text
stringlengths 1
51k
| label
int64 0
15
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
Who cares what the fellow wrote anyway? I mean, it came from
PSUVM, so how could it possibly have been of any importance?
=====
(disperse smileys until no longer offended)
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Hi!
Anyone know anything about the Interdisciplinary Bible Research
Institute, operating out of Hatfield, Pa?
I'm really interested in their theories on old-earth
(as opposed to young earth) and what they believe about evolution.
Thanks,
In the Master,
Charley.
--
Seek God and you will find, among other things,
piercing pleasure.
Seek pleasure and you will find boredom, disillusionment
and enslavement.
John White (Eros Defiled). | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[..]
Hello. Firstly, what do you exactly mean by "fundamentalist"? I will
for the time being assume that what you mean is that your friend believes
that the bible is God's word to mankind? I suspect that what happened
to him is what he'll call being "born again"? Anyway, was that recent?
If the answer is "yes" to all the questions above, it is quite
understandable. However, IMO, I'ld rather give advice to your friend!
I think I've been through something similar to him, and one thing I can
say is that the basic problem is that each of you are now trying to
communicate from different worldviews. Why he talks about those things
is because they are now "obvious" to him. What is "obvious" to him is
not obvious to you. Secondly, why he may be very persuasive is because
from his point of view, he has been on "both sides of the fence". This
I mean that before he turned "fundamentalist", you two are agreeable
because both of you see things from the same side. If suddenly, as if
a new world of reality has suddenly opened up to him, it is like the
discovery of let's say a new continent, or a new planet. To him, he's
got to tell you because he has seen something much more wonderful than
where he was, and what he thinks is much better than where you are now.
You have got to realise that from his point of view, he means well to
you, eventhough he may end up offending you. To him, it is worth that
risk. Nevertheless, it is really up to him to respect where you stand
and listen to you as well. At this moment, it may be difficult because
he is either very excited or feel it is too urgent to keep quiet about,
however, he may not realise that he's really putting you off.
[...]
So far, I've only been trying to explain things from his side. However,
I do understand how you feel too, because I wasn't a Christian for a good
part of my life as well. I was quite turned off by Christians or
"fundamentalists" who were really all out and enthusiastic about their
faith. They really scared me, to tell you the truth. Unfortunately,
"religious belief" is a very personal thing, just as your agnosticism
is also a very personal thing to you. Since the Christian belief is
inevitably at odds with anything non-Christian (religious or otherwise),
it will be a touchy matter. Like all friendships, it will take both
sides to do their part to make it work. In this matter, maybe you can
do your part by telling him nicely that you are not able to dig what he's
trying to convince you about, that it's beyond you or not your concern
"for now". Don't tell him it's nonsense, because to him it is reality -
and that would be a real insult. He'll also have to be careful not to
insult where you stand too.
Like I said before, I wish I could give your friend some advice too.
I'll admit that I did similarly to some of my friends when I became a
Christian. In some ways, I wish I could have done things a little
differently. However, it was difficult then because I was so excited
and just blabbered away about what I've found! To me, it was too good
not to know. To some, I was crazy, and I didn't really care most of
the time what they thought. You will probably think he's crazy too -
but God is very real to him, as real as you are to him. Keep that in
mind. And he thinks he can convince you because since God is so real
to him, he doesn't see why God can't be real to you too.
I don't know how helpful this is to you. But all the best anyhow -
this is quite a challenge for you to face. By the way, personal
conviction: nobody is "beyond saving" except the one we call the
devil and his hosts. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
LIST OF KILLINGS IN THE NAME OF RELIGION
1. Iran-Iraq War: 1,000,000
2. Civil War in Sudan: 1,000,000
3, Riots in India-Pakistan in 1947: 1,000,000
4. Massacares in Bangladesh in 1971: 1,000,000
5. Inquistions in America in 1500s: x million (x=??)
6. Crusades: ??
I am sure that people can add a lot more to the list.
I wonder what Bobby has to say about the above.
Standard Excuses will not be accepted.
-- Naren | 0 | alt.atheism |
You're right. Thanks for enlightening me. | 0 | alt.atheism |
I strongly disagree that absolute truth would not require interpretation.
That's because truth may be absolute, but it may not be obvious. Like
so many things, the truth is always subject to misinterpretation.
I strongly suspect that we are reaching an impasse here, which is why I
deign from commenting much further.
Now hold it. I never said that Christians cannot be arrogant. Indeed, as
many other Christians on SRC have stressed before, this is a trap that
Christians must always be wary about. However, this does not mean that if
you believe in the absolutes established by the Bible, you are necessarily
being arrogant. A Christian can believe that the Word of God is absolute,
but he or she should not expect this to be immediately evident to everyone.
Not quite. You say that according to my stance, we cannot *reliably*
determine what is true. That is not what I said. I say that as fallible
human beings, we cannot discern the truth with 100% certainty. The
distinction is subtle yet important.
When a scientist performs an experiment, he can claim that his results
are reliable, without claiming that absolutely no mistake whatsoever could
have been made. In other words, he can admit that he could be mistaken,
without sacrificing his convictions.
Nobody can establish what absolute truth is with 100% certainty.
Throughout the centuries, philosophers have argued about what we can know
with complete certainty and what we cannot. Descartes made a step in the
right direction when he uttered, "Cogito, ergo sum," yet we have not advanced
much beyond that.
Do you believe that other people aside from you exist? Do you believe that
the computer terminal you are using exists? If so, can you be absolutely
certain about that? Are you sure it is not some grand illusion? Of course,
you have no such assurance. This does not mean, however, that for all
practical purposes, you can be certain that they exist. So it is with
Christianity. The most mature Christians I know have deep convictions about
absolute morality, yet they acknowledge that there is a non-zero probability
that they are wrong. This does not, however, mean that they should (or do)
abandon these absolutes.
As I said, we can never be absolutely certain that we are correct. This does
not mean that we cannot be certain enough, in light of the evidence, to
render all doubts unreasonable.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
<...more accusations about a worldwide conspiracy against blacks.>
Since Jesus was born in the Middle East, then I expect his human
features to be similar to Middle Easterners at that point in time.
And since the camera wasn't invented yet we can only guess what
he looked like. For example, with all the dinosaur bones we're
digging up we still don't know if they were yellow-polka-dotted,
or purplish-orange 8-). Likewise, I don't think anybody has a
picture of Jesus (is there ? 8-) ) So our current image of
Jesus is our best guess.
Okay. So let's assume that Jesus is black. Would that make you
follow His techings ? Cause if you follow His teachings, skin
color becomes a moot point, anyway. What counts more in your
life ? Your faith in Jesus or His skin color (as a human) ?
In the interest of historical accuracy, however, since Jesus
was from Israel wouldn't His skin color be like any other Jew ?
i.e. fair-skinned ? Although probably heavily tanned from the
desert sun ? Experts in this area speak up !!! cause I'm not. 8-)
-- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Craig-
I thought it was derived from a Greek acronym. My Greek isn't up to much, but
it goes something like this:
Jesus Christ, God => Iesus CHristos, THeos => Ichthos
which is the Greek for "fish" (as in, eg "ichthysaurus").
Apologies for my dreadful Greek! Perhaps someone will correct it.
By the way, what does your sig mean? | 0 | alt.atheism |
I'm sure zero-intested economical systems survive on a small-scale,
co-ops is not an Islamic invention, and we have co-operatives working
all around the world. However such systems don't stand the corruption
of a large scale operation. Actually, nothing could handle human
greed, IMHO. Not even Allah :-).
Cheers,
Kent | 0 | alt.atheism |
09 Apr 93, Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik writes to All:
>> "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).
SHK> First of all, secular and pagan are not synonyms. Pagan, which is
SHK> derived from the latin paganus, means "of the country." It is, in
SHK> fact, a cognate with the Italian paisano, which means peasant.
SHK> Paganism, among other things, includes a reverence for the planet and
SHK> all life on the planet -- stemming from the belief that all life is
SHK> interconnected. So, rather than be something secular, it is something
SHK> very sacred.
I would go further, and say that much of the damage to the environment
has been caused by the secular worldview, or by the humanist
worldview, and especially by the secular humanist worldview.
This is not to say that ALL secular humanists are necessarily avid
destroyers of the environment, and I am sure that there are many who
are concerned about the environment. But at the time of the
Renaissance and Ref ormation in Western Europe man became the centre,
or the focus of culture (hence "humanism"). This consciousness was
also secular, in the sense that it was concerned primarily with the
present age, r ather than the age to come. Capitalism arose at the
same time, and the power of economics became central in philosophy.
This doesn't mean that economics did not exist before, simply that it
began to dominate the conscious cultural values of Western European
society and its offshoots. This cultural shift was, in its later
stages, accompanied by industrial revolutions and the values that
justified
them.
There was a fundamental cultural shift in the meaning of "economics" -
from the Christian view of man as the economos, the steward, of
creation to the secular idea of man as the slave of economic forces
and powers. There were denominational differences among the new
worshippers of Mammon. For some the name of the deity was "the free
rein of the market mechanism", while for others it was "the
dialectical forces of history". But in both the capitalist West and
the socialist East the environment was sacrificed on the altar of
Mammon. The situation was mitigated in the West because thos e who
were concerned about the damage to the environment had more freedom to
oppose what was happening and state their case.
Steve | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I pondered it for all of ten seconds when I realised that since
we don't have any reliable statistics for sexual promiscuity,
and since the whole issue of "depression" isn't at all well
defined for earlier centuries, you are probably talking crap.
Of course, you could pull a Mozumder on us, and say that people
who are having sex outside marriage are *defined* to be depressed.
I can't say I'd ever noticed, myself. | 0 | alt.atheism |
In mentioning some nonsense about psychology :) and atheism, Bob Muir asks
the following question.
I answer in the affirmative. Now this answer might sound a little
intellectually dishonest to Bob, but I think I have been accused before
of that heinous crime and am man enough to take it. !-) What thinking
person has not at one time or other been accused of it? Is it
politically correct for Christians to be the only besieged group
permitted the luxury of arrogance?
