text
stringlengths 1
51k
| label
int64 0
15
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
And how come we don't pass out bullet-proof vests in school
to promote safe gun usage? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Please excuse the interruption.
I am seeking pro-life activists to fill out a 13-page questionnaire
on attitutes, opinions, and activities. If you would be willing
to participate in this research, please email me privately at
KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET. All replies and questionnaires will be
made anonymous prior to printout and will be kept confidential.
Thank you very much for your help.
--Kerry at Purdue | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I guess there are at least some people who are not able to support
this claim. There are still a lot of languages without the Bible, or a
part of the Bible. There are still many languages which we are not
able to write, simply because the written version of the language has
not yet been defined!
I guess this is one of the main goals for Wycliffe Bible Translators:
To define rules and a grammar for writing the 'rest' of the languages
of this world. I do not see that any of them will have any reason to
become unemployed during the foreseeable future. (Provided they get
their neccessary support!) And still they are one of the 3 largest
missionary organizations of the world.
Bjorn | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Actually, it is simple.
A person P has committed a crime C in country X if P was within the borders
of X at the time when C was committed. It doesn't matter if the physical
manifestation of C is outside X.
For instance, if I hack into NASA's Ames Research Lab and delete all their
files, I have committed a crime in the United Kingdom. If the US authorities
wish to prosecute me under US law rather than UK law, they have no automatic
right to do so.
This is why the net authorities in the US tried to put pressure on some sites
in Holland. Holland had no anti-cracking legislation, and so it was viewed
as a "hacker haven" by some US system administrators.
Similarly, a company called Red Hot Television is broadcasting pornographic
material which can be received in Britain. If they were broadcasting in
Britain, they would be committing a crime. But they are not, they are
broadcasting from Denmark, so the British Government is powerless to do
anything about it, in spite of the apparent law-breaking.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong. More confusingly, I could
be right in some countries but not in others...
| 0 | alt.atheism |
OFM responds to a query about reference works:
[Aside from a commentary, you might also want to consider an
introduction. These are books intended for use in undergraduate Bible
courses. They give historical background, discussion of literary
styles, etc. And generally they have good bibligraphies for further
reading. I typically recommend Kee, Froehlich and Young's NT
introduction...
Two other Intros to consider:
The "Introduction" by Ku:mmel is a translation of a strandard NT text.
The references are slightly dated and the style is somewhat dense, but
the book contains a wealth of information.
Perrin and Duling's Intro is also very good. It's somewhat more
modern than Ku:mmel's but not quite so densely packed. Also the
authors tend to go through the books of the NT in the historical order
of composition; this gives a very useful perspective on the
development of the NT.
... There are also some good one-volume commentaries. ... Probably the
best recommendation these days would be Harper's Bible Commentary.
A slight dissent: I think the Harper's is "OK" but not great. One
particular problem I have is that it tends to be pretty skimpy on
bibliographic material. My feeling is that it is OK for quick
look-ups, but not real useful for study in depth (e.g. I keep a copy
in my office at work).
... (I think there may be a couple of books with this title...
So far as I know there is the only one book with this exact title
(James L Mays, general editor, Harper and ROw, 1988) although I think
I recall a (older) series under the name "Harper Commentaries". Also
there's a separate Harper's Bible Dictionary (most of my comments on
the HC also apply to the HBD.)
My favorite one-volume commentary is the "New Jerome Biblical
Commentary". The NJBC is rather Catholic in focus and somewhat biased
towards the NT. (The reader can decide for her- or himself whether
these are pluses or minuses.) In any case the scholarship is by and
large excellent.
NOTE: The NJBC is a completely reworked, updated version of the
"Jerome Biblical Commentary", copies of which can still be found on
sale. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Yeah, do you expect people to read the FAQ, etc. and actually accept hard
atheism? No, you need a little leap of faith, Jimmy. Your logic runs out
of steam!
Jim,
Sorry I can't pity you, Jim. And I'm sorry that you have these feelings of
denial about the faith you need to get by. Oh well, just pretend that it will
all end happily ever after anyway. Maybe if you start a new newsgroup,
alt.atheist.hard, you won't be bummin' so much?
Bye-Bye, Big Jim. Don't forget your Flintstone's Chewables! :)
--
Bake Timmons, III | 0 | alt.atheism |
Hey, it might to interesting to read some of these posts...
Especially from ones who still regularly posts on alt.atheism!
Hee hee hee.
*I* ain't going to say....
---
" Whatever promises that have been made can than be broken. " | 0 | alt.atheism |
Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning. You are proposing to punish people
*before* they commit a crime? What justification do you have for this? | 0 | alt.atheism |
I don't think such tools exist either. In addition, there's no such
thing as objective information. All together, it looks like religion
and any doctrines could be freely misused to whatever purpose.
This all reminds me of Descartes' whispering deamon. You can't trust
anything. So why bother.
Cheers,
Kent | 0 | alt.atheism |
Well, this is alt.atheism. I hope you arent here to try to convert anyone.
Many would disagree.
[...]
Well, you shouldn't give any particular book too much weight. Actually,
I don't think that any of these statements is correct. It is more likely
that most of Jesus' fame was attributed to him after his death by those
who had some strong motives...
[...]
What's a prophecy, and what's so significant about them?
I think we understand.
Well, sell your computer and donate you life to your religion now...
Don't waste any time. | 0 | alt.atheism |
My news feed is broken and I haven't received any new news in 243 hours
(more than 10 days). So, if you reply to this, please send private
email to the address esther@demand.ed.ray.com -- I have set the
Reply-To line to have that address but I don't know if it will work.
[It depends upon the software, but generally I wouldn't expect
reply-to to cause an email cc to be sent in addition to a posting.
You'll probably need to do something specific, which will vary
depending upon your news software. --clh]
At any rate, I need some support. (Much thanks to Jayne K who is
already supporting me with kind words and prayers!)
I've been working at this company for eight years in various
engineering jobs. I'm female. Yesterday I counted and realized that
on seven different occasions I've been sexually harrassed at this
company. Seven times. Eight years. Yesterday was the most recent one;
someone left an X-rated photo of a nude woman in my desk drawer.
I'm really upset by this. I suppose it could have been worse -- it
could have been a man having sex with a sheep or something.
There was no note. I do not know if it was:
- someone's idea of an innocent joke, that went awry
- someone's sick idea of flirting
- an act of emotional terrorism (that worked!)
I dreaded coming back to work today. What if my boss comes in to ask
me some kind of question, I don't know the answer so I take a military
specification down off from my shelf to look up the answer, and out
falls a picture of a man having sex with a sheep? I generally have a
Bible on my desk for occasional inspiration; what if I open it up to
Corinthians and find a picture a la the North American Man Boy Love
Association? I want to throw up just thinking about this stuff.
I can lock up my desk, but I can't lock up every book I have in the
office. I can't trust that someone won't shove something into my
briefcase or my coat pocket when I'm not looking so that I go home to
find such a picture, or a threat, or a raunchy note about what someone
wants to do to my body.
To make it worse, the entire department went out to lunch yesterday to
treat our marvelous secretary to lunch. The appointed hour for
leaving was 11:30. I was working in another building but wanted to go
to the lunch. So I returned at 11:25, only to find that ever single
person had already left for lunch. They left at 11:15 or so. No one
could be bothered to call me at the other building, even though my
number was posted. So, I came back to a department that looked like a
neutron bomb had gone off and I was the sole survivor. This, despite
the fact that everyone knew how bad I felt about this naked woman being
left in my desk drawer.
I need some prayers --- I can't stop crying. I am so deeply wounded
that it's ridiculous.
I feel like I'm some kind of sub-human piece of garbage for people to
reduce me and my sisters to simply sex organs and the sex act. I feel
like I'm a sub-human piece of garbage that's not worthy of a simple
phone call saying "We're leaving for Mary's lunch a little early so
that Bob can get back for a big 1:00 meeting..."
Please pray that my resentments will either go away, or be miraculously
turned into something positive. Please pray that whoever is torturing
me so will stop, and find some healing for him- or herself. Please pray
for my being healed from this latest wound (which falls on top of a
whole slew of other wounds...). Please pray that I can find a new job
in a place where the corporate culture does its best to prevent such
harrassment from happening in the first place, and swiftly acts
appropriately when something occurs despite its best precautions. (This
company, in my opinion, has pretty words about how sexual harrassment
isn't tolerated but when you get right down to it, how is it that one
female engineer can be touched inappropriately, left obsene or
threatening notes, left obscene pictures, spoken to lewdly, etc, seven
times in eight years in the same place? Pretty words from the company
do me no good when I'm terrified or healing from the latest assault.)
And please pray that I don't turn into an automaton because of this.
That's my bad habit: "ignore it and it will go away", "you're not worth
anyone's time so don't go talking to anyone about this", "you're right,
you are a sub-human piece of garbage and deserve to be treated this
way", "you are just an object", "you prostitute your mind to this
company so why can't others expect you to prostitute your body there as
well?", "what makes you think women aren't just possessions, and
nothing more than sex organs and their ability to perform the sex act?"
This is the kind of thinking that can catapault one into a major
depressive episode; please pray that these thoughts don't come into
my head and stay there, triggering depression.
Please pray that this latest trauma doesn't come between me and God.
In a way, a wound like this is an invitation to a deeper connection to
God, and it's also a possible trigger for a spiritual crisis that can
separate one mentally from God. (I know God doesn't drop me from his
loving hand, but it's awfully easy for me to walk to the edge of the
hand, look down, think I'm falling and forget that God's still holding
on to me.)
Although this probably isn't entirely appropriate for this newsgroup,
I really can use the kind of loving support you all provide. For this
reason I hope good Mr. Moderator allows me this latest indulgence. After
all, he's allowed me the thermometer note, and a few other off-the-wall
topics.
Thanks in advance to everyone for your support and prayers. Peace to you,
Esther
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The latest news seems to be that Koresh will give himself up once he's
finished writing a sequel to the Bible.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
15 | soc.religion.christian |
|
Hi...
I'm new to this group, and maybe this has been covered already,
but does anybody out there see the current emphasis on the
environment being turned (unintentionally, of course) into
pantheism?
I've debated this quite a bit, and while I think a legitimate
concern for the planet is a great thing, I can easily see it
being perverted into something dangerous.
As evidence, may I quote THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (of all
things!), April 2 (Editorial page):
"We suspect that's because one party to the (environmental)
dispute thinks the Earth is sanctified. It's clear that much
of the environmentalist energy is derived from what has been
called the Religious Left, a SECULAR, or even PAGAN fanaticism
that now WORSHIPS such GODS as nature and gender with a
reverence formerly accorded real religions." (EMPHASIS MINE). | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Lucky for them that the baby didn't have any obvious deformities! I could
just see it now: Mary gets pregnant out of wedlock so to save face she and
Joseph say that it was God that got her pregnant and then the baby turns
out to be deformed, or even worse, stillborn! They'd have a lot of
explaining to do.... :-)
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Hello all. We are doing a bible study (at my college) on Revelations. We
have been doing pretty good as far as getting some sort of reasonable
interpretation. We are now on chapters 17 and 18 which talk about the
woman on the beast and the fall of Babylon. I believe the beast is the
Antichrist (some may differ but it seems obvious) and the woman represents
Babylon which stands for Rome or the Roman Catholic Church. What are some
views on this interpretation? Is the falling Babylon in chapter 18 the same
Babylon in as in chapter 17? The Catholic church?
Hate to step on toes.
thanks
--------
Jimmy Buddenberg INTERNET: jbuddenberg@vax.cns.muskingum.edu
Muskingum College | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Some years ago an Anglican synod was discussing the marriage canons and
there was some debate on what actually constituted a marriage.
The bishop of Natal, whose wife of many years had died, and who had recently
remarried, announced "It MUST be consummated" and looked like that cat that
got the cream.
So I suppose he at least would agree with you. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[DISCLAIMER: Throughout this post, there are statements and questions which
could easily be interpreted as being sarcastic. They are not. I have written
this reply in the most even-handed manner that I can, with no emotions boiling
to the surface as it was written. Please accept this as a serious attempt to
foster dialog and rest assurred that I make every attempt to make fun of no
one, except myself ;-)]
[...]
Hmmm. There are other animals on this planet with advanced
mental facilities which have not developed "religion" as a
satisfactory explaination for the unexplained. Why is this so?
Further, it appears that only humans have a "need" to explain the
unexplained. Why is this so? The other animals on this planet,
including those with advanced mental facilities, seem perfectly
content in their ignorance.
I'd like to point out that your presuppositions scream out at me
from your unsupported statement. They are: 1) humans are animal
*only*; 2) religion exists as a crutch so that the unexplained need
not be researched; 3) religion was "made up" by humans to address a
perceived need; 4) the biological aspect of humans is deified (that
is, all aspects of human life can be categorized in a hierarchical
structure with biology at the apex).
Needless to say, I disagree with your strong opinion #1 and the
underlying presuppositions.
I disagree that Christianity is "an infectious cult". It has
certainly shown itself to be persistent as a belief system, in
spite of various persecutions throughout the past two millenia.
That it continues to persevere does not demonstrate that it is
"infectious" in a derrogatory sense; it may be that it provides
a workable system for its adherents (and I would argue that this
is the case).
