text
stringlengths 1
51k
| label
int64 0
15
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
If you want parallels the best source is probably the book _Temple
and Cosmos_ by Hugh Nibley. It is not light reading however.
As to why these early practices "only parallel" and do not exactly
duplicate the modern LDS ceremony, there are a couple of reasons:
1. Quite likely we do not have the exact original from ancient
times. This stuff was not commonly known but bits and pieces
undoubtedly spread. (Much as bits and pieces of the modern ceremony
get known.) What we have in the 40 day literature, the Egyptian
ceremonies, and certain Native American ceremonies is almost
certainly not exactly what Jesus taught. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[reply to timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons]
Which newsgroup have you been reading? The few anti-Christian posts are
virtually all in response to some Christian posting some "YOU WILL ALL
BURN IN HELL" kind of drivel.
Bake, it is transparently obvious that you are a theist pretending to be
an atheist. You probably think you are very clever, but we see this all
the time.
But of course *you* have dismissed them because you are an atheist,
right?
In other words, you *didn't* read the FAQ after all. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Sounds like more of the same. Gods were used to describe almost
everything in the past. As we come to understand the underpinnings of
more and more, the less we credit to a god. Now, the not-so-well
understood elements (at least by the author) includes quarks and tectonic
drift. I guess that's better than describing the perceived patterns of
stars in the sky as heroes being immortalized by the gods.
Kinda sounds like old-earth creation--It seems that life did, indeed, evolve
from a common ancestor. What caused that initial common ancestor?
Are we going to hear another debate on causeless events? ;-)
| 0 | alt.atheism |
I read it when it first came out, and the controversy broke. Put my name
on the waiting list at the library (that way if the book was really
offensive, none of my money would find its way to the author or
publisher), and read it, "cover to cover" (to use a phrase that seems
popular here right now).
And I *liked* it. The writing style was a little hard to get used to, but
it was well worth the effort. Coming from a similar background (Rushdie
grew up in Bombay in a muslim family, and moved to England; I grew up in
New Delhi), it made a strong impression on me. (And he used many of the
strange constructions of Indian English: the "yaar" at the end of a
sentence, "Butbutbut," the occasional hindi phrase, etc.)
At the time I still "sorta-kinda" thought of myself as a muslim, and I
couldn't see what the flap was all about. It seemed clear to me that this
was allegory. It was clear that he described some local prostitutes who
took on the names and personae of Muhammed's wives, and had not (as my
grandfather thundered) implied that Muhammed's wives were prostitutes; in
short, every angry muslim that had read even part of the book seemed to
have missed the point completely. (And I won't mention the fact that the
most militant of them had never even seen the book. Oops, I just did!)
Perhaps in a deep sense, the book is insulting to Islam, because it
exposes the silliness of revealed religion - why does an omnipotent deity
need an agent? She can come directly to me, can't she? How do we know that
Muhammed didn't just go out into the desert and smoke something? And how
do we know that the scribes he dictated the Quran to didn't screw up, or
put in their own little verses? And why can Muhammed marry more than four
women, when no other muslim is allowed to? (Although I think the biggest
insult to Islam is that the majority of its followers would want to
suppress a book, sight unseen, on the say-so of some "holy" guy. Not to
mention murder the author.)
I had much the same response when I tried to talk about the book. A really
silly argument - after all, how many of these same people have read "Mein
Kampf?" It just made me wonder - what are they afraid of? Why don't they
just read the book and decide for themselves?
Maybe the reaction of the muslim community to the book, and the absence of
protest from the "liberal" muslims to Khomeini's fatwa outrage, was the
final push I needed into atheism!
-s | 0 | alt.atheism |
FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
by Robert E. McElwaine, Physicist
Ninety to a hundred years ago, everybody "knew" that a
heavier-than-air machine could not possibly fly. It would
violate the "laws" of physics. All of the "experts" and
"authorities" said so.
For example, Simon Newcomb declared in 1901: "The
demonstration that no possible combination of known
substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of
force, can be united in a practical machine by which man
shall fly long distances through the air, seems to the writer
as complete as it is possible for the demonstration of any
physical fact to be."
Fortunately, a few SMART people such as the Wright
Brothers did NOT accept such pronouncements as the final
word. Now we take airplanes for granted, (except when they
crash).
Today, orthodox physicists and other "scientists" are
saying similar things against several kinds of 'Free Energy'
Technologies, using negative terms such as "pseudo-science"
and "perpetual motion", and citing so-called "laws" which
assert that "energy cannot be created or destroyed" ("1st law
of thermodynamics") and "there is always a decrease in useful
energy" ("2nd law of thermodynamics"). The physicists do not
know how to do certain things, so they ARROGANTLY declare
that those things cannot be done. Such PRINCIPLES OF
IMPOTENCE are COMMON in orthodox modern "science" and help to
cover up INCONSISTENCIES and CONTRADICTIONS in orthodox
modern theories.
Free Energy Inventions are devices which can tap a
seemingly UNLIMITED supply of energy from the universe, with-
OUT burning any kind of fuel, making them the PERFECT
SOLUTION to the world-wide energy crisis and its associated
pollution, degradation, and depletion of the environment.
Most Free Energy Devices probably do not create energy,
but rather tap into EXISTING natural energy sources by
various forms of induction. UNLIKE solar or wind devices,
they need little or no energy storage capacity, because they
can tap as much energy as needed WHEN needed. Solar energy
has the DIS-advantage that the sun is often blocked by
clouds, trees, buildings, or the earth itself, or is reduced
by haze or smog or by thick atmosphere at low altitudes and
high latitudes. Likewise, wind speed is WIDELY VARIABLE and
often non-existent. Neither solar nor wind power are
suitable to directly power cars and airplanes. Properly
designed Free Energy Devices do NOT have such limitations.
For example, at least three U.S. patents (#3,811,058,
#3,879,622, and #4,151,431) have so far been awarded for
motors that run EXCLUSIVELY on permanent MAGNETS, seemingly
tapping into energy circulating through the earth's magnetic
field. The first two require a feedback network in order to
be self-running. The third one, as described in detail in
"Science & Mechanics" magazine, Spring 1980, ("Amazing
Magnet-Powered Motor", by Jorma Hyypia, pages 45-48, 114-117,
and front cover), requires critical sizes, shapes,
orientations, and spacings of magnets, but NO feedback. Such
a motor could drive an electric generator or reversible
heatpump in one's home, YEAR ROUND, FOR FREE. [Complete
descriptive copies of U.S. patents are $3.00 each from the
U.S. Patent Office, 2021 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA
22202; correct 7-digit patent number required. Or try
getting copies of BOTH the article AND the Patents via your
local public or university library's inter-library loan
dept..]
A second type of free-energy device, such as the 'Gray
Motor' (U.S. Patent #3,890,548), the 'Tesla Coil', and the
motor of inventor Joseph Newman [see SCIENCE, 2-10-84, pages
571-2.], taps ELECTRO-MAGNETIC energy by INDUCTION from
'EARTH RESONANCE' (about 12 cycles per second plus
harmonics). They typically have a 'SPARK GAP' in the circuit
which serves to SYNCHRONIZE the energy in the coils with the
energy being tapped. It is important that the total
'inductance' and 'capacitance' of the Device combine to
'RESONATE' at the same frequency as 'EARTH RESONANCE' in
order to maximize the power output. This output can also be
increased by centering the SPARK GAP at the 'NEUTRAL CENTER'
of a strong U-shaped permanent magnet. In the case of a
Tesla Coil, slipping a 'TOROID CHOKE COIL' around the
secondary coil will enhance output power. ["Earth Energy:
Fuelless Propulsion & Power Systems", by John Bigelow, 1976,
Health Research, P.O. Box 70, Mokelumne Hill, CA 95245.]
During the 1930's, an Austrian civil engineer named
Viktor Schauberger invented and partially developed an
'IMPLOSION TURBINE' (German name, 'ZOKWENDLE'), after
analyzing erosion, and lack of erosion, in differently shaped
waterways, and developing sophisticated mathematical
equations to explain it. As described in the book "A
Breakthrough to New Free-Energy Sources", by Dan A. Davidson,
1977, water is pumped by an IMPELLER pump through a
LOGARITHMIC-SPIRAL-shaped coil of tubing until it reaches a
CRITICAL VELOCITY. The water then IMPLODES, no longer
touching the inside walls of the tubing, and drives the pump,
which then converts the pump's motor into an ELECTRIC
GENERATOR. The device seems to be tapping energy from that
of the earth's rotation, via the 'Coriolis effect', LIKE A
TORNADO. [ It can also NEUTRALIZE GRAVITY! ]
A fourth type of Free Energy Device is the 'McClintock
Air Motor' (U.S. Patent #2,982,261), which is a cross between
a diesel engine (it has three cylinders with a compression
ratio of 27 to 1) and a rotary engine (with solar and
planetary gears). It burns NO FUEL, but becomes self-running
by driving its own air compressor. This engine also
generates a lot of heat, which could be used to heat
buildings; and its very HIGH TORQUE makes it ideal for large
trucks, preventing their slowing down when climbing hills.
[David McClintock is also the REAL original Inventor of the
automatic transmission, differential, and 4-wheel drive.]
Crystals may someday be used to supply energy, as shown
in the Star Trek shows, perhaps by inserting each one between
metal capacitor plates and bombarding it with a beam of
particles from a small radioactive source like that used in a
common household smoke detector.
One other energy source should be mentioned here,
despite the fact that it does not fit the definition of Free
Energy. A Bulgarian-born American Physicist named Joseph
Maglich has invented and partially developed an atomic FUSION
reactor which he calls 'Migma', which uses NON-radioactive
deuterium as a fuel [available in nearly UNLIMITED quantities
from sea water], does NOT produce radioactive waste, can be
converted DIRECTLY into electricity (with-OUT energy-wasting
steam turbines), and can be constructed small enough to power
a house or large enough to power a city. And UNLIKE the
"Tokamaks" and laser fusion MONSTROSITIES that we read about,
Migma WORKS, already producing at least three watts of power
for every watt put in. ["New Times" (U.S. version), 6-26-78,
pages 32-40.]