Now I have a question for Bob. Why in the world would any self-respecting
atheist want to subscribe to a Christian news group? I have a
difficult enough time keeping up with it, and I think I know something
about the subject.
Bob reminds me of my roommate. In order to disbelieve atheism, he says
he will need to be proven wrong about it. Well, I don't even waste
my time trying. I tell him that he'll just have to take my word for it.
In response, he tells me he will say an "atheist's prayer" for me.
Good luck, Bob. And, best regards.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Is the distinction important?
Well, our moral system seems to mimic the natural one, in a number of ways.
I don't know. What is wrong? Is it possible for humans to survive for
a long time in the wild? Yes, it's possible, but it is difficult. Humans
are a social animal, and that is a cause of our success.
Isn't it? Why don't you think so?
No. As noted earlier, lack of mating (such as abstinence or homosexuality)
isn't really destructive to the system. It is a worst neutral.
Again, the mating practices are something to be reexamined... | 0 | alt.atheism |
You might want to re-think your attitude about the Holocaust after
reading Deuteronomy chapter 28. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I see some irony here. Jesus was willing to go through torture to free
you from the definite promise of hell (based on Adam/Eve's fall from grace)
but rather than allow him to stand in your place, you would give up
your redemption to stand with those who do not accept his grace.
God would rather have none in hell, which seems to put the burden of
choice on us. Of course, this is all fictional anyway since you reject him
also.
My former sociology professor once told us at the beginning
of our term, "you all start out with an A...what you do with that during
the course of this term is up to you". In the beginning...Adam and Eve
were given an A.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Yes, I do.
My argument is that the sole purpose of the death penalty is to
kill people. That is it's primary (and I would argue only)
purpose. To continue to kill people by a practice that has
almost no utility, especially when you know you will be killing
innocents, is unconscionable.
At the very least, the existence of the prison system and our
transportation system are based on their merits to society, not
their detriments. We are willing to accept a few lost innocent
lives because there is an overwhelming benefit to the continued
existence of these systems. One has to stretch the evidence and
the arguments to make the same claim for capital punishment.
Just in case I wasn't clear again: We maintain a capital
punsihment system that kills innocent people and provides us with
no net positive gain. Why?
Were you to pin me in a corner and ask, I would have to respond
that I don't belief the state should have the right to take life
at all. But I won't open that debate, as it seems others are
tiring of this thread on a.a anyway.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
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 |
0 | alt.atheism |
|
was condemned. So the Coptic Orthodox Church does not >believe in
Monophysitism.
Sorry!
What does the Coptic Church believe about the will and energy of Christ?
Were there one or were there two (i.e. Human and Divine) wills and
energies in Him.
Also, what is the objection ot the Copts with the Pope of Rome (i.e. why
is there a Coptic Catholic Church)? Do you reject the supreme
jurisdiction of the 263rd sucessor of St. Peter (who blessed St. John
Mark, Bishop of Alexandria was translator for) and his predecessors? Or
his infallibility? Or what other things perhaps? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The big-bang model supposes a temporal singularity at the point of
origin. There was _no_ time for a prior cause to occur in. If you
want to invent fables for the surrounding context, fine, but one fable
is only as good as any other. Why should I prefer to believe in a God that
_just_ exists, as opposed to a singularity that _just happened_, or
giant puce subspace iguanas, that fling universes off their tongues
like gobs of spit?
Just your opinion, and unfortunately wrong. Self assembling molecules
have already been produced, entirely from inert matter, and have
spontaneously mutated into a more rapidly assembling form on exposure
to ultraviolet light. Both abiogenesis and the beginnings of evolution,
TODAY. (saw this in "Nature", early last year.)
Biological vitalism is dead, and has been dead for many, many years.
Give it up. Life is not a 'spark'. Life is the self-organization
of systems poised between chaos and order.
Your King baldly and repeatedly stated he would be back within the lifetime
of some then present and alive. "Soon, soon" he said, over and over - as
have many would be messiahs.
It is Nineteen Ninety Three
of Years Anno Domini
Tell me, Tell me, where is He?
Nowhere at all, Q. E. D.
Max G. Webb | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
To recapitulate a bit:
- The essence of marriage is two people's commitment to each other.
- If two people claim to be married "in their hearts" but are not
willing to have the marriage recognized by church and state, that's
prima facie evidence that the commitment isn't really there.
- There are obvious situations in which Christian marriage is possible
without a civil or church wedding: if you're stranded on a desert
island, or if your state forbids the marriage for an unjust reason
(e.g., laws against interracial marriage).
- The legal concept of "common-law marriage" is meant to ensure that
the state will recognize marriages that did not start out with the
usual ceremony and record-keeping.
- Pastorally, I'm concerned that people should not use "being married
in God's eyes" as an excuse for living together without a formal wedding.
One has a duty to have one's marriage properly recorded and witnessed.
- But there are also people who have been through a wedding ceremony
without making a genuine commitment, and therefore are not married
in God's eyes. Right?
--
:- Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist : *****
:- Artificial Intelligence Programs mcovingt@ai.uga.edu : *********
:- The University of Georgia phone 706 542-0358 : * * *
:- Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A. amateur radio N4TMI : ** *** ** <>< | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I wrote in response to dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe):
Was Paul a God too? Is an interpretation of the words of Paul of higher
priority than the direct word of Jesus in Matt5:14-19? Paul begins
Romans 14 with "If someone is weak in the faith ..." Do you count
yourself as one who is weak in the faith?
Yes, but what does the Bible have to say? What did Jesus say? Paul
closes Romans 14 with, "On the other hand, the person with doubts about
something who eats it anyway is guilty, because he isn't acting on his
faith, and any failure to act on faith is a sin." Gaus, ISBN:0-933999-99-2
Have you read the Ten Commandments which are a portion of the Law? Have
you read Jesus' word in Matt5:14-19? Is there any doubt in your mind
about what is right and what is sin (Greek hamartia = missing the mark)?
Whereas, the Ten Commandments and Jesus' words in Matt5:14-19 are fairly
clear, are they not?
Matt5:14-19 doesn't answer your question?
Breaking bread - roughly synonymous with eating.
How do you unite this concept of yours with the Ten Commandments and
Jesus's word in Matt5:14-19?
Or, they assumed that the Ten Commandments and Jesus' word in
Matt5:14-19 actually stood for something? Perhaps they were "strong in
the faith?"
---------------------------
[No, I don't believe that Paul can overrule God. However Paul was
writing for a largely Gentile audience. The Law was regarded by Jews
at the time (and now) as binding on Jews, but not on Gentiles. There
are rules that were binding on all human beings (the so-called Noachic
laws), but they are quite minimal. The issue that the Church had to
face after Jesus' death was what to do about Gentiles who wanted to
follow Christ. The decision not to impose the Law on them didn't say
that the Law was abolished. It simply acknowledged that fact that it
didn't apply to Gentiles. Thus there is no contradiction with Mat 5.
As far as I can tell, both Paul and other Jewish Christians did
continue to participate in Jewish worship on the Sabbath. Thus they
continued to obey the Law. The issue was (and is) with Gentile
Christians, who are not covered by the Law (or at least not by the
ceremonial aspects of it).
Jesus dealt mostly with Jews. I think we can reasonably assume that
Mat 5 was directed to a Jewish audience. He did interact with
Gentiles a few times (e.g. the centurion whose slave was healed and a
couple of others). The terms used to describe the centurion (see Luke
7) suggest that he was a "God-fearer", i.e. a Gentile who followed
God, but had not adopted the whole Jewish Law. He was commended by
Jewish elders as a worthy person, and Jesus accepted him as such.
This seems to me to indicate that Jesus accepted the prevailing view
that Gentiles need not accept the Law.
However there's more involved if you want to compare Jesus and Paul on
the Law. In order to get a full picture of the role of the Law, we
have to come to grips with Paul's apparent rejection of the Law, and
how that relates to Jesus' commendation of the Law. At least as I
read Paul, he says that the Law serves a purpose that has been in a
certain sense superceded. Again, this issue isn't one of the
abolition of the Law. In the middle of his discussion, Paul notes
that he might be understood this way, and assures us that that's not
what he intends to say. Rather, he sees the Law as primarily being
present to convict people of their sinfulness. But ultimately it's an
impossible standard, and one that has been superceded by Christ.
Paul's comments are not the world's clearest here, and not everyone
agrees with my reading. But the interesting thing to notice is that
even this radical position does not entail an abolition of the Law.
It still remains as an uncompromising standard, from which not an iota
or dot may be removed. For its purpose of convicting of sin, it's
important that it not be relaxed. However for Christians, it's not
the end -- ultimately we live in faith, not Law.
While the theoretical categories they use are rather different, in the
end I think Jesus and Paul come to a rather similar conclusion. The
quoted passage from Mat 5 should be taken in the context of the rest
of the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus shows us how he interprets the
Law. The "not an iota or dot" would suggest a rather literal reading,
but in fact that's not Jesus' approach. Jesus' interpretations
emphasize the intent of the Law, and stay away from the ceremonial
details. Indeed he is well known for taking a rather free attitude
towards the Sabbath and kosher laws. Some scholars claim that Mat
5:17-20 needs to be taken in the context of 1st Cent. Jewish
discussions. Jesus accuses his opponents of caring about giving a
tenth of even the most minor herbs, but neglecting the things that
really matter: justice, mercy and faith, and caring about how cups and
plates are cleaned, but not about the fact that inside the people who
use them are full of extortion and rapacity. (Mat 23:23-25) This, and
the discussion later in Mat 5, suggest that Jesus has a very specific
view of the Law in mind, and that when he talks about maintaining the
Law in its full strength, he is thinking of these aspects of it.
Paul's conclusion is similar. While he talks about the Law being
superceded, all of the specific examples he gives involve the
"ceremonial law", such as circumcision and the Sabbath. He is quite
concerned about maintaining moral standards.
The net result of this is that when Paul talks about the Law being
superceded, and Jesus talks about the Law being maintained, I believe
they are talking about different aspects of the Law. Paul is
embroiled in arguments about circumcision. As is natural in letters
responding to specific situations, he's looking at the aspect of the
Law that is currently causing trouble: the Law as specifically Jewish
ceremonies. He certainly does not intend to abolish divine standards
of conduct. On the other hand, when Jesus commends the Law, he seems
to be talking the Law in its broadest implications for morals and
human relationships, and deemphasizing those aspects that were later
to give Paul so much trouble.
