the Body
Filii tui Domini nostri Jesu and Blood of Thy dearly
Christi. beloved Son, Jesus Christ
our Lord.
Qui pridie quam pateretur, Qui pridie quam pateretur, Who, the day before He
in sanctis manibus suis accepit panem in sanctas ac suffered, took bread into
accepit panem, respexit in venerabiles manus suas: et His holy and venerable
caelum ad te, sancte Pater elevatis oculis in ccelum, hands, and having raised
omnipotens, aeterne Deus, ad Te Deum Patrem suum His eyes to Heaven, unto
Gratias agens, benedixit, omnipotentem, tibi gratias Thee, O God, His Almighty
fregit, fractum quae agens, benedixit, fregit, Father, giving thanks to
apostolis suis et discipulis deditque discipulis suis Thee, He blessed it, broke
suis tradidit dicens: dicens: accipite et it, and gave it to His
accipite et edite ex hoc manducate ex hoc omnes: hoc disciples, saying: Take ye
omnes: hoc est enim corpus est enim corpus meum. all and eat of this:
meum, quod pro multis For this is my Body.
confringetur.
Similiter etiam calicem Simili modo postquam In like manner, when the
postquam caenatum est, caenatum est, accipiens et supper was done, taking
pridie quam pateretur, hunc praeclarum calicem in also this goodly chalice
accepit, respexit in sanctas ac venerabiles manus into His holy and
caelum ad te, sancte pater suas item tibi gratias venerable hands, again
omnipotens, aeterne Deus, agens, benedixit deditque giving thanks to Thee,
gratias agens, benedixit, discipulis suis, dicens: He blessed it, and gave it
apostolis suis et discipulis accipite et bibite ex eo to His disciples, saying:
suis tradidit, dicens: omnes: Hic est enim calix Take ye all, and drink of
accipite et bibite ex hoc sanguinis mei, novi et this: For this is the
omnes: hic est enim sanguis aeterni testamenti: Chalice of my Blood of the
meus. mysterium fidei; qui pro new and eternal covenant;
vobis et pro multis the mystery of faith,
effundetur in remissionem which shall be shed for
peccatorum. you and for many unto the
forgiveness of sins.
Haec quotiescumque feceritis As often as you shall do
in mei memoriam facietis. these things, in memory of
Me shall you do them.
Ergo memores gloriosissimae Unde et memores, Domine, nos Mindful, therefore, O
ejus passionis et ab inferis servi tui, sed et plebs tua Lord, not only of the
resurrectionis, in caelum sancta, ejusdem Christi blessed Passion of the
ascensionis, offerimus tibi Filii tui Domini nostri, tam same Christ, Thy Son, our
hanc immaculatam hostiam, beatae passionis necnon et Lord, but also of His
hunc panem sanctum et ab inferis resurrectionis, resurrection from the
calicem vitae aeternae; sed et in caelos gloriosae dead, and finally His
ascensionis: offerimus glorious ascension into
praeclarae majestati tuae de Heaven, we, Thy ministers,
tuis donis ac datis, hostiam as also Thy holy people,
puram, hostiam sanctam, offer unto Thy supreme
hostiam immaculatam, Panem majesty, of the gifts
sanctum vitae aeternae, et bestowed upon us, the
Calicem salutis perpetuae. pure Victim, the holy
Victim, the all-perfect
Victim: the holy Bread of
life eternal and the
Chalice of unending
salvation.
et petimus et precamur, ut Supra quae propitio ac And this do Thou deign to
hanc oblationem suscipias in sereno vultu respicere regard with gracious and
sublimi altari tuo per manus digneris: et accepta habere, kindly attention and hold
angelorum tuorum sicut sicuti accepta, habere acceptable, as Thou didst
suscipere dignatus es munera dignatus es munera pueri tui deign to accept the
pueri tui justi Abel et justi Abel, et sacrificium offerings of Abel, Thy
sacrificium patriarchae patriarchae nostri Abrahae, just servant, and the
nostri Abrahae et quod tibi et quod tibi obtulit summus sacrifice of Abraham our
obtulit summus sacerdos sacerdos tuus Melchisedech patriarch, and that which
Melchisedech. sanctum sacrificium, Thy chief priest
immaculatam hostiam. Melchisedech offered unto
Thee, a holy sacrifice and
a spotless victim.
Supplices te rogamus, Most humbly we implore
omnipotens Deus: jube haec Thee, almighty God, bid
perferri per manus sancti these offerings to be
Angeli tui in sublime altare brought by the hands of
tuum in conspectu divinae Thy holy angel unto Thy
majestatis tuae: etc. altar above; before the
face of Thy Divine
Majesty; etc. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Not exactly correct, but nice try. The Catholic doctrine of infallibility
refers to freedom from error in teaching of the universal Church in
matters of faith or MORALS. It is this teaching which is taken as
doctrine.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I saw a 3 hour show on PBS the other day about the history of the
Jews. Appearently, the Cursades(a religious war agianst the muslilams
in 'the holy land') sparked the widespread persecution of muslilams
and jews in europe. Among the supporters of the persiecution, were none
other than Martin Luther, and the Vatican.
Later, Hitler would use Luthers writings to justify his own treatment
of the jews. | 0 | alt.atheism |
He appears to have believed that. He had a view which was condemned by conciliar
action, which is often taken to be condemnation of the idea of reincarnation.
What was actually condemned was the doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul
before birth. Similar, but not exactly the same thing.
Larry Overacker (ll@shell.com)
-- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Kevin Marshall) <1r2eba$hsq@csugrad.cs.vt.edu>
Faith and dogma are dangerous because they cause people to act on
faith alone, which by its nature is without justification. That
is what I mean by the word ``faith'': belief without justification, or
belief with arbitrary justification, or with emotional (irrational)
justification.
For example, when someone says that God exists, that they don't know
why they believe God exists, they can just feel it, that's faith.
Dogma is bad because it precludes positive change in belief based
on new information, or increased mental faculty.
Faith and dogma are irrational. The faith and dogma part of any religion
are responsible for the irrationality of the individuals. I claim that
faith and dogma are the quintessential part of any religion. If that
makes (the much overused in this context) Buddism a philosophy rather
than a religion, I can live with that. Science is not a religion,
because there is no faith nor dogma.
Have you noticed that philosophers tend to be atheists? If a philosopher
is not an atheist, s/he tends to be called a theologian.
A Christian tends to consider Christianity sacred. Christianity is
a special set of beliefs, sanctioned by God himself, and therefore,
to conceive of changing those beliefs is to question the existence
of That Being Who Makes No Mistakes. Faith comes into play. Dogma
comes into play. ``The lord works in mysterious ways'' is an example
of faith being used to reconcile evidence that the beliefs are flawed.
Sure, interpretations of what ``God said'' are changed to satisfy the
needs of society, but when God says something, that's it. It was said,
and that's that. Since God said it, it is unflawed, even if the
interpretations are flawed.
Science, (as would be practiced by atheists) in contrast, has a
BUILT IN defence against faith and dogma.
A scientist holds sacred the idea that beliefs should change to
suit whatever is the best information available at the time, AND,
*AND*, ****AND***, a scientist understands that any current beliefs
are deficient in some way. The goal is to keep improving
the beliefs. The goal is to keep changing the beliefs to reflect
the best information currently available. That's the only rational
thing to do. That's good philosophy.
Can you see the difference? Science views beliefs as being flawed,
and new information can be obtained to improve them. (How many
scientists would claim to have complete and perfect understanding
of everything? None---it would put them out of a job!) Religion
views its beliefs as being perfect, and the interpretations of
those beliefs must be changed as new information is acquired which
conflicts with them.
It's easier for someone to kill a person when s/he doesn't require
a good rational justification of the killing. I don't consider
``he's Jewish'', or ``he was born of Jewish parents'', or
``this document says he's Jewish'' to be good rational justification.
Clinton and the FBI would love for you to convince them of this.
It would save the US taxpayer a lot of money if you could. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Indeed, the immediate context [NASB] is:
26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often
since the foundation of the world; but now once at
the consummation He has been manifested to put away
sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die
once, and after this comes judgement;
28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear
the sins of many, shall appear a second time, not to
bear sin, tro those who eagerly await him.
The first point is that this verse is part of an even larger
context, the subject of which is not the destiny of the
individual human soul but rather the singular nature of Christ's
sacrifice, "once", and the fulfillment of the law for all of fallen
mankind. Rudolf Frieling elaborates this in detail in his
"Christianity and Reincarnation". The thrust of the passage
in its context is to liken the one time incarnation and
sacrifice of Christ for all mankind to the individual
experience of the human being after death. The "once"
is repeated and emphasized, and it highlights the singularity
of Christ's deed. One thing for certain it does is to
refute the claims of some that Christ incarnates more than
once. But the comparison to the human experience - die
once, then judgement (note: not "the judgement", but just
"judgement". The word for judgement is "krisis".
Hebrews 9:27 is the one passage most often quoted in defense
of the doctrine that the Bible denies reincarnation. At this
point, I would just emphasize again that the passages
that (arguably) speak against it are few, and that invariably
they are talking about something eles, and the apparent denial
of reincarnation is either inferred, or, as in the case of
Hebrews, taken literally and deposited into an implied context,
namely a doctrine of the destiny of the human being after
death.
What should be considered seriously is that the Bible is essentially
silent about the fate of the individual human being between death
and the Last Day. If you take the few passages that could possibly
be interpreted to mean a single earth life, they are arguable. And
there are other passages that point, arguably, in the other direc-
tion. such as Matthew 11:14 and John 9:2.
We can continue to debate the individual scraps of scripture that
might have a bearinig on this, and indeed we should discuss them.
But what I wanted to introduce into the discussion was an approach
to the idea of repeated earth lives that, unlike Hindu, Buddhist
and "new age" teachings, takes full cognizance of the divinity, singular
incarnation, death, burial, resurrection, and second coming of Christ
as the savior of mankind; the accountability of each individual for
his deeds and the reality of the Fall and of sin and its consequences;
the redemption of man from sin through Christ; the resurrection of
the body, and the Last Judgement.
Taken in this larger sense, many serious questions take on an entirely
different perspective. E.g. the destiny of those who died in their
sins before Christ came. the relationship of faith and grace to
works, the meaning of "deathbed conversion", the meaning of the
sacraments, and many other things. Not that I propose to answer all
those questions by a simple doctrine of convenience, but only that
the discussion takes on a different dimension, and in my opinion
one that is truly worthy of both man, the earth, and their Creator and
Redeemer. There are many deep questions that continue to be deep, such
as the meaning of the second death, and how the whole of Christian
doctrine would apply to this larger perspective of human existence.
There are those who deeply believe that the things of which the Bible
does not speak are not things we should be concerned with. But Christ
also indicated that there were other things that we would come to know
in the future, including things that his disciples (and therefore others)
could not bear yet. This idea that the human capacity for growth in
knowledge, not only of the individual in one lifetime, but of the whole
of humanity, also takes on great meaning when we realize that our growth
in the spirit is a long term process. The Bible was not meant to codify
all spiritual knowledge in one place forever, but to proclaim the gospel
of the incarnation and redeeming deed of Christ - taking the gospel in the
greater context, from Genesis to Revelation. Now, salvation (healing) becomes,
not the end of man's sojourn but its beginning. And the Last Judgement and
the New Heaven and Earth that follow it become its fulfullment. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Dave - you might like to read a book by Florence Bulle "God
Wants You Rich & Other Enticing Doctrines", which discusses
OOBEs in one of her chapters.
In the Bible we have examples of men caught up in the Spirit (eg
Ezekiel, Paul). I believe that also this experience is
counterfeited by Satan - so that for example yoga and other
eastern medatitive techniques can be used to induce the soul to
leave the body and float off. Someone tried to sell me a book in
Los Angeles airport entitled "Easy Journeys to Other Planets"
which uses such techniques.
The occultic trance of a medium sometimes involves such body
departure - the book "The Challanging Counterfeit", about a
former medium who gets saved, tells how the author, on his last
trance, was attacked by evil spirits who tried to kill him
while returning to his body at the end of the seance
because of his interest in Christianity and how he was supernaturally
protected by the Lord.
There may be some similarities in mind-altering drugs and the
phenomena of 'tripping'.
As regards the connection between body and soul, there is an
interesting verse in Ecclesiastes. In a passage talking about
old age, the preacher writes "Then man goes to his eternal home
and mourners go about the streets. Remember Him--before the
silver cord is severed." (12.5-6) My understanding of this
silver cord is that it is something that attaches body and soul
in a manner somewhat similar to an umbilical cord or an
astronaut's air-line to his spaceship.
When a person goes out of body this silver cord still attaches
the soul whereever it goes - and is vulnerable to being broken:
astral projection can be dangerous! Bulle, I think, reports a
case of a yogi off on an OOBE who was found dead in his
apartment, with no apparent external cause. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
That depends on how this verse is read. There are at least two
meanings of the word "once". 1) only one time, and 2) at some
other time (i.e. once upon a time). Note that in the previous
verse, the word "once" is used with the second meaning, and also
in the following verse, "once" is again used with the second meaning.