I disagree that Christianity is "a safety blanket" which supplants
hope and purpose. Rather, it points an individual to the one
Source of hope and purpose. There is nothing hidden about a
Christian's source for hope and purpose. Of what usefulness to
you is the distinction between internally motivated hope and purpose
and externally given hope and purpose? Is the (apparent) loss of
control over one's own life the problem or is it something else?
Finally, one does not appropriate "eternal happiness" by following
Christian moral standards. Indeed, the sole reason for the existance
of Christianity is *because* standards are inadequate to save people
from their imperfections. Moral standards are merely guides to the
Christian; the real power to moral living is given to the Christian
in the Person of God's Spirit.
Heaven is one of two final states that
Christian doctrine postulates. However, Christians are generally
not motivated to live according to Christian moral standards by this
promised future reward; rather, they are motivated by the perceived
benefits to them in the here-and-now.
Many Christian organizations are concerned with evangelism as a
priority, and rightly so (for it was Jesus Himself who gave this
as a priority for His followers). However, it is not the penultimate
priority as evangelism is normally understood (i.e. preach the word,
convert at nearly any cost, repeat with new convert ad infinitum).
Rather, such evangelism is generally best done through respecting
the opinions of others while *demonstrating* the very real benefits
of a Christian lifestyle. This demonstration should be so powerful
that it compels the non-Christian to seek out the Christian to ask
"Why?" Needless to say, such a demonstration is not easily accom-
plished (it takes a radical committment to the person of Jesus), it
does not happen quickly (so perseverance on the part of the Christian
is required), and it cannot occur where no personal bonds of
friendship exist (it is ineffective with strangers who cannot
evaluate the demonstration over time, and it is easy to alienate or
harm others if the sole purpose of being a "friend" is to gain a
conversion).
As a long-time Christian (nearly 20 years), I view with some skep-
ticism *all* evangelism programs which incorporate a "hurry-up"
attitude. Pressured conversions may ultimately be worse than no
conversion at all (because the pressured convert realizes s/he was
coerced and disavows Christianity when they would have been open
to it in the future had they not been taken advantage of now).
The Bible states that it is the very Spirit of God which brings
conviction of wrong-doing to people. I am content to do my part
(witness) and let the Spirit do the rest.
We are far more than animals. We sleep, eat, reproduce, and die
just as other animals do - true. But, we are also capable of more
than this. If your personal vision of humanity (or of yourself) is
so limited, I can only hope and pray ;-) that you will someday find
a more expansive view.
(For reflection, what animals have the wide variety of performing
arts that humans do? How is it that humans can learn the language
of other humans (or animals) but that other animals cannot do so?
How is it that humans can organize themselves in various social
structures whereas other animals have only one structure?)
Blatant assertion. Christianity is not physically addictive.
Christianity is not psychologically addictive. Christianity is not
a *thing* which one snorts/ingests/shoots-up; it is a relationship
with a living being. You might as validly characterize any close-
knit relationship with this appelation.
There are "Jesus freaks" who let the emotional aspects of worship
and Christian living gain (and retain) the upper hand. Even so,
this does not by itself invalidate the foundation from which these
things flow.
Guilty by association? That "christianity" which forces itself
upon another is not Christianity at all.
You appear to have an amazing certainty about what really happened
2000 years ago. How did you come by it?
I cannot accept your conclusion that Jesus' influence was a sole
result of the Roman sack of Jerusalem in 70AD. He was 30+ years
gone by this time. It strains the bounds of credulity to assert
that nothing about Jesus' life was noteworthy _until_ the sack.
Christianity is having a relationship with Jesus Christ Himself.
What do you know of Him?
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
i have a question for you all related to this. jesus condemns divorce
several times in the new testament, and i have a hard time with this.
the catholic church (as far as i can tell) does grant annulments with
the statement that the marriage never really existed in God's eyes.
(please, if i am mistinterpreting, correct me.) however, i have
witnessed marriages where two people were very much in love but
recognized that they were destroying themselves and each other by
staying in a marriage, and that the problems were due to personal
childhood issues that had never been resolved. i ask you, is divorce
justified in such a case? they knew who they were, what they were
doing, they were deeply in love, but in the end, it did not work out.
i must admit that i don't see jesus forcing them to live together, or
even condemning that they go and seek happiness with someone else
later on. opinions?
vera
*******************************************************************************
I am your CLOCK! | I bind unto myself today | Vera Noyes
I am your religion! | the strong name of the | noye@midway.uchicago.edu
I own you! | Trinity.... | no disclaimer -- what
- Lard | - St. Patrick's Breastplate | is there to disclaim?
******************************************************************************* | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Short reply: We can never achieve perfect health, yet we always strive for it.
We don't seek to do God's will because we're forced to, we follow His way
because His way is best. The reason it's hard is because we are flawed, not
because He's unreasonable. But we seek to follow His way because we want to
improve ourselves and our lives. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
You know, it just occurred to me today that this whole Christian thing
can be blamed solely on Mary.
So, she's married to Joseph. She gets knocked up. What do you think
ol' Joe will do if he finds she's been getting around? So Mary comes up
with this ridiculous story about God making her pregnant. Actually, it
can't be all THAT ridiculous, considering the number of people that
believe it. Anyway, she never tells anyone the truth, and even tells
poor little Jesus that he's hot shit, the Son of God. Everyone else
tells him this too, since they've bought Mary's story. So, what does
Mary actually turn out to be? An adultress and a liar, and the cause of
mankind's greatest folly...
Just my recently-minted two cents.
Chris
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Is anyone familiar with Doug Sturm? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Mark Gregory Foster writes (concerning 1 Corinthians 16:2):
> The idea was introduced to me once that the reason Paul wanted
> the Corinthians to lay aside money for the collection on the
> first day of the week was that this was when they received their
> weekly wages.
But the ancient Romans did not observe a seven-day week. Unless a
man was working for a Jewish employer, he is unlikely to have been
paid on the first day of a seven-day week. Nor would a Jewish
employer have kept his wages over the week-end (see Lev 19:13; Dt
24:15). | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
On of the attributes of being sacred in this case is that they
should not be spoken of in a "common manner" or "trampled under
feet" such as the Lords name is today. The ceremonies are
performed in the temple because the temple has been set aside
as being as sacred/holy/uncommon place. We believe that the
ceremonies can only be interpreted correctly when they
are viewed with the right spirit- which in this case is in the
temple. So from our point of view, when they are brought
out into the public, they are being trampled under feet,
because of misinterpretations and mocking, and it is therefore
offensive to us.
Please do not assume that because of my use of the words
'we' and 'our' that I'm an official spokesman for the LDS
church. I am merely stating what I believe is the general
feeling among us. Others feel free to disagree.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[In response to some of the discussions on the Sabbath, Andrew Byler
commented that if we really followed sola scriptura we would worship
on Saturday -- the change to Sunday was a law made by the Church, and
we don't acknowledge its authority to make laws. I noted that
Protestants do not consider Sunday worship a law. --clh]
He was not referring to the FAQ but to the five Sabbath Admissions posted
on the bible study group. This is what prompted someone to send the FAQ
to me.
n> ceremonial law is not binding on Christians.
You cannot show, from scripture, that the weekly Sabbath is part of the
ceremonial laws. Before you post a text in reply investigate its context.
Can the churches also decide what is and is not sin? Interesting. Where
there is no divine imperative of course we must establish rules of
operation. But we cannot be as creative with what God has explicitly
spoken on.
Darius | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The following is a survey we are conducting for a term project in a philosophy
class. It is not meant to give us anything interesting statistically; we want
to hear what kind of voices there are out there. We are not asking for full-
blown essays, but please give us what you can.
As I do not read these groups often, please email all responses to me at
shimpei@leland.stanford.edu. As my mail account is not infinite, if you can
delete the questions and just have numbered answers when you write back
I would really appreciate it.
Since we would like to start analyzing the result as soon as possible, we
would like to have the answers by April 30. If you absolutely cannot make
it by then, though, we would still liken to hear your answer.
If anyone is interested in our final project please send a note to that effect
would like to have the answers by April 30. If you absolutely cannot make
it by then, though, we would still like to hear your answer.
If anyone is interested in our final project please send a note to that effect
(or better yet, include a note along with your survey response) and I'll try
to email it to you, probably in late May.
SURVEY:
Question 1)
Have you ever had trouble reconciling faith and reason? If so, what was the
trouble?
(For example: -Have you ever been unsure whether Creationism or Evolutionism
holds more truth?
-Do you practice tarot cards, palm readings, or divination that
conflicts with your scientific knowledge of the world?
-Does your religion require you to ignore physical realities that
you have seen for yourself or makes logical sense to you?)
Basically, we would like to know if you ever _BELIEVED_ in something that your
_REASON_tells you is wrong.
Question 2)
If you have had conflict, how did/do you resolve the conflict?
Question 3)
If you haven't had trouble, why do you think you haven't? Is there a set of
guidelines you use for solving these problems?
Thank you very much for your time.
--
Shimpei Yamashita, Stanford University email:shimpei@leland.stanford.edu
"There are three kinds of mathematicians:
those who can count and those who can't." | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Does that imply that people who take marriage vows but aren't sincere
are not married? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Joe, just 'cause you say they aren't subject to interpretation doesn't
necesarily make it so. That's *your* *interpretation* of these texts.
2 Peter 1:20-21
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter
of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of
human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
The study notes in my Bible offer three possible meanings for verse 20.
Apparantly it's not as clear to Charles Ryrie as it is to you.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for
reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of
God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Galations 1:11-12
For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached
by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man,
nor was I taught it, but I receieved it through a revelation of Jesus
Christ.
When I read these passages, it was not immediately clear to me what
every phrase meant. I had stop and think about the possible
connotations of words, what the intent of the author may have been,
wonder if the translator used the correct English word to convey the
same meaning: I had to interpret. If you want to believe that your
are not interpreting Scripture as you read, there's probably nothing
I can say to change your mind. But I think it's naive to think that
our culture, experiences, education, do not affect everything we read.
In college, I took an entire course in Biblical interpretation. Go to
any Christian bookstore, there are scores of books on interpreting and
understanding Scripture. If interpretation is unnecessary, there are
an awful lot of misguided Christians out there wasting a lot of time
and energy on it. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I'll also add that it is impossible to actually tell when one
_rejects_ god. Therefore, you choose to punish only those who
_talk_ about it. | 0 | alt.atheism |
[much of the excellent post deleted for space -- TjL]
)->With all the suffering and persecution that it meant to be a believer,
it
)->would be quite probable that at least one of those in the supposed
conspiracy
)->would come forward and confess that the whole thing was a big hoax.
Yet
)->not one did. It seems rather reasonable that the disciples did not
make
)->up the resurrection but sincerely believed that Jesus had actually
risen
)->from the dead; especially in light of the sufferings that came upon
those
)->who believed.
I was at the "Jubilee" conference this year in Pittsburgh PA, and the
speaker there spoke of this as well. He talked about many of the same
things you mentioned in your post, but here he went into a little more
detail. I'll paraphrase as best I can:
"Suppose you were part of the `Christian consipracy' which was going to
tell people that Christ had risen. Never mind the stoning, the being
burned alive, the possible crucifixion ... let's just talk about a
scourging. The whip that would be used would have broken pottery, metal,
bone, and anything else that they could find attached to it. You would be
stood facing a wall, with nothing to protect you.
"When the whip hit you the first time, it would tear the flesh off you
with instant incredibly intense pain. You would think to yourself `All
this for a lie?' The second hit would drop you to your knees, you would
scream out in agony that your raw back was being torn at again. You would
say to yourself: `All this for a lie?' And you had 37 more coming.
"At the third hit you would scream out that it was all a lie, beg for them
to stop, and tell them that you would swear on your life that it had all
been a lie, if they would only stop...."
It is amazing enough that those who believed kept their faith under such
torture.... but for a lie? There is no one fool enough to do that.... And
no one came forward.
Excellent post John, thanks for taking the time.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
You don't think these are little things because with twenty-twenty
hindsight, you know what they led to. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Science does not progress via experimentation but by philosophising. One
aim of experiments is to investigate the validity of the hyptheses
resulting from the models produced by this thinking process.
Science has one advantage of all other approaches to explaining the world.
It is objective.
Anything which affects the physical world can be studied. For example,
since we are part of the physical world, anything (including spirits) which
affects our behaviour can be observed. Science does not make any claims
about the existence or non-existence of objects which do not affect the
physical world.
The purpose of science is to produce a model of the *physical* world. The
model must be able to explain all past observations and predict the outcome
of future observations. One of the aims of experiments is to carry out
well defined observations which are objective.
Ideally scientist will except the model which best describes the world, and
the model which realises on the minimal number of assumptions. At the
moment models which do not rely on the assumption of some *spiritual* world
existing are equally powerful to ones which assume the assumption of a
*spiritual* world. As the non-spiritual models has fewer assumptions it
should be the currently accepted models.
The scientific process never assumes that its present models are the
correct ones, whereas many religions claim to represent the truth. The
arrogance of many theists is that they claim to represent the truth, this
cannot be said of scientists. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
In response to a lot of email I've gotten, I need to clarify my position.
I am not in favor of paganism.