It's unfortunate that people use the same terms in different ways, but
we should be familiar with that from current conflicts. Look at the
way terms like "family values" take on special meaning from the
current context. Imagine some poor historian of the future trying to
figure out why "family values" should be used as a code word for
opposition to homosexuality in one specific period in the U.S. I
think Law had taken on a similar role in the arguments Paul was
involved in. Paul was clearly not rejecting all of the Jewish values
that go along with the term "Law", any more than people who concerned
about the "family values" movement are really opposed to family
values. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Firstly, I am an atheist. I am not posting here as an immature flame
start, but rather to express an opinion to my intended audience.
The meaning of my existence is a question I ask myself daily. I live
in fear of what will happen when I die.
I bet some of you are licking your lips now, because you think that
I'm a person on the edge of accepting jeezus.
I was raised in a religious atmosphere, and attended 13 years of
religious educational institutions.. I know the bible well. So well
I can recognize many passages from memory.
<<****Strong opinions start here...****>>
1) The human being is an _animal_ who has, due to his/her advanced
mental facilities, developed religious as a satisfiable solution to
explain the unexplainable. (For example the ancient Greeks believed
that Apollo drove his chariot across the sky each day was real. Due
to the advancement of our technology, we know this to be false.
Christianity is an infectious cult. The reasons it flourishes are
because 1) it gives people without hope or driven purpose in life
a safety blanked to hide behind. "Oh wow..all i have to do is
follow this christian moral standard and I get eternal happiness."
For all of you "found jeezus" , how many of you were "on the brink?"
but i digress... The other reason christianity flourishes is its
infectious nature. A best friend of mine breifly entered a christian
group and within months, they set ministry guidelines for him which
basicaly said this -->Priority #1 Spread the Word.
We are _just_ animals. We need sleep, food, and we reproduce. And we
die.
Religion (especially Christianity) is nothing more than a DRUG.
Some people use drugs as an escape from reality. Christians inject
themselves with jeezus and live with that high.
It pities me how many millions of lives have been lost in religious
wars, of which Christianity has had no small part.
When Christians see a "non-believer", they say that person is blind
to the truth, but they cannot realize that it is _they_ who live
with this mask of fakeness each day. Jesus was just prophet #37696
who happened to have a large influence because at that time the Romans
were (circa 69ad) dispersing the Jewish population and communities
needed some sort of cohesive element to keep them strong in that time
of dire need.
I must go. These are but a few of my thoughts on Christianity.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[ The discussion begins: why does the universe exist at all? ]
=
= Must there be a "why" to this? I ask because of what you also
= assume about God-- namely, that He just exists, with no "why"
= to His existence. So the question is reversed, "Why can't
= we assume the universe just exists as you assume God to
= "just exist"? Why must there be a "why" to the universe?"
One of the Laws of Nature, specifying cause and effect seems to dictate
(at least to this layman's mind) there must be a causal event. No
reasonable alternative exists.
As far as I can tell, the very laws of nature demand a "why". That isn't
true of something outside of nature (i.e., *super*natural).
[ ... ]
=
= It may be that one day man not only can create life but can also
= create man. Now, I don't see this happening in my lifetime,
= nor do I assert it is probable. But the possibility is there,
= given scientists are working hard at "decoding" out "genetic
= code" to perhaps help cure disease of a genetic variation.
= Again, though, must there be "why" or a "divine prupose" to
= man's existence?
I believe the "genetic code" will be entirely deciphered in our lifetimes,
but we will not see man convert entirely inert material into self sustaining,
reproducing life, *ever*. (I've never been much of a prophet, though. I
can't even *picture* New York in my mind 8^] ). I don't believe *any*
technology would be able to produce that necessary *spark* of life, despite
having all of the parts available. Just my opinion.
=
= > When you say that man is *only* an animal, I have to think that you are
= > presenting an unprovable statement -- a dogma, if you will. And one
= > the requires a kind of "faith" too. By taking such a hard line in
= > your atheism, you may have stumbled into a religion of your own.
=
= As far as we can tell, man falls into the "mammal" catagory. Now,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That preposition sort of precludes an absolute, doesn't it? Without an
absolute conclusion, what are we left with? I believe the word "faith"
works nicely.
= if there were something more to the man (say, a soul), then
= we have yet to find evidence of such. But as it is now, man
= is a mammal (babies are born live, mother gives milk, we're
= warm-blooded, etc.) as other mammals are and is similar in
= genetic construction to some of them (in particular, primates).
= For more on this check out talk.origins.
=
= > But before you write off all Christianity as phony and shallow, I hope
= > you'll do a little research into its history and varieties, perhaps by
= > reading Paul Johnson's "A History of Christianity". From your remarks,
= > it seems that you have been exposed to certain types of Christian
= > religion and not others. Even an atheist should have enough faith in
= > Man to know that a movement of 2000 years has to have some depth, and
= > be animated by some enduring values.
=
= Well, then, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Judaism,
= Zoerasterism, Shintoism, and Islam should fit this bit of logic
= quite nicely... :-) All have depth, all have enduring values,
= thus all must be true...
Well then, with an *equal* scale, and under an *equal* standard, investigate
them all, and discover where God is ( or *whether* he is, for the denial of
God is ultimately a statement of faith, non-falsifiable as His existence
may be).
For isn't this the purpose of religion - to discover, and in discovery, to
*know* God?
You don't mind if a few of us send up a prayer on your behalf during your
research, do you? After all, if we of Christ are deluding ourselves, you
really have nothing to worry about, eh?
Until the King returns,
Jason
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I have a hard time understanding this attitude.
If the gospels are the least bit accurate, then there can be little
doubt that Jesus belived hell was a reality.
As a teacher, what would be the wise and loving thing to do if people
in your audience were headed there? To warn them! It would, however,
be rather cruel and/or sadistic to believe that such a place exists
and then remain quiet about it.
The only scenario I can envision in which dimished respect would be
justified is if Jesus knew there was no such place as hell, and spoke
about it anyway, just to scare people. Unless you would accuse Jesus
of this, I would encourage you to reconsider what a loving response
is when you perceive someone to be in danger.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Hi,
I am new to this newsgroup, and also fairly new to christianity. I was
raised as a Unitarian and have spent the better part of my life as an
agnostic, but recently I have developed the firm conviction that the
Christian message is correct and I have accepted Jesus into my life. I am
happy, but 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 have another question I would like to ask. I am not yet affiliated
with any one congregation. Aside from matters of taste, what criteria
should one use in choosing a church? I don't really know the difference
between the various Protestant denominations.
Thanks for reading my post.
Sincerely,
Steve Hoskins | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
(reference line trimmed)
Well, I'd say that a murderer is one who intentionally committed a murder.
For instance, if you put a bullet into a gun that was thought to contain
blanks, and someone was killed with such a gun, the person who actually
performed the action isn't the murderer (but I guess this is actually made
clear in the below definition).
What do you mean by "reasonable?"
[...]
Yes, it is bad to include the word being defined in the definition. But,
even though the series is recursively infinite, I think the meaning can
still be deduced.
[math lesson deleted]
Okay, let's look at this situation: suppose there is a longstanding
feud between two families which claim that the other committed some
travesty in the distant past. Each time a member of the one family
kills a member of the other, the other family thinks that it is justified
in killing a that member of the first family. Now, let's suppose that this
sequence has occurred an infinite number of times. Or, if you don't
like dealing with infinities, suppose that one member of the family
goes back into time and essentially begins the whole thing. That is, there
is a never-ending loop of slayings based on some non-existent travesty.
How do you resolve this?
Well, they are all murders.
Now, I suppose that this isn't totally applicable to your "problem," but
it still is possible to reduce an uninduced system.
And, in any case, the nested "murderer" in the definition of murder
cannot be infintely recursive, given the finite existence of humanity.
And, a murder cannot be committed without a killing involved. So, the
first person to intentionally cause someone to get killed is necessarily
a murderer. Is this enough of an induction to solve the apparently
unreducable definition? See, in a totally objective system where all the
information is available, such a nested definition isn't really a problem. | 0 | alt.atheism |
# I hope I gave you a fairly solid answer to this one: I simply don't agree
# with the embodied version of a Satan who is a separate creation or a force.
# And there are quite physical descriptions of Heaven and Hell in the
# Holy Qur'an, the Bible, etc. There have been times in the spiritual
# and intellectual evolution of the modern human when these physical
# descriptions of Heaven, Hell, and Satan were taken quite literally
# and that *worked* for the time. As I mentioned in the Tradition
# cited above, for example, it was sufficient in the absence of a theory
# about germs and disease spread by worms to simply describe the "evil"
# which was passed to a consumer of spoiled food as "satanic."
Which begs the question: if Satan in this case is
metaphorical, how can you be certain Allah is not
the same way?
# The bottom line here, however, is that describing a spiritual plane
# in human language is something like describing "color" to a person
# who has been blind from birth. You may want to read the book
# FLATLAND (if you haven't already) or THE DRAGON'S EGG. The first
# is intended as a light hearted description of a mathematical con-
# cept...
[some deleted for space saving]
# When language fails because it cannot be used to adequately describe
# another dimension which cannot be experienced by the speakers, then
# such conventions as metaphor, allegory, and the like come to be
# necessary. The "unseen" is described in terms which have reference`
# and meaning for the reader/listener. But, like all models, a compro-
# mise must be made when speaking metaphorically: clarity and directness
# of meaning, equivalence of perception, and the like are all
# crippled. But what else can you do?
This is why I asked the above. How would you then
know God exists as a spirit or being rather than
just being metaphorical? I mean, it's okay to say
"well, Satan is just metaphorical," but then you
have to justify this belief AND justify that God is
not some metaphor for something else.
I say this because there are many, many instances of
Satan described as a being (such as the tormentor in
the Old Testament book of Job, or the temptor in the
New Testament Gospels). In the same way, God too is
described as a being (or spirit.) How am I to know
one is metaphorical and not the other.