The Greek, I am sure, uses different words for each of the two meanings
for the English word "once". I am not a Greek scholar, but I'm sure
someone here can verify which Greek word is used here for this meaning.
If the second meaning is being used, that verse can be interpreted as:
- for it was once given for men to die (beginning with Adam), but
after this [gift of atonement offered by Jesus Christ] the judgement
[is made available], for now there is no longer death, but life
with Christ. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
|
| > Mary at that time appeared to a girl named Bernadette at
| > Lourdes. She referred to herself as the Immaculate Conception.
| > Since a nine year old would have no way of knowing about the
| > doctrine, the apparition was deemed to be true and it sealed
| > the case for the doctrine.
|Bernadette was 14 years old when she had her visions, in 1858,
|four years after the dogma had been officially proclaimed by the
|Pope.
|
| Yours,
| James Kiefer
I forgot exactly what her age was but I remember clearly
that she was born in a family of poverty and she did not
have any education, whatsoever, at the age of the apparitions.
She suffered from asthma at that age and she and her family were
living in an abandoned prison cell of some sort.
She had to ask the 'Lady' several times in her apparitions about
what her name was since her confessor priest asked her to do so.
For several instances, the priest did not get an answer since
Bernadette did not receive any. One time, after several apparitions
passed, The Lady finally said, "I am the Immaculate Conception".
So, Bernadette, was so happy and repeated these words over and
over in her mind so as not to forget it before she told the
priest who was asking. So, when she told the priest, the
priest was shocked and asked Bernadette, "Do you know what
you are talking about?". Bernadette did not know what exactly
it meant but she was just too happy to have the answer for
the priest. The priest continued with, "How did you remember
this if you do not know?". Bernadette answered honestly that
she had to repeat it over and over in her mind while on her
way to the priest...
The priest knew about the dogma being four years old then.
But Bernadette did not know and yet she had the answer which
the priest finally observed and took as proof of an authentic
personal revelation of Our Lady to Bernadette.
(Note: This Lady of Lourdes shrine has a spring of water which
our lady requested Bernadette to dig up herself with her
bare hands in front of pilgrims. At the start little
water flowed but after several years there is more water
flowing.) | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[The only reason for the death penalty is revenge?? If you are going to
try to refute a position, try to refute the whole position or acknosledge
that you are only speaking to small piece of the problem. Broad sweeping
"the only reason, " etc on as tough nut to crack as the death penalty
reallly doesn't help much.
Every year the FBI releases crime stats showing an overwhelming amount of
crime is committed by repeat offenders. People are killed by folks who
have killed (who knows how many times) before. How aobut folks who are for
the death penalty, not for revenge, but to cut down on recidivism?] | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
> A Christian friend of mine once reasoned that if we were never
> created, we could not exists. Therefore we were created, and
> therefore there exists a Creator.
I hesitate to comment on the validity of this, because I do not know
what your friend meant by it. If he meant that whatever exists must
have been created, then he is open to the obvious retort that God
exists, and so God must have been created.
Perhaps your friend meant that we exist now but that there was a
time when we did not exist, and therefore something other than
ourselves must have brought us into existence. This seems plausible,
but an atheist might reply, "So my parents engendered me. So what?"
Here your friend would have to explain why an infinite regress of
causes is not a satisfactory explanation. He would have some support
from philosophers who are not ordinarily considered religious (Ayn
Rand, and some others who are in the tradition of Aristotle). Having
argued for a First Cause, he would have to bridge the gap between
said entity and the God of Abraham. If he merely asserts that the
things we observe are ultimately dependent on things radically
unlike them, few physicists would disagree. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I think that _The_Transcedental_Temptation_, by Paul Kurtz, has a good
section on the origins of Mormonism you might want to look at. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Please note that God commanded Adam to work before the fall:
"The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work
it and take care of it." (Gen 2:15, NIV).
Work was God's design from the beginning.
--
Ken | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Okay, I went back and looked: sure enough, my hunch was right.
2 Peter was most likely written between 100-120 A.D.
Revelation was almost certainly written between 80-96 A.D.
Odds are the gospel of John was written around 90 A.D.
Best dates for Luke and Acts are around 80 A.D., maybe later.
Again, this is from footnoted information in the New American Bible,
the best translation I've come across in regards to giving complete
historical information about each book.
- Mike
) | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
#In article <1r0sn0$3r@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
#
#>|>#>#Theism is strongly correlated with irrational belief in absolutes. Irrational
#>|>#>#belief in absolutes is strongly correlated with fanatism.
#
#(deletion)
#
#>|Theism is correlated with fanaticism. I have neither said that all fanatism
#>|is caused by theism nor that all theism leads to fanatism. The point is,
#>|theism increases the chance of becoming a fanatic. One could of course
#>|argue that would be fanatics tend towards theism (for example), but I just
#>|have to loook at the times in history when theism was the dominant ideology
#>|to invalidate that conclusion that that is the basic mechanism behind it.
#>
#>IMO, the influence of Stalin, or for that matter, Ayn Rand, invalidates your
#>assumption that theism is the factor to be considered.
#
#Bogus. I just said that theism is not the only factor for fanatism.
#The point is that theism is *a* factor.
That's your claim; now back it up. I consider your argument as useful
as the following: Belief is strongly correlated with fanaticism. Therefore
belief is *a* factor in fanaticism. True, and utterly useless. (Note, this
is *any* belief, not belief in Gods)
#>Gullibility,
#>blind obedience to authority, lack of scepticism, and so on, are all more
#>reliable indicators. And the really dangerous people - the sources of
#>fanaticism - are often none of these things. They are cynical manipulators
#>of the gullible, who know precisely what they are doing.
#
#That's a claim you have to support. Please note that especially in the
#field of theism, the leaders believe what they say.
If you believe that, you're incredibly naive.
#>Now, *some*
#>brands of theism, and more precisely *some* theists, do tend to fanaticism,
#>I grant you. To tar all theists with this brush is bigotry, not a reasoned
#>argument - and it reads to me like a warm-up for censorship and restriction
#>of religious freedom. Ever read Animal Farm?
#>
#That's a straw man. And as usually in discussions with you one has to
#repeat it: Read what I have written above: not every theism leads to
#fanatism, and not all fanatism is caused by theism. The point is,
#there is a correlation, and it comes from innate features of theism.
No, some of it comes from features which *some* theism has in common
with *some* fanaticism. Your last statement simply isn't implied by
what you say before, because you're trying to sneak in "innate features
of [all] theism". The word you're groping for is "some".
#Gullibility, by the way, is one of them.
No shit, Sherlock. So why not talk about gullibility instead of theism,
since it seems a whole lot more relevant to the case you have, as opposed
to the case you are trying to make?
#And to say that I am going to forbid religion is another of your straw
#men. Interesting that you have nothing better to offer.
I said it reads like a warm up to that. That's because it's an irrational
and bogus tirade, and has no other use than creating a nice Them/Us
split in the minds of excitable people such as are to be found on either
side of church walls.
#>|>(2) Define "irrational belief". e.g., is it rational to believe that
#>|> reason is always useful?
#>|>
#>|
#>|Irrational belief is belief that is not based upon reason. The latter has
#>|been discussed for a long time with Charley Wingate. One point is that
#>|the beliefs violate reason often, and another that a process that does
#>|not lend itself to rational analysis does not contain reliable information.
#>
#>Well, there is a glaring paradox here: an argument that reason is useful
#>based on reason would be circular, and argument not based on reason would
#>be irrational. Which is it?
#>
#That's bogus. Self reference is not circular. And since the evaluation of
#usefulness is possible within rational systems, it is allowed.
O.K., it's oval. It's still begging the question, however. And though
that certainly is allowed, it's not rational. And you claiming to be
rational and all.
At the risk of repeating myself, and hearing "we had that before" [we
didn't hear a _refutation_ before, so we're back. Deal with it] :
you can't use reason to demonstrate that reason is useful. Someone
who thinks reason is crap won't buy it, you see.
#Your argument is as silly as proving mathematical statements needs mathematics
#and mathematics are therfore circular.
Anybody else think Godel was silly?
#>The first part of the second statement contains no information, because
#>you don't say what "the beliefs" are. If "the beliefs" are strong theism
#>and/or strong atheism, then your statement is not in general true. The
#>second part of your sentence is patently false - counterexample: an
#>axiomatic datum does not lend itself to rational analysis, but is
#>assumed to contain reliable information regardless of what process is
#>used to obtain it.
#>
#
#I've been speaking of religious systems with contradictory definitions
#of god here.
#
#An axiomatic datum lends itself to rational analysis, what you say here
#is a an often refuted fallacy. Have a look at the discussion of the
#axiom of choice. And further, one can evaluate axioms in larger systems
#out of which they are usually derived. "I exist" is derived, if you want
#it that way.
#
#Further, one can test the consistency and so on of a set of axioms.
#
#what is it you are trying to say?
That at some point, people always wind up saying "this datum is reliable"
for no particular reason at all. Example: "I am not dreaming".
#>|Compared the evidence theists have for their claims to the strength of
#>|their demands makes the whole thing not only irrational but antirational.
#>
#>I can't agree with this until you are specific - *which* theism? To
#>say that all theism is necessarily antirational requires a proof which
#>I suspect you do not have.
#>
#
#Using the traditonal definition of gods. Personal, supernatural entities
#with objective effects on this world. Usually connected to morals and/or
#the way the world works.
IMO, any belief about such gods is necessarily irrational. That does
not mean that people who hold them are in principle opposed to the exercise of
intelligence. Some atheists are also scientists, for example.
#>|The affinity to fanatism is easily seen. It has to be true because I believe
#>|it is nothing more than a work hypothesis. However, the beliefs say they are
#>|more than a work hypothesis.
#>
#>I don't understand this. Can you formalise your argument?
#
#Person A believes system B becuase it sounds so nice. That does not make
#B true, it is at best a work hypothesis. However, the content of B is that
#it is true AND that it is more than a work hypothesis. Testing or evaluating
#evidence for or against it therefore dismissed because B (already believed)
#says it is wronG/ a waste of time/ not possible. Depending on the further
#contents of B Amalekites/Idolaters/Protestants are to be killed, this can
#have interesting effects.
Peculiar definition of interesting, but sure. Now show that a belief
in gods entails the further contents of which you speak. Why aren't my
catholic neighbours out killing the protestants, for example? Maybe they
don't believe in it. Maybe it's the conjunction of "B asserts B" and
"jail/kill dissenters" that is important, and the belief in gods is
entirely irrelevant. It certainly seems so to me, but then I have no
axe to grind here.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Perhaps because there is a connection here that is not there in the Mexican
variant you bring up.
That is, many (not all) extreme fundamentalist Christians use the excuse of
teaching their children Biblical morality to justify this sort of mistreatment.
I do not see many Mexicans using their Mexican heritage as an excuse for abuse.
It is indeed this judgemental, controlling legalism of many fundamentalist
Christians that has led me to reject that branch of our faith as not true
to the Gospel of Christ, the gospel of love.
I have seen this sort of thing too often, even amoung my own relatives, to
believe there is no relationship. Judgementalism often leads to overly
strict, and thus abusive, discipline of children.
[This is not restricted to just Christian fundamentalism, it is found in
many extreme sects of other legalistic religions].
I, too, am a Christian. But I do not condone the use of the Bible to justify
this sort of abuse. I believe that it is only by exposing the horrors of
the misapplication of the Biblical concept of discipline that such abuses
can be stopped.
Just because someone is also a Christian does not mean we must identify
eith them. This sort of sin needs to be made public.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not
be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go." | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Dress casual. Only in heaven is there a dress code (black tie and
self-important expression) | 0 | alt.atheism |
Not if you show that these hypothetical atheists are gullible, excitable
and easily led from some concrete cause. In that case we would also
have to discuss if that concrete cause, rather than atheism, was the
factor that caused their subsequent behaviour. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Ok, what's more important to gay Christians? Sex, or Christianity?
Christianity I would hope. Would they be willing to forgo sex
completely, in order to avoid being a stumbling block to others,
to avoid the chance that their interpretation might be wrong,
etc? If not, why not? Heterosexuals abstain all the time.
(It would be nice if protestant churches had celibate orders
to show the world that sex is not the important thing in life)
To tell the truth, gay churches remind me a lot of Henry the VIII
starting the Church of England in order to get a divorce (or is
this a myth). Note that I am not denying that gay Christians are
Christian. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
0 | alt.atheism |
|
I'm wondering if anyone knows the answer to a rather trivial question which
I've been thinking about: What was the process used to divide the Bible into
verses. I believe Jerome divided the New Testament, but I've never seen any
discussion of *how* he did this. It seems rather arbitrary, as opposed to, for
example, making each sentence a verse.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The last time we discussed homosexuality, I asked whether anyone could
identify any other act besides homosexual intercourse that the Bible
prohibited, but which might in some circumstances bring no apparent
harm to anyone. Put another way, the question is whether homosexual
intercourse is the only act that Christians are supposed to believe
is immoral solely on the basis that God says it is, with no insight
being offered as to *why* it is immoral. No one could answer my
question in either form from the Bible. (I did get an interesting
response based on Roman Catholic theology).