I am not in favor of the Easter Bunny or other non-Christian aspects of
Easter as presently celebrated. (Incidentally, Easter eggs are not
non-Christian; they are a way of ending the Lenten fast.)
My point was to distinguish between
(1) intentionally worshipping a pagan deity, and
(2) doing something which may once have had pagan associations, but
nowadays is not understood or intended as such.
Many people who are doing (2) are being accused of (1).
It would be illogical to claim that one is "really" worshipping a
pagan deity without knowing it. Worship is a matter of intention.
One cannot worship without knowing that one is doing so. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
True. At first, the news media seemed entranced by all the new gizmos
the military was using, not to mention the taped video transmissions from
the missiles as they zeroed in on their targets. But later, and especially
after the bunker full of civilians was hit, they changed their tone. It
seemed to me that they didn't have the stomach for the reality of war,
that innocent people really do die and are maimed in warfare. It's like
they were only pro-Gulf-War as long as it was "nice and clean" (smart
missiles dropping in on military HQs), but not when pictures of dead,
dying, and maimed civilians started cropping up. What naive hypocrites!
[ discussion about blanket-bombing and A-bombs deleted.]
^^^^^^^^^
I should have said here "militarily justified". It seems from your
comments below that you understood this as meaning "morally justified".
I apologize.
I have often wondered about this. I've always thought that the first bomb
should have been dropped on Japan's island fortress of Truk. A good,
inpenatrable military target. The second bomb could've been held back
for use on an industrial center if need be. But I digress.
Yes, I have heard that we found evidence (after the war, BTW) that Japan
was seriously considering surrender after the first bomb. Unfortunately,
the military junta won out over the moderates and rejected the US's
ulimatum. Therefore the second bomb was dropped. Most unfortunate, IMO.
I don't regret the fact that sometimes military decisions have to be made
which affect the lives of innocent people. But I do regret the
circumstances which make those decisions necessary, and I regret the
suffering caused by those decisions.
[...]
Actually, it was the fact that both situations existed that prompted US
and allied action. If some back-water country took over some other
back-water country, we probably wouldn't intervene. Not that we don't
care, but we can't be the world's policman. Or if a coup had occured
in Kuwait (instead of an invasion), then we still wouldn't have acted
because there would not have been the imminent danger perceived to
Saudi Arabia. But the combination of the two, an unprovoked invasion
by a genocidal tyrant AND the potential danger to the West's oil
interests, caused us to take action.
[...]
I'm not setting up a strawman at all. If you want to argue against the
war, then the only logical alternative was to allow Hussein to keep
Kuwait. Diplomatic alternatives, including sanctions, were ineffective.
Well, in a sense, yes. They probably had no idea of what end Hitler
would lead their nation to.
They suffered along with the rest. Why does this bother you so much?
The world is full of evil, and circumstances are not perfect. Many
innocents suffer due to the wrongful actions of others. It it regretable,
but that's The-Way-It-Is. There are no perfect solutions.
[...]
Probably because we're not the saviors of the world. We can't police each
and every country that decides to self-destruct or invade another. Nor
are we in a strategic position to get relief to Tibet, East Timor, or
some other places.
Tell me how we could stop them and I'll support it. I, for one, do not
agree with the present US policy of "sucking up to them" as you put it.
I agree that it is deplorable.
Are they? Or are they supposed to reflect the population of the locale
where the trial is held? (Normally this is where the crime is committed
unless one party or the other can convince the judge a change of venue
is in order.) I'm not an expert on California law, or even US law, but
it seems that this is the way the system is set up. You can criticize
the system, but let's not have unfounded allegations of racial
prejudice thrown around.
No, not at all. The point is that the fact that there were no blacks
on the first jury and that Rodney King is black is totally irrelevant.
Germans, perhaps. "Peers" doesn't mean "those who do the same thing",
like having murderers judge murderers. It means "having people from
the same station in life", presumably because they are in a better
position to understand the defendent's motivation(s).
OK, granted. However, you are using this reasoning as part of *your*
logical argument in this discussion. This is not a court of law.
The media is not totally monolithic. Even though there is a prevailing
liberal bias, programs such as the MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour try to give
a balanced and fair reporting of the news. There are even conservative
sources out there if you know where to look. (Hurrah for Rush!)
BTW, I never used the word "conspiracy". I don't accept (without *far*
more evidence) theories that there is some all-pervading liberal
conspiracy attempting to take over all news sources.
Hardly. I didn't say that it's a Good Thing [tm] to kill innocent people
if the end is just. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world and
there are no perfect solutions. If one is going to resist tyranny, then
innocent people on both sides are going to suffer and die. I didn't say
it is OK -- it is unfortunate, but sometimes necessary.
I would agree that it was evil in the sense that it caused much pain
and suffering. I'm not so sure that it was unnecessary as you say. That
conclusion can only be arrived at by evaluating all the factors involved.
And perhaps it *was* unnecessary as (let's say) we now know. That doesn't
mean that those who had to make the decision to bomb didn't see it as
being necessary. Rarely can one have full known of the consequences of
an action before making a decision. At the time it may have seemed
necessary enough to go ahead with it.
But don't assume that I feel the bombing was *morally* justified -- I
don't! I just don't condemn those who had to make a difficult
decision under difficult circumstances.
You certainly are not in such a position if you are a moral relativist.
I, as an absolutist, am in a position to judge, but I defer judgment.
Wrong. They were neither moral then nor now. They seemed necessary to
those making the decisions to bring a quick end to the war. I simply
refuse to condemn them for their decision.
One day I will stand before Jesus and give account of every word and action;
even this discourse in this forum. I understand the full ramifications of
that, and I am prepared to do so. I don't believe that you can make the
same claim.
And BTW, the reason I brought up the blanket-bombing in Germany was
because you were bemoaning the Iraqi civilian casualties as being
"so deplorable". Yet blanket bombing was instituted because bombing
wasn't accurate enough to hit industrial/military targets in a
decisive way by any other method at that time. But in the Gulf War,
precision bombing was the norm. So the point was, why make a big
stink about the relatively few civilian casualties that resulted
*in spite of* precision bombing, when so many more civilians
(proportionately and quantitatively) died under the blanket bombing
in WW2? Even with precision bombing, mistakes happen and some
civilians suffer. But less civilians suffered in this war than
any other iany other in history! Many Iraqi civilians went about their lives
with minimal interference from the allied air raids. The stories
of "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqi civilian dead is just plain bunk.
Yes, bunk. The US lost 230,000 servicemen in WW2 over four years
and the majority of them were directly involved in fighting! But
we are expected to swallow that "hundreds of thousands" of
*civilian* Iraqis died in a war lasting about 2 months! And with
the Allies using the most precise bombs ever created at that!
What hogwash. If "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqi civilians died,
it was due to actions Hussein took on his own people, not due to
the Allied bombing.
Regards, | 0 | alt.atheism |
I find these to be intriguing remarks. Could you give us a bit
more explanation here? For example, which religion is anti-semitic,
and which aesthetic? | 0 | alt.atheism |
Archive-name: atheism/overview
Alt-atheism-archive-name: overview
Last-modified: 5 April 1993
Version: 1.2
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)
...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 [18.172.1.27].
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 |
Dear fellow netters,
From time to time a term like 'Oneness Pentecostals' (or something
similar) has occurred in posts to this group. I also know that there
is a movement called something like 'Jesus alone.'
I believe in the Trinity and have no plans to change that, but reently
I was made aware that there is at least one person within our church
who holds the view that there is no trinity. In the near future we
will discuss this item, and I feel that I shall ask you, my friends on
this group, for background information.
Can anybody tell me the basic reasons for holding a belief that there
is only Jesus? And vice versa: The foundations for the Trinity?
I shall appreciate both quotes from the Bible and historical
development.
Thank you all.
In Him,
Bjorn | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Good question. I'm sure some biologist could answer better than I,
but animals brains are just set up differently.
Animals *can* be trained, but if they're instincts serve them well, there is
no reason to contradict them. | 0 | alt.atheism |
"And in that day you will ask Me no question. Truly, truly, I say to
you, if you shall ask the Father for anything, He will give it to you
in my name. Until now you have asked for nothing in My name; ask, and
you will receive, that your joy may be made full."
-John 16:23-24
I don't believe that we necessarily have to say " . . . In Christ's name.
Amen," for our prayers to be heard, but it glorifies the Son, when we
acknowledge that our prayer is made possible by Him. I believe that just as
those who were saved in the OT, could only be saved because Jesus would one day
reconcile God to man, He is the only reason their prayers would be heard by
God.
For all of us have become like one who is unclean,
And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment;
And all of us wither like a leaf,
and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
-Isaiah 64:6, NAS
Our prayers like the rest of our deeds are too unholy to go directly to the
Father because they are tainted by our sin. Only by washing these prayers with
Christ's blood are they worthy to be lifted to to the Father.
"First, I thank my God through Christ Jesus . . ."
-Romans 1:8, NAS
Some scholars believe that this is Paul recognizing that even his thanks are
too unholy for the Father.
Basically, prayer is a gift of grace, I believe that only through Jesus
do our prayers have any power; thus, praying in His name glorifies and praises
Jesus for this beautiful and powerful gift He has given us. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Koff! You mean that as long as I put you to sleep first,
I can kill you without being cruel?
This changes everything. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Not necessarily, especially if the rapist is known as such. For instance,
if you intentionally stick your finger into a loaded mousetrap and get
snapped, whose fault is it? | 0 | alt.atheism |
The analogy does not depend on the premisses being true, because the
question under discussion is not truth but arrogance.
A similar analogy might be a medical doctor who believes that a blood
transfusion is necessary to save the life of a child whose parents are
Jehovah's Witnesses and so have conscientious objections to blood
transfusion. The doctor's efforts to persuade them to agree to a blood
transfusion could be perceived to be arrogant in precisely the same way as
Christians could be perceived to be arrogant.
The truth or otherwise of the belief that a blood transfusion is necessary
to save the life of the child is irrelevant here. What matters is that the
doctor BELIEVES it to be true, and could be seen to be trying to foce his
beliefs on the parents, and this could well be perceived as arrogance. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I didn't say it NEVER mentioned Satan, I said it RARELY, if at all. Please
excuse me for my lack of perfect memory or omnipotence. | 0 | alt.atheism |
for SRC
In most languages, the Feast of the Resurrection of Our Lord is
known as the PASCH, or PASQUE, or some variation thereof, a word
which comes from the Hebrew PESACH, meaning "Passover." In English,
German, and a few related languages, however, it is known as EASTER,
or some variation thereof, and questions have been asked about the
origin of this term.
One explanation is that given by the Venerable Bede in his DE
RATIONE TEMPORUM 1:5, where he derives the word from the name of an
Anglo-Saxon goddess of Spring called EASTRE. Bede is a great
scholar, and it is natural to take his word for it. But he lived
673-735, and Augustine began preaching in Kent in 597. The use of
the word EASTER to describe the Feast would have been well
established before the birth of Bede and probably before the birth
of anyone he might have discussed the subject with. It seems likely
that his derivation is just a guess, based on his awareness that
there had been an Anglo-Saxon goddess of Spring bearing that name,
and the resemblance of the words. Thus, if the said resemblance
(surely it is not surprising that a personification of Spring should
have a name similar to the word for Dawn) is not in istelf
convincing, the testimony (or rather the conjecture) by Bede does
not make it more so.
Assuming that Bede was right, that would not justify saying that the
Christian celebration (which, after all, had been going on for some
centuries before the name EASTER was applied to it) has pagan roots.
It would simply mean that the Anglo-Saxons, upon becoming Christians
and beginning to celebrate the Resurrection by a festival every
spring, called it by the name that to them meant simply "Spring
Festival."
However, Bede's is not the only theory that has been proposed. J
Knoblech, in "Die Sprach," ZEITSCHRIFT FUER SPRACHWISSENSCHAFT 5
(Vienna, 1959) 27-45, offers the following derivation:
Among Latin-speaking Christians, the week beginning with the Feast
of the Resurrection was known as "hebdomada alba" (white week),
since the newly-baptized Christians were accustomed to wear their
white baptismal robes throughout that week. Sometimes the week was
referred to simply as "albae." Translaters rendering this into
German mistook it for the plural of "alba," meaning "dawn." They
accordingly rendered it as EOSTARUM, which is Old High German for
"dawn." This gave rise to the form EASTER in English.
Yours,
James Kiefer
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
jubilee, Pope >Leo the 12th had a medallion cast with his own image on
one side and on >the other side, the Church of Rome symbolized as a
"Woman, holding in >her left hand a cross, and in her right a cup with
legend around her, >'Sedet super universum', 'The whole world is her
seat."
You read more into the medal than it is worth. The Woman is the
Church. Catholics have always called our Church "Holy Mother Church"
and our "Mother." An example would be from St. Cyprian of Carthage, who
wrote in 251 AD, "Can anyone have God for his Father, who does not have
the Church for his mother?"