Further, belief in God isn't a bar to evil. Let's
consider the case of Satanists: even if Satan were
metaphorical, the Satanist would have to believe
in God to justify this belief. Again, we have a
case where someone does believe in God, but by
religious standards, they are "evil." If Bobby
does see this, let him address this question also.
[deleted some more on "metaphor"]
Stephen
_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ * Atheist
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ * Libertarian
_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ * Pro-individuality
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ * Pro-responsibility
_/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Jr. * and all that jazz...
| 0 | alt.atheism |
J.N. Darby was one of the founders of the "Plymouth Brethren" and an
early supporter of dispensationalism. F.F. Bruce highly approved
of his translation. He also translated the Bible into several other
languages.
This was from the same fellow who did Young's Concordance, which was
a standard reference work, similar to Strong's concordance.
I believe that these just follow standard reference works.
Some are by Larry Pierce ("Brethren"), some are by Baptists, and I
think that Thompson (of chain reference fame) was Presbyterian)
Another standard reference work that has been around for decades.
A new version was just released and is available through Christian
Book Distributers.
C.I. Scofield was the creator of the Scofield Reference Bible. For many
people (but not me), this is THE STUDY BIBLE. The notes are strongly
dispensational.
These are probably the most accurate Strong's numbers available.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
(References: deleted to move this to a new thread)
"To put it as simply as possible: *I am not a Muslim*.[...] I do not
accept the charge of apostacy, because I have never in my adult life
affirmed any belief, and what one has not affirmed one can not be
said to have apostasized from. The Islam I know states clearly that
'there can be no coercion in matters of religion'. The many Muslims
I respect would be horrified by the idea that they belong to their
faith *purely by virtue of birth*, and that a person who freely chose
not to be a Muslim could therefore be put to death."
Salman Rushdie, "In Good Faith", 1990
"God, Satan, Paradise, and Hell all vanished one day in my fifteenth
year, when I quite abruptly lost my faith. [...]and afterwards, to
prove my new-found atheism, I bought myself a rather tasteless ham
sandwich, and so partook for the first time of the forbidden flesh of
the swine. No thunderbolt arrived to strike me down. [...] From that
day to this I have thought of myself as a wholly seculat person."
Salman Rushdie, "In God We Trust", 1985
Only a functional illiterate with absolutely no conception of the
nature of the novel could think such a thing. I'll accept it
(reluctantly) from mobs in Pakistan, but not from you. What is
presented in the fictional dream of a demented character cannot by the
wildest stretch of the imagination be considered a reflection on the
actual Mohammad. What's worse, the novel doesn't present the
Mahound/Mohammed character in any worse light than secular histories
of Islam; in particular, there is no "lewd" misrepresentation of his
life or that of his wives.
Don't hold back; he's considered an apostate and a blasphemer.
However, it's not for his writing in _The Satanic Verses_, but for
what people have accepted as a propagandistic version of what is
contained in that book. I have yet to find *one single muslim* who
has convinced me that they have read the book. Some have initially
claimed to have done so, but none has shown more knowledge of the book
than a superficial Newsweek story might impart, and all have made
factual misstatements about events in the book.
I'll keep an eye out for it. I have a counter-proposal: I suggest
that you see the Viking hardcover by Salman Rushdie called _The
Satanic Verses_. Perhaps then you'll understand. | 0 | alt.atheism |
[deletions]
If this is grounded firmly in Islam, as you claim, then you have just
exposed Islam as the grounds for terrorism, plain and simple.
Whether you like it or not, whether Rushdie acted like a total jerk or
not, there is no acceptable civilized basis for putting someone in fear
of their life for words.
It simply does not matter whether his underlying motive was to find the
worst possible way he could to insult Muslims and their beliefs, got that?
You do not threaten the life of someone for words - when you do, you
quite simply admit the backruptcy of your position. If you support
threatening the life of someone for words, you are not yet civilized.
This is exactly where I, and many of the people I know, have to depart
from respecting the religions of others. When those beliefs allow and
encourage (by interpretation) the killing of non-physical opposition.
You, or I or anyone, are more than privledged to believe that someone,
whether it be Rushdie or Bush or Hussien or whover, is beyond the pale
of civilized society and you can condemn his/her soul, refuse to allow
any members of your association to interact with him/her, _peacably_
demonstrate to try to convince others to disassociate themselves from
the "miscreants", or whatever, short of physical force.
But once you physically threaten, or support physical threats, you get
much closer to your earlier comparison of rape - with YOU as the rapist
who whines "She asked for it, look how she was dressed".
Blaming the victim when you are unable to be civilized doesn't fly.
Dew | 0 | alt.atheism |
Dear Tim:
You say that you were a "catholic," but if you do not believe in the Christian
God (I suppose that means the God of the Bible) and publicly state this,
you are in all probability not a Roman Catholic. "Public heretics, even
those who err in good faith (material heretics), do not belong to the body
of the Church" (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 1960, Ludwig Ott, p. 311).
All is not lost, however, as you still might belong spiritually to the
Church by your desire to belong to it. As you said, only God can judge
the condition of a man's soul. About judgment, on the other hand, St. Paul
1 Cor 5:12) urges Christians to judge their fellow Christians.
Following the Apostle's teaching, I judge that you should reconsider
returning to the Christian fold and embrace the God of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob. He is the God who lives.
Concerning what you were told about non-believers when you were a catholic,
that is true. As I have posted before, Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, II,
n. 16) teaches: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know
the Gospel of Christ or His Chruch, but who nevertheless seek God with a
sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will
as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may
achieve eternal salvation."
Responding to your solicitation for opinions on the thinking processes
of God, the best I can do is refer you to Scripture. Scripture is one
of the best sources for learning what can be known about God.
Stick with the best.
--
boundary, the catechist | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Not so. If you are thrown into a cage with a tiger and get mauled, do you
blame the tiger? | 0 | alt.atheism |
I answer from the position that we would indeed place these people
in prison for life.
That depends not only on their predisposition towards murder, but
also in their success rate at escape and therefore their ability
to commit the same crimes again.
In other words, if lifetime imprisonment doesn't work, perhaps
it's not because we're not executing these people, but because
we're not being careful enough about how we lock them up.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
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 |
And that, of course, is the point. You can't simply divide the
world into atheists and non-atheists on the basis of god-belief.
If all you care about is belief in a supernatural deity, and
have nothing to say about behaviour, then belief in a supernatural
being is your criterion.
But once you start talking about behaviour, then someone's suscept-
ibility to be led by bad people into doing bad things is what you
are - I assume - worried about.
And in that area, what you care about is whether someone is sceptical,
critical and autonomous on the one hand, or gullible, excitable and
easily led on the other.
I would say that a tendency to worship tyrants and ideologies indicates
that a person is easily led. Whether they have a worship or belief
in a supernatural hero rather than an earthly one seems to me to be
beside the point. | 0 | alt.atheism |
That's okay: it's what all the rest of them who come on here say...
This isn't the guy who was a lawyer was he? Could you give more info on this
guy (never mind- I'm sure there will be PLENTY of responses to this post, and
it will appear there)
This is true. Make sure it is true for ALL cases.
Why not both? ;)
Why not die for a lie? If you were poverty stricken and alunatic, sounds
perfecetly reasoable to me. As to whether the societal dregs he had for
followers would be able to tell if he was a liar or not, not necessarily.
Even if he died for what he believed in, this still makes him completely
selfish. Like us all. So what's the difference.
People
There is no historical proof of this (see earlier threads). Besides, he (or at
least his name), have been the cause of enough deaths to make up for whatever
healing he gave.
SIEG HEIL!!
Who is David Koresh? I am curious.
Therefore since he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, he must have been the
How does this follow? Your definition of lunatic (and "disproof" thereof seem
rather... uhhh.. SHAKY)
Good idea.
Naturally, those or not TRUE Christians, right? ;)
Someone else handle this, I don't know if it's worth it... *sigh*
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Despite my trendy, liberal, feminist tendencies and the fact
that I basically agree with what you are saying I will rebut:
The basic question here is "how do I know what I am supposed to do?"
This is true in every situation that comes up. Some people do not
think about it at all and merely follow their impulses. I claim
that is just as dangerous as "following authority". I could site
sexually transmitted diseases, drug abuse, all manner of criminal
activity, the savings and loan scandal, car accidents, eggs thrown
at my house, all are examples of people not "following authority".
I could easily argue that in the evil examples you gave the
problem was a leader not following _his_ authority and doing what
he wanted. Of course, where is the top of the chain? Therein lies
our search.
I don't think it's as simple as you are claiming. "Pressing need" is
ambiguous. Should I recycle or not?
Realize that I have four kids who, despite being very precocious
of course, are very tiring with their constant lack of understanding
the tremendous knowledge I wish to impart to them.
Ahh! An ironic ending.
The irony I was implying in my initial pithy retort to the bumper
sticker cliche "Question Authority" was that I was questioning
the authority of the person telling me to question authority.
It seems there is a certain segment of society that finds meaning
only in being different, only in rebelling, forsaking everything
for the sake of freedom. I question their integrity and fortitude.
There is another freedom that comes from doing a task correctly.
Different people are at different levels of development in different
areas. Part of the challenge of life is to find the right authorities
to follow, we can't know everything about everything. Often
when learning a new skill or subject I will follow the teacher,
perhaps blindly. Only when I have learned enough to ask appropriate
questions should I question him, only when I have developed
my skills enough should I challenge him. Once again, how do I know
when I get to those stages?
If you have to be told to question authority, perhaps you shouldn't. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
i'd just like to repeat and emphasize that because someone else is
trying to make you feel horrible and worthless does not mean that you
should feel that way, although that's easier to say than believe
sometimes. remember, God made you and loves you, so he must think
you're something special. (excuse the trite language here.) also,
the bully may just be someone who is mean for no reason -- not out of
intentional mental torture. has anyone else been harassed? maybe
they're just not talking about it.
i would have emailed but my reactions weren't fast enough and the post
i'm responding to didn't include your address. just take courage and
remember that all of us on the net are rooting for you. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
If one is a vegan (a vegetarian taht eats no animal products at at i.e eggs,
milk, cheese, etc., after about 3 years of a vegan diet, you need to start
taking B12 supplements because b12 is found only in animals.) Acutally our
bodies make B12, I think, but our bodies use up our own B12 after 2 or 3
years.