However, I think now that I can at least answer my first question.
Link Hudson pointed me to it in his recent comments about sleeping
with one's aunt. Incest is held to be immoral in every society,
that is, there are some degrees of relationship where marriage
(and thus, intercouse) is prohibited. The Bible is no exception.
The trouble is that it may be difficult to see *why* a particular
relationship qualifies as incestuous. Societies differ as to
how they define incest. Genetic reasons are sometimes offered, but
all the Biblical cases cannot be dealt with that way. Why can't
a man sleep with his step mother--assuming that his father is
dead and that he has "married" her? How does this case differ
from the *duty* to marry one's brother's childless wife.
Are these two cases parallel? Does the Bible prohibit some incestuous
marriages and homosexual marriages for the same reason, perhaps
that God knows they are not good for us and yet we are incapable
of understanding why.
P.S. Please don't bother writing me to tell me that I am a homophobe,
as some did last time. My mind is not made up on these questions.
You don't know whether I am homophobic or not. You don't
know me. To call me or anyone else a homophobe without knowing the
person may be as much an expression of bigotry as some homophobic
remarks. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[reply to jimh@carson.u.washington.edu (James Hogan)]
I take the view that they are here for our entertainment. When they are
no longer entertaining, into the kill file they go. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Some people might think it takes faith to be an atheist... but faith in
what? Does it take some kind of faith to say that the Great Invisible Pink
Unicorn does not exist? Does it take some kind of faith to say that Santa
Claus does not exist? If it does (and it may for some people I suppose) it
certainly isn't as big a leap of faith to say that these things (and god)
DO exist. (I suppose it depends on your notion and definition of "faith".)
Besides... not believing in a god means one doesn't have to deal with all
of the extra baggage that comes with it! This leaves a person feeling
wonderfully free, especially after beaten over the head with it for years!
I agree that religion and belief is often an important psychological healer
for many people and for that reason I think it's important. However,
trying to force a psychological fantasy (I don't mean that in a bad way,
but that's what it really is) on someone else who isn't interested is
extremely rude. What if I still believed in Santa Claus and said that my
belief in Santa did wonderful things for my life (making me a better
person, allowing me to live without guilt, etc...) and then tried to get
you to believe in Santa too just 'cuz he did so much for me? You'd call
the men in white coats as soon as you could get to a phone.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Another article that fell between the cracks:
As evidence for the Resurrection, it is often claimed that the Disciples
were tortured to death for their beliefs and still did not renounce
their claim that Jesus had come back from the dead.
Now, I skimmed Acts and such, and I found a reference to this happening
to Stephen, but no others. Where does this apparently very widely held
belief come from? Is there any evidence outside the Bible? Is there any
evidence *in* the Bible? I sure haven't found any...
Briefly, no. There is widespread folklore, but no good documentary
evidence, or even solid rumor, concerning the deaths of the Apostles.
Further, the usual context of such arguments, as you observe, is "No
Martyrs for a Lie": i.e. the willingness of these people to die rather
than recant is evidence for the truth of their belief. This adds the
quite stronger twist that the proposed martyrs must have been offered
the chance of life by recanting. Since we don't even know how or
where they died, we certainly don't have this information. (By the
way, even in the case of Stephen it is not at all clear that he could
have saved himself by recanting). The willingness of true believers
to die for their belief, be it in Jesus or Jim Jones, is
well-documented, so martyrdom in and of itself says little. [See
1Kings18:20-40 for a Biblical account of the martyrdom of 450 priests
of Baal].
| 0 | alt.atheism |
[To the moderator: I posted this about a week ago but it never showed
up (locally) on the net. If this has already
actually been posted, please fill free to flush
this copy. --N]
From: db7n+@andrew.cmu.edu (D. Andrew Byler)
1] A english translation of this can be found in:
"The Acts of the Apostles, translated from the Codex Bezae, with an
introduction on its Lucan Origin and Importance", J. M. Wilson
(London, 1923).
2] Another work that might be useful is:
"The Acts of the Apostles, a Critical Edition with Introduction and
Notes on Selected Passages", Albert C. Clark (Oxford, 1933;
reprinted 1970).
(This is an edition of text of Acts that makes the assumption that the
text in Codex Bezae is the more authentic. I don't know if it
actually contains an english translation or not.)
3] Another useful that discusses many of the variants in detail is:
"The Theological Tendency of the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in
Acts", Eldon J Epp (Cambridge, 1966).
4] The most recent reference I found was an edition in French from the
early '80s. (I can supply the reference if anyone's interested.)
5] Now, many of the works are going to be difficult to find. So if
you're interested in examining the differences in the long recension
an excellent (and easily obtainable) discussion can be found in:
"A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT", Bruce Metzger (United Bible
Society, 1971).
Metzger's book serves as a companion volume to the UBS 3rd edition of
the Greek NT. It contains a discussion on the reasoning that went
behind the decisions on each of the 1440 variant readings included in
the UBS3. Furthermore, notes on an addition 600 readings are
included in aTCotGNT (the majority of these occur in Acts).
"[An attempt was made] to set before the reader a more or less full
report (with an English translation) of the several additions and
other modifications that are attested by Western witnesses ...
Since many of these have no corresponding apparatus in the
text-volume, care was taken to supply an adequate conspectus of the
evidence that supports the divergent readings." (p 272).
6] Most of the copies of the text of Acts that we have (including the
ones in Vaticanus and Siniaticus) adher pretty closely to the shorter
(or Alexandrian) version. The longer version to which you refer is
usually called the "Western" version and its main witness is the Codex
Bezae (althought there are a few other rather fragmentary sources).
7] As far as size, the difference is that in Clark's edition
(mentioned above) the book of Acts contains 19,983 words whereas the
text edited by Westcott and Hort (a typical Alexandrian text) contains
18,401 words; i.e. a difference of about 8-1/2%.
8] To answer the obvious questions, no, there are no major revelations
in the longer text nor major omissions in the shorter text. The main
difference seems to "expansion" of detail in the Western text (or, if
you prefer "contractions" in the Alexandrian). The Western text seems
to be given to more detail. There are some interesting specific
cases, but this probably not the place to go into it in detail.
9] The discussion over the years as to which of these versions is the
more authentic has been hot and heavy. If there is anything
approaching a modern consensus it is (i) that neither text represents
purely the "authentic" version, (ii) each variant reading has to be
examined on its own merits however, (iii) the variant in the
Alexandrian text is the "better" more often than not. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Andrew - continuing the discussion on the Deuterocanonicals...
Arguably, it is both. Since authority is a matter of both
communicator and recepiant we can say that, for example "Jesus
is Lord" whether the world at large accepts the authority or
not. Thus the Bible can be considered for its authoritative
content whether or not it is accepted (This issue is at the
heart of Pilate's pragmatic question "What is truth?" to Jesus
when our Lord was brought before Him. Jesus' reply was to appeal
to the authority of his Father)
You also might like to consider the claimed authority
represented by the statements "thus says the Lord" in the Bible,
which claim to put across the exact words of God.
You fall into the danger of relativism with your rejection of
inherant authority and claim that it lies only in the "community
of faith" - does something become truth because it is accepted?
The main thrust of my argument is that there is a Godward
direction as well as a manward (which is where the reference to
Rev 22 came in.)
If we narrowed it down to the predictive elements - which will
cut out some of the 39 accepted OT books as well - we
nonetheless have criteria for determining the validity of the
book: Jesus' standards were that "Scripture cannot be broken".
Can you name a single prophecy that fits the bill in the Apocrapha?
(ie definitely fulfilled AFTER it has been written)
Does it have a subjective 'ring of truth' about it - and does
other evidence that has come to light contradict or confirm the
authenticity? (archaeological, other textual evidence for
example)
What this is getting at is the relationship between text and
reader. It is to do with the quality of writing, which should
have the ability to fire the mind, affect our thought life and
cause us to act in a certain way - there is something of this
in Jesus' quote: "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every
word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord". (Matt 4.4)
Does the Catholic Church give the same authority to the
Apocrapha as to the accepted 66 books? Certainly it is not as
widely used as the OT and NT.
Think about what I have said above. You may want to revise your
conclusion. In addition think about other 'sacred writings', eg
the Koran, the book of Mormon and how and why you would
categorise them using the above principles. One word of caution
- you may find some 'reflected glory' in some of these books: in
that the 'inspired quality' may be derived from the Bible.
Remember that Lucifer is quite capable of appearing as an angel
of light and quoting Scripture.
What were you thinking of?
We've lost the point and the context here. I am not arguing that
the statement in Rev. can be applied indescriminately, just that
the whole acceptance/rejection idea does not just follow on from
man-made traditions - but there is I believe an act of God
involved in the selection and criteria of what is classified as
Scripture and comes under the definition of 2Tim 3.16.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Ad hominem, sarcastic innuendo? Absolutely. Forgotten? Hardly.
Bored? Not really. I try not to confuse "life on a.a." with life.
I just can't overcome the urge to tease/taunt folks who bound FAQ-less
onto a.a. with such a chip on their shoulder. To listen to you,
one might think we belonged to some church!
I appreciate the patience of others who questioned your posting
on a line-by-line content basis, though it's hard to know what
impact that might have had, as compared to, say, "shovelling".
I think I only lamented that, whatever the initial satisfactions,
past a certain point circular abuse-heaping was just that.
Sincere questions: Why are you here? What are you looking for? | 0 | alt.atheism |
Hi,
What presentation package would you recommend for a Bible teacher?
I've checked out Harwards Graphics for Windows. I think its more
suitable for sales people than for preachers or Bible teachers to present
an outline of a message.
I'm looking for one that:
* is great for overhead projector slides.
* has or imports clip arts
* works with Word for Windows or imports Word for Windows files.
* works with inkjet printers
If you know of any that meets part or all of the above, please let me know.
Please email your response as I don't keep up with the newsgroup. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Me too. Our local used book store is the second largest on the
West Coast, and I couldn't find a copy there. I guess atheists
hold their bibles in as much esteem as the theists.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
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 |
: You might want to re-think your attitude about the Holocaust after
: reading Deuteronomy chapter 28.
On the contrary, after the Holocaust, I would be _very_ cautious about my
interpretatoin of Deuteronomy 28. Not everything that happens is in
accordance with God's will. (You might guess which side of the
predestination issue I am on.) I will never _assume_ that evil is
punishment by God, especially when I am speaking of the evil that falls on
_someone else_. For my own life, I will work to discern the hand of God
in the evil that befalls _me_.
See the discussion earlier on Luke 13. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Did that FAQ ever got modified to re-define strong atheists as not those who
assert the nonexistence of God, but as those who assert that they BELIEVE in
the nonexistence of God? There was a thread on this earlier, but I didn't get
the outcome...
-- Adam "No Nickname" Cooper
| 0 | alt.atheism |
[stuff about hard to find atheist books deleted] | 0 | alt.atheism |
In the Monday, May 10 morning edition of the San Jose Mercury News an
article by Sandra Gonzales at the top of page 12A explained convicted
killer David Edwin Mason's troubled childhood saying,
"Raised in Oakland and San Lorenzo by strict fundamentalist
Christian parents, Mason was beaten as a child. He once was
tied to a workbench and gagged with a cloth after he accidently
urinated on his mother when she walked under his bedroom window,
court records show."
Were the San Jose Mercury news to come out with an article starting with
"Raised in Oakland by Mexican parents, Mason was beaten...", my face would
be red with anger over the injustice done to my Mexican family members and
the Mexican community as a whole. I'm sure Sandra Gonzales would be equally
upset.
Why is it that open biggotry like this is practiced and encouraged by the
San Jose Mercury News when it is pointed at the christian community?
Can a good christian continue to purchase newspapers and buy advertising in
this kind of a newspaper? This is really bad journalism. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[ref to Rev 12:7-12 deleted]
Also read Ezek 28:13-19. This is a desctiption of Lucifer (later Satan)
and how beautiful He was, etc, etc
Grant | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I just received some new information regarding the issue of
BCCI and whether it is an Islamic bank etc.
I am now about to post it under the heading
"BCCI".
Look for it there! | 0 | alt.atheism |
This is a point that seems to have been overlooked by many. The ending of a
1600 year old schism seems to be in sight.
The theologians said that the differences between them were fundamentally
ones or terminology, and that the Christological faith of both groups was
the same.
Some parishes have concelebrated the Eucharist, and here in Southern Africa
we are running a joint theological training course for Coptic and Byzantine
Orthodox.