Hence the image of the Church as a woman, holding a Cross and a Cup,
which tell of the Crucifxition of Our Lord, and of the power of His
Blood (the grail legend, but also, more significantly, it shows that
"This is the Cup of the New Covenant in my blood, which shall be shed
for you and for many." (Luke 22.20), the Cup represents the New Covenant
and holds the blood of redemption). The fact that the woman is holding
both and is said to have the whole world for her seat, is that the
Catholic Church is catholic, that is universal, and is found throughout
the world, and the Church shows the Crucifixtion and applies the blood
of redemption to all mankind by this spread of hers, thorugh which the
Holy Sacrafice of the Mass, can be said and celebrated in all the
nations as Malachi predicted in Malachi 1.11, "From the rising of the
sun to its setting, my name is great among the gentiles, and everywhere
there is sacrafice, and there is offered to my Name a clean oblation,
for my Name is great among the gentiles, says the Lord of hosts." And
so we acknowledge what St. Paul wrote "For as often as you eat this
bread and drink this cup, you show the Lord's death until he comes." (1
Corinthians 11.26)
You are quite right about the identification of "Babylon the Great,
Mother of all Harlots" with Rome. I think we simply disagree as to what
time period of Rome the Apostle John is talking about. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
First by his fruits. The messiah comes to build the kingdom of heaven
on the earth. He also comes to first reveal the root cause of
original sin (fallen nature) and then provide a means to cut the
connection to that original sin. He also wants to create world peace
based on Godism. The messiah's teachings will build on the foundation
of the Bible but provide profound new insights into the nature of God,
the fall of man, the purpose of creation, and God's providence of
restoration. It will also provide a foundation for the unity of all
the World's religions.
Many Christians expect Jesus to come on literal clouds, so they may
miss him when he returns. Just as the Jewish people missed Jesus 2000
years ago. They are still waiting for his first coming. The Jewish
people of that age expected Elijah to come first. Jesus said that
John the Baptist was Elijah. But John the Baptist denied that he was
Elijah. (How did this reflect on Jesus?) Later in prison John even
questioned who Jesus was: "is he the one who is to come or do we look
for another". (see book of Matthew)
David Koresh didn't even come close. The problem is that people like
this make it difficult for people to believe and trust in the real
Messiah when he does show up.
Very good point and perhaps the most important point of all for
Christians: How to recognize the Second Coming?
The Messiah should not claim to be God. What sets a Messiah apart is
that he is born without original sin. He is not born perfect but
achieves perfection after a period of growth. Adam and Eve were born
sinless but they fell, and this tragedy meant that it would take God
thousands of years to create the kingdom of heaven on the earth as God
originally intended. God's restoration providence is still not
complete. The messiah is the true Son of God, one with God, God's
representative on the earth, but not God himself. There is only one
God.
...
Who else in this world is claiming to be the Messiah. Maybe he's already here. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I don't think the Book of Mormon was supposedly translated from Biblical
Hebrew. I've read that "prophet Joseph Smith" traslated the gold tablets
from some sort of Egyptian-ish language.
Former Mormons, PLEASE post. | 0 | alt.atheism |
[deleted]
I am glad that I am not an atheist. It seems tragic that some people
choose a meaningless existence. How terrible to go on living only
because one fears death more than life. I feel so sorry for Eric and
yet any attempts to share my joy in life with him would be considered as
further evidence of the infectious nature of Christianity.
As a Christian I am free to be a human person. I think, love, choose,
and create. I will live forever with God.
Christ is not a kind of drug. Drugs are a replacement for Christ.
Those who have an empty spot in the God-shaped hole in their hearts must
do something to ease the pain. This is why the most effective
substance-abuse recovery programs involve meeting peoples' spiritual
needs.
Thank you, Eric for your post. It has helped me to appreciate how much
God has blessed me. I hope that you will someday have a more joy-filled
and abundant life. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
who: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
what: <kmr4.1426.733987668@po.cwru.edu>
with: rush@leland.Stanford.EDU
what: <1993Apr5.050524.9361@leland.Stanford.EDU>
KR> "Sadly yes. Don't loose any sleep over Old 'Zlumber. Just
KR> have some fun with him, but he is basically harmless.
KR> At least, if you don't work in NY city."
I don't find it hard to believe that "Ole 'Zlumber" really believes
the hate and ignorant prattle he writes. The frightening thought is,
there are people even worse than he! To say that feminism equals
"superiority" over men is laughable as long as he doesn't then proceed
to pick up a rifle and start to shoot women as a preemptive strike---
aka the Canada slaughter that occured a few years ago. But then, men
killing women is nothing new. Islamic Fundamentalists just have a
"better" excuse (Qu'ran).
from the Vancouver Sun, Thursday, October 4, 1990
by John Davidson, Canadian Press
MONTREAL-- Perhaps it's the letter to the five-year old
daughter that shocks the most.
"I hope one day you will be old enough to understand what
happened to your parents," wrote Patrick Prevost. "I loved
your mother with a passion that went as far as hatred."
Police found the piece of paper near Prevost's body in his
apartment in northeast Montreal.
They say the 39-year-old mechanic committed suicide after
killing his wife, Jocelyne Parent, 31.
The couple had been separated for a month and the woman had
gone to his apartment to talk about getting some more money
for food. A violent quarrel broke out and Prevost attacked
his wife with a kitchen knife, cutting her throat, police said.
She was only the latest of 13 women slain by a husband or
lover in Quebec in the last five weeks.
Five children have also been slain as a result of the same
domestic "battles."
Last year in Quebec alone, 29 [women] were slain by their
husbands. That was more than one-third of such cases across
Canada, according to statistics from the Canadian Centre for
Justice. [rest of article ommited]
Then to say that women are somehow "better" or "should" be the
one to "stay home" and raise a child is also laughable. Women
have traditionally done hard labor to support a family, often
more than men in many cultures, throughout history. Seems to me
it takes at least two adults to raise a child, and that BOTH should
stay home to do so! | 0 | alt.atheism |
(Deletion)
For me, it is a "I believe no gods exist" and a "I don't believe gods exist".
In other words, I think that statements like gods are or somehow interfere
with this world are false or meaningless. In Ontology, one can fairly
conclude that when "A exist" is meaningless A does not exist. Under the
Pragmatic definition of truth, "A exists" is meaningless makes A exist
even logically false.
A problem with such statements is that one can't disprove a subjective god
by definition, and there might be cases where a subjective god would even
make sense. The trouble with most god definitions is that they include
some form of objective existence with the consequence of the gods affecting
all. Believers derive from it a right to interfere with the life of others.
(Deletion) | 0 | alt.atheism |
Why should I keep my fingers crossed? I doubt it would do anything. :) | 0 | alt.atheism |
Worse? Maybe not, but it is definately a violation of the
rules the US govt. supposedly follows. Maybe the others
should be changed to? But I'm not personally as concerned
about the anthem since I don't come across it in daily
nearly unavoidable routines.
I don't despise the people...just their opinions. I meant
when chatting with the ones who refuse to listen to any idea
other than their own...then it just becomes an exercise for
amusement.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
I am told that Planned Parenthood/SIECUS-style "values-free" methods, that
teach contraceptive technology and advise kids how to make "choices",
actually _increase_ pregnancy rates. I posted a long article on this a while
back and will be happy to email a copy to any who are interested. The
article included sources to contact for information on research verifying
these statements, and an outstanding source for info on acquiring
abstinence-related curricula even in single-copy quantities for home use.
The same research produced the results that abstinence-related curricula
were found to _decrease_ pregnancy rates in teens. I assume that it is
reasonable to assume that the AIDS rate will fluctuate with the pregnancy
rate.
The difference is not in "contraceptive technology" but in the values taught
to the children. The PP/SIECUS curricula taught the kids that they have
legitimate choices, while the abstinence related curricula taught them that
they did _not_ have _legitimate_ choices other than abstinence. It is the
values system that is the strongest determinent of the behavior behavior of
these kids.
Despite the better track record of abstinence-related curricula, they are
suppressed in favor of curricula that produce an effect contrary to that
desired.
Question for further discussion (as they say in the textbooks): Why don't
we teach "safe drug use" to kids, instead of drug abstinence? Isn't it
because we know that a class in "how to use drugs safely if you _choose_ to
use drugs" would increase drug use? Why isn't "drug abstinence education"
barred from schools because it teaches "religion"? Aren't we abandoning
those children who will use drugs anyway, and need instruction in their safe
use?
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
New in this version: challenge #5, plus an addendum summarizing
Charley's responses to-date..
-----------------------------------------
*** This is a posting made periodically in an attempt to encourage
*** Charley Wingate to address direct challenges to his evidently
*** specious claims. I'll continue to re-post periodically until
*** he answers them, publicly indicates that he won't answer them,
*** stops posting to alt.atheism, the alt.atheism community tells
*** me to stop, or I get totally bored. I apologize for the
*** somewhat juvenile nature of this approach, but I'm at a loss
*** to figure out another way to crack his intransigence and
*** seeming intellectual dishonesty.
***
*** This is re-post #3.
Charley,
I can't help but notice that you have still failed to provide answers
to substantive questions that have been raised in response to your
previous posts. I submit that you don't answer them because you
cannot answer them without running afoul of your own logic, and I once
again challenge you to prove me wrong. To make the task as easy for
you as possible, I'll present concise re-statements of some of the
questions that you have failed to answer, in the hope that you may
address them one at a time for all to see.
Should you fail to answer again within a reasonable time period, I
will re-post this article, with suitable additions and deletions, at
such time that I notice a post by you on another topic. I will repeat
this procedure until you either address the outstanding challenges or
you cease to post to this newsgroup.
I would like to apologize in advance if you have answered any of these
questions previously and your answer missed my notice. If you can be
kind enough to re-post or e-mail such articles, I will be only too
pleased to publicly rescind the challenge in question, and remove it
from this list.
Now, to the questions...
1. After claiming that all atheists fit into neat psychological
patterns that you proposed, then semi-retracting that claim by stating
that you weren't referring to *all* atheists, I asked you to name some
atheists who you feel don't fit your patterns, to show that you indeed
were not referring to all atheists that you are aware of. You failed
to do so. Please do so now.
Question: Can you name any a.a posters who do not fit into your
stereotype?
Here is the context for the question:
2. You have taken umbrage to statements to the effect that "senses and
reason are all we have to go by", and when pressed, you have implied
that we have an alternative called revelation. I have repeatedly
asked you to explain what revelation is and how one can both
experience and interpret revelation without doing so via our senses
and reason. You failed to do so. Please do so now.
Question: Can you explain what is revelation and how one can
experience and interpret it without using senses and inherent
reasoning?
Here is the context for the question:
then later...
then later...
then later...
3. You have stated that all claims to dispassionate analysis made by
a.a posters are unverifiable and fantastical. I asked you to identify
one such claim that I have made. You have failed to do so. Please do
so now.
Question: Have I made any claims at all that are unverifiable and
fantastical? If so, please repeat them.
Here is the context for the question:
then later...
4. First you dismissed claims by atheists that they became atheists as
a result of reason, then later you stated that if one accepted the
"axioms" of reason that one couldn't help but become atheist. I asked
you to explain the contradiction. Your only response was a statement
that the question was incoherent, an opinion not shared by others that
I have asked, be they atheist or theist. You have failed to answer
the question. Please do so now.
Question: Do you retract your claim that a.a posters have not become
atheists as a result of reason, despite their testimony to that
effect? If you don't retract that claim, do you retract the
subsequent claim that acceptance of the axioms of reason inevitably
result in atheism?
Here is the context for the question:
[First quote]
[Second quote]
5. First, you claimed that you would (probably) not answer these
Challenges because they contained too much in the way of "included
text" from previous posts. Later, you implied that you wouldn't
respond because I was putting words in your mouth. Please clarify
this seeming contradiction.
Question: Do you prefer to respond to Challenges that include context
from your own posts, or that I paraphrase your positions in order to
avoid "included text"?
Here is the context for the question:
then later...
As usual, your responses are awaited with anticipation.
--Dave Wood
p.s., For the record, below is a compilation of Charley's responses to
these challenges to date.
3/18/93
3/31/93 (#1)
3/31/93 (#2) | 0 | alt.atheism |
But, the goal need not be a subjective one. For instance, the goal of
natural morality is the propogation of a species, perhaps. It wasn't
really until the more intelligent animals came along that some revisions
to this were necessary. Intelligent animals have different needs than
the others, and hence a morality suited to them must be a bit more
complicated than "the law of the jungle." I don't think that
self-actualization is so subjective as you might think. And, by
objectivity, I am assuming that the ideals of any such system could be
carried out completely. | 0 | alt.atheism |
<In article <31MAR199321091163@juliet.caltech.edu<, lmh@juliet.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.) writes...
<<Atheism (Greek 'a' not + 'theos' god) Belief that there is no god.
<<Agnosticism (Greek 'a' not + ~ 'gnostein ?' know) Belief that it is
<< not possible to determine if there is a god.
<No. Agnosticism as you have here defined it is a positive belief--a
<belief that it is not possible to determine the existence of any gods.
<That's a belief I'm inclined to reject. You have also defined atheism
<here as a positive belief--that there is no god. A fairly large number
<of atheists on alt.atheism reject this definition, instead holding that
<atheism is simply the absence of belief in a god. Michael Martin, in
<_Atheism: A Philosophical Justification_, distinguishes strong atheism
My mistake. I will have to get a newer dictionary and read the
follow up line. | 0 | alt.atheism |
The reason for the existence of hell is justice. Fear is only an effect
of the reality of hell.
--
boundary, the catechist | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Terms are being used in a loaded way here.