Lacto-oveo vegetarians, like myself, still get B12 through milk products
and eggs, so we don't need supplements.
And If anyone knows more, PLEASE post it. I'm nearly contridicting myself
with the mish-mash of knowledge I've gleaned. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Here is another way of looking at it.
When we die we are released from the arc of time, and able
to comprehend our lives in toto. To visit each moment in
time sequentially or all at once, but not able to alter the
actions thoughts or feelings we had/have/will have in this
life.
From that perspective, I posit that all will have direct knowledge
of God, and be able to recognize at each moment of time wether
we were doing what we ought. That the experience of having
lived a life far from God will be an eternal torment. That
having lived a life of grace, will be an eternal joy. That the
resurrection of the body comes not from any physical reconstitution
of our present forms, but knowledge of our present forms by our
fully cognizant souls.
As an Aside: If we were to be restricted for all time to
our present form, would you opt for immortality?
James Sledd | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
See, there you go again, saying that a moral act is only significant
if it is "voluntary." Why do you think this?
And anyway, humans have the ability to disregard some of their instincts.
You are attaching too many things to the term "moral," I think.
Let's try this: is it "good" that animals of the same species
don't kill each other. Or, do you think this is right?
Or do you think that animals are machines, and that nothing they do
is either right nor wrong?
Those weren't arbitrary killings. They were slayings related to some sort
of mating ritual or whatnot.
Yes it was, but I still don't understand your distinctions. What
do you mean by "consider?" Can a small child be moral? How about
a gorilla? A dolphin? A platypus? Where is the line drawn? Does
the being need to be self aware?
What *do* you call the mechanism which seems to prevent animals of
the same species from (arbitrarily) killing each other? Don't
you find the fact that they don't at all significant? | 0 | alt.atheism |
: Upon arriving at home, Joseph probably took advantage of Mary...had his way
: with her so to speak. Of course, word of this couldn't get around so Mary,
: being the highly-religious follower that she was decided "Hey, I'll just say
: that GOD impregnated me...no one will ever know!"
:
: Thus, seen as a trustworthy and honorable soul, she was believed...
:
: And then came Jesus, the child born from violence.
:
:
:
Dave,
Can you explain the purpose of your post, I can't imagine what you
must have thougt it meant. | 0 | alt.atheism |
This kind of argument cries for a comment...
: >>...God did not create
: >>disease nor is He responsible for the maladies of newborns.
: >
: >>What God did create was life according to a protein code which is
: >>mutable and can evolve. Without delving into a deep discussion of
: >>creationism vs evolutionism, God created the original genetic code
: >>perfect and without flaw.
: > ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~
Do you have any evidence for this? If the code was once perfect, and
has degraded ever since, we _should_ have some evidence in favour
of this statement, shouldn't we?
Perhaps the biggest "imperfection" of the code is that it is full
of non-coding regions, introns, which are so called because they
intervene with the coding regions (exons). An impressive amount of
evidence suggests that introns are of very ancient origin; it is
likely that early exons represented early protein domains.
Is the number of introns decreasing or increasing? It appears that
intron loss can occur, and species with common ancestry usually
have quite similar exon-intron structure in their genes.
On the other hand, the possibility that introns have been inserted
later, presents several logical difficulties. Introns are removed
by a splicing mechanism - this would have to be present, but unused,
if introns are inserted. Moreover, intron insertion would have
required _precise_ targeting - random insertion would not be tolerated,
since sequences for intron removal (self-splicing of mRNA) are
conserved. Besides, transposition of a sequence usually leaves a
trace - long terminal repeats and target - site duplications, and
these are not found in or near intron sequences.
I seriously recommend reading textbooks on molecular biology and
genetics before posting "theological arguments" like this.
Try Watson's Molecular Biology of the Gene or Darnell, Lodish
& Baltimore's Molecular Biology of the Cell for starters.
: Remember, the question was posed in a theological context (Why does
: God cause disease in newborns?), and my answer is likewise from a
: theological perspective -- my own. It is no less valid than a purely
: scientific perspective, just different.
Scientific perspective is supported by the evidence, whereas
theological perspectives often fail to fulfil this criterion.
: I think you misread my meaning. I said God made the genetic code perfect,
: but that doesn't mean it's perfect now. It has certainly evolved since.
For the worse? Would you please cite a few references that support
your assertion? Your assertion is less valid than the scientific
perspective, unless you support it by some evidence.
In fact, it has been claimed that parasites and diseases are perhaps
more important than we've thought - for instance, sex might
have evolved as defence against parasites. (This view is supported by
computer simulations of evolution, eg Tierra.)
: Perhaps. I thought it was higher energy rays like X-rays, gamma
: rays, and cosmic rays that caused most of the damage.
In fact, it is thermal energy that does most of the damage, although
it is usually mild and easily fixed by enzymatic action.
: Actually, neither of us "knows" what the atmosphere was like at the
: time when God created life. According to my recollection, most
: biologists do not claim that life began 4 billion years ago -- after
: all, that would only be a half billion years or so after the earth
: was created. It would still be too primitive to support life. I
: seem to remember a figure more like 2.5 to 3 billion years ago for
: the origination of life on earth. Anyone with a better estimate?
I'd replace "created" with "formed", since there is no need to
invoke any creator if the Earth can be formed without one.
Most recent estimates of the age of the Earth range between 4.6 - 4.8
billion years, and earliest signs of life (not true fossils, but
organic, stromatolite-like layers) date back to 3.5 billion years.
This would leave more than billion years for the first cells to
evolve.
I'm sorry I can't give any references, this is based on the course
on evolutionary biochemistry I attended here.
: >>dominion, it was no great feat for Satan to genetically engineer
: >>diseases, both bacterial/viral and genetic. Although the forces of
: >>natural selection tend to improve the survivability of species, the
: >>degeneration of the genetic code tends to more than offset this.
Again, do you _want_ this be true, or do you have any evidence for
this supposed "degeneration"?
I can understand Scott's reaction:
: > Excuse me, but this is so far-fetched that I know you must be
: > jesting. Do you know what pathogens are? Do you know what
: > Point Mutations are? Do you know that EVERYTHING CAN COME
: > ABOUT SPONTANEOUSLY?!!!!!
:
: In response to your last statement, no, and neither do you.
: You may very well believe that and accept it as fact, but you
: cannot *know* that.
I hope you don't forget this: We have _evidence_ that suggests
everything can come about spontaneously. Do you have evidence against
this conclusion? In science, one does not have to _believe_ in
anything. It is a healthy sign to doubt and disbelieve. But the
right path to walk is to take a look at the evidence if you do so,
and not to present one's own conclusions prior to this.
Theology does not use this method. Therefore, I seriously doubt
it could ever come to right conclusions.
: >>Human DNA, being more "complex", tends to accumulate errors adversely
: >>affecting our well-being and ability to fight off disease, while the
: >>simpler DNA of bacteria and viruses tend to become more efficient in
: >>causing infection and disease. It is a bad combination. Hence
: >>we have newborns that suffer from genetic, viral, and bacterial
: >>diseases/disorders.
You are supposing a purpose, not a valid move. Bacteria and viruses
do not exist to cause disease. They are just another manifests of
a general principle of evolution - only replication saves replicators
from degradiation. We are just an efficient method for our DNA to
survive and replicate. The less efficient methods didn't make it
to the present.
And for the last time. Please present some evidence for your claim that
human DNA is degrading through evolutionary processes. Some people have
claimed that the opposite is true - we have suppressed our selection,
and thus are bound to degrade. I haven't seen much evidence for either
claim.
: But then I ask, So? Where is this relevant to my discussion in
: answering John's question of why? Why are there genetic diseases,
: and why are there so many bacterial and viral diseases which require
: babies to develop antibodies. Is it God's fault? (the original
: question) -- I say no, it is not.
Of course, nothing "evil" is god's fault. But your explanation does
not work, it fails miserably.
: You may be right. But the fact is that you don't know that
: Satan is not responsible, and neither do I.
:
: Suppose that a powerful, evil being like Satan exists. Would it
: be inconceivable that he might be responsible for many of the ills
: that affect mankind? I don't think so.
He could have done a much better Job. (Pun intended.) The problem is,
it seems no Satan is necessary to explain any diseases, they are
just as inevitable as any product of evolution.
: Did I say that? Where? Seems to me like another bad inference.
: Actually what you've done is to oversimplify what I said to the
: point that your summary of my words takes on a new context. I
: never said that people are "meant" (presumably by God) "to be
: punished by getting diseases". Why I did say is that free moral
: choices have attendent consequences. If mankind chooses to reject
: God, as people have done since the beginning, then they should not
: expect God to protect them from adverse events in an entropic
: universe.
I am not expecting this. If god exists, I expect him to leave us alone.
I would also like to hear why do you believe your choices are indeed
free. This is an interesting philosophical question, and the answer
is not as clear-cut as it seems to be.
What consequences would you expect from rejecting Allah?
: Oh, I admit it's not perfect (yet). But I'm working on it. :)
A good library or a bookstore is a good starting point.
: What does this have to do with the price of tea in China, or the
: question to which I provided an answer? Biology and Genetics are
: fine subjects and important scientific endeavors. But they explain
: *how* God created and set up life processes. They don't explain
: the why behind creation, life, or its subsequent evolution.
Why is there a "why behind"? And your proposition was something
that is not supported by the evidence. This is why we recommend
these books.
Is there any need to invoke any why behind, a prime mover? Evidence
for this? If the whole universe can come into existence without
any intervention, as recent cosmological theories (Hawking et al)
suggest, why do people still insist on this?
: Thanks Scotty, for your fine and sagely advice. But I am
: not highly motivated to learn all the nitty-gritty details
: of biology and genetics, although I'm sure I'd find it a
: fascinating subject. For I realize that the details do
: not change the Big Picture, that God created life in the
: beginning with the ability to change and adapt to its
: environment.
I'm sorry, but they do. There is no evidence for your big picture,
and no need to create anything that is capable of adaptation.