And then there are the 'cold fusion' experiments that
have been in the news lately, originally conducted by
University of Utah researchers B. Stanley Pons and Martin
Fleischmann. Some U.S. Navy researchers at the China Lake
Naval Weapons Center in California, under the direction of
chemist Melvin Miles, finally took the trouble to collect the
bubbles coming from such an apparatus, had them analyzed with
mass-spectrometry techniques, and found HELIUM 4, which
PROVES that atomic FUSION did indeed take place, and enough
of it to explain the excess heat generated.
There are GOOD INDICATIONS that the two so-called "laws"
of thermodynamics are NOT so "absolute". For example, the
late Physicist Dewey B. Larson developed a comprehensive
GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, which he
calls the 'Reciprocal System', (which he describes in detail
in several books such as "Nothing But Motion" (1979) and "The
Universe of Motion" (1984)), in which the physical universe
has TWO DISTINCT HALVES, the material half and an anti-matter
half, with a CONTINUOUS CYCLE of matter and energy passing
between them, with-OUT the "heat death" predicted by
thermodynamic "laws". His Theory explains the universe MUCH
BETTER than modern orthodox theories, including phenomena
that orthodox physicists and astronomers are still scratching
their heads about, and is SELF-CONSISTENT in every way. Some
Free Energy Devices might be tapping into that energy flow,
seemingly converting "low-quality energy" into "high-quality
energy".
Also, certain religious organizations such as 'Sant Mat'
and 'Eckankar' teach their Members that the physical universe
is only the LOWEST of at least a DOZEN major levels of
existence, like parallel universes, or analogous to TV
channels, as described in books like "The Path of the
Masters", by Dr. Julian Johnson, 1939, and "Eckankar: The Key
to Secret Worlds", by Sri Paul Twitchell, 1969. For example,
the next level up from the physical universe is commonly
called the 'Astral Plane'. Long-time Members of these groups
have learned to 'Soul Travel' into these higher worlds and
report on conditions there. It seems plausible that energy
could flow down from these higher levels into the physical
universe, or be created at the boundary between them, given
the right configuration of matter to channel it. This is
supported by many successful laboratory-controlled
experiments in PSYCHO-KINESIS throughout the world, such as
those described in the book "Psychic Discoveries Behind the
Iron Curtain".
In terms of economics, the market has FAILED. Inventors
do not have enough money and other resources to fully develop
and mass-produce Free Energy Equipment, and the conventional
energy producer$ have no desire to do so because of their
VE$TED INTERE$T$. The government is needed to intervene. If
the government does not intervene, then the total supply of
energy resources from the earth will continue to decline and
will soon run out, prices for energy will increase, and
pollution and its harmful effects (including the 'GREENHOUSE
EFFECT', acid rain, smog, radioactive contamination, oil
spills, rape of the land by strip mining, etc.) will continue
to increase.
The government should SUBSIDIZE research and development
of Free Energy by Inventors and universities, subsidize
private production (until the producers can make it on their
own), and subsidize consumption by low-income consumers of
Free Energy Hardware.
The long-range effects of such government intervention
would be wide-spread and profound. The quantity of energy
demanded from conventional energy producer$ (coal mining
companie$, oil companie$ and countries, electric utilitie$,
etc.) would drop to near zero, forcing their employees to
seek work elsewhere. Energy resources (coal, uranium, oil,
and gas) would be left in the ground. Prices for
conventional energy supplies would also drop to near zero,
while the price of Free Energy Equipment would start out high
but drop as supply increases (as happened with VCR's,
personal computers, etc.). Costs of producing products that
require large quantities of energy to produce would decrease,
along with their prices to consumers. Consumers would be
able to realize the "opportunity costs" of paying electric
utility bills or buying home heating fuel. Tourism would
benefit and increase because travelers would not have to
spend their money for gasoline for their cars. Government
tax revenue from gasoline and other fuels would have to be
obtained in some other way. AND ENERGY COULD NO LONGER BE
USED AS A MOTIVE OR EXCUSE FOR MAKING WAR.
Many conventional energy producer$ would go out of
business, but society as a whole, and the earth's environment
and ecosystems, would benefit greatly. It is the People,
that government should serve, rather than the big
corporation$ and bank$.
For more information, answers to your questions, etc.,
please consult my CITED SOURCES (patents, articles, books).
UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
As I don't know this book, I will use your heresay.
It depends on how he defines God. The way I understand the meaning
of that term preclues it being used in a useful way in science. Ideas drawn
from an understanding that God is supernatural precludes us from forming
scientific assertions that can be falsified, that is, where we can decide
that they are true or false within the terms of we use and useful observations
drawn from them.
Some religionists have an interest in bluring the definitions within
science to make them more reconcilable, and especially subserviant in a basic
way, to religious dogma. This pursuit always fails.
Reconciliation of science with religion involves circumventing the
tendancy to claim that either pursuit can gain absolute or certian knowledge,
or that the domain of truth in each is fundementally limited in some way. It
gererally confurs the element of uncertainty and limitations to human knowledge
while allowing for the different concerns of these separate pursuits. Science
and religion ask different questions which have imperfect and provisional
answers, at best. Science is distinctly limited in where it can ask meaningful
questions. More questions can be posed than it can answer. At the basis of
sacred language is the place where words fail us and mere assertions disolve
in contradiction. | 0 | alt.atheism |
So do other parts of the Bible when taken literally - i.e. the Psalms
saying the Earth does not move, or the implication the Earth is flat
with four corners, etc. The Bible was written to teach salvation, not
history or science.
What ones? Paryers for the dead or the intercession of saints? (Which
are taught in 2 Maccabees, Sirach, and Tobit)
By your own subjective judgement. This falling short is your judgement,
and you are not infallible - rather the Church of Jesus Christ is (see 1
Timothy 3.15).
More subjective feelings. This is not a proof of anything more than
one persons feelings.
As I have written time and again, the Hebrew canon was fixed in Jamnia,
Palestine, in 90 AD. 60 years after the foundation of the one, holy,
catholic, and apostolic Church. Furthermore, the opinons of Jerome do
not count. He was neither the Church, or the Pope, or an ecumenical
council, or a council in general, or an insturment of the Magisterium of
the Church. He was a private individual, learned admittedly, but
subject to erro of opinion. And in exlcuding the deuterocanon, he
erred, as Pope Damsus, and the Council of Carthage, and the tradition of
the Fathers, clearly shows, as I pointed out in my previous post.
I suggest you take heed of the last part of the statement, if you want
to take it in the sense you are taking it, that taking away from the
book will cause you to lose heaven.
The order of the Canon is unimportant, it is the content that matters.
None of Jesus' statments exlcude the deuterocanon, which were
interspersed throughout the canon. And remeber, there are some
completely undisputed books, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiatses, Song
of Songs, Job, etc. that are not quoted in the New Testament, which is
not taken as prejudicial to their being inspired. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
What is fornication? (sex outside of marriage, abuse of sex)
Is not homosexual intercourse outside the context of marriage?
Isn't it an unatural use of what God has given us?
Why is it that homosexuals are using the Grace of God as a license to
practice sin?
For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long
beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who
turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only
Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
Jude 4 (NASB)
What is defined by God as a legitimate marriage?
For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave to his wife; and the shall become one flesh.
Gen 2:24 (NASB)
And He answer and said, "Have you not read, that He who created them
from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS
CAUSE A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE;
AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? Consequently they are no longer
two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no
man separate."
Matt 19:4-6 (NASB)
But because of immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let
each woman have her own husband. Let the husband fulfill his duty
to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.
1 Corinthians 7:4,5 (NASB)
I disagree... Every law that is written in Leviticus should be looked at
as sin. That is why we have a need for a savior. I can understand
someone who may not know a particular sin listed in the Levitcal law, but
I would hope that they would repent when confronted with it.
Also I noticed that the preceeding verses say.
Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her
menstrual impurity. And you shall not have intercourse with your
neighbors wife, to be defiled with her.
Leviticus 18:19, 20 (NASB)
These verses are just as relevant as:
You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an
abomination.
Leviticus 18:22 (NASB)
Why was God telling the Israelites not to practice such things?
Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these
the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.
For the land has become defiled, therefore I have visited its
punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants.
But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and Judgments, and
shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor
the alien who sojourns among you
Leviticus 18:24-26 (NASB)
He is the Lord... Listen to what he has to say...
Nobody wants to dismiss homosexuals. We do love you, but we don't
agree that what you practice is not sin. You have not truly repented
of your sin. We hate the sin that is within your lives. I hate sin
that is in my life. All Christians should hate the sin that is within
their own lives. Confrontaion with sin should bring about repentance.
Yes I agree with John 3:17, but I also know that Jesus said, "Repent for
the kingdom of heaven is at hand" Matt 3:17. If you don't agree that
homosexuality is sin than how can you repent from it? This means that
you remain in bondage to it. Repent from it and God will set you free.
In His Love,
Mike
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Christensen | Trust the Lord with all your heart,
Senior Product Support Engineer | And do not lean on your own
Procom Technology, Inc. | understanding. Proverbs 3:5 (NASB) | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
STILL, the Angel Gabriel's greetings was:
"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.
Blessed art thou amongst women".
Even Mary was confused about this greeting. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have
sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Absolutely not true. Without religion - either an established one or
one you invent for yourself - the theist and atheist are equally
(not) interested in God, because without religious revelation there
is _no_ information about God available. Strip away the dogma and
the theists/atheists are no different, simply holding a different
opinion on a matter of little practical importance.
Sorry, but that doesn't help. What test will you apply to decide
whether it is God or Satan with whom you are speaking?
How will you know that you have not simply gone insane, or having
delusions? You are like a loaded gun.
Ah, you not as stupid as I assumed. :-)
Yes. We're all in this together - each human making up a small part of
the definition of humanity. | 0 | alt.atheism |
From what I understand of my experience in looking up this word, and
discussing it with a Greek-literate individual, the meaning of the
word is rather clear. Basically it literally means "he who beds with a man"
or "he who has sex with a man." The burden of proof is on the
pro-homosexuality side of the argument to show that the word has an
idiomatic meaning nor evident from its literal meaning. One can speculate
all day long that it might mean something else, but we need evidence
before we create new doctrines, and get rid of the historical understanding
of the meaning of this word.