"Logical proof" is an extremely messy thing to apply to real
life. If you think otherwise, try to construct a proof that
yesterday happened. Obviously it did; anyone old enough to be
reading this was there for it and remembers that it happened.
But *proof*? A proof starts with axioms and goes somewhere.
You need axioms to talk about logical proof. You can say that
you remember yesterday, and that you take as axiom that anything
you clearly remember happened. I could counterclaim that you
hallucinated the whole thing.
To talk about proofs of historical events, you have to relax the
terms a bit. You can show evidences, not proofs. Evidences of the
resurrected Jesus exist. Proofs do not. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Good point -- it is very true that these "false" predictions are
dangerous--we are warned (more than once) in scripture about false prophtets.
However, as is often the case with other issues, one cannot let those
who falsly report such "visions" as a reason against believing in any of them
(I did not get the impression you were asserting this, by the way...I consider
my response not so much a response to your posting but a response to the topic
as a whole).
Example: The Appearances of Mary at Fatima, Portugal in 1917.
Among other things, she predicted the conversion of Russia to Atheism
(something that happened less than a year later w/ the Bolshevik
revolution). She also predicted the second world war (that is, predicte predicted that it would occur during the papacy of a certain pope, who
was not the current one. It happened just like she said.)
She warned there would be "fire in the sky" as a warning that the
second world war was about to start. About a week before Germany
invaded, weathermen (and women, I suppose) all over Europe, from
England to Spain to Eastern Europe, reported the most spectacular
reddish color in the sky ever recorded. To this day some try to
explain it off as the northern lights, and the relation to Mary's
prediction simply coincidence. You all can decide for yourselves.
Mary predicted that the Atheistic Russia would spread her evils all
over the world and persecute religion.
She said many other things as well, too numerous to list here. Every
single one has been realized. One can only use the term "coincidence"
so many times in the same explanation before its use becomes
ridiculous.
SO...yes, there are many false prophets and many false reports. There
are true ones, too. We must always remain open to that. Fatima was
one example. There is another one, currently occuring--the
apparitions that have been taking place at Medjurgorje, Yugoslavia
(or whatever its called now). Mary has been appearing every day for
eleven years now. It's time the world started listening. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
In <Apr.23.02.55.31.1993.3123@geneva.rutgers.edu>
Tim asks:
This is probably too simplistic for some, but John 3:16 saus,
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life".
Genesis 15:6, "And he (Abram) believed the LORD; and He reckoned
it to him as righteousness".
I don't find anywhere that God restricts heaven to particular
ethnic groups or religious denominations or any other category
that we humans like to drop people into. But He does REQUIRE
that we believe and trust Him. In Hebrews it says that God spoke
of old by the prophets (the old testament), but in these last days
he has spoken to us by His son Jesus Christ. And we learn of
Him through the pages of the New Testament. The Bible tells us
what we need to believe. For those who have never heard, I leave
them in God's capable care, He will make himself known as he
desires. It behooves each one of us to act upon the knowledge
we have. If you reject the claims of Jesus, and still go to
heaven, then the joke's on me. If you reject him and go to hell,
that's no joke, but it will be final.
Gerry | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
: Hi,
: I am new to this newsgroup, and also fairly new to christianity.
: ... I realize I am very ignorant about much of the Bible and
: quite possibly about what Christians should hold as true. This I am trying
: to rectify (by reading the Bible of course), but it would be helpful
: to also read a good interpretation/commentary on the Bible or other
: relevant aspects of the Christian faith. One of my questions I would
: like to ask is - Can anyone recommend a good reading list of theological
: works intended for a lay person?
I'd recommend McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" books (3 I
think) and Manfred Brauch's "Hard Sayings of Paul". He also may have
done "Hard Sayings of Jesus". My focus would be for a new Christian to
struggle with his faith and be encouraged by the historical evidence,
especially one who comes from a background which emphasizes knowable faith. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what
I do. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
( in <1993Apr16.163729.867@batman.bmd.trw.com> )
( responding to Dave "First With Official A.A Nickname" Fuller )
[ ... ]
That means that it is an effective anti-recidivism measure. It does
not say that it deters an individual from committing a capital crime
in the first place.
The true question is whether the threat of death is likely to actually
stop one from murdering. (Or commiting treason -- are there any other
capital crimes anywhere in the USA?) That is, if there were no death
penalty, would its introduction deter a would-be criminal from
committing her/his crime? I doubt it.
This is only the first step. Even if it were a strong deterrent
(short of being a complete deterrent) I would reject it. For what
about the case of the innocent executed?
And even if we could eliminate this possibility, I would reject the
death penalty as immoral. This makes me something of a radical on
the issue, although I think there are many opponents of captial
punishment who agree with me, but who find the innocent executed the
strongest argument to make.
I would, if magically placed in charge, facilitate state-aided suicide
for criminals who have life-sentences. This could be a replacement
for capital punishment. Those who don't want to live the rest of
their lives in jail would always have this option. | 0 | alt.atheism |
You have only shown that a vast majority ( if not all ) would
agree to this. However, there is nothing against a subjective majority.
In any event, I must challenge your assertion. I know many
societies- heck, many US citizens- willing to trade freedom for "security".
---
" Whatever promises that have been made can than be broken. " | 0 | alt.atheism |
This isn't true. Many people are forced to use the "automobile system."
I certainly don't use it by choice. If there were other ways of getting
around, I'd do it.
But I think that the Court system has been refined--over hundreds of
years in the US, Britain, and other countries. We have tried to make
it as fair as possible. Can it be made better (without removing the
death penalty)? Besides, life imprisonment sounds like a fatal punishment
to me. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Gosh, Gregg. I'm pretty good a reading between the lines, but
you've given me precious little to work with in this refutation.
Could you maybe flesh it out just a bit? Or did I miss the full
grandeur of it's content by virtue of my blinding atheism?
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea. | 0 | alt.atheism |
I don't know if this is the sort of thing you guys like
to discuss. I guess it falls into the area of apologetics.
This is a question that seems to pop up now and again in
conversations with non-christians. It usually appears in
the following sort of unqualified statement:
"Well you know that religion has caused more wars than
anything else"
It bothers me that I cannot seem to find a satisfactory
response to this. After all if our religion is all about
peace and love why have there been so many religious wars?
Personally I am of the view that religion has often been
used as an excuse to instigate wars often to disguise
national ambitions but I would love to hear what anyone
else has to say about this subject.
Thanks in advance
Andrew J Fraser
(If we're thinking in terms of history, the Crusades,
Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia(?) come immediately to mind)
northern Ireland, Yugoslavia (?
--
========================================================================= | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I disagree: every proposition needs a certain amount of evidence
and support, before one can believe it. There are a miriad of factors for
each individual. As we are all different, we quite obviously require
different levels of evidence.
As one pointed out, one's history is important. While in FUSSR, one
may not believe a comrade who states that he owns five pairs of blue jeans.
One would need more evidence, than if one lived in the United States. The
only time such a statement here would raise an eyebrow in the US, is if the
individual always wear business suits, etc.
The degree of the effect upon the world, and the strength of the
claim also determine the amount of evidence necessary. When determining the
level of evidence one needs, it is most certainly relevent what the
consequences of the proposition are.
If the consequences of a proposition is irrelvent, please explain
why one would not accept: The electro-magnetic force of attraction between
two charged particles is inversely proportional to the cube of their
distance apart.
Remember, if the consequences of the law are not relevent, then
we can not use experimental evidence as a disproof. If one of the
consequences of the law is an incongruency between the law and the state of
affairs, or an incongruency between this law and any other natural law,
they are irrelevent when theorizing about the "Truth" of the law.
Given that any consequences of a proposition is irrelvent, including
the consequence of self-contradiction or contradiction with the state of
affiars, how are we ever able to judge what is true or not; let alone find
"The Truth"?
By the way, what is "Truth"? Please define before inserting it in
the conversation. Please explain what "Truth" or "TRUTH" is. I do think that
anything is ever known for certain. Even if there IS a "Truth", we could
never possibly know if it were. I find the concept to be meaningless.
--
"Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.
They do what god tells them to do. " | 0 | alt.atheism |
One thing I think is interesting about alt.athiesm is the fact that
without bible-thumpers and their ilk this would be a much duller newsgroup.
It almost needs the deluded masses to write silly things for athiests to
tear apart. Oh well, that little tidbit aside here is what I really wanted
write about.
How can anyone believe in such a sorry document as the bible? If you
want to be religious aren't there more plausable books out there? Seriously,
the bible was written by multiple authors who repeatedly contradict each
other. One minute it tells you to kill your kid if he talks back and the next
it says not to kill at all. I think that if xtians really want to follow a
deity they should pick one that can be consistent, unlike the last one they
invented.
For people who say Jesus was the son of god, didn't god say not to
EVER put ANYONE else before him? Looks like you did just that. Didn't god
say not to make any symbols or idols? What are crosses then? Don't you think
that if you do in fact believe in the bible that you are rather far off track?
Was Jesus illiterate? Why didn't he write anything? Anyone know?
I honestly hope that people who believe in the bible understand that
it is just one of the religious texts out there and that it is one of the
poorer quality ones to boot. The only reason xtianity escaped the middle east
is because a certain roman who's wine was poisoned with lead made all of rome
xtian after a bad dream.
If this posting keeps one person, just ONE person, from standing on a
streetcorner and telling people they are going to hell I will be happy.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
In a word, yes. I don't believe that physical knowledge has a great deal of
impact on the power of God. In the past, God gave us the ability to create
life through sexual relations. Now, he is giving us the ability to create life
through in vitro fertilization. The difference between the two is merely
cosmetic, and even if we gain the ability to create universes we won't begin to
approach the glory of God.
The power we are being given is a test, and I am sure that in many cases we
will use our new abilities unwisely. But, people have been using sexuality
unwisely for millenia and I haven't heard an outcry to abolish it yet!
No matter how far we extend our dominion over the physical world, we aren't
impinging on God's power. It's only when we attempt to gain control of the
spiritual world, those things that can't be approached through science and
logic, that we begin to interfere with God. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Well now, we can't judge death until we are dead right? So, why should
we judge religion without having experienced it? People have said that
religion is bad by any account, and that it is in no way useful, etc.,
but I don't totally agree with this. Of course, we cannot really say
how the religious folk would act had they not been exposed to religion,
but some people at least seemed to be helped in some ways by it.
So basically, we can not judge whether religion is the right route for
a given individual, or even for a general population. We can say that
it is not best for us personally (at least, you can choose not to use
religion--might be hard to try to find out its benefits, as you state
above). | 0 | alt.atheism |
#>So instead of calling it interest on deposits, you call it *returns on investements*
#>and instead of calling loans you call it *investing in business* (that is in other words
#>floating stocks in your company).
#
#No, interest is different from a return on an investment. For one
#thing, a return on an investment has greater risk, and not a set return
#(i.e. the amount of money you make can go up or down, or you might even
#lose money). The difference is, the risk of loss is shared by the
#investor, rather than practically all the risk being taken by the
#borrower when the borrower borrows from the bank.
#
But is it different from stocks ? If you wish to call an investor in stocks as
a banker, well then its your choice .....
#>Relabeling does not make it interest free !!
#
#It is not just relabeling, as I have explained above.
It *is* relabeling ...
Also its still not interest free. The investor is still taking some money ... as
dividend on his investment ... ofcourse the investor (in islamic *banking*, its your
so called *bank*) is taking more risk than the usual bank, but its still getting some
thing back in return ....
Also have you heard of junk bonds ???
---Vinayak
-------------------------------------------------------
vinayak dutt
e-mail: vdp@mayo.edu
standard disclaimers apply | 0 | alt.atheism |
If I believed in the God of the bible I would be very fearful of making
this statement. Doesn't it say those who judge will be judged by the
same measure?
A God who must motivate through fear is not a God worthy of worship.
If the God Jesus spoke of did indeed exist he would not need hell to
convince people to worship him.
It was the myth of hell that made me finally realize that the whole thing
was untrue. If it hadn't been for hell I would still be a believer today.
The myth of hell made me realize that if there was a God that he was not
the all knowing and all good God he claimed to be. Why should I take such
a being at his word, even if there was evidence for his existance?
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Library of Congress to Host Dead Sea Scroll Symposium April 21-22
To: National and Assignment desks, Daybook Editor
Contact: John Sullivan, 202-707-9216, or Lucy Suddreth, 202-707-9191
both of the Library of Congress
WASHINGTON, April 19 -- A symposium on the Dead Sea
Scrolls will be held at the Library of Congress on Wednesday,
April 21, and Thursday, April 22. The two-day program, cosponsored
by the library and Baltimore Hebrew University, with additional
support from the Project Judaica Foundation, will be held in the
library's Mumford Room, sixth floor, Madison Building.
Seating is limited, and admission to any session of the symposium
must be requested in writing (see Note A).
The symposium will be held one week before the public opening of a
major exhibition, "Scrolls from the Dead Sea: The Ancient Library of
Qumran and Modern Scholarship," that opens at the Library of Congress
on April 29. On view will be fragmentary scrolls and archaeological
artifacts excavated at Qumran, on loan from the Israel Antiquities
Authority. Approximately 50 items from Library of Congress special
collections will augment these materials. The exhibition, on view in
the Madison Gallery, through Aug. 1, is made possible by a generous
gift from the Project Judaica Foundation of Washington, D.C.