It can come into existence without a Supreme Being.
Try reading P.W. Atkins' Creation Revisited (Freeman, 1992).
Petri | 0 | alt.atheism |
0 | alt.atheism |
|
I deleted much of the following article in order to discuss the
specific issue of whether it is acceptable to divorce.
I have thought about the implications, and it is scary.
We have a whole generation of families broken up because some men have
decided that is is okay to leave their wives and children for the
thrill of a younger, more attractive woman. If we accept that it is
legitimate for Jane to have divorced, how can we not accept anyone's
decision to divorce because he has found someone with whom he can
have a more "deep, committed relationship."
Marriage is not a state of being, it is a mutual journey in life.
Love is not a passive feeling, it must be actively willed.
Is it acceptable for an older executive to dump his wife of many
years who stayed home to care for the children because he
can't be happy sexually unless he is with a beautiful
young blonde? The real solution for both in the couple to
make a renewed effort.
Hold fast to the faith. Has not the Lord repeatedly compared His
relation to His people as a faithful and enduring husband? We
learn something very deep and very mystical when we marry and
remain faithful through times of trial.
My spouse has a brain tumor that has left her partially paralyzed.
If it were to resume growing (it is in remission, thanks be to God!)
then perhaps the time would come when we could not have sexual
relations. That's life...the Lord would certainly not give me
permission to seek someone else to satisfy my "needs."
The idea that it is alright to divorce if a couple "grows apart"
seems to me to lead to such a monstrous destruction of the meaning
of marriage that I feel we must make every effort to avoid any hint
of compromise. We have become so petty and small-minded that
some husbands are threatening to divorce their wives unless the
wives lose weight! | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Somewhere, someone told me that Satan was the angel in charge of
music in heaven, and on top of that, he was the most beautiful
of the angels. Isn't it funny that these days how MTV has become
the "bible" of music and beauty these days. MTV controls what bands
are popular, no matter how bad they are. In fact, it is better to
be politically correct - like U2, Madonna - than to have any
musical talent. Then of course, you have this television station
that tells us all how to dress. Think about it, who started the
retro-fashion craze?? MTV and Madonna. Gag.
Anyway, just food for thought. It is really my own wierd theory.
If Revelation was to come true today, I think MTV would the "ever
changing waters" (music and fashion world) that the beast would
arise from, and Madonna will be the whore of Babylon, riding the
beast and drinking the blood of the martyrs.
Hmmmm....great idea for a book/movie.....
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
It appears that Walla Walla College will fill the same role in alt.atheist
that Allegheny College fills in alt.fan.dan-quayle.
Converts to xtianity have this tendency to excessively darken their
pre-xtian past, frequently falsely. Anyone who embarks on an
effort to "destroy" xtianity is suffering from deep megalomania, a
defect which is not cured by religious conversion.
Different perspective? DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE?? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
(sigh!) Perhaps Big J was just mistaken about some of his claims.
Perhaps he was normally insightful, but had a few off days. Perhaps
many (most?) of the statements attributed to Jesus were not made by
him, but were put into his mouth by later authors. Other possibilities
abound. Surely, someone seriously examining this question could
come up with a decent list of possible alternatives, unless the task
is not serious examination of the question (much less "destroying"
xtianity) but rather religious salesmanship.
How many Germans died for Nazism? How many Russians died in the name
of the proletarian dictatorship? How many Americans died to make the
world safe for "democracy". What a silly question!
Is everyone who performs a healing = God?
It's probably hard to "draw" an entire nation to you unless you
are crazy.
Anyone who is convinced by this laughable logic deserves
to be a xtian.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Of course if this question was asked in a group dealing with economics,
the answer would be that the cause of war was economic. My observations
over the past 30 years (and not withstanding a little history reading
beside) is that while religious differences do play a part in many of
the conflicts, so does (unfortunately) race, economics and any other
items that identify one group of men as being different from another.
If we want to couch the cause of conflict in Christian terms, I would
put it while Christ died for our sins, we are yet sinners. While some
individuals assume "Christlike" natures, most of us do not even
come close.
I realize that in many ways this is a trite answer, but I guess that
it is my way of rationalizing man's constant (or so it seems)
conflict.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[In looking through my files this weekend, I ran across some lyrics from
various rock groups that have content. Here are two from Black Sabbath's
"Master of Reality". I'll say this much for the music of the '60's and early
'70's, at least they asked questions of significance. Jethro Tull is another
to asked and wrote about things that caused one to wonder. --Rex]
AFTER FOREVER
Have you ever thought about your soul--
can it be saved?
Or perhaps you think that when you're dead
you just stay in you grave.
Is God just a thought within you read in a book
when you were at school?
When you think about death
Do you lose your breath
Or do you keep your cool?
Would you like to see the Pope on the end of a rope?
Do you think he's a fool?
Well I have seen the truth. Yes I have seen the light
and I've changed my ways.
And I'll be prepared
When you're lonely and scared
at the end of your days.
Could it be you're afraid of what your friends might say
If they knew you believed in God above?
They should realize before they criticise
That God is the only way to love.
Is your mind so small that you have to fall
In with the pack wherever they run?
Will you still sneer when death is near
And say they may as well worship the sun?
I think it was true -it was people like you
that crucified Christ.
I think it is sad the opinion you had
was the only one voiced.
Will you be so sure when your day is near
to say you don't believe?
You had the chance but you turned it down
now you can't retrieve.
Perhaps you'll think before you say that God is dead & gone
Open your eyes, just realize that He is the one.
The only one who can save you now from all this sin and hate.
Or will you still jeer at all you hear?
Yes! I think it's too late.
LORD OF THIS WORLD | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Of course B.M. is not incorrect. He is defending Islam. When defending
Islam against infidels you can say anything and no one will dare criticize
you. But when an atheist uses the same argument he is using "petty sarcasm". So
B.M. can have his "temporary atheists" whenever he needs them and all the
"temporary atheists" can later say that they were always good Muslims because
they never explicitly rejected Islam. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Or, with no dictionary available, they could gain first hand
knowledge by suffering through one of your posts.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
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 |
If the first rule of humor is never having to say you're sorry then the
second rule must be never having to explain yourself. Few things are
worse that a joke explained. In spite of this, and because of requests
for me to post my list o' nicknames, I must admit that no such list
exists. It was simply a plot device, along with me being the keeper
o' the list, to make the obvious play on the last name of Fuller and to
advance the idea that such a list should be made.
I assumed that the ol' timers would recognize it for what it is.
Nevertheless, how about a list o' nicknames for alt.atheism posters?
If you think of a good one, just post it and see if others like it.
We could start with those posters who annoy us the most, like Bobby or
Bill.
Jim "D'oh! I broke the second rule of humor" Copeland | 0 | alt.atheism |
You haven't fully explained the atheist position. Many theists believe that
there is "no proof of the existence of God" but choose to believe in him
anyway. I haven't yet found an argument for atheism that can't quickly be
broken down to unprovable assumptions. This isn't a problem with me (everybody
needs to have a faith) but if you believe that you can provide a "purely
logical" argument for the nonexistence of God, I'd really like to see it.
Ahh...but when you use science and reason, you have faith in certain beliefs
of the scientific method--for example:
The physical laws of the universe are stable.
Our observations of reality are a valid basis for a determination of truth.
Objective reality exists.
Logical argument is a valid way to answer all questions.
Can you prove any of these? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
AHA! He admits it! He IS a moral relativist!
Keith, if you start wafffling on about how it is different for a human
to maul someone thrown into it's cage (so to speak), you'd better start
posting tome decent evidence or retract your 'I think there is an absolute
morality' blurb a few weeks ago.
The Desert Brat | 0 | alt.atheism |
Well, that explains some things; I posted on soc.religion.islam
with an attached quote by Bobby to the effect that all atheists
are lying evil scum, and asked if it was a commonly-held idea
among muslims. I got no response. Asking about the unknown,
I guess...
Karl
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 0 | alt.atheism |
Find an encyclopedia. Volume H. Now look up Hitler, Adolf. He had
many more people than just Germans enamoured with him.
P. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Oh, that must explain Matthew 18:
1) In that hour came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, "Who then is greatest in
the kingdom of heaven?"
2) And he called to him a little child, and set him in the midst of them,
3) and said, "Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn, and become as little
children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.
14) Even so it is not the will of your father who is in heaven, that one of these
little ones should perish.
Nice thing about the Bible, you don't have to invent a bunch of convoluted
rationalizations to understand it, unlike your arguments for original sin. Face
it, original sin was thought up long after the Bible had been written and has no
basis from the scriptures. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
May I suggest the book: "Ethics" by Dr. Norm Geisler, of Dallas Theological
Seminary. In it, he goes over all the arguments pro and con and in-between,
and comes up with a very reasonable answer. If I have time, and there is
enough interest, I may post his position.
Jon Noring
--
Charter Member --->>> INFJ Club. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[deleted]
think:
[deleted]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Let me first say that "to believe that no gods exist" is in fact
different than "not believing in a god or gods".
I will argue that your latter statement, "I believe that no gods exist"
does rest upon faith - that is, if you are making a POSITIVE statement
that "no gods exist" (strong atheism) rather than merely saying I don't
know and therefore don't believe in them and don't NOT believe in then
(weak atheism). Once again, to not believe in God is different than saying
I BELIEVE that God does not exist. I still maintain the position, even
after reading the FAQs, that strong atheism requires faith.
But first let me say the following.
We might have a language problem here - in regards to "faith" and
"existence". I, as a Christian, maintain that God does not exist.
To exist means to have being in space and time. God does not HAVE
being - God IS Being. Kierkegaard once said that God does not
exist, He is eternal. With this said, I feel it's rather pointless
to debate the so called "existence" of God - and that is not what
I'm doing here. I believe that God is the source and ground of
being. When you say that "god does not exist", I also accept this
statement - but we obviously mean two different things by it. However,
in what follows I will use the phrase "the existence of God" in it's
'usual sense' - and this is the sense that I think you are using it.
I would like a clarification upon what you mean by "the existence of
God".