Link Hudson.
| 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!
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
rh> From: house@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house)
rh> Newsgroups: alt.atheism
rh> Organization: University of Southern Queensland
rh> I _know_ I shouldn't get involved, but... :-)
rh> [bit deleted]
[rest of rant deleted]
This is a standard argument for fundies. Can you spot the falicy? The
statement is arguing from the assumption that Jesus actually existed. So far,
they have not been able to offer real proof of that existance. Most of them
try it using the (very) flawed writings of Josh McDowell and others to prove
it, but those writers use VERY flawed sources. (If they are real sources at
all, some are not.) When will they ever learn to do real research, instead of
believing the drivel sold in the Christian bookstores.
rh> Righto, DAN, try this one with your Cornflakes...
rh> The book says that Muhammad was either a liar, or he was
rh> crazy ( a modern day Mad Mahdi) or he was actually who he
rh> said he was. Some reasons why he wouldn't be a liar are as
rh> follows. Who would die for a lie? Wouldn't people be able
rh> to tell if he was a liar? People gathered around him and
rh> kept doing it, many gathered from hearing or seeing how his
rh> son-in-law made the sun stand still. Call me a fool, but I
rh> believe he did make the sun stand still.
rh> Niether was he a lunatic. Would more than an entire nation
rh> be drawn to someone who was crazy. Very doubtful, in fact
rh> rediculous. For example anyone who is drawn to the Mad
rh> Mahdi is obviously a fool, logical people see this right
rh> away.
rh> Therefore since he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, he must have
rh> been the real thing.
Nice rebutal! | 0 | alt.atheism |
Andy Byler writes on the Biblical basis for the dogma of the
Immaculate Conception:
+ I will put enmity between you [the Serpent] and the woman, and
+ between your seed and her seed, she [can also be read he] shall
+ crush your head and you shall bruise her [or his] heel.
+ -Genesis 3.15
+ He who commits sin is of the devil ... -1 John 3.8
+ Hail, full of grace [greek - kecharitomene], the Lord is with
+ thee ... -Luke 1.28
In the Hebrew of Genesis 3:15, the gender is clearly masculine.
+ HE shall crush your head, and you shall bruise HIS heel.
The Latin has feminine forms, only by an accident of grammar.
Andrew stated that KECHARITOMENE means not just "full of grace" but
"having a plenitude or perfection of grace." The word is used
elsewhere in the New Testament only in Ephesians 1:6
+ Unto the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he hath
+ GRACED us in his beloved Son. (Rheims-Douay translation)
I cannot find any indication in my dictionary that the verb implies
anything as strong as Andrew suggests, nor does the Ephesians
passage suggest that the verb means "to preserve from any taint of
original or actual sin from the first moment of existence." I should
like to see a comment on the meaning of the verb, preferably not
from s writer who is discussing Luke 1:28 at the moment. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
continuing part #4 (I think); used by permission,
THE SOURCE AND NT MEANING
OF ARSENOKOITAI, WITH IMPLICATIONS
FOR CHRISTIAN ETHICS AND MINISTRY
James B. DeYoung
W. Petersen
More recently Wright's understanding has itself been questioned from a
different direction. In a brief 1986 study William Petersen found linguistic
confusion in using the English word "homosexuals" as the meaning of
arsenokoitai.[22] He faulted Wright and English Bible translaions for
rendering it by "homosexuals" in I Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1:10.
In a sense Petersen has coalesced Bailey, Boswell, and Scroggs into a
single assertion that reiterates, in effect, the position of Bailey. He finds
"homosexuals" unacceptable as a translation because it is anachronistic. "A
major disjunction" exists between contemporary thought and terminology and the
thought and terminolgy in Paul's time (187-88).
What is this "disjunction"? He bases it on historical and linguistic
facts. Accordingly, ancient Greek and Roman society treated male sexuality as
polyvalent and characterized a person sexually only by his sexual acts.
Virtually all forms of behavior, except transvestism, were acceptable.
Christianity simply added the categories of "natural" and "unnatural" in
describing these actions. Ancient society know nothing of the categories of
"homosexuals" and "heterosexuals," and assumed that, in the words of Dover
quoted approvingly by Petersen, "everyone responds at different times to both
homosexual and to heterosexual stimuli. . ." (188). [23]
In contrast to this, modern usage virtually limits the term "homosexual"
to desire and propensity. K.M. Benkert, who in 1869 coined the German term
equivalent to "homosexual," used it as referring to orientation, impluse or
affectional preference and having "nothing to do with sexual acts" (189).
Petersen then proceeds to cite the "Supplement to the Oxford English
Dictionary," which defines "homosexual" only as a propensity or desire with no
mention of acts. Petersen's point is that by using "homosexuals" for
arsenokoitai, one wrongfully reads a modern concept back into early history
"where no equivalent concept existed" (189). Consequently the translation is
inaccurate because it "includes celibate homophiles,. . . . incorrectly exludes
heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts . . . [and]incorrectly includes
female homosexuals" (19=89). Prior to 1869 there was no "cognitive structure,
either inour society or in antiquity, within which the modern bifurcation of
humanity into 'homosexuals' and 'hetersosexuals' made sence" (189).
The foregoing clarifies why Petersen feels that the translatio
"homosexual" is mistaken. Yet is it possible that Petersen is the one
mistaken, on both historical and linguistic or philological grounds? The next
phases of this paper will critically examine Petersen's position.
THE JUSTIFICATION FOR TRANSLATING
ARSENOKOITAI BY "HOMOSEXUALS"
Historical Grounds
A refutation of the foregoing opposition to the traslation of arsenokoitai
by "homosexuals" begins with the historical and cultural evidence. Since
virtually everyone acknowledges that the word does not appear before Paul's
usage, no historical settings earlier than his are available. Yet much writing
reveals that ancient understanding of homosexuality prior to and contemporary
with Paul. The goal is to discover wheither the ancient s conceived of
homosexuality, particularly homosexual orientation, in a way similar to
present-day concepts.
Peterson, Bailey, Boswell, and Scroggs claim that the homosexual
condition, desire, propensity, or inversion -whatever it is called- cannot be
part of the definition of the term. They assert this either because the term
is limited to acts of particular kind (Boswell, active male prostitutes;
Scroggs, pederasty) or because the homosexual condition was unknown in ancient
times (Bailey; Petersen). The following discussion will show why neither of
these positions is legitimate. Attention will be devoted to the latter postion
first with the former one being addressed below under "Linguistic Grounds."
In regard to the latter position, one may rightfully ask, did not the
homosexual condition exist before 1869? Is it only a modern phenomenon? Yet if
it is universal, as alleged today, it must have existed always including
ancient times, even though there is lack of sophistication in discussing it.
Indeed, evidence show that the ancients, pre-Christian and Christian, not only
knew about the total spectrum of sexual behavior, including all forms of
same-sex activity (transvestism included), but also knoew about same-sex
orientation or condition. Petersen admits (190 n. 10) that Plato in
"Symposium" (189d-192d) may be a "sole possible exception" to ancient
ingnorance of this condition. He discounts this, however, believing that even
here "acts appear to be the deciding factor." However, this is a very
significant exception, hardly worthy of being called "an exception," because of
the following additional evidence for a homosexual condition.
THe "Symposium" of Plato gives some of the strongest evidence for
knowledge about the homosexual condition. [24] Plato posits a third sex
comprised of a maile-female (androgynon ("man-woman"). Hence "original nature"
palai physis, consisted of three kinds of human beings. Zeus sliced these
human beings in half, to weaken them so that they would not be a threat to the
gods. Consequently each person seeks his or her other half, either one of the
opposite sex or one of the same sex. Plato then quotes Aristophances:
Each of us, then, is but a tally of a man, since every one shows like
a flatfish the traces of having been sliced in two; and each is ever
searching for the tally that will fit him. All the men who are sections
of that composite sex that at first was called man-woman are
woman-courters; our adulterers are mostly descended from that sex,
whence likewise are derived our mancourting women and adulteresses.
All the women who are sections of the woman have no great fancy for men:
they are incllined rather to women, and of this stock are the she-minions.
Men who are sections of the male pursue the masculine, and so long as
their boyhood lasts they show themselves to be sliced of the male by
making griends with men and delighting to lie with them and to be
clasped in men's embrasces; these are the finest boys and striplings,
for they have the most manly nature. Some say they are shameless
creatures, but falsely: for their behavior is due not to shamelessness
but to daring, manliness, and virility, since they are quick to welcome
their like. Sure evidence of this is the fact that on reaching maturity
these alone prove in a public career to be men. So when they come
to man's estate they are boy-lovers, and have no natural interest in
wiving and getting children but only do these things under stress of
custom; they are quite contented to live together unwedded all their days.
A man of this sort is at any rate born to be a lover of boys or the
willing mate of a man, eagerly greeting his own kind. Well, when
one of them -whether he be a boy-lover or a lover of any other sort-
happens on his own particular half, the two of them are wondrously
thrilled with affection and intimacy and love, and are hardly to be
induced to leave each other's side for a single moment. These are
they who continue together throughout life, though they could not
even say what they would have of one another (191d-192c) [25]
Should these two persons be offered the opportunity to be fused together for as
long as they live, or even in Hades, Aristophanes says that each "would
unreservedly deem that he had been offered just what he was yearning for all
the time: (192e).
Several observations about this text are in order. Lesbianism is
contemplated, as will as male homosexuality (191e). "Natural interest" (ton
noun physei), (192b) refelects modern concepts of propensity or inclination.
The words, "born to be a lover of boys or the willing mate of a man:
(paiderastes te kai philerastes gignetai), (192b) reflect the modern claims "to
be born this," i.e., as homosexual. The idea of mutuallity ("the two of them
are wondrously thrilled with affection and intimacy and love," 192b) is
present. Aristophanes even speaks of "mutual love ingrained in mankind
reassembling our early estate" (ho eros emphytos allelon tois anthropois kai
tes archaias physeos synagogeus, 191d). The concept of permanency ("These are
they who continue together throughout life," 102c) is also present. Further
mention of and/or allusion to permanecy, mutality, "gay pride," pederasty,
homophobia, motive, desire, passion, and the nature of love and its works is
recognizable.