There are still several things to be sorted out, however. As far as the
Copts are concerned, there were three ecumenical councils, whily the
Byzantine Orthodox acknowledge seven. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I have never said that only humans are the only beings which are
sufficiently sentient to have intentions. In fact, I have explicitly
said that I am perfectly happy to consider that some animals *are*
capable of forming intentions.
What I am objecting to is considering programmed or instinctive
behaviour to have moral significance, since, it seems to me,
such behaviour does *not* involve intention.
That's not the point. The point is whether the implementor thinks
*at all*. The issue is not whether thinking produces opinion A
or opinion B, but whether thinking takes place, period.
Since humans are part of nature, are not all human actions "natural".
Or perhaps you're going to throw in a definition of "natural" that
will allow us to describe some actions as "natural" and some as
"not natural". If so, what is the definition?
Sure they do, as multiple posters have show you. Sharks, for example,
eat wounded sharks. I've personally seen cats eat their newborn.
Are you in some kind of denial? People give you example after example,
and you go off the air for a week, and then pop up claiming that it
never happened. It's very strange.
See what I mean. Here we go again. What do we have to do: write
up a tailor-made FAQ just for Mr Schneider? | 0 | alt.atheism |
Sorry, Fred, but for the purposes under discussion here, I must
disagree. Your point is true only in the sense that one cannot argue
against communism by reference to the Chinese or Soviet empires, since
those did not represent *true* communism. In judging the practical
consequences of Islam as a force to contend with in the world today,
it is precisely the Khomeini's of the world, the Rushdie-fatwa
supporters, and perhaps more importantly, the reaction of the world
Muslim community to those extremists, that we must look to. Perhaps
unfortunately from your perspective, most people are not concerned
with whether Islam is the right religion for them, or whether the
Qur'an could be used as a guidebook for a hypothetical utopia, but how
Islam affects the world around them, or what their lives might be like
if Islam gains in influence. When I consider such possibilities, it
is with not inconsiderable fear. | 0 | alt.atheism |
So now you are saying that an Islamic Bank is something other than
BCCI.
Would you care to explain why it was that when I said "I hope an
Islamic Bank is something other than BCCI", you called me a childish
propagandist. | 0 | alt.atheism |
[deleted stuff from Andrew wrt which atheist myth is Bill re: to]
"Counterfeit atheists". Hmmmm. So, we're just cheap knock-offs of the
True Atheists.
Religion demonstrates itself to be absurd. Constantly. Personally, if
someone asks, I'm happy to point out how this is so.
Man, what *is* your pill wrt atheists? If you're going to make such
contentious statements, back them up! At least, READ NEWS: time-and-time
again, we've hashed out the beliefs various religous doctrines hold.
Try debating reasonably with someone who makes a statement like,
"...more accurately oxymoric is the a term like, reasonable atheist."
Then take a look at the responses we've given Tammy. Seem pretty
"reasonable", nay, even "polite" to me.
[accusations of myths a-flyin']
I saw your reference to "According to" in the original article.
Then you do such an excellent job of spewing dogma that, well, the
implication was pretty clear (if wrong, in this case).
[jeez, a misunderstanding. Let it go.]
[more statements to wrap this thing up]
If you had WRITTEN your post with the same as care as the FAQ has been,
we wouldn't be having this discussion.
[gems about evidence deleted]
Jeez, do I have to point this out to you? This discussion is not all
instances of human reason. Therefore, your implication is false.
How lame can you get. Who said anything about the 'truth' of things?
Read the FAQ very carefully, please. Then report your findings about
where it says the purpose of a.a is to find the 'truth' of things.
And stop impressing your own misguided image of atheists upon us. It's
really pissing me off. | 0 | alt.atheism |
: The same works for the horrors of history. To claim that Christianity
: had little to do with the Crusades or the Inquisition is to deny the
: awesome power that comes from faith in an absolute. What it seems you
: are doing twisting the reasonable statement that religion was never
: the solitary cause of any evil into the unreasonable statement that
: religion has had no evil impacts on history. That is absurd.
Scott,
Until this paragraph I would willingly amend my earlier statements,
since your point(s) are well made and generally accurate. This last
part though slips into hyperbole. Since I've discussed my objections to
such generalizations before, I really don't feel I need to do it
again. If you haven't seen those posts, ask Maddi, she saves
everything I write. | 0 | alt.atheism |
: Recently an e-mail to me mentioned:
: (Technically, the messengers aren't even human so
: it *can't* be a case of "homosexuality" -- even of rape.) [...]
: The Jude reference to Sodom is also meaningful only in the context of
: the Sodomites' "lust" for the "other flesh" of angels. Again,
: application to homosexual behavior in general, or to the position of
: gay Christians is largeely specious.
: ***
: Are angels "flesh"? No. I feel that this is saying that it was because
: of their lust after other men, who are flesh( or of this world).
: what are other opinons on this? I haven't heard much about this verse
: at all.
Bo Reike in the Anchor Bible volume on _James, Peter, and Jude_ points
out that all the examples given in this section of Jude are distinguishing
the elect from _apostates_, not just the wicked in general. Hence, those
who were delivered from Egypt, but did not follow Moses (and, by extension,
God); the apostate angels; and Sodom and Gomorrah. Quoting Reike:
"Fornication may here, as often in the New Testament,
refer to idolatry, while "flesh" (as in I Pet 1:24)
denotes human society and its violent attempts at self-
exaltation. Sodom and Gommorrah represent the leaders
of apostasy, and the surrounding cities correspond to
their followers." [p. 199]
There is no inherent reason to read this verse (7) as literally referring
to actual sexual lust for "alien flesh". Nor is it inherently necessary
to understand it as referring to homosexuality, outside of the circular
reasoning that has already concluded that the sin of Sodom is the sin
of homosexuality. The only place that the sin of Sodom is specified, and
not merely inferred, is in Ezekiel 16:49 "This was the guilt of your sister
Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease,
bit did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable
things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.
For the same reason (overliteralizing the text) your correspondent's
suggestion that the reason the passage doesn't deal with homosexuality
is because the guests were angels and not men is just silly. There
are much more solid reasons for pointing out the irrelevance of the
Sodom passages for dealing with homosexuality per se. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
: After reading the posts on this newsgroup for the pasts 4 months, it
: has become apparent to me that this group is primarily active with
: Liberals, Catholics, New Agers', and Athiests. Someone might think
: to change the name to: soc.religion.any - or - perhaps even
: soc.religion.new. It might seem to be more appropriate.
: Heck, don't flame me, I'm Catholic, gay, and I voted
: for Bill Clinton. I'm on your side!
Since when did conservative, protestant, old-time religion believers get
an exclusive francise to christianity? Christianity is, and always has
been, a diverse and contentious tradition, and this group reflects that
diversity. I, fo one, am not ready to concede to _any_ group- be they
"liberal" or "conservative", catholic, protestant, or orthodox, charismatic
or not- the right to claim that they have _the truth_, and everyone else
is not "christian." | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I hate to sound flippant, having shot off my mouth badly on the net
before, but I'm afraid that much of this material only adds to my
feeling that "the assumption of Mary" would be better phrased "our
assumptions _about_ Mary." In all the time I've been reading about
Mary on this group, I can not recall reading much about Mary that
did not sound like wishful veneration with scant, if any, Scriptural
foundation.
I find in the New Testament a very real portrait of Christ's parents
as compellingly human persons; to be honored and admired for their
humility and submission to God's working, beyond doubt. But the almalga-
mation of theories and dogma that has accreted around them gives me
an image of alien and inhuman creatures, untouched by sin or human
desire. Only Christ himself was so truly sanctified, and even He knew
temptation, albeit without submitting to it.
I also don't see the _necessity_ of saying the Holy Parents were some-
how sanctified beyond normal humanity: it sounds like our own inability
to grasp the immensity of God's grace in being incarnated through an or-
dinary human being.
I won't start yelling about how people are "worshipping" Mary, etc.,
since folks have told me otherwise about that, but I do think we
lose part of the wonder of God's Incarnation in Christ when we make
his parents out to be sinless, sexless, deathless, otherworldly beings.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
More to the point, how long are atheists going to be insulted
by the disgraceful addition of religious blah-blah to our
money and out pledge?
--
"What's big, noisy and has an IQ of 8?" | 0 | alt.atheism |
Luke 16 talks about the rich man and Lazarus. Matthew 25 talks about
the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Revelations
20 and 21 reference this fire as the place where unbelievers are
thrown. Matthew 18 talks about being thrown into the eternal fire and
the fire of hell. It seems quite clear that there is this place where
a fire burns forever. From the Revelations passages it is clear that
the devil and his angels will be tormented there forever. From the
Matthew 25 passage it doesn't seem abundantly clear whether the
punishment of unbelievers is everlasting in the sense of final or
in the sense of continual.
From Dale's question, I come away with the suggestion that hell,
if it were short, might be an acceptable alternative to living
forever with the Source of Life, Peace and Joy i.e. the
unbeliever ceases to exist. Whereas, if punishment goes on
continually, then one should have a greater motivation to avoid it.
It definately seems to me that hell is something we want to avoid
regardless of its exact nature.
There seem to be two main questions in Dale's thought:
What is God's main plan on earth?
Why is continual punishment a necessary part of hell as opposed
to simply destroying completely those who refuse God?
I believe that God's main plan is to have a genuine relationship
with people.
The nature of hell and the reasons for its nature seem a lot more
difficult to ascertain. It does seem clear that hell is something
to avoid. At a minimum, hell is the state one is in when one has
nothing to do with God.
In the Bible, I am not aware of any discussion about the specifics of
hell beyond the general of hot, unpleasant and torment. For instance,
it is not discussed how (if at all) the rich man can
continually stay in the fire and still feel discomfort or pain or
whether there is some point at which the pain sensing ability is
burned up. If you can forgive the graphicalness, if you throw a
physical body into a fire, assuming the person starts out alive,
at some fairly quick point, the nerves are destroyed and pain is
no longer sensed. It is not stated what occurs when at the judgement,
the unbelievers, (who are already physically dead) are cast into hell
i.e. they no longer have a physical body so they can't feel physical
pain. What could be sensed continually is that those in hell are
to be forever without God.
The Lazarus/rich man parable is told with the idea of having the listener
think in physical terms in order to get the point that some people
won't listen to God even after he rises from the dead. The point of
the parable is to reach the hard-hearted here who are not listening
to the fact of the resurrection nor the Gospel about Jesus Christ.
It seems reasonable to also draw from the parable that hell is
not even remotely pleasant. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
If you were to start your own religion, this would be fine. But there
is no scriptural basis for your statement, in fact it really gets to
the heart of the problem. You think you know more than scripture.
Your faith is driven by feel goodism and not by the Word of God. Just
because they are nice people doesn't make it right. You can start all
the churches you want and it won't change the fact that it is wrong.
That is not to imply that gays don't deserve the same love and
forgiveness that anyone else does. But to call their behavior right
just because they are nice people is baseless, and it offers Satan a
perfect place to work because there is no check on what he is doing. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[Interchange on Hoban deleted]
Only those you haven't actually read? Sorry, but the irony remains.
So although you don't agree with the fatwa, and apparently don't think
Rushdie should be killed for his book, yet you think he is not due
sympathy for being being under this threat. Furthermore you base this
reaction solely on the fact that he wrote about a particular
well-known story which -- if true -- might reflect poorly on the
absolute truth of your religion. Yet, this opinion is formed without
recourse to actually looking to see how the story is used in context,
accepting at face value the widespread propaganda on just what this
book contains and what the author's motivations are. And then you
come forward and recommend another book which touches on (presumably
"plays with") religious/historical material because you find its
overall presentation neutral! | 0 | alt.atheism |
I would say only to the extent that the Roman Catholic Church
neither approves nor disapproves of capital punishment, as
confirmed in the recent catechism, though there are many RCs
who were rather surprised and upset that capital punishment was
not explicitly condemned.
For myself, as a Catholic, I see my own opposition to capital
punishment as much the same as my opposition to abortion - a
reverence for life. Here in the UK, the anti-abortion case is
often let down by the explicit link which those on the
political left make with anti-abortionists and
pro-executionists. There is a tendency to condemn people who
hold both views as hypocrites. I feel that if there were many
more anti-abortionists who were also vocal in their opposition
to capital punishment on a pro-life line, it would end this
kneejerk association of anti-abortion as a right-wing thing,
and get many to think seriously about the issue (there are
plenty who are pro-abortion equally for a kneejerk left-wing
reason).