We also might differ upon what it means to have faith. Here is what
faith
1a: allegiance to duty or a person: LOYALTY
b (1): fidelity to one's promises
(2): sincerity of intentions
2a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(2): complete trust
3: something that is believed esp. with strong conviction; esp: a system
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of religious beliefs
syn see BELIEF
One can never prove that God does or does not exist. When you say
that you believe God does not exist, and that this is an opinion
"based upon observation", I will have to ask "what observtions are
you refering to?" There are NO observations - pro or con - that
are valid here in establishing a POSITIVE belief. All observations
can only point you in a direction - a direction that we might even
be predisposed to (by predisposed I mean, for example, people whoes
partents "believe in God" also tend to). To actually draw a conclusion
about the "existence" or "non-existence" of God requires a leap - and
you have made this leap when you actively say "I believe that God
does/does not exist". Personally, I think that both statements are
misguided. Arguing over the "existence" of God is precisely the wrong way
to find Him (and yes, I use "Him" because a personal God is the only
viable concept (IMO) - if a person wants to use "She" go ahead. Of course
God is neither He nor She - but we have no choice but to
anthropomorphise. If you want me to explain myself further I'll be
glad to.)
And please, if someone does not agree with me - even if they violently
disagree - it's in no ones advantage to start name calling. If a person
thinks I've misunderstood something in the FAQs, or if they they think
I have not read them well enough, just point out to me the error of my
ways and I correct the situation. I'm interested in a polite and well
thought out discussion.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
I am one of those people who always willl have unlimited stores of unfounded
respect for people who have been on newsgroups/mailing lists longer than I
have, so you certainly have my sympathy Tom. I have only been semi-regularly
posting (it is TOUGHto keep up) since this February, but I have been reading
and following the threads since last August: my school's newsreader was down
for months and our incompetent computing services never bothered to find a new
feed site, so it wasn't accepting outgoing postings. I don't think anyone
keeps track of where other posters go: it's that old love 'em and leave 'em
Internet for you again...
best regards, | 0 | alt.atheism |
The only way out seems to be death.
---
" I'd Cheat on Hillary Too." | 0 | alt.atheism |
[There may be some misunderstanding over terms here...]
I agree. Quite likely, actually.
[...I believe "Jesus
only" originally was in the context of baptism. These are folks who
believe that baptism should be done with a formula mentioning only
Jesus, rather than Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This may have
doctrinal implications, but as far as I know it does not mean that
these folks deny the existence or divinity of the Father. I'm not the
right one to describe this theology, and in fact I think there may be
several, including what would classically be called monophysite or
Arian (two rather different views), as well as some who have beliefs
that are probably consistent with Trinitarian standards, but who won't
use Trinitarian language because they misunderstand it or simply
because it is not Biblical. --clh]
Not Biblical? What then can they make of the end of Matthew?
(28:18)And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on
earth has been given to me. (19)Go therefore and make disciples of all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Spirit, (20) and teaching them to obey everything that I
have commanded to you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end
of the age." {Other ancient authorities add *Amen*} [NRSV]
The notes give no sense that this is emended. Do other texts
contradict this regarding Baptism? Or is a misunderstanding of the
Trinity the most likely explanation after all?
But maybe I simply misunderstand their views. (Is anyone else out there
forced to read this group with both a good Bible and an unabridged
dictionary?? Christianity really is an education in itself.)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Arrgggghhhh. When I talked about people who rejected Trinitarian
language as unBiblical, I was speaking of Trinitarian theology, things
like "one essense and three persons". Obviously the three-fold
baptismal formula is Biblical, as you point out. (I normally use the
term "three-fold" in referring to Mat. While it is certainly
consistent with belief in the Trinity, the Trinity is a doctrine whose
full formulation occurred in the 4th and 5th Cent's. It's unlikely
that Mat. had in mind the fully-developed Trinitarian doctrine.
Indeed the three-fold baptismal formula is used by some groups that do
not believe in the Trinity.) The disagreement over baptismal formulae
occurs because of passages such as Acts 2:38, which command baptism in
the name of Jesus. (There are a couple of other passages in Acts as
well.) This leaves us with sort of a problem: we're commanded in Mat.
to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
and in Acts to baptize in the name of Jesus.
"Jesus only" groups baptize in the name of Jesus. They consider this
consistent with Mat 28:18, because they say that Jesus is the name of
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I'm not the right one to
ask to explain what this means. I will simply say that it does not
appear to be normal Trinitarian theology. (It is also an odd way of
dealing with the idiomatic phrase "in the name of".)
Those who use the three-fold formula don't seem to have a standard
answer to the passages talking about baptizing in the name of Jesus.
I suspect that the most common explanation is to say that "in the name
of" need not be a verbal formula. To say that you baptize in the name
of Jesus may simply mean that you are doing baptism under Jesus'
authority. In the 1st Cent. context, it contrasts Christian baptism
with the baptism of John or other Jewish baptism. Of course there's a
certain parallelism between these passages. That suggests that we
could just as well say that Mat 28:18 doesn't require the specific
three-fold formula to be used in baptism, but simply characterizes
baptism done by those who follow the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
One might well suspect that in the early church, more than one
baptismal formula was used. So long as we consider following Jesus to
be the same as following the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, no great
damage would be done by such a difference. This does *not* mean that
I think we should go back to using both formulae. Baptism is one of
the few things that almost all Christian groups now recognize
mutually, so I do not think doing something to upset that would be in
the interests of the Gospel. This is reinforced by the fact that
those groups that actually use "in the name of Jesus" now do seem to
have in mind a difference in doctrine. But as I've said before, I'm
not the one to explain what their doctrine is. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The "`little' things" above were in reference to Germany, clearly. People
said that there were similar things in Germany, but no one could name any.
They said that these were things that everyone should know, and that they
weren't going to waste their time repeating them. Sounds to me like no one
knew, either. I looked in some books, but to no avail.
It has *caused* problems? Again, no one has shown that things were better
before the motto, or that they'd likely be better after. I don't think
the motto initiates any sort of harassment. Harassment will occur whether
or not the motto is present. | 0 | alt.atheism |
It's not the fact that it can't exist that bothers me. It's
the fact that you don't seem to be able to define it.
If I wanted to hear about indefinable things that might in
principle exist as long as you don't think about them too
carefully, I could ask a religious person, now couldn't I? | 0 | alt.atheism |
This is being posted as a general outline for your personal study of this
doctrine:
THE DOCTRINE OF GOD
I. THE PERSONS OF THE GODHEAD
Of all of the doctrines of Scripture, this is the most
important. The Bible is pre-eminently a revelation of God.
Therefore, our first objective in studying the Bible should
be to know God.
I believe that the Bible teaches that there are Three
Persons in the Godhead (Trinity): God, the Father; God the
Son--the Lord Jesus Christ; and God, the Holy Spirit. I
believe that they are individual Persons who are one in
nature, meaning that They are identical in nature, each
possessing the same divine attributes. They are also
equally worthy of our worship, our trust, and our obedience.
Cf. Matt.28:19, 2 Cor.13:14; John 14:8,9,16,17.
II. THE ATTRIBUTES, or CHARACTERISTICS, OF THE GODHEAD.
A. God's nature is revealed in the Name He has taken for
Himself: Jehovah. He is the living God, eternal, and
unchanging. He is without beginning, and without
ending. Cf. Isa.42:8.
B. God is a spirit. Cf. John 4:24.
C. God is love. Cf. 1 John 4:8,16.
As such, He is gracious, merciful, good, faithful,
patient, and full of lovingkindness. Cf. Psa 89:1,2;
Psa 103:8; Nahum 1:7.
D. But God is also holy and righteous. He is absolutely
without sin in His nature, and so is incapable of
sinning in though, word, or action. Cf. Ex. 15:11; Isa.
6:3.
E. God is omnipresent (everywhere present at the same time
in the completeness of His Person), omniscient (all
knowing, knowing all things--the end from the beginning,
infinitely wise), omnipotent (almighty, sovereign, with
unlimited power over all creation).
God is infinite in His presence, wisdom, and power. It
is my conviction that the work of the Lord in our day
has become very man-centered, and that the people in our
churches know very little about God. I believe that the
Lord's work needs to be God-centered, and that the
people of God need to understand that God is sovereign
in all things: in the affairs of nations, in the lives
of all people, and in the carrying out of His purposes
regarding salvation.
III. THE WORKS OF THE GODHEAD.
A. In creation
All Three Persons of the Godhead were active in
creating, and all Three are active in sustaining
creation, and in ordering the course of human affairs
(for nations as well as individual people) to the end
of time. Cf. Gen. 1:1,2; John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16-17;
Heb. 1:3.
B. In salvation
In order to understand salvation I believe that it is
absolutely necessary to begin with God, not with man.
All three Persons of the Godhead have been, and are,
active in salvation.
1. God, the Father
Salvation originated with God. The Members of the
Godhead determined in eternity past that there would
be salvation, the conditions under which people
could and would be saved, and even who would be
saved. Election to salvation is recognized in
Scripture as the work of God, the Father. Cf. Eph
1:3-4; 2 Thess 2:13-14.
2. Christ, the Son of God
The Lord Jesus Christ, through His birth by the
virgin Mary, came to the earth to accomplish two
important works:
a. He came as the final and complete revelation of
God, the Father. Cf. Col 1:15; heb 1:1-3.
b. He came to provide salvation for all whom the
Father had chosen. He did this by His death on
the Cross, by His bodily resurrection, and by
His present intercessory work in heaven. The
work of salvation will be completed for us when
the Lord returns. Cf. Rom 5:8-10; 1 Cor 15:3-
4; Heb 7:25, 1 John 3:2.
3. The Holy Spirit
As the Author of Scripture, the theme of which is
Christ and His redemptive work, the Holy Spirit is
carrying out the redemptive plan of God in the
following ways:
a. He convicts of sin. Cf. John 16:7-11
b. He regenerates (known in the Bible as the new
birth). Cf. John 3:5-8.
c. He indwells each believer to fulfill the work
of sanctification. Cf. John 14-16-17.
d. He seals every believer in Christ, thus making
salvation secure. Cf. Eph 1:13-14.
e. He baptizes every believer into the body of
Christ. Cf. Cor. 12:13
f. He teaches every believer the truth of
Scripture. Cf. John 14:26.
g. He bestows spiritual gifts on the people of
God for ministry. (Cf. 1 Cor 12
h. He restrains sin. Cf Gal 5:16-26.
i. He empowers for living and for service.