Clearly the ancients thought of love (homosexual or other) apart from
actions. THe speakers in the Symposium argue that motive in homosexuality is
crucial; money, office, influence, etc. . . bring reproach (182e-183a, 184b).
They mention the need to love the soul not the body (183e). There are tow
kinds of love in the body (186b) and each has its "desire" and "passion"
(186b-d). The speakers discuss the principles or "matters" of love (187c), the
desires of love (192c) and being "males by nature" (193c). Noteworthy is the
speech of Socrates who devotes much attention to explaining how desire is
related to love and its objects (200a-201c). Desire is felt for "what is not
provided or present; for something they have not or are not or lack." This is
the object of desire and love. Socrates clearly distinguishes between "what
sort of being is love" and the "works" of love (201e). This ancient
philosopher could think of both realms -seaual acts as well as disposition of
being or nature. His wors have significance for more than pederasty. [26]
In summary, virtually every element in the modern discussion of love and
homosexuality is anticipated in the Symposium of Plato. Petersen is in error
when he claims that the ancients could only think of homosexual acts, not
inclination or orientation. Widespread evidence to the contray supports the
latter. [27]
Biblical support for homosexuality inclination in the contexts where
homosexual acts are discribed adds to the case for the ancient distinction. In
Rom 1:21-28 such phrases as "reasoning," "heart," "becoming foolish," "desires
of the heart." and "reprobate mind" prove Paul's concern for disposition and
inclination along with the "doing" or "working" of evil (also see vv. 29-32).
Even the catologues of vices are introdiced (I Tim 1:8-10) or concluded (I Cor
6:9-11) by words describing what people "are" or "were," not what they "do."
Habits betray what people are within, as also the Lord Jesus taught (cf. Matt.
23:28). The inner condition is as important as the outer act; one gives rise
to the other (cf. Mt 5:27).
Petersen errs regarding other particulars too. Transvestism apparently
was accepted by the ancients. It was practiced among Canaaniteds, Syrian,
people of Asia Minor, as well as Greeks, according to S.R. Driver. [28] Only a
few moralist and Jewish writers are on record as condemning it. For example,
Seneca (Moral Epistles 47.7-8) condemns homosexual exploitation that forces an
adult slave to dress, be beardless, and behave as a woman. Philo also goes to
some length to describe the homosexuals of his day and their dressing as women
(The Special Laws III, 37-41; see also his On the Virtues, 20-21, where he
justifies prohibition of cross-dressing). Even the OT forbade the interchange
of clothing between the sexes (Deut 22:5).
Petersen is also wrong in attributing to Christianity the creating of the
"new labels" of "natural" and "unnatural" for sexual behavior. These did not
begin with Paul (Rom 1:26-27) but go as far back as ancient Greece and even
non-Christian contemporaries used them. Plato, the TEST.NAPH., Philo, Josephu,
Plutarch, and others used these words or related concepts. [29]
Linguistic Grounds | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The basic definition that I use is:
The belief that Jesus was God incarnate.
The belief that Jesus was crucified and raised from the dead
for our salvation.
The acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior.
This would include most Christian denominations, but exclude the Unitarians.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) Pontificated:
Is this from the Quran (or however it's spelled)?
| 0 | alt.atheism |
MC> Theory of Creationism: MY theistic view of the theory of
MC> creationism, (there are many others) is stated in Genesis
MC> 1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
And which order of Creation do you accept? The story of creation is one of the
many places in the Bible where the Story contradicts itself. The following is
an example...
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle
after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his
kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be
alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the
field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he
would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was
the name thereof.
Even your Bible cannot agree on how things were created. Why should we
believe in it? | 0 | alt.atheism |
I wouldn't and don't. I thought I did a pretty good job of
qualifying my statement, but apparently some people
misinterpreted my intentions. I apologize for my part in
communicating any confusion. My intent was more to
stir up discussion rather than judge. It seems to
have worked.
[rest of post noted - by the way, I did not originally post this to
alt.atheism. If it got there, I don't know how it did.]
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[bible verses ag./ used ag. homosexuality deleted]
also check out the episcopal church -- although by no means all
episcopalians are sympathetic to homosexual men and women, there
certainly is a fairly large percentage (in my experience) who are. i
am good friends with an episcopalian minister who is ordained and
living in a monogamous homosexual relationship. this in no way
diminishes his ability to minister -- in fact he has a very
significant ministry with the gay and lesbian association of his
community, as well as a very significant aids ministry.
my uncle is gay and when i found this out i had a good long think
about what the bible has to say about this and what i feel God thinks
about this. obviously my conclusions may be wrong; nonetheless they
are my own and they feel right to me. i believe that the one
important thing that those who wrote the old and new testament
passages cited above did NOT know was that there is scientific
evidence to support that homosexuality is at least partly _inherent_
rather than completely learned. this means that to a certain extent
-- or to a great extent -- homosexuals cannot choose how to feel about
other people -- which is why reports of "curing" homosexuals always
chill me and make me feel ill. please not that, although i can't cite
sources where you can find this information, there is homosexual
behavior recorded among monkeys and other animals, which is in itself
suggestive that it is inherent rather than learned, or at least that
the word "unnatural" shouldn't really apply....
please remember that whatever you believe, gays and lesbians shoul not
be excluded from your love and acceptance. christ loved us all, and
we ALL sin. and he himself never said anything against homosexuals --
rather it is paul (who also came out with such wonderful wisdom as
"women shouldn't speak in church" and "women should keep their heads
covered in church" -- not exact quotations as i don't have my bible
handy) who says these things. i have a tendency to take some of the
things paul says with a grain of salt....
well, that's all i'll say for now.
vera noyes | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Though you can certaily assert all this, I don't see why it necessarily
has to be the case. Why can't hate just stay as it is, and not beget more?
Who says we have to get disgusted and start hating the sinner. I admit
this happens, but I donlt think you can say it is always necessaily
so.
Why can we not hate with a perfect hatred?
Certainly we should love even our enemies. Amos 5:15 says to hate the evil
and love the good. This can't contradict Christ's teaching. I think we tie
up both hate and love with an emotional attitude, when it really should be
considered more objectively. Surely I don't fly into a rage at every sin
I see, but why can I not "hate" it? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
A recent post bears the subject line:
> Re: Serbian genocide work of God?
The text contains 80 lines devoted to a defence of the doctrine of
predestination as applied to the salvation of individuals. There is
then a five-line post-script on the Balkans. It is natural and easy
to keep the Subject line of the post that one is replying to, but
when the focus shifts, keeping the same Subject can cause confusion.
This is intended as a general request. The post mentioned is just
the handiest example. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[ ... my stuff deleted ... ]
Bill, you seem to have erroneously assumed that this board has as its
sole purpose the validation of atheism. It doesn't. This board is
used to discuss atheism as a philosophy, to share posters' experiences
regarding atheism, to debunk various theisms and theism as a whole, to
share resources relating to atheism, and even to socialize with others
with similar views. And of course with the number of theists who come
here to preach, it is also used to argue the case for atheism.
If you want to accuse people of lying, please do so directly. The
phrase "deliberately mistaken" is rather oxymoronic.
The two forms of theism most often discussed here these days are
Christianity and Islam. Both of these claim to make their followers
into good people, and claim that much of benefit to humanity has been
accomplished through their faiths. IMHO they are right. The American
Friends Service Committee (Quaker), Catholic Relief Services, Bread
For The World, Salvation Army soup kitchens, and Mother Theresa spring
to mind. (Can someone with more knowledge of Islam supply the names
of some analagous Islamic groups?)
When Mother Theresa claims that her work is an outgrowth of her
Christianity, I believe her. Her form of theism ascribes to her deity
such a benevolence toward humanity that it would be wrong not to care
for those in need. The point is that such a philosophy does have the
power to change the behavior of individuals; if it is widespread
enough, it can change societies.
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. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Stephen A. Creps writes to All:
[...]
SAC> Also, we know that
SAC> the Bible says that _everyone_ must be baptized to enter Heaven.
Where exactly does it say that?
SAC> _Everyone_ includes infants, unless there is other Scripture to the
SAC> contrary, i.e. an exception. Since there is no exception listed in the
SAC> Bible, we must assume (to be on the safe side) that the Bible means what
SAC> it says, that _everyone_ must be baptized to enter Heaven.
I think we do see an exception in the case of Cornelius and his
household, mentioned in Acts. Of course, they were baptised, but only
after "God showed that He accepted them by giving them the Holy
Spirit". This means they were already acceptable to God before their
baptism, and had they suddenly died they would have gone to heaven.
In case that seems far-fetched - an ancestor of mine was a missionary
who worked among the Hereros in Namibia. Some of the tribesmen were
jealous of Christianity, and they poisoned the first convert before he
could be baptised. Surely he still went to heaven? I'm inclined to
agree with a comment recorded at the time: "It is not the neglect of
baptism, but its contempt, that condemns."
Mike | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
: |>You might visit some congregations of Christians, who happen to be homosexuals,
: |>that are spirit-filled believers, not MCC'rs; before you go lumping us all
: |>together with Troy Perry.
: |>
: Gee, I think there are some real criminals (robbers, muderers, drug
: addicts) who appear to be fun loving caring people too. So what's
: your point? Is it OK. just because the people are nice?
The point is not about being "nice." "Nice" is not a christian virtue. The
point is that the gifts and fruits of the spirit (by their fruits you shall
know them- Mt 7:20) are manifested by and among prayerful, spirit-filled
GAY christians. It was the manifestation of the spirit among the gentiles
that convinced Peter (Acts 10) that his prejudice against them (based on
scripture, I might add) was not in accordance with God's intentions.
: I think the old saying " hate the sin and not the sinner" is
: appropriate here. Many who belive homosexuality is wrong probably
: don't hate the people. I don't. I don't hate my kids when they do
: wrong either. But I tell them what is right, and if they lie or don't
: admit they are wrong, or just don't make an effort to improve or
: repent, they get punished. I think this is quite appropriate. You
: may want to be careful about how you think satan is working here.