I do not think your biblical quote can automatically be taken
as support for capital punishment. I take it that as a Roman
Catholic you are opposed to abortion, and would still onsider
it wrong, and something to be objected to even if legalised by
"authority". | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
TEST--
| 0 | alt.atheism |
[much stuff deleted]
excuse me, but what makes you think that just because he's atheist he
doesn't know anything about christianity???? in my (albeit limited)
experience atheists are often the ones who know _more_ about the
bible, having searched it from end to end for answers. i myself am a
christian, but that doesn't mean i consider myself more of an
authority on my religion -- i just have a different perspective on it
(more biased in favor, naturally :) ).
it seems quite obvious why he is subscribed, if i may infer from what
motives anyway -- at the very least (although i dislike this kind of
logic), one could hope that he will "see the light". critcism will, i
fear, not give him a very positive picture of christians....
with regard to this, i guess i don't really feel sentiments of this
order can be proven -- faith has a lot to do with it. this is why
those who search the bible from cover to cover for answers won't
necessarily get what they're looking for. of course that doesn't help
anyone who doesn't already have faith -- what a big catch 22. i
discovered this quite recently when i ran into an agnostic looking for an
explanation of my faith and i quickly discovered that i could give him
nothing more than my life story and a description of my nature. faith
is a very personal thing -- any attempt to "prove" the "facts" behind
it must be questioned.
likewise -- no matter what you believe.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
As requested, here are some addresses of sources of bizarre religious satire
and commentary... Plus some bijou book reviewettes.
---
Loompanics Unlimited
PO Box 1197
Port Townsend, WA 98368. USA.
Publishers of one of the most infamous mail-order book catalogue in the
world. Anarchism, Discordianism, Libertarianism, cryogenics, money-making
(legal and illegal), privacy and security, self-defense, and all kinds of
other stuff that keeps Christians awake at nights.
---
The Church of the SubGenius
PO Box 140306
Dallas, TX 75214. USA.
The original end times church for post-human mutants; a high temple for
scoffers, mockers and blasphemers. Be one of the few to board the X-ist
saucers in 1998 and escape Space God JHVH-1's stark fist of removal. J.R.
"Bob" Dobbs, God of Sales, is waiting to take your money and ordain you.
Magazines, sick audio cassettes, and assorted offensive cynisacreligious
material. Periodic lists of addresses of Pink religious cults and contact
points for the world wierdo network.
Expect a slow response to mail. Only conspiracies are well-organized. You
will eventually get what you pay for if you give them some slack.
---
Counter Productions
PO Box 556
London SE5 0RL
UK
A UK source of obscure books. A wide-ranging selection; Surrealism,
Anarchism, SubGenius, Discordianism, Robert Anton Wilson, Lovecraftian
horror, Cyberpunk, Forteana, political and social commentary, Wilhelm Reich,
Orgone tech, obscure rock music, SF, and so on. Send an SAE (and maybe a
bribe, they need your money) and ask for a catalogue. Tell them mathew sent
you. I've ordered from these folks three or four times now, and they're
about as fast and efficient as you can expect from this sort of operation.
---
Forbidden Planet
Various sites in the UK; in particular, along London's New Oxford Street, just
down the road from Tottenham Court Road tube station.
Mass market oddness. SubGenius, Robert Anton Wilson, Loompanics, and of
course huge quantities of SF. Not a terribly good selection, but they're in
the high street.
---
REVIEWETTE: "Loompanics' Greatest Hits"
ISBN 1-55950-031-X (Loompanics)
A selection of articles picked from the books in Loompanics' catalogue.
Subjects include:
* Christian Dispensationalism -- how right-wing Christians encouraged
the Cold War
* Satanic Child Abuse myths
* Religion and censorship
Plus lots of anarchist and libertarian stuff, situationism, computers and
privacy, and so on. Guaranteed to contain at least one article that'll
offend you -- like, for example, the interview with Bradley R. Smith, the
Holocaust Revisionist. A good sampling of stuff in a coffee table book. (Of
course, whether you want to leave this sort of stuff lying around on your
coffee table is another matter.)
QUOTE:
"The fundamentalists leap up and down in apoplectic rage and joy. Their
worst fantasies are vindicated, and therefore (or so they like to think),
their entire theology and socio-political agenda is too. Meanwhile, teen-age
misanthropes and social misfits murder their enemies, classmates, families,
friends, even complete strangers, all because they read one of Anton LaVey's
cooks or listened to one too many AC/DC records. The born-agains are ready
to burn again, and not just books this time."
---
REVIEWETTE: "The Book of the SubGenius", J.R. Dobbs & the SubGenius Foundation
ISBN 0-671-63810-6 (Simon & Schuster)
Described by 'Rolling Stone' as "A sick masterpiece for those who can still
laugh at the fact that nothing is funny anymore." The official Bible of the
SubGenius Church, containing the sacred teachings of J.R. "Bob" Dobbs.
Instant answers to everything; causes catalytic brain cell loss in seconds;
the secret of total slack; how to relax in the safety of your delusions and
pull the wool over your own eyes; nuclear doom and other things to laugh at.
QUOTE:
"He has been known to answer questions concerning universal truths with
screams. With suggestive silence. By peeing down his pants leg. His most
famous sermon was of cosmic simplicity: "Bob" standing on the stage with his
hands in his pockets, smoking, looking around and saying nothing. Heated
arguments still rage among the monks, often erupting into fatal duels, as
towhether the Master consulted his wristwatch during this divine period of
Grace."
--
REVIEWETTE: "High Weirdness by Mail", Rev. Ivan Stang
ISBN 0-671-64260-X (Simon & Schuster)
An encyclopedia of wierd organizations you can contact by mail. Space
Jesuses, Christian vs Christian, UFO contactees, New Age saps, Creationists,
Flat Earthers, White Supremacist churches, plus (yawn) CSICOP, Sceptical
Enquirer and stuff like that. Not just a list of addresses, though, as each
kook group is ruthlessly mocked and ridiculed with sarcastic glee. If you
like alt.atheism's flame wars, this is the book for you. Made me laugh until
my stomach ached. Revised edition due some time in the next year or two.
SAMPLE ENTRY:
Entertaining Demons Unawares
Southwest Radio Church
PO Box 1144
Oklahoma City, OK 73101
"Your Watchman on the Wall." Another flagellating, genuflecting
fundamentalist outfit. Their booklet "Entertaining Demons Unawares"
exposes the Star Wars / E.T. / Dungeons & Dragons / Saturday morning
cartoon / Satanic connection in horrifying detail. Left out Smurfs,
though! I especially liked the bit about Wonder Woman's Antichrist origins.
Keep in mind that once you send for anything from these people, you'll be
on their mailing list for life.
---
REVIEWETTE: "The Abolition of Work", Bob Black
ISBN 0-915179-41-5 (Loompanics)
A selection of Bob Black's painfully witty and intelligent anarchist tracts
collected into book form. If I were this good I'd be insufferable.(*)
Probably the only thought-provoking political book that's fun to read.
QUOTE:
"Babble about 'The wages of sin' serves to cover up 'the sin of wages'. We
want rights, not rites -- sex, not sects. Only Eros and Eris belong in our
pantheon. Surely the Nazarene necrophile has had his revenge by now.
Remember, pain is just God's way of hurting you."
---
REVIEWETTE: "Principia Discordia", Malaclypse the Younger
ISBN 1-55950-040-9 (Loompanics)
The infamous Discordian Bible, reprinted in its entirety and then some. Yes,
you could FTP the online copy, but this one has all the pictures. Explains
absolutely everything, including the Law of Fives, how to start a Discordian
Cabal, and instructions for preaching Discordianism to Christians.
QUOTE:
"A Discordian is Required during his early Illumination to Go Off Alone &
Partake Joyously of a Hot Dog on a Friday; this Devotive Caremony to
Remonstrate against the popular Paganisms of the Day: of Catholic Christendom
(no meat on Friday), of Judaism (no meat of Pork), of Hindic Peoples (no meat
of Beef), of Buddhists (no meat of animal), and of Discordians (no Hot Dog
Buns)."
---
REVIEWETTE: "Natural Law, or Don't Put a Rubber on Your Willy",
Robert Anton Wilson
ISBN 0-915179-61-X (Loompanics)
The author of the Illuminatus trilogy rails against natural law, natural
morality, objective reality, and other pervasive myths. Witty and
thought-provoking work from someone who actually seems to know an argument
from a hole in the ground.
QUOTE:
"Since theological propositions are scientifically meaningless, those of us
of pragmatic disposition simply won't buy such dubious merchandise. [...]
Maybe -- remotely -- there might be something in such promotions, as there
might be something in the talking dogs and the stocks in Arabian tapioca
mines that W.C. Fields once sold in his comedies, but we suspect that we
recognize a con game in operation. At least, we want to hear the dog talk or
see the tapioca ore before we buy into such deals."
---
All of the books mentioned above should be available from Counter Productions
in the UK, or directly from the SubGenius Foundation or Loompanics Unlimited.
mathew
[ (*) What do you mean I am anyway? ] | 0 | alt.atheism |
: But how do we know that you're representing the REAL Christians?
: ;-)
: Bill, you're an asshole. Get lost.
Maddi,
I see that you still can't grasp the obvious, is it because your are devious
by nature, or can you only find fault with an argument by
misrepresenting it?
I plainly said that I was stating the Christian position as I
understand it, I did not say whether I agree with it since my point
was that the only flaws in that position are those atheists invent.
I have never claimed to be an expert on anything and especially
Christianity, but I have made it an object of pretty intense study
over the years, so I feel qualified to discuss what its general
propositions are.
What offends you is that I have exposed the distortions and
misrepresentations of Christianity you contrive and then rail against,
(which seems more like the classical strawman dodge than what I said)
This leaves you with nothing but to attack but me. As usual, you
avoid the larger issues by picking away at the insignificant stuff, why not
find one particular thing in my post that we can discuss, or can you
even tell me what the issues are? | 0 | alt.atheism |
The biblical arguments against homosexuality are weak at best, yet
Christ is quite clear about our obligations to the poor. How as
Christians can we demand celibacy from homosexuals when we walk
by homeless people and ignore the pleas for help?
Christ is quite clear on our obligations to the poor.
Thought for the day:
MAT 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but
considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to
thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam
is in thine own eye? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[Anyway, your argument seems to be saying, "If _I_ were
God, I certainly wouldn't do things that way; therefore, God doesn't do
things that way."] | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Whoa, dude I don't see the jump you made.
She was blessed, I'll give you that much.
What do you mean, she was placed "beyond"
the sanctification of normal humanity. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
After reading this story about St. Maria Goretti (posted two weeks
ago), I am a bit confused. While it is clear that her daily
life is one of probity and sanctity, I am afraid I don't quite
understand the final episode of her life. I am reading it
correctly, she (and the Church apparently) felt that being raped
was a sin on _her_ part, one so perfidious that she would rather
die than commit it. If this is the case I'm afraid that I
disagree rather strongly.
Can anyone out there explain this one to me?
Yours in Christ, | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
"broken"
Again, as the original poster of the article, I apologize if it
implied that atheism = brokenness. Such was not my intent and
I apologize for any hurt feelings in the process. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I believe that there's a 10 year period from time of death until
a person can be on a commemorative stamp. It was broken once
for Lyndon Johnson (I think) but other than that it has held for
awhile. Of course, we can still start now -- the Elvis stamp
was petitioned for ages and things really moved once it got
past the 10 year anniversary of his death.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
1) They are religious parodies, NOT atheistic paradies.
2) Please substantiate that they are parodies, and are outrageous.
Specifically, why is the IUP any more outrageous than many
religions?
---
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 |
I don't know either. Truth be known, so little is known of angels
to even guess. All we really know is that angels ALWAYS speak in
the nativ tongue of the person they're talking to, so perhaps they
don't have ANY language of their own.
Well, we are told to test the spirits. While you could do this
scripturally, to see if someones claims are backed by the bible,
I see nothing wrong with making sure that that guy Lazarus really
was dead and now he's alive.
It's a common fallacy you commit. The non-falsifiability trick. How
can I prove it when not all the evidence may be seen? Answer: I
can't. The fallacy is in assuming that it is up to me to prove
anything.
When I say it has never been proven, I'm talking about the ones
making the claims, not the skeptics, who are doing the proving.
The burden of proof rest with the claimant. Unfortunately,
(pontification warning) our legal system seems to be headed in
the dangerous realm of making people prove their innocence (end
pontification).
But truthfully, Corinthians was so poorly written (or maybe just
so poorly translated into English) that much remains unknown
about just what Paul really intended (despite claims of hard
proof one way or another). Some will see his writings in
1 cor 12-14 as saying don't do this don't do this and using
sarcasm, metaphor, etc. while yet others take what he says literally
sarcasms and metaphors notwithstanding. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
It troubles me that there have been so many posts recently trying to support
the doctrine of Original Sin. This is primarily a Catholic doctrine, with no
other purpose than to defend the idea of infant baptism. Even among, its
supporters, however, people will stop short of saying that unbaptised infants
will go to hell.
It's very easy for just about anyone to come up with a partial list of
scripture to support any sort of wrong doctrine. However, if we have the
heart to persevere in our beliefs to make sure that they are biblically
based, then we can come to an understanding of the truth. Let's now take a
more complete look at scripture.
Colossians 2:11-12 "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of
the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by Christ, having been
buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the
power of God, who raised him from the dead."