The Dead Sea Scrolls have been the focus of public and scholarly
interest since 1947, when they were discovered in the desert 13 miles
east of Jerusalem. The symposium will explore the origin and meaning
of the scrolls and current scholarship. Scholars from diverse
academic backgrounds and religious affiliations, will offer their
disparate views, ensuring a lively discussion.
The symposium schedule includes opening remarks on April 21, at
2 p.m., by Librarian of Congress James H. Billington, and by
Dr. Norma Furst, president, Baltimore Hebrew University. Co-chairing
the symposium are Joseph Baumgarten, professor of Rabbinic Literature
and Institutions, Baltimore Hebrew University and Michael Grunberger,
head, Hebraic Section, Library of Congress.
Geza Vermes, professor emeritus of Jewish studies, Oxford
University, will give the keynote address on the current state of
scroll research, focusing on where we stand today. On the second
day, the closing address will be given by Shmaryahu Talmon, who will
propose a research agenda, picking up the theme of how the Qumran
studies might proceed.
On Wednesday, April 21, other speakers will include:
-- Eugene Ulrich, professor of Hebrew Scriptures, University of
Notre Dame and chief editor, Biblical Scrolls from Qumran, on "The
Bible at Qumran;"
-- Michael Stone, National Endowment for the Humanities
distinguished visiting professor of religious studies, University of
Richmond, on "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha."
-- From 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. a special preview of the exhibition
will be given to symposium participants and guests.
On Thursday, April 22, beginning at 9 a.m., speakers will include:
-- Magen Broshi, curator, shrine of the Book, Israel Museum,
Jerusalem, on "Qumran: The Archaeological Evidence;"
-- P. Kyle McCarter, Albright professor of Biblical and ancient
near Eastern studies, The Johns Hopkins University, on "The Copper
Scroll;"
-- Lawrence H. Schiffman, professor of Hebrew and Judaic studies,
New York University, on "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of
Judaism;" and
-- James VanderKam, professor of theology, University of Notre
Dame, on "Messianism in the Scrolls and in Early Christianity."
The Thursday afternoon sessions, at 1:30 p.m., include:
-- Devorah Dimant, associate professor of Bible and Ancient Jewish
Thought, University of Haifa, on "Qumran Manuscripts: Library of a
Jewish Community;"
-- Norman Golb, Rosenberger professor of Jewish history and
civilization, Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, on "The
Current Status of the Jerusalem Origin of the Scrolls;"
-- Shmaryahu Talmon, J.L. Magnas professor emeritus of Biblical
studies, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, on "The Essential 'Commune of
the Renewed Covenant': How Should Qumran Studies Proceed?" will close
the symposium.
There will be ample time for question and answer periods at the
end of each session.
Also on Wednesday, April 21, at 11 a.m.:
The Library of Congress and The Israel Antiquities Authority
will hold a lecture by Esther Boyd-Alkalay, consulting conservator,
Israel Antiquities Authority, on "Preserving the Dead Sea Scrolls"
in the Mumford Room, LM-649, James Madison Memorial Building, The
Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave., S.E., Washington, D.C.
------
NOTE A: For more information about admission to the symposium,
please contact, in writing, Dr. Michael Grunberger, head, Hebraic
Section, African and Middle Eastern Division, Library of Congress,
Washington, D.C. 20540.
-30- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
If the Papacy is infallible, and this is a matter of faith, then the
Pope cannot "be wrong!" If, on the other hand, this is not a matter
of faith, but a matter of Church law, then we should still obey as the
Pope is the legal head of the church.
In other words, given the doctrine of infallibility, we have no choice
but to obey.
This is a primary problem in the Church today. What you are saying is
more or less heresy. You might call it "infallibilism". It's the
idea that the Pope is always right in everything he says or does.
This is virtually all over the place, especially in this country.
The Pope is only infallible under certain very specific and
well-defined conditions. When these conditions are not met, he can
make mistakes. He can make *big* mistakes.
A couple historical examples come to mind.
Bishop Robert Grosseteste was perhaps the greatest product of the
English Catholic Church. At one point during his career, the reigning
Pope decided to install one of his nephews in an English see. Bishop
Grosseteste said that this would happen over his dead body (though
maybe not in so many words; you have to treat Popes with respect, even
when they are wrong). The problem was that this nephew would just
collect the income of the see, and probably never set foot there.
This would deprive the people of the see of a shepherd. Bishop
Grosseteste was quite right in what he did!
Another example is that of Pope John XXII, a Pope of the Middle Ages.
He decided that souls that were saved did not enjoy the Beatific
Vision until the Last Judgement. He decided that this should be a
defined doctrine of the Church. Though he didn't quite get around to
defining it. Now there's no way this is compatible with Catholic
doctrine. The Pope's doctrine was criticised by many in the Church.
He went so far as to put a number of his opponents in jail, even. In
the end, he had to admit his mistake. Shortly before he died, he
recanted. His successor made the exact *opposite* idea a dogma of the
Church.
If you consult any of the great Catholic theologians who treat of such
subjects, such as St. Robert Bellarmine (a Doctor of the Church), you
will find detailed discussions of whether the Pope can personally fall
into heresy or schism. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
What do you mean by omnipotent here? Do you mean by "omnipotent"
that God should be able to do anything/everything? This creates
a self-contradictory definition of omnipotence which is effectively
useless.
To be descriptive, omnipotence must mean "being all-powerful" and
not "being able to do anything/everything".
Let me illustrate by analogy.
Suppose the United States were the only nuclear power on earth. Suppose
further that the US military could not effectively be countered by any
nation or group of nations. The US has the power to go into any country
at any time for any reason to straighten things out as the leaders of the
US see fit. The US would be militarily "omnipotent".
But suppose further that the US holds to a doctrine/philosophy of not
interfering in the internal affairs of any nation, such as the current
civil war in the former Yugoslavian states.
Technically (in this scenario) the US would have the power to
unilaterally go into Yugoslavia and straighten out the mess. But
effectively the US could not intervene without violating its own policy
of non-interference. If the policy of non-interference were held to
strongly enough, then there would never be a question that it would
ever be violated. Effectively, the US would be limited in what it
could actually do, although it had the power to do "whatever it wanted".
The US would simply "never want to interfere" for such an idea would
be beyond the consideration of its leaders given such an inviolate
non-interference policy.
God is effectively limited in the same sense. He is all powerful, but
He cannot use His power in a way that would violate the essence of what
He, Himself is.
I hope this helps to clear up some of the misunderstanding concerning
omnipotence.
Regards, | 0 | alt.atheism |
Larry L. Overacker writes, responding to Simon:
I may be interesting to see some brief selections posted to the
net. My understanding is that SSPX does not consider ITSELF in
schism or legitimately excommunicated. But that's really beside
the point. What does the Roman Catholic church say?
Excommunication can be real apart from formal excommunication, as
provided for in canon law.
Here's some of the theology involved for the interested.
There is confusion over this issue of the SSPX's "schism"; often the
basic problem is lack of an ability to distinguish between:
- true obedience
- false obedience
- disobedience
- schism
Take the various classifications of obedience first. There are 2
important elements involved here for my purposes:
1) a command
2) the response made to the command
As far as the command goes, commands can be LEGITIMATE, such as the
Pope ordering Catholics to not eat meat on Fridays. Or they can be
ILLEGITIMATE, such as the Pope ordering Catholics to worship the god
Dagon when every other full moon comes around.
As far as the response to a command goes, it can be to REFUSE to do
what is commanded, or to COMPLY.
Making a table, there are thus 4 possibilites:
command response name
-----------------------------------------------------
LEGITIMATE COMPLY true obedience
ILLEGITIMATE REFUSE true obedience
LEGITIMATE REFUSE disobedience
ILLEGITIMATE COMPLY false obedience
So now you see where my 3 classifications of obedience come from.
Obedience is not solely a matter of compliance/refusal. The nature of
the commands must also be taken into account; it is not enough to
consider someone's compliance or refusal and then say whether they are
"obedient" or "disobedient". You also have to take into consideration
whether the commands are good or bad.
In my example, if the Pope commands all Catholics to worship the god
Dagon, and they all refuse, they aren't being disobedient at all!
As far as the Society of Saint Pius X goes, they are certainly
refusing to comply with certain things the Pope desires. But that
alone is insufficient to allow one to label them "disobedient". You
also have to consider the nature of the Papal desires.
And there's the rub: SSPX says the Popes since Vatican II have been
commanding certain very bad things for the Church. The Popes have of
course disagreed.
So where are we? Are we in another Arian heresy, complete with weak
Popes? Or are the SSPX priests modern Martin Luthers? Well, the only
way to answer that is to examine who is saying what, and what the
traditional teaching of the Church is.
The problem here is that very few Catholics have much of an idea of
what is really going on, and what the issues are. The religion of
American Catholics is especially defective in intellectual depth. You
will never read about the issues being discussed in the Catholic press
in this country. (On the other hand, one Italian Catholic magazine I
get -- 30 Days -- has had interviews with the Superior General of the
Society of Saint Pius X.)
Many Catholics will decide to side with the Pope. There is some
soundness in this, because the Papacy is infallible, so eventually
some Pope *will* straighten all this out. But, on the other hand,
there is also unsoundness in this, in that, in the short term, the
Popes may indeed be wrong, and such Catholics are doing nothing to
help the situation by obeying them where they're wrong. In fact, if
the situation is grave enough, they sin in obeying him. At the very
least, they're wasting a great opportunity, because they are failing
to love Christ in a heroic way at the very time that He needs this
badly.
Schism... let's move on to schism. What is it?
Schism is a superset of disobedience (refusal to obey a legitimate
command). All schismatics are disobedient. But it's a superset, so
it doesn't work the other way around: not all disobeyers are
schismatics. The mere fact that the SSPX priests don't comply with
the Holy Father's desires doesn't make them schismatics.
So what is it that must be added to disobedience to constitute a
schism? Maybe this something else makes the SSPX priests schismatics.
You must add this: the rejection of the right to command. Look in any
decent reference on Catholic theology, and that's what you'll find:
the distinguishing criterion of schism is rejection of the right to
command.
Here's what the Catholic Encyclopedia says, for example:
... not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this
character it must include besides the trangression of the commands
of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command.
(from the CE article "Schism")
Is the Society of Saint Pius X then schismatic? The answer is a clear
no: they say that the Pope is their boss. They pray for him every
day. And that's all that matters as far as schism goes.
What all this boils down to is this: if we leave aside the
consideration of the exact nature of their objections, their position
is a legitimate one, as far as the Catholic theology of obedience and
schism goes. They are resisting certain Papal policies because they
think that they are clearly contrary to the traditional teaching of
the Papacy, and the best interests of the Church. (In fact, someone
who finds himself in this situation has a *duty* to resist.)
Now, what is the stance of Rome on all this? Well, if you read the
Holy Father's motu proprio "Ecclesia Dei", you can find out. It's the
definitive document on the subject. A motu proprio is a specifically
Papal act. It's not the product of a Roman congregation, a letter
that the Pope has possibly never even read. It's from the Pope
himself. His boss is God... there's no one else to complain to.
In this document, the Holy Father says, among other things:
1) The episcopal consecrations performed by Archbishop Lefebvre
constituted a schismatic act.
2) Archbishop Lefebvre's problem was a misunderstanding of the nature
of Tradtion.
Both are confusing: I fail to see the logic of the Pope's points.
As far as the episcopal consecrations go, I read an interesting
article in a translation of the Italian magazine "Si Si No No". It
all gets back to the question of jurisdiction. If episcopal
consecrations imply rejection of the Pope's jurisdiction, then they
would truly constitute a schismatic act, justifying excommunication
under the current code of canon law. But my problem with this is
this: according to the traditional theology of Holy Orders, episcopal
consecration does not confer jurisdiction. It only confers the power
of Order: the ability to confect the Sacraments. Jurisdiction must be
conferred by someone else with the power to confer it (such as the
Pope). The Society bishops, knowing the traditional theology quite
well, take great pains to avoid any pretence of jurisdiction over
anyone. They simply confer those Sacraments that require a bishop.
The "Si Si No No" article was interesting in that it posited that the
reason that the Pope said what he did is that he has a novel,
post-Vatican II idea of Holy Orders. According to this idea,
episcopal consecration *does* confer jurisdiction. I lent the article
to a friend, unfortunately, so can't tell you more. I believe they
quoted the new code of canon law in support of this idea.
The Pope's thinking on this point remains a great puzzle to me.
There's no way there is a schism, according to traditional Catholic
theology. So why does the Pope think this?
As far as the points regarding the nature of Tradition goes, here's
the passage in question:
The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete
and contradictory notion of Tradtion. Incomplete, because it does
not take sufficiently into the account the living character of
Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught,
comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the
help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into
the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes
about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and
study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts.
It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which
they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who
have received, along with their right of succession in the
espiscopate, the sure charism of truth.
But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which
opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the
Bishop of Rome and the body of bishops. It is impossible to
remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond
with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ
himself entrusted the ministry of unity in His Church.
(Papal motu proprio "Ecclesia Dei", 2 July 1988)
It seems to me that the Holy Father is making two points here that can
be simplified to the following:
- Vatican Council II has happened.