: Maybe he is trying to destroy our sense of right and wrong through
: feel goodism. Maybe he is trying to convince you that you know more
: than God. Kind of like the Adam and Eve story. Read it and compare
: it to today's mentality. You may be suprised.
Of course the whole issue is one of discernment. It may be that Satan
is trying to convince us that we know more than God. Or it may be that
God is trying (as God did with Peter) to teach us something we don't
know- that "God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears
him and does what is right is acceptable to him." (Acts 10:34-35). | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[re. Conner's questioning of the blissful afterlife as a reason why many
joined the early Xian church]
Do you mean Hyam Maccoby's _The Mythmaker_?
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Wow! You got me thinking now!
This is an interesting question in that recently there has been a
move in society to classify previously "socially unacceptable" yet legal
activities as OK. In the past it seems to me there were always two
coexisting methods of social control.
First (and most explicit) is legal control. That is the set of
actions we define as currently illegal and having a specifically defined set
of punishments.
Secondly (and somewhat more hidden) is social control. These are
the actions which are considered socially unacceptable and while not covered
by legal control, are scrictly controled by social censure. Ideally (if
socialization is working as it should) legal control is hardly ever needed
since most people voluntarilly control their actions due to the pressure of
social censure.
The control manifests itself in day-to-day life as "guilt" and
"morality". I've heard it said (and fully believe) that if it weren't for
the VAST majority of people policing themselves, legal control would be
absolutely impossible.
Lately (last 50, 100 years?) however there has been a move to
attempt to dissengage the individual from societal control (ie. if it ain't
illegal, then don't pick on me). I'm not saying this is wrong, merely
that it is a byproduct of a society which has:
1) A high education level,
2) A high exposure to alternative ideas via the popular media,
3) A high level of institutionalized individual rights, and
4) A "me" oriented culture.
I guess what I'm saying is that we appear to be in a state of transition,
here in the western world in that we still have many ideas about what we can\
can't allow people to do based entirely on personal squeamishness, yet we
are fully bent on maximizing individual freedoms to the max as long as
those freedoms don't impinge on another's.
IMHO society is trying to persue two mutually exclusive ends here. While we
appreciate and persue individual rights (these satisfy the old
territoriality and dominance instincts), the removal of socialized,
inherent fears based on ignorance will result in the
continued destabilization of society.
I got no quick fix. I have no idea how we can get ourselves out of this
mess. I know I would never consent to the roll-back of personal freedoms
in order to "stabilize" society. Yet I believe development of societies
follow a Darwinian process which selects for stability. Can we find a
social model which maximizes indiv. freed.'s yet is stable? Perhaps it is
possible to live with a "non-stable" society?
Anybody see a way out? Comments?
PS. Therefore answer to question #3: We don't. Do we want to?
Phil Trodwell | 0 | alt.atheism |
What is wrong with "the Spirit talking to Himself." Jesus intercedes
for us, and Romans 8:26-27 tell of how the Spirit intercedes for
us before God. That is no theological problem. Tounges as a prayer
language finds support in I Corinthians 14:14-18.
Its true that this could be (and has been) used as a rug to sweep
any difficulties under. But it is a valid point. Paul does mention
angelic tounges in the verse.
If the languages we sepak are the result of Babel, then it stands to
reason that angels would speak a different language from us. You do
have a valid point about multiple angelic languages. But angelic
beings maybe of different species so to speak. maybe different species
communicate differently.
I have heard an eyewitness account, myself. Such things are hard to prove.
They don't lend themselves to a laboratory thing very well. I don';t
know if it is a very holy thing to take gifts into a laboratory anyway.
That's an unprovable statement. How can you prove if somethings been proved?
There is no way to know that you've seen all the evidence. Once I
saw an orthodontists records complete with photographs showing how one of
his patients severe underbite was cured by constant prayer.
John G. Lakes once prayed for someone and saw them healed in a laboratory,
according to "Adventures in God." Its an interesting book. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
(I presume you are quoting John 3:3-7.)
1. My King James Bible says "Except a man be born of water
and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God"
(John 3:5). (Here "man" == "adult").
(However, this could be a quibble between translations.)
2. We can also analyze to whom the Lord is addressing:
"Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again"
(John 3:7). Here Jesus is clearly directing his remarks
to Nicodemus -- a ruler of the Jews (not a child).
3. We can ask ourselves why the Lord would even
introduce the concept of spiritual re-birth through
baptism if newborn babies weren't free from sin?
A IDLER | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
...
I'm in Japan.
(Michael, could you give me more info about where Akita is: nearest city
would be good)
If I find it, I'll get pictures and post a digitised version if enough
people are interested.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
No. It is very relevant. Homosexual acts and acts of beastiality are
topically aranged together in the law. This is very important.
Anyone who would want to say that this command against homosexuality
deals with temple prostitution (and I think you would agree that there
is no proof for this.) If the Law reveals the character of God, and
is "holy, just, and good" as is written in the New Testament, then
those who consider we who are against commiting homosexuals acts
to be biggots have to address this passage of Scripture.
Why must we only discuss Scriptures that involve consensual human
adult relationships? Isn't that bordering on sophistry? The point
we are making is that God did not ordain certain kinds of sex acts.
Not everyone who brings up these Scriptures is just trying to use and emotional
argument that compares homosexuals to beastophiles and child molestors.
The issue we are dealing with is that some sex acts are ungodly.
I do not have problem with a loving, nonlustful relationship with a member
of the same sex. I have them, and we all do. The issue at hand is
the sinfulness having sex with members of the same sex, or lusting after.
So other forbidden sex acts are a valid topic for conversation.
And the idea that these relationships may be emotional relationships
between adult humans is red herring. We all agree that it is okay
for adults to have caring relationships with one another. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Actually, I've got an entire list of books written by various atheist
authors and I went to the largest bookstore in my area (Pittsburgh) and
couldn't find _any_ of them. What section of the bookstore do you find
these kinds of books in? Do you have to look in an "alternative" bookstore
for most of them? Any help would be appreciated (I can send you the list
if you want). | 0 | alt.atheism |
I guess I'm delving into a religious language area. What exactly is morality
or morals? I never thought of eating meat to be moral or immoral, but I think
it could be. How do we differentiate between not doing something because it is
a personal choice or preference and not doing something because we see it as
immoral? Do we fall to what the basis of these morals are?
Also, consensus positions fall to a might makes right. Or, as you brought out,
if whatever is right is what is societally mandated then whoever is in control
at the time makes what is right
MC
MAC
--
****************************************************************
Michael A. Cobb
"...and I won't raise taxes on the middle University of Illinois
class to pay for my programs." Champaign-Urbana
-Bill Clinton 3rd Debate cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu | 0 | alt.atheism |
On Sunday 9 May 1993, Kenneth Engel writes (in substance):
We are told that the penalty for sin is an eternity in Hell.
We are told that Jesus paid the penalty, suffering in our stead.
But Jesus did not spend an eternity in Hell.
This objection presupposes the "forensic substitution" theory of the
Atonement. Not everyone who believes in the Atonement understands it
in those terms. For an expansion of this statement, send the
messages
GET GEN04 RUFF
GET GEN05 RUFF
GET GEN06 RUFF
GET GEN07 RUFF
to LISTSERV@ASUACAD.BITNET or to LISTSERV@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
Note that the character after the "GEN" is a zero. If you want to
read my opun from the beginning, start with GEN01. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Another one rescued from the bit bucket...
Over the years the furor over this book has been discussed on a.a. and
elsewhere on the net. Generally, the discussion comes down to the
contention on the one hand that TSV contains such blood libel against
Islam as to merit, if not death, than at least banning and probably
some sort of punishment; and on the other that Rushdie, particularly
as a non-muslim in a Western country, had every right to write and
publish whatever he chose, regardless of whether some muslims find it
offensive, without fear of persecution or death.
I am naturally inclined to the latter position, but find myself in an
interesting position, because I think this is a fine book, only
incidentally concerned with Islam, and moreover I'm damned if I can
find anything malevolently offensive in it.
Over the years, when I have made this point, various primarily muslim
posters have responded, saying that yes indeed they have read the book
and had called it such things as "filth and lies", "I would rank
Rushdie's book with Hitler's Mein Kempf or worse", and so on.
Unfortunately, these comments are usually generalities, and attempts
to follow up by requesting explanations for what specifically is so
offensive have met either with stony silence, more generalizations, or
inaccurate or out-of-context references to the book [which lead me to
believe that few of them have actually read it]. Corrections and
attempts to discuss the text in context have been ignored.
Anyway, since I seem to be the only one following this particular line
of discussion, I wonder how many of the rest of the readership have
read this book? What are your thoughts on it?
--
Jim Perry perry@dsinc.com Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
These are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Hello, Brycen ?!
I'm a Norwegian journalist student - and also a Christian. Thanks for your
testimony! But I want to ask you one question: What do you think of Heavy
Metal music after you became a Christian? You know there are Christian bands
like Barren Cross, Whitecross, Bloodgood and Stryper, that play that kind of
music. I like some of it, I feel like it sometimes. Of course I listen to
the lyrics too. I don't listen to any Christian band, but it's better than
listening to secular music anyway.
Hope you're still going strong - with Christ!! | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Ah! Excellent. So why doesn't she appear to me? I'm a little weak in the
blind faith department. (Besides, she doesn't even really need to appear:
how about, oh say, a little tip - something like "put your all on #3 in the
7:30 at the Dog Races" ... perhaps in a dream or vision.)
I'm afraid I don't know arabic; I have only read translations. I wouldn't
know it if it were well-written. (Consistent, though, is one thing the Quran
is not.) And have *you* read it in arabic? Besides, some of my best
writing has been done under the influence of, shall we say, consciousness
altering substances.
Yes, so? How do we know they *weren't* very good? (Again, assuming that the
Quran is beautfully written.)
Ok, I retract this point. (Although I might still say that once he knew, he
should have done something about it.)
I haven't interviewed all muslims about this; I would really like it if this
were false. But I can't take it on your say-so - what are your sources?