In baptism, we are raised to a new life in Christ (Romans 6:4) through a
personal faith in the power of God. Our parent's faith cannot do this. Do
infants have faith? Let's look at what the Bible has to say about it.
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.
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.
Ezekiel 18:31-32 "Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committted,
and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel?
For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord.
Repent and live!"
The way to please God is to repent and get a new heart and spirit. Kids
cannot do this. Acts 2:38-39 says that when we repent and are baptized, we
will then receive a new spirit, the Holy Spirit. Then we shall live.
Now then that we have a little more background as to why original sin is
not Biblical, let's look at some of the scriptures used to support it.
Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and
death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all
sinned--"
Sin and death entered the world when the first man sinned. Death came to
each man because each man sinned. Note that it's good to read through all
of Romans 5:12-21. Some of the verses are easier to misunderstand than
others, but if we read them in context we will see that they are all
saying basically the same thing. Let's look at one such.
Romans 5:19 "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many
were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many
will be made righteous."
Through the disobedience of each individual, each was made a sinner. In
the same way, through the obedience of Jesus, each will be made righteous.
We must remember when reading through this passage that death came to each
man only because each man sinned, not because of guilt from Adam.
Otherwise the Bible would contradict itself. I encourage you to read
through this whole passage on your own, looking at it from this point of
view to see if it doesn't all fit together.
Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother
conceived me."
This whole Psalm is a wonderful example of how we should humble ourselves
before God in repentance for sinning. David himself was a man after God's
own heart and wrote the Psalm after committing adultry with Bathsheba and
murdering her husband. All that David is saying here is that he can't
remember a time when he wasn't sinful. He is humbling himself before God
by confessing his sinfulness. His saying that he was sinful at birth is
a hyperbole. The Bible, being inspired by God, isn't limited to a literal
interpetation, but also uses figures of speech as did Jesus (John 16:25).
For another example of hyperbole, see Luke 14:26.
Now then, even though people see that baptism requires faith and that
original sin is not Biblical, they will still argue that infant baptism is
necessary because children sin by being selfish - not sharing toys with
other children, by being mean - hitting others and fighting, etc.
Certainly we have observed children doing wrong things, but my gut feeling
is always that they don't know any better. Let's look to see if the Bible
agrees with my gut feelings.
Isaiah 7:14-15 "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The
virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him
Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the
wrong and choose the right."
Now just about any church leader will tell you that this is a prophecy
about Jesus. If they don't, then point them to Matthew 1:23 and find a new
leader. Jesus certainly couldn't have had less knowledge than normal human
babies. Yet this passage says that he had to mature to a certain extent
before he would know the difference between right and wrong. We see that
he did grow and become wiser in Luke 2:40 and 2:52. The implication is
that Jesus did wrong things as a child before he knew to choose right over
wrong. Since we know that Jesus was perfect -- without sin, we have rather
conclusive proof that babies cannot sin because they don't know to choose
the right instead of the wrong.
Jesus himself was baptized, albeit with John's baptism, not as an infant,
but as a thirty-year-old man (Luke 3:21-23) and started his ministry as
soon as he was baptized (Luke 3:23). Immediately afterwards, he was
tempted by the devil (Luke 4:1-13; Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:12-13).
Thank you for your attention.
Moderator - this should finish up the subject for a while. Perhaps you
would like to make a FAQ out of this response so that you can repost it
from time to time when the topic comes up. Feel free to rearrange the
contents if you would like to, but please send me a copy of the final FAQ.
Sincerely,
Aaron Cardenas
aaronc@athena.mit.edu | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Society is the collection of individuals which will fall under self-defined
rules. In terms of UN decisions all the sets of peoples who are represented
at the UN are considered part of that society. If we then look at US federal
laws provided by representatives of purely US citizens then the society for
that case would be the citizens of the US and so on.
"Acceptable" are those behaviours which are either legislated for the
society by representatives of that society or those behaviours which are
non-verbally and, in effect, non-consciously, such as picking your nose on
the Oprah Winfrey show, no-one does it, but there is no explicit law against
doing it. In many cases there are is no definition of whether or not a
behaviour is "acceptable", but one can deduce these behaviours by
observation.
In an increasingly litigation mad society, this trap is becoming exceedingly
difficult to avoid. With the infusion and strengthening of ethnic cultures
in American (and Australian, to bring in my local perspective) culture the
boundaries of acceptable behaviour are ever widening and legislation may
eventually become the definition of moral behaviour. For instance, some
cultures' dominant religion call for live sacrifice of domesticated animals.
Most fundamental christians would find this practice abhorrent. However, is
it moral, according to the multicultural american society? This kind of
problem may only be definable by legislation.
Obviously within any society there will be differences in opinion in what is
acceptable behaviour or not, and much of this will be due to different
environmental circumstances rather than merely different opinions.
One thing is for sure, there is no universal moral code which will suit all
cultures in all situations. There may, however, be some globally accepted
mores which can be agreed upon and instantiated as a globally enforcable
concept. The majority of mores will not be common until all peoples upon
this earth are living in a similar environment (if that ever happens). | 0 | alt.atheism |
Quotes from Our Daily Bread
Our Daily Bread is a devotional help for spiritual growth. One can spend some
ten to fifteen minutes at most reading the daily portion of scriptures and a
related short article that brings the scriptures alive in applying in today's
society. It ends with a saying at the bottom. This article is a collection
of these sayings.
Our Daily Bread is one of the many ministries/services provided by Resources for
Biblical Communication. It is FREE. To receive the literature, just write and
ask for it. The contact addresses are listed below. Write to Radio Bible Class.
Copyright 1989 Radio Bible Class, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49555-0001
Canada: Box 1622, Windsor, Ontario N9A 6Z7
Australia: Box 365, Ryde, 2112 NSW
Europe: Box 1, Carnforth, Lancs., England LA5 9ES
Africa: Box 1652, Manzini, Swaziland
Africa: PMB 2010, Jos, Nigeria
Philippines: Box 288, Greenhills, 1502 Metro Manila
Sayings with related scriptures in December/January/February 89-90 issue of Our Daily Bread
When God saves us, all our sins are forgiven, forgotten, forever!
Romans 5:1-11
Life with Christ is difficult; without Him it's hopeless.
Ecclesiastes 4:1-6
It's the sin we cover up that eventually brings us down.
Psalm 19:7-14
You're not ready to live until you're ready to die.
Acts 21:1-14
Trusting in God's power prevents panic.
Isaiah 40:6-17
The Bible is a record of man's compete ruin in sin and God's compte remedy in Christ. - Barnhouse
2 Timothy 3:10-17
Jesus can change the foulest sinners into the finest saints.
Ephesians 2:1-10
They witness best who witness with their lives.
Acts 4:23-33
God came to dwell with man that man might dwell with God.
Philippians 2:5-11
A hurting person needs a helping hand, not an accusing finger.
Psalm 109:1,2, 14-31
What you decide about Jesus determines your destiny.
John 20:24-29
We must go to sinners if we expect sinners to come to the Savior.
Romans 1:8-15
Knowing that God sees us brings both conviction and cofidence.
Job 34:21-28
God's chastening is not cruel but corrective.
Hebrews 12:4-17
When you think of all that's good, give thanks to God.
Psalm 44:1-8
Man's greatest goal: give glory to God.
1 Peter 5:5-7
God loves every one of us as if there were but one of us to love.
Romans 8:31-39
Only the bread of life can satisfy man's spiritual hunger.
John 6:28-41
Conscience can be our compass if the word of God is our chart.
1 Timothy 4:1-5
Salvation is free, but you must receive it.
Isaiah 55:1-5
If we're not as spiritual as we could be, we're not as spiritual as we should be.
2 Timonty 1:1-7
Circumstances do not make a man, they reveal what he's made of.
Matthew 1:18-25
Make room for Jesus in your heart, and he will make room for you in heaven.
Matthew 2:1-18
Heaven's choir came down to sing when heaven's king came down to save.
Luke 2:1-20
God's highest gift awakens man's deepest gratitude.
Luke 2:21-38
Serving the Lord is an investment that pays eternal dividends.
1 Peter 4:12-19
Time misspent is not lived but lost.
Psalm 39:4-13
The measure of our love is the measure of our sacrifice.
1 Peter 4:7-11
God requires faithfulness; God rewards with fruitfulness.
Luke 19:11-27
How you spend time determines how you spend eternity.
Psalm 90:1-12
If you aim for nothing, you're sure to hit it.
Daniel 1:1-8
The Christian's future is as bright as the promises of God.
Psalm 23
Christ as Savior brings us peace with God; Christ as Lord brings the peace of God.
Colossians 1:13-20
They who only sample the word of God never acquire much of a tast for it.
Psalm 119:97-104
Unless one drinks now of the "water of life", he will thirst forever!
Revelation 22:12-17
A hyprocrite is a person who is not himself on Sunday.
Daniel 6:1-10
Be life long or short, its completeness depends on what it is lived for.
Ecclesiates 9:1-12
God loves you and me - let's love each other.
2 Corinthians 13
It's always too soon to quit.
Genesis 37:12-28
The character we build in this world we carry into the next.
Matthew 7:24-29
God sends trials not to impair us but to improves us.
2 Corinthians 4:8-18
Marriage is either a holy wedlock or an unholy deadlock.
2 Corinthians 5:11-18
We are adopted through God's grace to be adapted to God's use.
Galatians 6:1-10
Our children are watching: what we are speak louder than what we say.
Proverbs 31:10-31
Union with Christ is the basis for unity among believers.
Psalm 133
Keep out of your life all that would crowd Christ out of your heart.
Romans 6:1-14
Don't try to bear tomorrow's burdens with today's grace.
Matthew 6:25-34
Pray as if everything depends on God; work as if everything depends on you.
2 Kings 20:1-7
Some convictions are nothing more than prejudices.
Galatians 3:26-29
Unless you velieve, you will not understand. - Augustine
Hebrews 11:1-6
Christ is the only way to heaven; all other paths are detours to doom.
2 Corinthians 4:1-7
Many Christians are doing nothing, but no Christians have nothing to do!
John 4:31-38
We bury the seed; God brings the harvest.
Isaiah 55:8-13
The texture of eternity is woven on the looms of time.
Ecclesiastes 7:1-6
It's not just what we know about God but how we use what we know.
1 Corinthians 8
The best way to avoid lying is to do nothing that needs to be concealed.
Acts 5:1-11
God transforms trials into blessing by surrounding them with His love and grace.
2 Chronicles 20:1-4, 20-30
Confessing your sins is no substitute for forsaking them.
Psalm 51:1-10
If you shoot arrows of envy at others, you would yourself.
Philippians 1:12-18
He who has no vision of eternity doesn't know the value of time.
Ephesians 5:8-17
He who abandons himself to God will never be abandoned by God.
Psalm 123
No danger can come so near the Christian that God is not nearer.
Psalm 121
Many a man lays down his life trying to lay up a fortune.
Matthew 6:19-24
God's grace is infinite love expressing itself through infinite goodness.
Philippians 1:1-11
One way to do great things for Christ is to do little things for others.
Romans 16:1-16
You rob yourself of being you when you try to do what others are meant to do.
Romans 12:1-8
Don't pretend to be what you don't intend to be.
Matthew 23:1-15
Meeting God in our trials is better than getting out of them.
Psalm 42
If sinners are to escape God's judgement, God's people must point the way.
Matthew 24:15-27
It's not a sin to get angry when you get angry at sin.
John 2:13-22
We prepare for the darkness by learning to pray in the light.
1 Samuel 2:1-10
Christianity is not a way of doing certain things but a certain way of doing all things.
Ephesians 5:1-7
Better to know the truth and beware than to believe a lie and not care.
Jeremiah 28
A true servant does not live to himself, for himself, or by himself.
Genesis 13
Those who do the most earthly good are those who are heavely mined.
Philippians 1:19-26
A good marriage requires a determination to be married for good.
Genesis 2:18-24
If you're looking for something to give your life to, look to the one who gave His life for you.
1 Corinthians 3:1-11
When we have nothing left but God, we discover that God is enough.
Psalm 46
God is with us inthe darkness as surely as He is with us in the light.
1 Peter 1:1-9
Some people spend most of their life at the complaint counter.
1 Thessalonians 5:12-22
Of all creation, only man can say "yes" or "no" to God.
Genesis 9:8-17
The most rewarding end in life is to know the life that never ends.
Ecclesiates 8:10-15
One of the marks of a well-fed soul is a well read Bible.
Joshua1:1-9
Because God gives us all we need, we should give to those in need.
Proverbs 14:20-31
It's never too early to receive Christ, but at any moment it could be too late.
Luke 16:19-31
God's grace keeps pace with whatever we face.
2 Corinthians 12:7-10
Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success.
1 Corinthians 12:12-27
When we give God our burdens, He gives us a song.
Psalm 57
Do the thing you fear, and the death of fear is certain. - Emerson
1 Corinthians 2:1-8 | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Yes.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No, look again. While you never *said* it, the implication is pretty clear.