- I am the Pope.
The argument being that either case is sufficient to prove that
Archbishop Lefebvre must be wrong, because he disagrees with them.
This is weak, to say the least!
It would have helped clarify things more if the Pope had addressed
Archbishop Lefebvre's concerns in detail. What is John Paul II's
stand on the social Kingship of Christ, as taught by Gregory XVI, Pius
IX, Leo XIII, Pius XI and Pius XII, for example? Are we supposed to
ignore what all these Popes said on the subject?
I don't know what the future will hold, but the powers that be in the
SSPX are still talking with Rome and trying to straighten things out.
--------------------------------------------------------------
[Many people would prefer to call a justified refusal to obey
"justified disobedience" or even "obeying God rather than man".
Calling a refusal to obey obedience puts us into a sort of Alice in
Wonderland world where words mean whatever we want them to mean.
Similarly, schism indicates a formal break in the church. If the Pope
says that a schism exists, it seems to me that by definition it
exists. It may be that the Pope is on the wrong side of the break,
that there is no good reason for the break to exist, and that it will
shortly be healed. But how can one deny that it does in fact exist?
It seems to me that you are in grave danger of destroying the thing
you are trying to reform: the power of the papacy. What good will it
do you if you become reconciled to the the Pope in the future, but in
the process, you have destroyed his ability to use the tools of church
discipline? It's one thing to hold that the Pope has misused his
powers, and excommunicated someone wrongly. It's something else to
say that his excommunication did not take effect, and the schism is
all in his imagination. That means that acts of church discipline are
not legal tools, but acts whose validity is open to debate. Generally
it has been liberal Catholics who have had problems with the Pope.
While they have often objected to church sanctions, generally they
have admitted that the sanctions exist. You are now opening the door
to people simply ignoring papal decisions, claiming to be truly
obeying by disobeying, and to be in communion while excommunicated.
This would seem to be precisely the denial of Divine right to command
that you say defines schism. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Julie, it is a really trying situation that you have described. My
brother was living with someone like that and things were almost as bad
(although he left after a considerably shorter amount of time due to
other problems with the relationship). Anyway, the best thing to do
would be to get everyone in the same room together (optimally in a room
with nothing breakable), lock the door behind you, throw the key out
underneath the door (just as far as the longest hand can reach. You
would like to get out after the conclusion, I would imagine), and hash
things out. More than likely, there will be screaming, crying, and
possibly hitting (unless of course someone decided to bring some rope to
tie people down). Some of the best strategies in keeping things calmer
would include:
have each individual own their own statements (ie, I feel that this
relationship is hurting everyone involved because.... or I really don't
understand where you're coming from.)
reinforce statements by paraphrasing, etc. (ie, So you think that we
did this because of...? Well, let me just say that the reason for this
was ....)
don't accuse each other (It was your fault that ... happened!)
find a common ground about SOMETHING (Lampshades really are
decorational and functional at the same time.)
Guaranteed, in a situation like this, there is going to be some
gunnysacking (re-hashing topics which were assumed resolved, but were
truly not and someone feels someone else is to blame). However, this
should be kept to a minimum and simply ask for forgiveness or apologize
about each situation WITHOUT holding a smoldering grudge.
The relationship really can work. It's just a matter of keeping things
smooth and even. It's sort of like making a peace treaty between
warring factions: you can't give one side everything; there must be a
compromise. Breaks can be taken, but communication between everyone
involved must continue if the relationships here are to survive. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
No it didn't. The motto has been on various coins since the Civil War.
It was just required to be on *all* currency in the 50's. | 0 | alt.atheism |
I was at my parents' Seder and noticed the labelling on one of the
packages was English, Hebrew and French. In the phrase "kosher for
passover" the French word used was "Pa^ques." We've deliberately
mistranslated this at the Kulikauskas home and keep referring to foods
being kosher for Easter. :-)
Back to the original questions in this thread concerning Christians of
Jewish descent and the Law: I always wonder when I see posts on this
subject whether the writers are Christians of Jewish descent relating
the life-decisions God has led them to or people who take only an
academic interest in the topic. (Having known Seanna since she was nine
years old, I do know in this case.) I admit that the answer to this
question affects the amount of weight I give to the writer's statement. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
:
[ . . . . . ]
:
: Personally, I feel that since religion have such a poweful
: psychological effect, we should let theists be. But the problem is that
: religions cause enormous harm to non-believers and to humanity as a whole
: (holy wars, inquisitions, inter-religious hatred, impedence of science
: & intellectual progress, us-&-them attitudes etc etc. Need I say more?).
: I really don't know what we can do about them. Any comments?
:
I have always held that there should be no attempt to change a persons
attitude or lifestyle as long as it makes them happy and does not tax
anybody else. This seems to be ok for atheists. You don't get an atheist
knocking on your door, stopping you in the airport, or handing out
literature at a social event. Theists seem to think that thier form of
happy should work for others and try to make it so.
My sister is a
born again, and she was a real thorn in the side for my entire family
for several years. She finally got the clue that she couldn't help.
During that period she bought me "I was atheist, now I'm Xtian" books
for my birthday and Xmas several times. Our birthday cards would contain
verses. It was a problem. I told my mom that I was going to send my
sister an atheist piece of reading material. I got a "Don't you dare".
My mom wasn't religious. Why did she insist that I not send it ??
Because our society has driven into us that religion is ok to
preach, non-religion should be self contained. What a crock of shit.
I finally told my sister that I didn't find her way of life attractive.
I have seen exactly 0 effort from her on trying to convert me since then.
I'm sick of religious types being pampered, looked out for, and WORST
OF ALL . . . . respected more than atheists. There must be an end
in sight. | 0 | alt.atheism |
I am beginning an e-mail discussion group about cell churches. If you are
a follower of Jesus Christ and are
- in a cell church, or
- in a church that is transitioning to a cell church, or
- just interested in learning more about cell churches,
send me e-mail. (I reserve the right to remove anybody from the group who
does not demonstrate a spirit of humility and Christlikeness.)
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I'm sold! Where do I sign up?
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Grow up, childish propagandist.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
One rule of thumb is that if a person is making the claim, they are
wrong. I was just reading John 14 this morning (I think that is the
right chapter, anyway it is close and I don't have a Bible at work to
check with.) and in it Jesus is talking to his disciples about his
impending death and he says that he will be going away and then later
he will be with them. He said something along the lines of "I will
be in you and you will be in me." (Again I cannot provide the exact
quote or citation.) Anyway, my understanding of this is that
the Second Coming will not be an outward event. It is an inward
event, Christ will come to live in our hearts and we will live in him.
If you look for a person you will be deceived.
It seems to me that the Jews had been looking for a Messiah that would
be a political or military leader and so didn't recognize Jesus when
he came. Jesus tried to show that his Kingdom was not of this earth.
A lot of what I have seen written about the Second Coming seems to
based on an expectation of Christ coming back and finally taking over
the world and running it the way it should be. It sounds a lot like
what the Jews were looking for. The First Coming wasn't like that and
I see no reason for the Second Coming to be like that either.
Oh and by the way, I don't expect it to happen once. There is no one
Second Coming, there are a lot of little ones. Every time Christ
comes into someones heart, Christ has come again.
Peace,
Will.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I would recommend "Essential Truthes of the Christian Faith" by RC Sproul.
It is copywrited 1992 from Tyndale House Publishers. Sproul offers concise
explanations, in simple language, of around 100 different Christian
doctrines, grouped by subject. I think it would be particularly good for
newer Christians (and older Christians suffering spiritual malnutrition),
as it gives a Biblically sound basic treatment of the issues, avoiding
long in-depth analysis that can wait until after you know the basics.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
So these hypothetical conscious beings can ignore any influences of
their circumstances (their genetics, their environment, their experiences)
which are not all self-determined?
(Of course, the idea of Hell makes the idea of "free will" dubious.
On the other hand, the idea of Hell is not a very powerful idea.
"A Parable for You
"There was once our main character who blah blah blah.
"One day, a thug pointed a mean looking gun at OMC, and
said, 'Do what I say, or I'm blasting you to hell.'
"OMC thought, 'If I believe this thug, and follow the
instructions that will be given, I'll avoid getting blasted to
hell. On the other hand, if I believe this thug, and do not
follow the instructions that will be given, I'll get blasted to
hell. Hmm... the more attractive choice is obvious, I'll
follow the instructions.' Now, OMC found the choice obvious
because everything OMC had learned about getting blasted to
hell made it appear very undesirable.
"But then OMC noticed that the thug's gun wasn't a real
gun. The thug's threats were make believe.
"So OMC ignored the thug and resumed blah blah blah.") | 0 | alt.atheism |
You ask where we are. I would echo that question. I'm not trying to be
contentious. But assuming that the Pope has universal jurisdiction
and authority, what authority do you rely upon for your decisions?
What prevents me from choosing ANY doctrine I like and saying that
Papal disagreement is an error that will be resolved in time?
This is especially true, since Councils of Bishops have basically
stood by the Pope.
The ultimate question is the traditional theology of the Church. This
is the *only* thing that it is possible to resist a Pope for: his
departure from the traditional doctrine of the Church. If commands
from *any* authority conflict with Tradition, the commands must be
disobeyed.
My own view on this is that this conflict could only happen in a major
way. God would never allow a hair-splitting situation to develop; it
would be too complex for people to figure out. I don't view the
present situation in the Church as anything extremely complicated.
Run through a list of what has happened in the last 30 years in the
Catholic Church, and any impartial observer will be aghast.
It appears that much of what lies at the heart of this matter is
disagreements over what is tradition and Tradition, and also over
authority and discipline.
The problems stem from a general widespread ignorance of the Catholic
Faith, in my opinion. Most Catholics know about zilch about the
Catholic Faith; this leaves them wide open for destruction by erring
bishops. It's basically the Reformation part II.
There is not even a question in my mind that in some respects the
shards of the Catholic Church are currently being trampled upon by the
Catholic hierarchy. I could go on listing shocking things for an
hour, probably.
Take the situation in Campos, Brazil, for example. I'm reading a book
on what happened there after Vatican Council II. The bishop, Antonio
de Castro-Mayer, never introduced all the changes that followed in the
wake of Vatican II. He kept the traditional Mass, the same old
catechisms, etc. He made sure the people knew their faith, the
Catholic theology of obedience, what Modernism was, etc. He
innoculated the people against what was coming.
Well, one day the order came from Rome for his retirement. It came
when the Pope was sick. Bishop de Castro-Mayer waited until the Pope
recovered, then inquired whether this command was what the Pope really
wanted, or something that some Liberal had commanded in his absence.
The Pope confirmed the decision. So the good bishop retired.
The injustice that followed was completely incredible. A new bishop
was installed. He proceeded to expel most of bishop de Castro-Mayer's
clergy from their churches, because they refused to celebrate the New
Mass. The new bishop would visit a parish, and celebrate a New Mass.
The people would promptly walk out of the church en masse. The bishop
was *enraged* by this. He usually resorted to enlisting the help of
the secular authorities to eject the priest from the church. The
priests would just start building new churches; the people were
completely behind them. The old parishes had the New Mass, as the
bishop desired -- and virtually no parishioners.
The prime motivation for all this was completely illegal, according to
canon law. No priest can be penalized in any way for saying the
traditional Mass, because of legislation enacted by Pope Saint Pius V.
Nor is there any obligation to say the New Mass.
During all this process, the people of Campos, not just private
individuals, but including civil authorities, were constantly sending
petitions and letters to Rome to do something about the new Modernist
bishop. NOTHING was ever done; no help ever arrived from Rome.
Eventually 37 priests were kicked out, and about 40,000 people.
My question to the supporters of SSPX is this:
Is there ANY way that your positions with respect to church reforms
could change and be conformed to those of the Pope? (assuming that
the Pope's position does not change and that the leaders of SSPX
don't jointly make such choice.)
If not, this appears to be claiming infallible teaching authority.
If I adopt the view that "I'm NOT wrong, I CAN'T be wrong, and
there's NO WAY I'll change my mind, YOU must change yours", that
I've either left the Catholic Church or it has left me.
If the Pope defines certain things ex cathedra, that would be the end
of the controversy. That process is all very well understood in
Catholic theology, and anyone who doesn't go along with it is an
instant non-Catholic.
The problem here is that people do not appreciate what is going on in
the Catholic world. If they knew the Faith, and what our bishops are
doing, they would be shocked!
We sould argue from now until the Second Coming about what the "real"
traditional teaching of the Church is. If this were a simple matter
East and West would not have been separated for over 900 years.
This isn't the case in the Catholic Church. There is a massive body
of traditional teaching. The Popes of the last 150 years are
especially relevant. There is no question at all what the traditional
doctrine is.
I thought that the teaching magisterieum of the church did not allow
error in teachings regarding faith and morals even in the short term.`
I may be wrong here, I'm not Roman Catholic. :-)
That's heresy, more or less. Although they have done a great job
since the Reformation, the last 30 years have seen so many errors
spread that it's pitiful.
Infallibility rests in the Pope, and in the Church as a whole. In the
short term, a Pope, or large sections of the Church can go astray. In
fact, that's what usually happens during a major heresy: large
sections of the Church go astray. (The Pope historically has been
much more reliable.) Everything will always come back in the long
run.