What other basis do we have to judge a system? Especially when we can't get
a consistent picture of what Islam "really" is. Do I believe Khomeini? Do I
go by the Imam of the mosque in Mecca? Or perhaps the guy in New Jersey? Or
perhaps you say I should go only by the Quran. Ok, whose translation? And
what about things like "And wherever you find idolators, kill them"?
-s | 0 | alt.atheism |
[ Deletia; in case anybody hadn't noticed, Frank and I are debating
"objective morality", and seemingly hitting semantics. ]
It may be that, being a non-native English-speaker, I've
misunderstood your usage of "objective", and tried to debate something
you don't assert; my apologies. I'm at a loss to imagine what you really
do mean, though.
Wrong point. The age of the universe has no direct effect on
humanity's sticking power, in the way the moral system of a society can
have.
I'm saying the Universe has a "real age", because I see evidence
for it; cosmology, astronomy and so on. I say this age is independent of
people's opinions of it, because I know different people have a lot of
different opinions in the matter, yet empirical tests consistently seem
to give roughly the same results.
I can't see how it does that. Put a creationist to the task of
performing the tests and calculations, see to it (s)he makes no blatant
errors in measuring or calculating, and the result of the test will be
the same.
Because logically consistent empirical tests contradict their
opinion. If those tests were just my opinion, then their own tests
(which would then be their opinion) would contradict mine, even if we
conducted said tests in identical manner, no? They don't, which I take
as showing these tests have some validity beyond our opinion of them.
Map the activity of nerves and neural activity, if you mean
physical pain. You have a sharp point, I'll give you that; but you still
haven't given me a way to quantify morality.
We agree. Hypotheses, however, can change; I hold that there is no
"ultimate hypothesis of morality" towards which these changes could
gravitate, but that they could be changed in any way imaginable,
producing different results suitable for different tasks or purposes.
"Better" and "worse" are (almost?) always defined in the context
of a moral system. Your prediction will _always_ be correct, *within*
*that* *moral* *system*. What you need now is an objective definition of
"good" and "bad"; I wish you luck.
Isn't that what _you're_ doing, when assuming an "objectively
real" morality? Besides, what _exactly_ is provably wrong with my
statement?
Claiming there is no objective morality is suddenly a positive
claim? Besides, I think I _can_ lend some credence to my claim; ponder
different individuals, both fully functional as human beings and members
of society, but yet with wildly different moral codes. If morality was
"objective", at least one should be way off base, but yet hir
'incorrect' morality seems to function fine. How come?
As for producing these individuals, it might be easiest to pick
them from different societies; say, an islamic one and some polynesian
matrilineal system, for example (if such still exist).
[ deletia - testing for footballs on desks ]
One thing is "good" under some circumstances, because we wish to
achieve some goal, for some reason. Other times we wish to do something
else, and that thing is no longer so clearly "good" at all.
Some things are hard to make "good", because we'd seldom if ever
wish to achieve the sort of goal mass murder would lead one into. Still,
the Aztecs were doing fine until the Spaniards wiped them out.
I almost always know what "good" means; sometimes I even know why.
I never claim this "good" is thereby fixed in stone, immutable.
[...]
Yes, me too, and I've tried a thing or two down that line; it
doesn't look good for objective values to me at all.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Actually in D&C 68:25-28 the parents are being held accountable for
their own sins. Specifically they are accountable for their failure
to teach their children properly. If I fail to teach my children
that stealing is wrong then I am responsible for their theft if they
later indulge in such behavior. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
It's always a two-way street. God gave her the grace to avoid sin,
thus when she was visited by Gabriel, she gave her fiat, her total
acceptance of God's will. This fiat summarizes why Catholics regard
her as the highest of all humans, that God chose her and that she
accepted. Knowing this in advance, we extrapolate that she was
neither stained by nor subject to original sin.
God did create us all miraculously free to choose or not choose to sin.
"Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof and the grace of God to
command it." This amount of grace was precisely determined by God
to be the amount required to do what God asked of her. The grace
given to each of us is also enough, but we do not always choose
to accept it. We also believe Jesus was fully human and never
sinned.
God could have created a much better person than myself, one who
always chose the right thing, yet he created me instead, despite
my flaws. He proves he loves me as I am, continually drawing me
towards perfection. For whatever purpose he has for me, he has
confidence that I will accomplish it. If I ask God to repeat his
miraculous creation of the mother of his son, where will that leave me? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
being gay and Christianity are not compatible should
I would absolutly love to have the time and energy to do so. The
problem is to be totally fair I would have to go throught this type of
search on every issue I belive in. I don't have the time, resources,
or ability to do what you ask. Maybe you should pray that God gives
me the opportunity instead of simply discrediting me because I have
not been able to talk to every gay christian. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Easy vs. Hard .....Easy on who?
I had a rare very personal talk with my mother last year. She said
that when she and my father were raising we four children, they
did not try to raise us in this world as strictly as they were raised
in their Norwegian Lutheran community. They felt that we would be
alienated from them and it would create problems.
In other words, my parent did the very tolerant, loving thing. They
raised us without conflict, without what we saw as unreasonable
demands and were always accepting, no matter what the circumstances.
What happened was that I grew up believing in situation ethics and
never absolutes. I believed in a loving God, and my concept of God
never involved justice or punishment, nor was there any concept that
I may someday be held responsible for the things that offended
Him...sins that the "world" told me were OK.
My parents are very good, honest and moral people. They raised
four extremely honest children. Yet, before coming to a more
complete knowledge of God (which includes the knowledge of justice
and punishment)I committed what I now believe to be many, many
grave sins. I lived with a partner outside of marriage, was married
and divorced ( only after physical abuse and no apparent hope for
change...but I shouldn't have married to person in the first place )
and more....
My parents felt they were doing the loving,kind thing by allowing
us to be who we were, by not imposing their standards on us, and by
accepting unquestioningly everything we did without judgement or
counsel.
Today, it is absolutely appalling for me to look back on what they
*did* accept without a word. It takes courages to dare to help souls
because you must speak up and say what is unpopular and
difficult and what people do not want to hear. You must be able
to say what is hard, and say it as Christ would, with love and
compassion. It involves risk....perhaps someone you love may not
want to hear and will stay away from you.
This life is "but dust". As long as the comfort of this life
is our highest priority, we will fail God and fail those
with whom we come in contact.
I wonder how many who engage in sex outside of marriage, who
support the "right" to abortion, who engage in homosexuality,
or who commit any of the range of sins that are plentiful in
this time have ever heard from a quiet, thoughtful, loving
friend that these things are *wrong*. No one ever told me that
what I was doing was wrong, and I saw multitudes around me
living the same way I was and they seemed like good, decent
people. (wouldn't kick dogs or beat the elderly or babies..)
It is more difficult for sinners without a genuine prayer
life to hear the Holy Spirit than it is to hear a loving friend.
Think about this the next time the Holy Spirit tells you that
a friend is in error, but you don't want to "cause trouble".
Righteous prayers is great power, but don't forget that we are
we are Christ's lips and hands on earth. Don't be afraid to
simply voice Truth when the situation calls for it. Say a
fervent prayer and ask the Holy Spirit for Love and guidance.
In more ways than we may realize, we *are* our brother's
keeper. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[writing to someone else]
Can we get back to using the terms "strong Atheist" and "weak Atheist"
rather than this "hard Atheist" and "soft Atheist". I can imagine
future discussions with Newbies where there is confusion because of the
multiplication of descriptions.
[rest deleted]
| 0 | alt.atheism |
I thought your nickname was "UnEnlightened"
--
Maddi Hausmann madhaus@netcom.com
Centigram Communications Corp San Jose California 408/428-3553 | 0 | alt.atheism |
My roommate, the atheist, says "to anyone out there who might be
listening."
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
A world creator god does, the moment it creates the world. And to sayi
that you can't recall *anyone* is even below your usual standard of
a"arguing".
My argument is based on quite usual theistic assumptions, namely god
is perfect, god is all-knowing god sets the rules. The rules don't
work for whatever reason. Because of its omniscience, the god has
known it. In advance.
(Deletion)
It is not a question of grammar, it is a question of modelling. Has been
discussed in the wonderful time when you were not posting to this group.
When A is contradictorily defined A does not point to an instance in
reality. Unless there is more information in the definition of A that
allows me to find it somehow. However, when the contradictory attribute
is said to be essential, ie has not got that attribute => not the A I
am looking for, I can conclude that A does not exist.
That's quite like: I predict coins falling
Predicted Happened
1. Heads Tails
2. Tails Tails
3. Heads Tails
4. Heads Tails
I take 2. and dismiss the rest because of the unnecessary complexity
the other evidence causes.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
: In article <C5Mw03.9qr@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu
: > I'd say that what one chooses to observe and how the observation is
: > interpreted and what significance it's given depends a great deal on
: > the values of the observer. Science is a human activity and as such,
: > is subject to the same potential for distortion as any other human
: > activity. The myth that scientists are above moral influence or
: > ethical concern, that their knowledge can be abstacted whole and pure
: > from nature untainted by the biases of the scientist, is nonsense.
: Bill, this is wonderfully phrased. I assume you understand that your
: statement is also undermining such human constructs as religion
: as well.
Kent,
I'll accept this as a compliment although I'm always a little paranoid
when visiting a.a, thanks. Yes I do know the extent of the statements
relevence, it's what I think of as human nature. I'm not sure it
undermines either religion or atheism since both claim special
knowledge about the Truth and since such claims are always suspect,
all we can learn from it is that humans are a very arrogant species.
My point is that we cannot ignore human nature when examining human
claims. The trick here then, is to find some way to abstract our
infinitely fallible nature from whatever reality is out there so we
can see what there is to see. I can think of no way this can be done. | 0 | alt.atheism |
The Moderator of the General Assembly, the Rev. John Fife, visited our
church about a week ago (just 4 days after Rev. Spahr--it's been a busy
week for our small church!!). He was asked specifically about the issue
of homosexuality and what he thinks will happen at the GA meeting next
month. Evidently, there are 15-20 known resolutions pending that range
the gamut from "outlawing" homosexuality altogether to "legalizing" it
completely. He will readily admit that this is probabaly the most difficult
issue that the church has had to deal with since the Presbyterian church
split in two over the issue of slavery more than 100 years ago. Without
question, the issue may split the church again after we've been reunited
for all of a dozen years or so. He is hopeful that it will not and is
pushing the same attitude that helped the church deal with the abortion
issue last year as a solution.