I'm sorry, but I can only respond to your words, not your true meaning. Usenet
is a slippery medium.
[deleted wrt the burden of proof]
Look, I'm not supporting *any* dogmatic position. I'd be a fool to say that
in the large group of people that are atheists, no people exist who wish to
proselytize in the same fashion as religion. How many hard atheists do you
see posting here, anyway? Maybe I'mm just not looking hard enough...
I never meant to do so, although I understand where you might get that idea.
I was merely using the 'bible' example as an allegory to illustrate my
point.
Evidence for what? Who? I think I may have lost this thread...
[why theists are arrogant deleted]
Guilty as charged. What I *meant* to say was, the theists who *are* arrogant
are this way because they say ... Other than that, I thought my meaning
was clear enough. Any position that claims itself as superior to another with
no supporting evidence is arrogant. Thanks for your apology, btw.
Explained above. | 0 | alt.atheism |
I have enrolled in "The History of Christianity" at a college here in
St. Louis. The teacher of the class is what I consider to be
closed-minded and bigotted on the subject of what the definition of
Christianity is. His definition is tied directly to that of the
Trinity and the Catholic church's definition of it and belief in
Jesus Christ is not sufficient to call one's self a Christian.
While his saying it doesn't make it so, I nevertheless feel insulted
(or am I just neurotic? :^) ). I would like to be able to respond to
him with some sense of literacy while maintaining an amiable
student-teacher relationship.
So, is there common definition of what Christianity is? As the
previous discussion of the Trinity did not lend itself to an exchange
of flames, I am hopeful that this will also not produce major
flames.
Regards,
--
Larry Autry
Silicon Graphics, St. Louis
autry@sgi.com
[Often we get into discussions about who is Christian. Unfortunately
there are a number of possible definitions. Starting from the
broadest, commonly used definitions are:
a historical definition
people who accept Christ as Lord and savior
a broad doctrinal definition
narrow doctrinal definitions
1) By a historical definition I mean the sort of definition a secular
historian would likely use. This would include any group that
developed out of the Christian church, and continues within the same
broad culture. E.g. some Unitarians would fail just about any
doctrinal test you could come up with. Yet it's clear that that group
developed from Christianity, and people from very different
backgrounds (e.g. Hindus) would likely see them as part of
Christianity. This is not a definition most Christians like, but it's
relevant in some political and ethnic contexts.
2) Accepting Christ as Lord and savior is a test used by many
Christian groups for membership, e.g. the Southern Baptists and
Presbyterian Church (USA). I would qualify it by saying that what
most people have in mind is an exclusive commitment to Christ, so that
someone who accepted Christ as one of many gods would not fit. It's
an attempt to formulate a criterion that is religious but is not based
on technical doctrine. By this definition, groups such as Arians
would be viewed as heretical Christians, but still Christians. In the
modern context this would include Mormons, JW's, and "oneness
Pentecostals". They would be viewed as heretical Christians, but
still Christian. In practice I believe just about everyone who falls
into this category would accept the Apostle's Creed.
3) The next level is an attempt to give a broad doctrinal definition,
which includes all of the major strands of Christianity, but excludes
groups that are felt to be outside "historic Christianity." This is
of course a slippery enterprise, since Catholics could argue that
Protestants are outside historic Christianity, etc. But I think the
most commonly accepted definition would be based on something like the
Nicene Creed and the Formula of Chalcedon. The attempt is to
characterize doctrines that all major strands of Christianity agree
are key. Obviously this is to some extent a matter of judgement. A
Mormon will regard the LDS church as a major strand, and thus will not
want to include anything that contradicts their beliefs. But I think
this definition would have fairly broad acceptance.
4) Finally, some people use definitions that I would say are limited
to a specific Christian tradition. E.g. some evangelicals only
consider someone Christian if he has had an evangelical-style
conversion experience, and some I've even heard of groups that limit
it to their specific church.
I think you can find contexts where each of these definitions is used.
A lot is going to depend upon the purpose you're using it for. If
you're using it descriptively, e.g. in history or anthropology, you'll
probably use definition 1 or 2. If you're using it normatively, i.e.
to say what you believe the Christian message is, you'll probably use
a definition like 3 or even 4. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Probably not! The jesus freak's post is probably JSN104@PSUVM. Penn State
is just loaded to the hilt with bible bangers. I use to go there *vomit* and
it was the reason I left. They even had a group try to stop playing
rock music in the dining halls one year cuz they deemed it satanic. Kampus
Krusade for Khrist people run the damn place for the most part....except
the Liberal Arts departments...they are the safe havens.
-wdb | 0 | alt.atheism |
The entire business of a Bank is the management of risk. That's
what a Bank is for. That's what people who work for Banks do.
OK, but in that case why are you posting about it? What I
hear you saying is "I don't understand this stuff, but if Islam
says it's so, it's so".
| 0 | alt.atheism |
.
Of some relevance to the posts on this subject might be Deut.23:2, | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I find this remark to be awfully arrogant. I would venture to
say that there are many people who are Christians now, who at one
point in their lives had no intention of ever becoming a Christian.
I was certainly one such person. I am quite thankful that there
were Christians who were willing to continue to talk to me, despite
the appearance that it might have been a waste of their time and
mine. (I even married one of them.) | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Is anybody using David Rapier's Hebrew Quiz software? And can tell
me how to *space* when typing in the Hebrew? (space bar doesn't work,
for me anyway...) Email please; thanks.
Ken | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I'm sure all the religious types would get in a snit due
to Asimov's atheism.
Do we have any atheists on stamps now?
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Knowing Keith, I expect he'll bring the leather accessories.
Better oil it well. Leather cracks when it dries. | 0 | alt.atheism |
(Deletion)
Well, yes, but that belongs in the other group, there is a interpretation
found for everything. However, allowing any form of interpretation reduces
the information of the text so interprteted to zero.
By the way, I have checked the quote and I think the lines preceding those
quoted above are more interesting:
21:32 where mountains are set on earth in order to immobilize the earth.
21:33 where the skies (heavens?) are referred to as well supported.
the lines given above are 21:34 after my edition.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
The Apocryphal books that are in the Septuagint were part of the canon
used by the Greek-speaking churches from the inception of the church.
They were not added later (or much later). This is a common misconception.
The preference of the Hebrew canon over the Greek canon is a later
innovation. The church did not need to be guided to "add" the books
since they were part of the faith once received by the apostles and
passed to the Church.
Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)
-- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Welcome.
Hm. I get a little queasy around the phrase "aren't morally
responsible", perhaps because I've heard it misused so many times.
(I remember in college some folk trying to argue that a person who
was drunk was not morally responsible for his actions.) In general,
most folk can't control their dreams, but perhaps what you do all day
and think about has some impact on them, hm? And I'm not sure what
"actions" are in a dream. But I will note that Jesus does seem adamant
about the fact that our thought-life is at least as important as
our actions. Go lightly with this argument - we are all morally
responsible for *who we are* and dreams might well be an important
part of that.
I don't know a thing about Out Of Body Experiences. I've had dreams, some
fairly vivid ones; is an OOBE just a very vivid dream? I would argue that
extreme interest in this sort of phenomena is a tad risky; it is probably
much better to think about who Jesus is, and who we are in relation to that,
than to cultivate a strong interest in dreams. Unless you feel plagued by
dreams that are painful and out of control; then pray about it and/or get help.
What on Earth is your definition of "often"? I know exactly one case of
two people who had substantially the same dream at the same time, and
as they were brothers who had spent the day doing the same things I could
see why their dreams might be similiar. Anyway, the only "other plane" I
know of is the spiritual realm. I don't think *anyone's* dreams,
perhaps outside the occasional prophet's, represent actual actions on an
alternate plane. If they were real actions, or conscious thoughts, then
yes they would have direct moral significance.
in a different environment, then different moral laws apply" is my guess of
what you said.]
I don't see the slightest hint in Christian writings that ones "environment"
changes the way a person determines what is moral. For a Christian won't
it *always* come down to "what Jesus would have us do?"
Truth? I don't claim to be an expert in dreams. I'll note that the Bible
doesn't talk much about dreams outside of the realm of God using them to speak
to us, with the caveat that such messages are not always very clear, as it
warns somewhere in the OT. Given that, I would not give them a lot of
attention unless you feel your dreams are trying to tell you something. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The Catholic doctrine of predestination does not exclude free will in
any way. Since God knows everything, He therefore knows everything that
is going to happen to us. We have free will, and are able to change
what happens to us. However, since God knows everything, He knows all
the choices we will make "in advance" (God is not subject to time). Too
often arguments pit predestination against free will. We believe in
both. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[continuing with Dr. DeYoung's article-]
SURVEY OF NEW INTERPRETATIONS OF ARSENOKOITAI
D.S. Bailey
D.S. Bailey was perhaps the trailblazer of new assessments of the meaning
of arsenokoitai. He takes the term in I Cor 6:9 as denoting males who actively
engage in homosexual acts, in contrast to malakoi ("effeminate"), those who
engage passively in such acts.*4 However, he insists that Paul knew nothing
of "inversion as an inherited trait, or an inherent condition due to
psychological or glandular causes, and consequently regards all homosexual
practice as evidence of perversion" (38). Hence Bailey limits the term's
reference in Paul's works to acts alone and laments modern translations of the
term as "homosexuals." Bailey wants to distinguish between "the homosexual
*condition* (which is morally neutral) and homosexual *practices*" [italics in
source]. Paul is precise in his terminology and Moffatt's translation
"sodomites" best represents Paul's meaning in Bailey's judgment (39). Bailey
clearly denies that the homosexual condition was known by biblical writers.
J. Boswell
The most influential study of arsenokoitai among contemporary authors is
that of John Boswell.*5 Whereas the usual translation*6 of this term gives
it either explicitly or implicitly an active sense, Boswell gives it a passive
sense.
In an extended discussion of the term (341-53), he cites "linguistic
evidence and common sense" to support his conclusion that the word means "male
sexual agents, i.e. active male prostitutes." His argument is that the arseno-
part of the word is adjectival, not the object of the koitai which refers to
base sexual activity. Hence the term, according to Boswell, designates a male
sexual person or male prostitute. He acknowledges, however, that most
interpret the composite term as active, meaning "those who sleep with, make
their bed with, men." Boswell bases his interpretation on linguistics and the
historical setting. He argues that in some compounds, such as paidomathes
("child learner"), the paido- is the subject of manthano, and in others, such
as paidoporos ("through which a child passes"), the paido- is neither subject
nor object but simply a modifier without verbal significance. His point is
that each compound must be individually analyzed for its meaning. More
directly, he maintains that compounds with the Attic form arreno- employ it
objectively while those with the Hellenistic arseno- use it as an adjective
(343). Yet he admits exceptions to this distinction regarding arreno-.
Boswell next appeals to the Latin of the time, namely drauci or exoleti.
These were male prostitutes having men or women as their objects. The Greek
arsenokoitai is the equivalent of the Latin drauci; the corresponding passive
would be parakoitai ("one who lies beside"), Boswell affirms. He claims that
arsenokoitai was the "most explicit word available to Paul for a male
prostitute," since by Paul's time the Attic words pornos ("fornicator") and
porneuon ("one committing fornication"), found also in the LXX, had been
adopted "to refer to men who resorted to female prostitutes or simply committed
fornication."*7
In the absence of the term from pagan writers such as Herodotus, Plato,
Aristotle, and Plutarch, and from the Jewish writers Philo and Josephus,
Boswell finds even more convincing evidence for his affirmation that
arsenokoitai "did not connote 'homosexual' or even 'sodomite' in the time of
Paul" (346).*8 He also demonstrates its absence in Pseudo-Lucian, Sextus
Empiricus, and Libanius. He subsequently finds it lacking in "all discussions
of homosexual relation" (346)*9 among Christian sources in Greek, including
the Didache, Tatian, Justin Martyr, Eusebius,*10 Clement of Alexandria,
Gregory of Nyssa, and John Chrysostom. Chrysostom is singled out for his
omission as "final proof" that the word could not mean homosexuality.*11
Boswell next appeals to the omission of the texts of I Cor and I Tim from
discussions of homosexuality among Latin church fathers (348).*12 Cited are
Tertullian, Arnobius, Lactantius, and Augustine. The last named uses
"circumlocutions." Other Latin writers include Ausonius, Cyprian, and Minucius
Felix. The term is also lacking in state and in church legislation. By the
sixth century the term became confused and was applied to a variety of sexual
activities from child molesting to anal intercourse between a husband and wife
(353).
Having surveyed the sources, Boswell concludes,
There is no reason to believe that either arsenokoitai or malakoi connoted
homosexuality in the time of Paul or for centuries thereafter, and every
reason
to suppose that, whatever they came to mean, they were not determinative of
Christian opinion on the morality of homosexual acts (353).