What would be the effect of a Pope making an ex cathedra statement
regarding the SSPX situation? Would it be honored? If not, how
do you get around the formal doctrine of infallibility?
Again, I'm not trying to be contentions, I'm trying to understand.
Since I'm Orthodox, I've got no real vested interest in the outcome,
one way or the other.
Yes, it would be honored. Infallibility is infallibility. But what
is he going to define? That the New Mass is a better expression of
the Catholic Faith than the old? That sex education in the Catholic
schools is wonderful? That all religions are wonderful except for
that professed by the Popes prior to Vatican II?
It does if the command was legitimate. SSPX does not view the
Pope's commands as legitimate. Why? This is a VERY slippery slope. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I was replying to a person who attempted to justify the fatwa
against Rushdie on the grounds that his work was intentionally
insulting.
I think that to take a single sentence from a fairly long
posting, and to say
"I don't know if you are doing so, but it
seems you are implying....."
is at the very best quite disingenuous, and perhaps even
dishonest. If anyone care to dig back and read the full
posting, they will see nothing of the kind.
I trust you don't deny that Islamic teaching has "something
to do" with the fatwa against Rushdie? | 0 | alt.atheism |
Several recent posts have identified the English word 'Easter' with
the Babylonian goddess 'Ishtar'.
'Easter' is a pagan word all right, but it has nothing to do with Ishtar.
If 'Easter' and 'Ishtar' were related, their history would show it.
But in Old English, Easter was 'Eostre', cognate with English 'East'
and German 'Ost'. The reconstructed Proto-Germanic form is 'Austron'.
Not until after 1400 did 'Easter' have a high front vowel like 'Ishtar'.
Clearly, the two words have quite separate origins.
There may be neo-pagans who worship Ishtar at Easter, but if so, they
are making either a mistake of etymology, or a deliberate play on words.
-- Michael Covington (Ph.D., linguistics)
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
False dichotomy. You claimed the killing were *not* religiously
motivated, and I'm saying that's wrong. I'm not saying that
each and every killing is religiously motivate, as I spelled out
in detail.
Does anyone else see the contradiction in this paragraph?
Sorry, Frank, but what I put in quotes is your own words from your
posting <1qi83b$ec4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>. Don't tell us now that
it's a different claim. If you can no longer stand behind your
original claim, just say so. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Darius> Let me suggest this. Maybe those who believe in the eternal
Darius> hell theory should provide all the biblical evidence they can
Darius> find for it. Stay away from human theories, and only take
Darius> into account references in the bible.
Like most topics, we've been through this one before, but here is
a good start: Matthew 25:46:
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous
to eternal life."
I may post more on this subject when I have more time. In any
case, it is clear that the fate of the damned is most unpleasant,
and to be avoided.
David Wagner "Sola Scriptura!"
a confessional Lutheran | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I've heard it said that the accounts we have of Christs life and
ministry in the Gospels were actually written many years after the event.
(About 40 years or so). Is this correct?? If so, why the big time delay??
I know all scripture is inspired of God, so the time of writing is I suppose
un-important, but I still can't help be curious!
---------------------------------------------------
Ivan Thomas Barr
Contact me at u9126619@athmail1.causeway.qub.ac.uk
[The Gospels aren't dated, so we can only guess. Luke's prolog is
about the only thing we have from the author describing his process.
The prolog sounds like Luke is from the next generation, and had to do
some investigating. There are traditions passed down verbally that
say a few things about the composition of the Gospels. There are
debates about how reliable these traditions are. They certainly don't
have the status of Scripture, yet scholars tend to take some of them
seriously. One suggests that Mark was based on Peter's sermons, and
was written to preserve them when Peter had died or way about to die.
One tradition about Matthew suggests that a collection of Jesus words
may have been made earlier than the current Gospels.
In the ancient world, it was much more common to rely on verbal
transmission of information. I think many people would have preferred
to hear about Jesus directly from someone who had known him, and maybe
even from someone who studied directly under such a person, rather
than from a book. Thus I suspect that the Gospels are largely from a
period when these people were beginning to die. Scholars generally do
think there was some written material earlier, which was probably used
as sources for the existing Gospels.
Establishing the dates is a complex and technical business. I have to
confess that I'm not sure how much reliance I'd put on the methods
used. But it's common to think that Mark was written first, around 64
AD., and that all of the Gospels were written by the end of the
Century. A few people vary this by a decade or so one way or the
other. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Do I smell .sig material here?
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea. | 0 | alt.atheism |
-> First I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian. It
->makes sense to be one. Have any of you read Tony Campollo's book- liar,
->lunatic, or the real thing? (I might be a little off on the title, but he
->writes the book. Anyway he was part of an effort to destroy Christianity,
->in the process he became a Christian himself.
Sounds like you are saying he was a part of some conspiracy. Just what organization did he
belong to? Does it have a name?
-> The book says that Jesus was either a liar, or he was crazy ( a
->modern day Koresh) or he was actually who he said he was.
Logic alert - artificial trifercation. The are many other possible explainations. Could have been
that he never existed. There have been some good points made in this group that is not
impossible that JC is an amalgam of a number of different myths, Mithra comes to mind.
-> Some reasons why he wouldn't be a liar are as follows. Who would
->die for a lie? Wouldn't people be able to tell if he was a liar? People
->gathered around him and kept doing it, many gathered from hearing or seeing
->someone who was or had been healed. Call me a fool, but I believe he did
->heal people.
Logic alert - argument from incredulity. Just because it is hard for you to believe this doesn't
mean that it isn't true. Liars can be very pursuasive, just look at Koresh that you yourself site.
He has followers that don't think he is a fake and they have shown that they are willing to die.
By not giving up after getting shot himself, Koresh has shown that he too is will to die for what
he believes. As far as healing goes. If I rememer right the healing that was attributed is not
consistent between the different gospels. In one of them the healing that is done is not any more
that faith healers can pull off today. Seems to me that the early gospels weren't that compeling,
so the stories got bigger to appeal better.
-> Niether was he a lunatic. Would more than an entire nation be drawn
->to someone who was crazy. Very doubtful, in fact rediculous. For example
->anyone who is drawn to David Koresh is obviously a fool, logical people see
->this right away.
-> Therefore since he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, he must have been the
->real thing.
Or might not have existed, or any number of things. That is the logical pitfall that those who
use flawed logic like this fall into. There are bifurcations (or tri, quad, etc) that are valid, because
in the proceeding steps, the person shows conclusively that the alternatives are all that are
possible. Once everyone agrees that the given set is indeed all there are, then arguments among
the alternatives can be presentent, and one mostly likely to be true can be deduced by excluding
all other possible alternatives.
However, if it can be shown that the set is not all inclusive, then any conclusions bases on the
incomplete set are invalid, even if the true choice is one of the original choices. I have given at
least one valid alternative, so the conclusion that JC is the real McCoy just because he isn't one of
the other two alternative is no longer valid.
-> Some other things to note. He fulfilled loads of prophecies in
->the psalms, Isaiah and elsewhere in 24 hrs alone. This in his betrayal
->and Crucifixion. I don't have my Bible with me at this moment, next time I
->write I will use it.
JC was a rabbi. He knew what those prophecies were. It wouldn't be any great shakes to make
sure one does a list of actions that would fullfill prophecy. What would be compeling is if there
were a set of clear and explicit prophecies AND JC had absolutely NO knowledge of then, yet
fullfilled them anyway.
-> I don't think most people understand what a Christian is. It
->is certainly not what I see a lot in churches. Rather I think it
->should be a way of life, and a total sacrafice of everything for God's
->sake. He loved us enough to die and save us so we should do the
->same. Hey we can't do it, God himself inspires us to turn our lives
->over to him. That's tuff and most people don't want to do it, to be a
->real Christian would be something for the strong to persevere at. But
->just like weight lifting or guitar playing, drums, whatever it takes
->time. We don't rush it in one day, Christianity is your whole life.
->It is not going to church once a week, or helping poor people once in
->a while. We box everything into time units. Such as work at this
->time, sports, Tv, social life. God is above these boxes and should be
->carried with us into all these boxes that we have created for
->ourselves.
Here I agree with you. Anyone who buys into this load of mythology should take what it says
seriously, and what it says is that it must be a total way of life. I have very little respect for
Xians that don't. If the myth is true, then it is true in its entirity. The picking and choosing
that I see a lot of leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Jim
---
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
James L. Felder |
Sverdrup Technology,Inc. | phone: 216-891-4019
NASA Lewis Research Center |
Cleveland, Ohio 44135 | email: jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov
"Some people drink from the fountain of knowledge, other people gargle" | 0 | alt.atheism |
[stuff deleted...]
That's like saying that, since mathematics includes no instructions on
how to act, it is evil. Atheism is not a moral system, so why should
it speak of instructions on how to act? *Atheism is simply lack of
belief in God*.
Plenty of theists
I think the argument that a particular theist system causes genocide
can be made more convincingly than an argument that atheism causes genocide.
This is because theist systems contain instructions on how to act,
and one or more of these can be shown to cause genocide. However, since
the atheist set of instructions is the null set, how can you show that
atheism causes genocide?
--
David Choweller (davec@silicon.csci.csusb.edu)
There are scores of thousands of human insects who are
ready at a moment's notice to reveal the Will of God on
every possible subject. --George Bernard Shaw. | 0 | alt.atheism |
<< < For example: why does the universe exist at all?
<Whether there is a "why" or not we have to find it. This is Pascal's(?) wager.
<If there is no why and we spend our lives searching, then we have merely
<wasted our lives, which were meaningless anyway. If there is a why and we
..
<Suppose the universe is 5 billion years old, and suppose it lasts another
<5 billion years. Suppose I live to be 100. That is nothing, that is so small
<that it is scary. So by searching for the "why" along with my friends here
<on earth if nothing else we aren't so scared.
I find this view of Christianity to be quite disheartening and sad.
The idea that life only has meaning or importance if there is a Creator
does not seem like much of a basis for belief.
And the logic is also appalling: "God must exist because I want Him to."
I have heard this line of "reasoning" before and wonder how prevalent
it is. Certainly in modern society many people are convinced life is
hopeless (or so the pollsters and newscasts state), but I don't see
where this is a good reason to become religious. If you want 'meaning'
why not just join a cult, such as in Waco? The leaders will give you
the security blanket you desire. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Secular laws seem to value criminal life more than the victims life,
Islam places the rights of society and every member in it above
the rights of the individual, this is what I call true human rights.
As a Muslim living in a non-Muslim land I am bound by the laws of the land
I live in, but I do not disregard Islamic Law it still remains a part of my
life. If the laws of a land conflict with my religion to such an extent
that I am prevented from being allowed to practise my religion then I must
leave the land. So in a way Islamic law does take precendence over secular law
but we are instructed to follow the laws of the land that we live in too.
In an Islamic state (one ruled by a Khaliphate) religions other than Islam
are allowed to rule by their own religious laws provided they don't affect
the genral population and don't come into direct conflict with state
laws, Dhimmis (non-Muslim population) are exempt from most Islamic laws
on religion, such as fighting in a Jihad, giving Zakat (alms giving)
etc but are given the benefit of these two acts such as Military
protection and if they are poor they will receive Zakat.
After the Fatwa didn't Rushdie re-affirm his faith in Islam, didn't
he go thru' a very public "conversion" to Islam? If so he is binding
himself to Islamic Laws. He has to publicly renounce in his belief in Islam
so the burden is on him.
Mas
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Actually, there was very little to the book. First of all looking at
the titles of her other books, I would personally consider her
to be engaged in a bizarre form of Christian-like mysticism
heavily influenced by eastern philosphies (great titles like
_The_Astrology_of_the_4_Horsemen_).
However, other than the Chapter One into, there's nothing original,
biased, or even new this book. It is basically a collection of previously
published works by those who claim that there exist Buddhist and Hindu
stories that Christ visited India and China (he was known as Issa)
during the period from late teens to age 30.
Conclusion: the book actually lets you come to your own view by presenting
a summary of various published works and letters, all of which you
could verify independently. It includes refutations to such works as
well. Therefore, even if you think she is theologically warped, this
book is a nice reference summary for the interested.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
: It is a dead and useless faith which has no action behind it. Actions
: prove our faith and show the genuineness of it.
A good example of this is Abraham (referred to in the James passage). Hebrews
says that Abraham was justified by faith -- but his faith was demonstrated
through his works (i.e., he obeyed what God told him to do).
Reading Abraham's ``biography'' in Genesis is very instructive. He was a man
beset by *lack* of faith a lot of the time (e.g. lying about Sarah being his
wife on 2 occasions; trying to fulfil God's promise on God's behalf by
copulating with Hagar). . . yet it seems that God didn't evaluate him on the
basis of individual incidents. Abraham is listed as one of the ``heroes of
faith'' in Hebrews 11. i.e., when it really came to the crunch, God declared
Abraham as a man of faith. He believed God's promises.
This gives us confidence. Although real faith demonstrates itself through
works, God is not going to judge us according to our success/failure in
performing works.
``Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy
he saved us, through the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy
Spirit.'' (Titus 3.5)
Amazing Grace! Hallelujah! | 15 | soc.religion.christian |