He is hoping to pass a resolution that more or less states that we, the
members of the church "Agree to Disagree" on the issue, admitting that
both sides have honestly studied the Scriptures and had the Spirit lead
them to different conclusions. It worked last year when the abortion
issue threatened to do more or less the same thing, and he is hopeful that
the GA can foster a loving and caring attitude about people who disagree
with their own view.
--
Cliff Slaughterbeck |
Dept. of Physics, FM-15 | It's time for the sermon on the
University of Washington | Grand Torino!
Seattle, WA 98195 | | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Seeing as how _The_Two_Babylons_ has been brought up again, it is time for
me to respond , once again, and say that this book is junk. It is nothing
more that an anti-Catholic tract of the sort published ever since the there
were protestants. Its scholarship is phony and its assertions spurious. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Luke 10:16-18
He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth
me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.
And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the
devils are subject unto us through thy name.
And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Bill, I think you have a misunderstanding about atheism. Lack of
belief in God does not directly imply lack of understanding
transcendental values. I hope you would accept the fact that
for instance Buddhists appreciate issues related to non-empirical
reasoning without the need to automatically believe in theism.
I think reading a couple of books related to Buddhism might
revise and fine tune your understanding of non-Christian systems.
Cheers,
Kent
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Robin Lane Fox is a historian and a gardener. He has written several
history books, perhaps a recent one you might remember is "The Search
for Alexander". He has also written or edited several books on
gardening. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
You should remember that in Adam's transgression, all men and women
sinned, as Paul wrote. All of humanity cooperativley reblled against
God in Adma's sin, thus, all are subject to it, and the sin is
transmitted from generation to generation. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
#[reply to frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)]
#
#>>The problem for the objectivist is to determine the status of moral
#>>truths and the method by which they can be established. If we accept
#>>that such judgements are not reports of what is but only relate to
#>>what ought to be (see naturalistic fallacy) then they cannot be proved
#>>by any facts about the nature of the world.
#
#>This can be avoided in at least two ways: (1) By leaving the Good
#>undefined, since anyone who claims that they do not know what it is is
#>either lying or so out of touch with humanity as to be undeserving of a
#>reply.
#
#If the Good is undefined (undefinable?) but you require of everyone that
#they know innately what is right, you are back to subjectivism.
No, and begging the question. see below.
#>(2) By defining the Good solely in terms of evaluative terms.
#
#Ditto here. An evaluative statement implies a value judgement on the
#part of the person making it.
Again, incorrect, and question-begging. See below.
#
#>>At this point the objectivist may talk of 'self-evident truths'
#
#Pretty perceptive, that Prof. Flew.
#
#>>but can he deny the subjectivist's claim that self-evidence is in the
#>>mind of the beholder?
#
#>Of course; by denying that subject/object is true dichotomy.
#
#Please explain how this helps. I don't see your argument.
I don't see yours. It seems to rest on the assertion that everything
is either a subject or an object. There's nothing compelling about that
dichotomy. I might just as well divide the world into subject,object,
event. It even seems more sensible. Causation, for example, is
an event, not a subject or an object.
Furthermore, if subject/object were true dichotomy, i.e.
Everything is either a subject or an object
Then, is that statement a self-evident truth or not? If so, then it's
all in the mind of the beholder, according to the relativist, and hardly
compelling. Add to that the fact that the world can quickly be shoved
in its entirety into the "subjective" category by an idealist or
solipsist argument, and that we have this perfectly good alternate
set of categories (subject, object, event) [which can be reduced
to (subject, object, quality) without any logical difficulty] and why
yes, I guess I *am* denying that self-evident truths are all in the mind of
the beholder.
#>>If not, what is left of the claim that some moral judgements are true?
All of it.
#>If nothing, then NO moral judgements are true. This is a thing that
#>is commonly referred to as nihilism. It entails that science is of
#>no value, irrepective of the fact that some people find it useful. How
#>anyone arrives at relativism/subjectivism from this argument beats me.
#
#This makes no sense either. Flew is arguing that this is where the
#objectivist winds up, not the subjectivist. Furthermore, the nihilists
#believed in nothing *except* science, materialism, revolution, and the
#People.
I'm referring to ethical nihilism
#>>The subjectivist may well feel that all that remains is that there are
#>>some moral judgements with which he would wish to associate himself.
#>>To hold a moral opinion is, he suggests, not to know something to be
#>>true but to have preferences regarding human activity."
#
#>And if those preferences should include terrorism, that moral opinion
#>is not true. Likewise, if the preferences should include noTerrorism,
#>that moral opinion is not true. Why should one choose a set of
#>preferences which include terrorisim over one which includes
#>noTerrorism? Oh, no reason. This is patently absurd....
#
#And also not the position of the subjectivist, as has been pointed out
#to you already by others. Ditch the strawman, already, and see my reply
#to Mike Cobb's root message in the thread Societal Basis for Morality.
I've responded over there. BTW - I don't intend this as a strawman, but
as something logically entailed by relativism (really any ethical system
where values are assumed to be unreal). It's different to say "Relativists
say..." than "relativism implies...".
| 0 | alt.atheism |
I have noticed that newspapers don't even know what a fundamentalist is;
at the least, they confuse new evangelicals and fundamentalists. In this
news group, the liberals don't even know what a fundamentalist is (crying
out "legalist" at anyone who believes and obeys God's Word). A fundamentalist
would train their children in the way God proscribes, not in the way that
man proscribes. This would not include life threatening beatings but would
include corporal punishment.
To the liberals, I cry out infidel at anyone who does not believe God's Word.
Signature follows:
"Your statutes are wonderful: therefore I obey them." Psalm 119:129
=========================================================================
David L. Hanson
Any opinions expressed are my own!
[As most people here know, I believe fundamentalist is sufficiently
ill-defined that I advise using some more specific term. I think many
people use it to cover people who believe in inerrancy and a number of
related concepts (e.g. denial of evolution). While the original
fundamentals movement was somewhat more specific, I would think most
people who accept inerrancy would actually support the whole original
agenda. (It included a list of key traditional doctrines, e.g. the
virgin birth.) The term is now being used by the press to describe
aggressive conservative religions in general, most typically those who
are attempting to legislate religion.
Legalism is yet another ill-defined term. However there is some
reason for its use in this context. In fact the common theological
definition is the believe that salvation is through the Law. I hope
no one here believes that our conservative contributors hold this
view. However there is a basic difference in approach over what we
expect to get out of the Bible. The conservative approach expects to
find specific behavioral rules. Generally the posters advocating this
approach talk about the relevant passages from Paul's letter as God's
Law. The liberal approach expects to find general principles, but it
regards specific behavioral rules subject to change depending upon the
culture and other things. It's easy to see why a liberal would regard
the conservative approach as legalism. It's hard to know quite what
other term to use. The issue in this case is not inerrancy, because
no one is saying that Paul made a factual error. Rather, the question
is whether his statements are to be taken as Law. Calling the
positive answer legalism seems obvious enough terminology. I haven't
seen any good alternative. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[Someone asked about Biblical support for the image of Satan as
a fallen angel. Rev 12:7-9 and Enoch have been cited. --clh]
There is also a verse in Luke(?) that says He[Jesus] saw Satan fall
from Heaven. It's something like that. I don't have my Bible in
front of me or I would quote it directly, but it's a pretty obvious
reference to Satan's expulsion.
Justin | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
It should be noted that belief in God is in itself no more a behavoral
imperative than lack of belief. It is religion which causes the harm,
not the belief in God. | 0 | alt.atheism |
(about my reply)
It a society that is constantly on the verge of flaming, Usenet, diplomacy
is the best way to ensure the voice of reason gets through, isn't it?
Kevin, unfortunately you are now delving into field I know too little
about, algorithms. Your reasoning, as I see it, is very much along the
lines of Roger Penrose, who claimed that mathematical 'insight' cannot
be algorithmic in his book _The emperor's new mind: Concerning
computers, minds, and the laws of physics_. However, Penrose's
claim that he _has_ mathematical insight, or your similar claim
that wavefunctions collapse only when we consciously take a look,
could be just illusions.
We are obviouslu taking very different viewpoints - I try to ponder
on the problem of consciousness from an evolutionary perspective,
realising that it might not be anything special, but certainly
useful. Thinking back of what I wrote, do you think worms have minds
or not? They are able to experience pain, at least they behave
just like that. Yet it is conceivable that we might some day
in the future perform a "total synthesis of C. elegans" from
the elements. Would such a worm have a mind?
This is true to some extent. However, I do not think that our brains
work like computers, at all. In fact, there is substantial evidence
(Skarda, 1985; Skarda & Freeman 1987) that brains work more or less
chaotically, generating enough randomness for mental states to evolve.
Our brains work much like genetic algorithm generators, I suppose.
Indeed, this is extremely unlikely, given the vast impact of nurture
on our mind and brain. I suggest, however, that before trying to
understand our consciousness as a collection of algorithms.
Kevin, take a look at the references I mentioned, and think again.
I still think the best experts on the nature of a conscious mind
are neurologists, neuropsychologists and biologists (but do not
flame me for my opinions), since they study beings that are
conscious.
The reason I am repeating my advice is that this discussion cannot
lead to anywhere if our backgrounds are too different.
And please, do not bring QM into this discussion at all - not
all physicists are happy with the claim that our consciousness
plays some special role in physics. I would say it doesn't.
Again, _brains are not computers_. Don't forget this. This does not
mean they need something else to work - they just work differently.
Their primary 'purpose' is perception and guidance of action,
self-awareness and high intelligence are later appearances.
You are still expecting that we could find the idea of 'green' in
our brains somewhere, perhaps in the form of some chemical. This is
not how I see it. The sensation 'green' is a certain time-dependent
pattern in the area V4 of our visual cortex, and it is distributed
with the help of areas V1 and V2 to the rest of the brain.