It is clear throughout that Boswell defines arsenokoitai to refer to male
prostitutes. He even goes so far as to conclude that Paul would probably not
disapprove of "gay inclination," "gay relationships," "enduring love between
persons of the same gender," or "same-sex eroticism" (112, 166-17).
________________________________________________________
4. D.S. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. (London:
1975) 38.
5. J. Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (Chicago:
1980).
6. Several tranlation of I Tim 1:10 are: KJV, "them that defile themselves
with mankind"; ASV, "Abusers of themselves with men"; NASB, "homosexuals";
RSV, NKJV, NRSV, "sodomites"; NEB, NIV, "perverts"; GNB, "sexual perverts"; In
I COr 6:9 these occur: KJV, "abusers of themselves with mankind"; ASV,
"Abusers of themselves with men"; NASB, RSV, "homosexuals"; NKJV, "sodomites";
NEB, "homosexual persversion." The RSV and NEB derive their translation from
two Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai which GBN has as "homosexual
perverts." NRSV has the two words as "male prostitutes" in the text, and
"sodomites" in the footnote. The active idea predominates among the
commentators as well; it is the primary assumption.
7. Boswell, Christianity 344. Yet this was no a word "available to Paul for a
male prostitute," for it does not occur at all in any literature prior to Paul
(as a serach in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae using IBYCUC confirms). If Paul
coined the term, it would have no prior history, and all such discussion about
its lack of usage in contemporary non-Christian and Christian literature is
meaningless.
8. Again this would be expected if Paul coined the word.
9. The key phrase here apparently is "discussoin," for Boswell admits later
(350 n.42) that it occurs in quotes of Paul but there is no discussion in the
context. Hence the implication is that we cannot tell what these writer
(Polycarp "To the Philippian 5:3"; Theophilus "Ad Autolycum 1.2, 2.14";Nilus
"Epistularum libri quattuor 2.282"; Cyril of Alexandria "Homiliae diversae
14"; "Sybilline Oravle 2.13") meant. Yet Polycarp, who was a disiple of Hohn
the Apostle and died about A.D. 155, argues in the context that young men
should be pure. He uses only the three terms pornoi, malakoi, and arsenokoitai
from Paul's list. This at least makes Boswell's use of "all" subjective.
Apparently Clement of Alexandria "Paedogogus 3.11"; Sromata 3.18"; also belong
here.
10.. Yet Eusebius uses it in "Demonstraionis evangelicae 1."
11. Either Boswell is misrepresenting the facts about Chrysostom's use of
arsenokoitai and its form (about 20) in the vice lists of I Cor 6 or I Tim 1,
or he is begging the question by denying that the word can mean homosexual when
Chrysostom uses it. Yet the meaning of arsenokoitai is the goal of his and our
study, whether in the lists or other discussions. Boswell later admits (351)
that Chrysostom uses the almost identicl form arsenokoitos in his commentary on
I Cor. Although Boswell suggests that the passage is strange, it may be that
Paul is seeking to make a refinement in arsenokoitai.
12. Apparently Jerome is a significant omission here, since he renders
arsenokoitai as "masculorum concubitores," corresponding "almost exactly to the
Greek" (348 n.36).
footnotes:
_______________________
5. D.S. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. (London:
1975) 38.
6. J. Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (Chicago:
1980).
Several tranlation of I Tim 1:10 are: KJV, "them that defile themselves
with mankind"; ASV, "Abusers of themselves with men"; NASB, "homosexuals";
RSV, NKJV, NRSV, "sodomites"; NEB, NIV, "perverts"; GNB, "sexual perverts"; In
I COr 6:9 these occur: KJV, "abusers of themselves with mankind"; ASV,
"Abusers of themselves with men"; NASB, RSV, "homosexuals"; NKJV, "sodomites";
NEB, "homosexual persversion." The RSV and NEB derive their translation from
two Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai which GBN has as "homosexual
perverts." NRSV has the two words as "male prostitutes" in the text, and
"sodomites" in the footnote. The active idea predominates among the
commentators as well; it is the primary assumption.
7. Boswell, Christianity 344. Yet this was no a word "available to Paul for
a male prostitute," for it does not occur at all in any literature prior to
Paul (as a serach in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae using IBYCUC confirms). If
Paul coined the term, it would have no prior history, and all such discussion
about its lack of usage in contemporary non-Christian and Christian literature
is meaningless.
8. Again this would be expected if Paul coined the word.
9. The key phrase here apparently is "discussoin," for Boswell admits later
(350 n.42) that it occurs in quotes of Paul but there is no discussion in the
context. Hence the implication is that we cannot tell what these writer
(Polycarp "To the Philippian 5:3"; Theophilus "Ad Autolycum 1.2, 2.14";Nilus
"Epistularum libri quattuor 2.282"; Cyril of Alexandria "Homiliae diversae
14"; "Sybilline Oravle 2.13") meant. Yet Polycarp, who was a disiple of Hohn
the Apostle and died about A.D. 155, argues in the context that young men
should be pure. He uses only the three terms pornoi, malakoi, and arsenokoitai
from Paul's list. This at least makes Boswell's use of "all" subjective.
Apparently Clement of Alexandria "Paedogogus 3.11"; Sromata 3.18"; also belong
here. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[By default, followups to 3 newsgroups.]
A short excerpt:
[...] | 0 | alt.atheism |
Hello everyone. I just wanted to let everyone know that I have just
been selected as part of the Reduction In Force here at Amdahl. For all
that are currently in a dialog with me, or are waiting letters from me,
I have saved your letters on floppy and will continue when I get back
on the net from another account in the future.
For those who are on the GEnie network, my email address there is:
T.ROSE1
God Bless and Goodbye until then. If you want to continue dialogs with
me via US MAIL, I can be contacted at: | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The belief that the churches of Egypt and Syria were (or are) monophysite is
false, as is the belief that they often held that the Council of Chalcedon
was Nestorian.
These misunderstandings were exacerbated by political factors, and thus led
to schism - a schism that is on its way to being healed. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
-*----
I believe that Maharishi is titular. (Someone please correct me if
I am wrong.) Thus, Maharishi Rajneesh is a different person from
Maharishi Mahesh, but they are both Maharishis. | 0 | alt.atheism |
I can see that some of the above verses do not clearly address the issues,
however, a couple of them seem as though they do not require "incredibly
perverse interpretations" in order to be seen as condemning homosexuality.
"... Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers,
nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards,
nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were
some of you..." I Cor. 6:9-11.
Would someone care to comment on the fact that the above seems to say
fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God? How does this apply
to homosexuals? I understand "fornication" to be sex outside of
marriage. Is this an accurate definition? Is there any such thing as
same-sex marriage in the Bible? My understanding has always been that
the New Testament blesses sexual intercourse only between a husband
and his wife. I am, however, willing to listen to Scriptural evidence
to the contrary.
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an
abomination. Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to
be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate
with it; it is a perversion." Lev. 18:22-23.
I notice that the verse forbidding bestiality immediately follows the
verse prohibiting what appears to be homosexual intercourse. I know
of no New Testament passages that clearly condemn, or even mention,
intercourse with animals. Do those who argue for the legitimacy of
homosexual intercourse believe that the Bible condemns bestiality as a
perversion, and if so, why? That is, what verses would you cite to
prove that bestiality was perverted and sinful? Could the verses you
cite be refuted by interpreting them differently? Can one be a
Christian zoophile?
By the way, I myself am subject to sexual desires that I did not
choose to have and that many people would regard as perverted and
sinful, so please understand that I am not asking these questions out
of an antipathy towards my fellow "people of alternative
orientations". I do believe, however, that one should read the Bible
with an attitude of "what is the Bible trying to say" and not "what do
I WANT the Bible to say." I choose not to give in to my "perverted"
sexual desires because I believe the Bible tries to tell me, whether I
like it or not, that such things are sin. It is frustrating at times,
and I have had days where it really got me down, but I don't blame God
for this, I blame the sin itself.
- Mark
[There's some ambiguity about the meaning of the words in the passage
you quote. Both liberal and conservative sources seem to agree that
"homosexual" is not the general term for homosexuals, but is likely to
have a meaning like homosexual prostitute. That doesn't meant that I
think all the Biblical evidence vanishes, but the nature of the
evidence is such that you can't just quote one verse and solve things.
I think your argument from fornication is circular. Why is
homosexuality wrong? Because it's fornication. Why is it
fornication? Because they're not married. Why aren't they married?
Because the church refuses to do a marriage ceremony. Why does the
church refuse to do a marriage ceremony? Because homosexuality is
wrong. In order to break the circle there's got to be some other
reason to think homosexuality is wrong. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[This was crossposted to a zillion groups. I don't intend to
carry an entire discussion crossposted from alt.sex, particularly
one whose motivation seems to be having a fun argument. However
I thought readers might be interested to know about the
discussion there. --clh]
I intend to endeavor to make the argument that homosexuality is an
immoral practice or lifestyle or whatever you call it. I intend to
show that there is a basis for a rational declaration of this
statement. I intend to also show that such a declaration can be
made without there being a religious justification for morality,
in fact to show that such a standard can be made if one is an atheist.
Anyone who wants to join in on the fun in taking the other side,
i.e. that they can make the claim that homosexuality is not immoral,
or that, collaterally, it is a morally valid practice, is free to do
so. I think there are a lot of people who don't believe one can have
a rational based morality without having a religion attached to it.
This should be fun to try and figure this out, and I want to try and
expose (no pun intended) my ideas and see other people's and see where
their ideas are standing. As I'm not sure what groups would be interested
in this discussion, I will be posting an announcement of it to several,
and if someone thinks of appropriate groups, let me know.
If someone on here doesn't receive alt.sex, let me know and I'll make
an exception to my usual policy and set up a mailing list to automatically
distribute it in digest format to anyone who wants to receive it as I'll
use that as the main forum for this. By "exception to usual policy" is
that I normally charge for this, but for the duration the service will be
available at no charge to anyone who has an address reachable on Internet
or Bitnet.
I decided to start this dialog when I realized there was a much larger
audience on usenet / internet than on the smaller BBS networks.
To give the other side time to work up to a screaming anger, this will
begin on Monday, May 24, to give people who want to make the response
time to identify themselves. Anonymous postings are acceptable, since
some people may not wish to identify themselves. Also, if someone else
wants to get in on my side, they are free to do so. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
From: dhammers@pacific.? (David Hammerslag)
How do you (Mormons) reconcile the idea of eternal marriage with
Christ's statement that in the resurrection people will neither
marry nor be given in marriage (Luke, chapt. 20)?
Footnotes in some bibles reference this verse to the Book of Tobit.
Tobit is in the Septuagint. Goodspeed published it in a book called
"The Apocrypha". Most any bookstore will have this. At any rate, the Jews
of Christ's day had this book. It is a story mostly centered around the
son of Tobit who was named Tobias. There was a young lady, Sarah, who had
entered the bridal chamber with seven brothers in succession. The brothers
all died in the chamber before consumating the marriage.
Tobias was entitled to have Sarah for his wife (3:17) because Tobias was
her only relative and "...she was destined for [Tobias] from the beginning"
(6:17).
Tobias took her to wife and was able to consumate the marriage. The
seven husbands would not have her as a partner in heaven. That does not
eliminate Tobias, her eighth husband. Tobit is a fun and interesting
story to read. It's kind of a mythical romance. It's a little shorter
than Esther.
The LDS also have scriptures that parallel and amplify Luke 20. Most
notably Doctrines and Covenants 132:15-16.
"Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry
her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as
he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage
are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of
the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they
are out of the world.
"Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor
are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which
angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are
worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of
glory."
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I heard about the arms sale to Saudi Arabia. Now, how is it such a grave
mistake to sell Saudi Arabia weapons? Or are you claiming that we shouldn't
sell any weapons to other countries? Straightforward answer please.
Who benefits from arms sales? Hint, it isn't normally the gov't. It is
the contractor that builds that piece of equipment. Believe it or not,
the US and UK don't export the huge quantities of arms that you have
just accused them of doing. Arms exports are rare enough, that it
requires an act of congress for non-small arms to most countries, if
not all. Do you believe in telling everyone who can do what, and who
can sell their goods to whom?
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Perhaps you have a different understanding of what "physics" is. If we
can't measure anything objectively, then the answers we get from physics
aren't objective either. That's what I mean when I say there's no objective
physics.
Sure, we can all agree that (say) F = GMm/r^2, but that's maths. It's only
physics when you relate it to the real world, and if we can't do that
objectively, we're stuck. (Of course, this displays my blatant bias towards
applied science; but even theoretical physics gets applied to models of real
world situations, based on real world observations.)
It's an axiom that it's invariant. But if the two of us measure it, we'll
get different answers. Yes, we call that experimental error, but it's not
really "error" in the conventional sense; in fact, if you don't get any,
that's an error :-)
You could argue that the value of c is "objective, to within +/- <some
value>". But I'd call that a rather odd usage of the word "objective", and
it opens the way for statements like "Murder is objectively wrong for all
people, to within 1% of the total population."
| 0 | alt.atheism |