Indeed, a firing pattern. I have sometimes thought of our consciousness
as a global free induction pattern of these local firing patterns,
but this is just idle speculation.
Scientific American's September 1992 issue was a special issue on
mind and brain. Have you already read it from cover to cover? ;-)
There are two articles on visual perception, so you might be
interested.
But again, please note that subjective experiences cannot be
observed from a third-person perspective. If we see nothing but
neuronal activity, we cannot go on to conclude that this is not the
mind.
Kalat (1988) writes about numerous examples where electric stimulation
of different areas of brain have led to various changes in the
patients' state of mind. For instance, a patient whose septal area
was stimulated (without his knowledge) by remote control during
a psychiatric interview was quickly cured of his depression, and
started discussing a plan to seduce his girlfriend.
Stimulations in the temporal lobe have sometimes led to embarrassing
situations, when the patients have started flirting with the
therapist.
In conclusion, there is evidence that
1) brains are essentially necessary for subjective experiences,
brain damage is usually equivalent to some sort of mind damage
2) conscious processes involve substantial brain activity in
various areas of brain - when we think of colours, our
visual cortex is activated etc.
3) consciousness is an afterthought - we become conscious of our
actions with a half a second delay, and our brains are ahead
of our 'conscious will' by at least 350 ms.
Thus, I think it is fruitful to turn the question "Why do 'I' see
colours" around and ask "What is this 'I' that seems to be
observing?", since it seems that our conscious mind is not
the king of our brains.
This depends on what is meant by 'seeing colours'. Does a neural
network that is capable of recognising handwritten numbers from
0 to 9 see the numbers, if it is capable of sorting them?
If you are asking, "why does an animal who is conscious of itself
as an observer have an evolutionary advantage over an animal who
doesn't", I have a good answer - read my previous posting,
where I wrote why a sense of identity helps social animals to swap
roles and act more morally, so that they don't unconsciously
kill each other with newly discovered weapons. (A bit extreme,
but this is the basic idea.)
When early _Homo_ became more and more efficient in using tools,
a sense of identity and the concept of 'self' had to evolve in
line with this development. Indeed, respect for others and
conscious altruistic behaviour might be evolutionary advantages
for social animals, such as early humans.
If minds are required for this, does this mean that until human
minds came to the scene, wavefunctions never collapsed, but remained
in the superpositions for aeons? My, how powerful we are.
This has been discussed before, and I think this topic is irrelevant,
since we do not agree that minds are necessary, and neither do
physicists.
I agree, but not in the sense you apparently mean above - physics
needs sharp minds to solve many real problems. ;-)
It's OK, if you don't forget to take with you the references I
wrote about in my previous posting, plus the following:
Kalat, James W. (1988): Biological Psychology.
3rd ed., Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA 1988.
Skarda, C. (1985): Explaining behavior: Bringing the brain back in.
Inquiry 29:187-202.
Skarda, C. & Freeman, W. (1987): How brains make chaos in order to
make sense of the world.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10:161-173.
Petri
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Bill Conner, meet Bill Conner. | 0 | alt.atheism |
..
...
It sounds like she has a problem. She has a problem opening up to her
husband so she is lesbian. WHAT? In a marrige, a couple is supposed
to open up to each other. Because she didn't feel comfortable opening
up to her husband she gets a divorce and comes to the conclusion that
she is lesbian. Before anyone gets maried they should make sure that
they would feel comfortable "open up the deepest part of her soul to
her husband". "Sex, in her mind, is only a part of the whole
relationship." Did she think it was diffrent with a man. That might
be her problem. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I found this little gem, I don't know if anyone has any interest/comments...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi everyone,
I'm a commited Christian that is battling with a problem. I know
that romans talks about how we are saved by our faith not our deeds, yet
hebrews and james say that faith without deeds is useless, saying' You fools,
do you still think that just believing is enough?'
Now if someone is fully believing but there life is totally lead by themselves
and not by God, according to Romans that person is still saved by there faith.
But then there is the bit which says that God preferes someone who is cold to
him (i.e. doesn't know him - condemned) so a lukewarm Christian someone who
knows and believes in God but doesn't make any attempt to live by the bible.
Now I am of the opinion that you a saved through faith alone (not what you do)
as taught in Romans, but how can I square up in my mind the teachings of James
in conjunction with the lukewarm Christian being 'spat-out'
Can anyone help me, this really bothers me.--
in Christ,
Will
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Adam | 0 | alt.atheism |
: I agree, I had a hard feeling not believing my grand-grand mother
: who told me of elves dancing outside barns in the early mornings.
: I preferred not to accept it, even if her statement provided
: the truth itself. Life is hard.
Kent,
Truly a brilliant rebuttal. Apparently you are of the opinion that
ridicule is a suitable substitute for reason; you'll find plenty of
company a.a | 0 | alt.atheism |
You are right, Michael.
In John 3:5, Jesus says, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the
kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit." That's really what
He said, and He meant it. That verse is the definition of baptism. I don't
have the law book in front of me, but there is a canon law that urges
parents to baptize their children within one week of birth for the very
reason that you state.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Archive-name: atheism/overview
Alt-atheism-archive-name: overview
Last-modified: 20 April 1993
Version: 1.3
Overview
Welcome to alt.atheism and alt.atheism.moderated.
This is the first in a series of regular postings aimed at new readers of the
newsgroups.
Many groups of a 'controversial' nature have noticed that new readers often
come up with the same questions, mis-statements or misconceptions and post
them to the net. In addition, people often request information which has
been posted time and time again. In order to try and cut down on this, the
alt.atheism groups have a series of five regular postings under the following
titles:
1. Alt.Atheism FAQ: Overview for New Readers
2. Alt.Atheism FAQ: Introduction to Atheism
3. Alt.Atheism FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
4. Alt.Atheism FAQ: Constructing a Logical Argument
5. Alt.Atheism FAQ: Atheist Resources
This is article number 1. Please read numbers 2 and 3 before posting. The
others are entirely optional.
If you are new to Usenet, you may also find it helpful to read the newsgroup
news.announce.newusers. The articles titled "A Primer on How to Work With
the Usenet Community", "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Usenet"
and "Hints on writing style for Usenet" are particularly relevant. Questions
concerning how news works are best asked in news.newusers.questions.
If you are unable to find any of the articles listed above, see the "Finding
Stuff" section below.
Credits
These files could not have been written without the assistance of the many
readers of alt.atheism and alt.atheism.moderated. In particular, I'd like to
thank the following people:
kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)
perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry)
NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken)
chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey)
jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
geoff.arnold@East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold)
torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
kmldorf@utdallas.edu (George Kimeldorf)
roe2@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Roelofs)
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
J5J@psuvm.psu.edu (John A. Johnson)
dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
mayne@open.cs.fsu.edu (William Mayne)
ajr@bigbird.hri.com (Andy Rosen)
stoesser@ira.uka.de (Achim Stoesser)
bosullvn@unix1.tcd.ie (Bryan O'Sullivan)
lippard@ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
s1b3832@rigel.tamu.edu (S. Baum)
ydobyns@phoenix.princeton.edu (York H. Dobyns)
schroede@sdsc.edu (Wayne Schroeder)
baldwin@csservera.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
D_NIBBY@unhh.unh.edu (Dana Nibby)
dempsey@Kodak.COM (Richard C. Dempsey)
jmunch@hertz,elee.calpoly.edu (John David Munch)
pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
rz@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Richard Zach)
tycchow@math.mit.edu (Tim Chow)
simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
PHIMANEN@cc.helsinki.fi (Pekka Himanen)
...and countless others I've forgotten.
These articles are free. Truly free. You may copy them and distribute them
to anyone you wish. However, please send any changes or corrections to the
author, and please do not re-post copies of the articles to alt.atheism; it
does nobody any good to have multiple versions of the same document floating
around the network.
Finding Stuff
All of the FAQ files *should* be somewhere on your news system. Here are
some suggestions on what to do if you can't find them:
1. Check the newsgroup alt.atheism. Look for subject lines starting with
"Alt.Atheism FAQ:".
2. Check the newsgroup news.answers for the same subject lines.
If you don't find anything in steps 1 or 2, your news system isn't set up
correctly, and you may wish to tell your system administrator about the
problem.
3. If you have anonymous FTP access, connect to rtfm.mit.edu [18.70.0.226].
Go to the directory /pub/usenet/alt.atheism, and you'll find the latest
versions of the FAQ files there.
FTP is a a way of copying files between networked computers. If you
need help in using or getting started with FTP, send e-mail to
mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with
send usenet/news.answers/ftp-list/faq
in the body.
4. There are other sites which also carry news.answers postings. The article
"Introduction to the news.answers newsgroup" carries a list of these
sites; the article is posted regularly to news.answers.
5. If you don't have FTP, send mail to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu
consisting of the following lines:
send usenet/news.answers/finding-sources
send usenet/alt.atheism/faq
send usenet/alt.atheism/introduction
send usenet/alt.atheism/logic
send usenet/alt.atheism/resources
5. (Penultimate resort) Send mail to mail-server@mantis.co.uk consisting of
the following lines:
send atheism/faq/faq.txt
send atheism/faq/logic.txt
send atheism/faq/intro.txt
send atheism/faq/resource.txt
and our poor overworked modems will try and send you a copy of the files.
There's other stuff, too; interesting commands to try are "help" and
"send atheism/index".
6. (Last resort) Mail mathew@mantis.co.uk, or post an article to the
newsgroup asking how you can get the FAQ files. You should only do this
if you've tried the above methods and they've failed; it's not nice to
clutter the newsgroup or people's mailboxes with requests for files.
it's better than posting without reading the FAQ, though! For instance,
people whose email addresses get mangled in transit and who don't have
FTP will probably need assistance obtaining the FAQ files.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Fine, but one of the points of this entire discussion is that "we"
(conservative, reformed christians - this could start an argument...
But isn't this idea that homosexuality is ok fairly "new" [this
century] ? Is there any support for this being a viable viewpoint
before this century? I don't know.) don't believe that homosexuality
is "acceptable to Him". So your scripture quotation doesn't work for
"us". | 15 | soc.religion.christian |