Cf. Acts 1:8
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis)
II. The deuterocanonicals are not in the canon because
they are not quoted by the NT authors.
That is not quite accurate. Otherwise we would have the book
of Enoch in the canon (as Dave noted). One can say that the
apocrypha are not quoted by Christ.
III. The deuterocanonicals are not in the canon because
they teach doctrines contrary to the (uncontroverted)
parts of the canon.
then I answer:
These is a logically invalid *a priori*.
Besides, we are talking about OT texts-
which in many parts are superceded by the NT
(in the Xtian view). Would not this same
principle exclude _Ecclesiastes_?
This principle cannot be consistently applied.
I have to reject your argument here. The Spirit speaks with one
voice, and he does not contradict himself.
The ultimate test of canonicity is whether the words are inspired
by the Spirit, i.e., God-breathed. It is a test which is more
guided by faith than by reason or logic. The early church decided
that the Apocrypha did not meet this test--even though some books
such as The Wisdom of Ben Sirach have their uses. For example,
the Lutheran hymn "Now Thank We All Our God" quotes a passage
from this book.
The deutero-canonical books were added much later in the church's
history. They do not have the same spiritual quality as the
rest of Scripture. I do not believe the church that added these
books was guided by the Spirit in so doing. And that is where
this sort of discussion ultimately ends. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I don't claim to be an expert on the branch Davidians, but I might know more
than most.
The Branch Davidian group (led by Koresh) is actually one of two off-shoots
of a group known as the Shephard's Rod. The Shephard's Rod (now
defunct as far as I know)broke off from the SDA Church in the 30's.
The Shephard's Rod broke away from the SDA Church because they felt that the
SDA Church was becoming weak and falling into apostacy. They felt that they
were the remnant spoken about in Revelation.
About the Koresh group, Koresh gained control of it in 1987 or 1988. Once
in control, he made himself the center of it. He proclaimed himself as
Christ.
Koresh himself came from an SDA background. He was excommunicated as a young
adult by the local congregation for trying to exert too much control over
the youth in the church. After this, he joined the Branch Davidians.
They were/are a survivalist cult. This is why they had the stockpile of
weapons, food, a bomb shelter, etc. They had no intent of raiding the US
government or anything. They were preparing for Armaggedon and were
putting themselves in a self defense position.
In my opinion, if the ATF and the FBI had left well enough alone, we wouldn'
t have the blood of 20+ children crying out from the ashes in Waco.
If you want to know about The Shephard's Rod, you might want to visit the
local SDA church and talk to some of the older people. They could give you
some insight into where Koresh got his theology. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Gifts of the Spirit should not be seen as an endorsement of ones behavior.
A lot of people have suffered because of similar beliefs. Jesus said
that people would come to Him saying "Lord, Lord," and proclaiming
the miraculous works they had done in His name. Jesus would tell
them that they were workers of iniquity that do not know Him, and to
depart from Him.
That is not to say that this will happen to everyone who commits a homosexual
sin. If the Holy Spirit were only given to the morally perfect, He would
not be given to me, or any of us. God can forgive any sin, if we repent.
But people should be careful not to think, "God has given me a gift of
the Spirit, it must be okay to be gay." That is dangerous (see also hebrews
6 about those who have partaken of the Holy Spirit and of the powers of
the world to come.)
Jesus doesn't ask us to change our own nature. We cannot lift ourselves
out of our own sin- but we must submit to His hand as He changes our
nature. Practicing homosexual acts and homosexual lusts violates the
morality that God has set forth.
If you don't believe that, and think those of us who do are just ignorant,
then at least consider us weak in the faith and be celebate for our sake's.
Is practicing homosexuality worth the cost of a soul, whether it be the
homosexual's or the one considered "ignorant?" | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
But now you are contradicting yourself in a pretty massive way,
and I don't think you've even noticed.
In another part of this thread, you've been telling us that the
"goal" of a natural morality is what animals do to survive.
But suppose that your omniscient being told you that the long
term survival of humanity requires us to exterminate some
other species, either terrestrial or alien.
Does that make it moral to do so? | 0 | alt.atheism |
Tsk.tsk. Too much argument on non-issues !
I'm Roman Catholic and it seems to me that people
celebrate Easter and Christmas for itself rather
than how it relates to Jesus. I don't really
care about some diety. If people have some other
definition of Easter, then that's their business.
Don't let it interfere with my Easter.
"Resurrection Sunday" 8-) Where did that come from ?
If people celebrate Easter for the Cadburry bunny,
that's their business.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Bobby, there's a question here that I just HAVE to ask. If all
of your posts aren't some sort of extended, elaborate hoax, why
are you trying so hard to convince the entire civilised world
that you're feeble minded? You have a talent for saying the most
absurd things. Here's a little sign for you, print it, cut it out
and put it on top of your computer/terminal.
ENGAGE BRAIN PRIOR TO OPERATING KEYBOARD
(Having said all that, I must admit we all get a laugh from
your stuff.)
-- | 0 | alt.atheism |
Welcome aboard!
(I think you just answered your own question, there)
Most responses were against his postings that spouted the fact that
all atheists are fools/evil for not seeing how peachy Islam is.
I would leave the pro/con arguments of Islam to Fred Rice, who is more
level headed and seems to know more on the subject, anyway.
How did you know I was going to welcome you abord?!?
| 0 | alt.atheism |
It is told in the Gospels that the Pharisees (sp.?) and scribes bribed
the Roman soldiers to say that the Diciples stole his body in the night.
Good enough excuse for the Jewish and Roman objectives (of that day). | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
It just goes to show that not all evangelical fundamentalists are pharisitical!
I wear a black leather jacket, like classic rock, but no longer have the long
locks I once had. However, I too rely upon the Bible as a basis for Christian
ethics. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Eric ("Damien"?) was presenting his views on Christianity; I'll
respond to a few of his points:
This is certainly a valid objection to religion-as-explanation-of-
nature.
Fortunately for the convenience of us believers, there is a class of
questions that can never be reduced away by natural science. For
example: why does the universe exist at all? After all, the time-space
world didn't have to exist. Why does *anything* exist? And: is it
possible for persons (e.g. man) to come into being out of a purely
impersonal cosmos? These questions which look at the real mysteries of
life -- the creation of the world and of persons -- provide a permanent
indicator that the meaning of life in the material world can only be
found *outside* that world, in its Source.
When you say that man is *only* an animal, I have to think that you are
presenting an unprovable statement -- a dogma, if you will. And one
the requires a kind of "faith" too. By taking such a hard line in
your atheism, you may have stumbled into a religion of your own.
But before you write off all Christianity as phony and shallow, I hope
you'll do a little research into its history and varieties, perhaps by
reading Paul Johnson's "A History of Christianity". From your remarks,
it seems that you have been exposed to certain types of Christian
religion and not others. Even an atheist should have enough faith in
Man to know that a movement of 2000 years has to have some depth, and
be animated by some enduring values.
With best wishes, | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
No. The christians were leary of having an atheist spokesman
(seems so clandestine, and all that), so they had him removed. Of
course, Keith is busy explaining to his fellow captives how he
isn't really being persecuted, since (after all) they *are*
feeding him, and any resistance on his part would only be viewed
as trouble making.
I understand he did make a bit of a fuss when they tatooed "In God
We Trust" on his forehead, though.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
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 strongly suggest that you look up a book called THE BIBLE, THE QURAN, AND
##SCIENCE by Maurice Baucaille, a French surgeon. It is not comprehensive,
##but, it is well researched. I imagine your library has it or can get it
##for you through interlibrary loan.
##
I shall try to get hold of it (when I have time to read of course :-)
##In short, Dr Baucaille began investigating the Bible because of pre-
##ceived scientific inaccuracies and inconsistencies. He assumed that
##some of the problems may have been caused by poor translations in by-
##gone days. So, he read what he could find in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic.
##What he found was that the problems didn't go away, they got worse.
##Then, he decided to see if other religions had the same problems.
##So, he picked up the Holy Qur'an (in French) and found similar prob-
##lems, but not as many. SO, he applied the same logoic as he had
##with the Bible: he learned to read it in Arabic. The problems he
##had found with the French version went away in Arabic. He was unable
##to find a wealth of scientific statements in the Holy Qur'an, but,
##what he did find made sense with modern understanding. So, he
##investigated the Traditions (the hadith) to see what they had to
##say about science. they were filled with science problems; after
##all, they were contemporary narratives from a time which had, by
##pour standards, a primitive world view. His conclusion was that,
##while he was impressed that what little the Holy Qur'an had to
##say about science was accurate, he was far more impressed that the
##Holy Qur'an did not contain the same rampant errors evidenced in
##the Traditions. How would a man of 7th Century Arabia have known
##what *not to include* in the Holy Qur'an (assuming he had authored
##it)?
##
So in short the writer (or writers) of Quran decided to stay away from
science. (if you do not open your mouth, then you don't put you foot into
your mouth either).
But then if you say Quran does not talk much about science, then one can
not make claims (like Bobby does) that you have great science in Quran.
Basically I want to say that *none* of the religious texts are supposed to
be scientific treatises. So I am just requesting the theists to stop making
such wild claims.
--- Vinayak
-------------------------------------------------------
vinayak dutt
e-mail: vdp@mayo.edu
standard disclaimers apply | 0 | alt.atheism |
I don't meant to defend Eric Molas- I find it somewhat annoying when
someone pops up on alt.atheism to tell us all about his (usually
atheistic) beliefs, so I can certainly see how Christians might be
annoyed- but I'd like to point out a few things.
"no meaning from God" is not the same as "no meaning". From my (atheistic)
point of view, if you want meaning in your life, you get to go and
get some or make some.
No free gifts of meaning. (I never quite understood how any
God can just "give" your life meaning, actually. If he
says you exists to do or be X, that gives you a purpose
if you care to accept it, but is that the same thing? But
I digress...)
This would truely be a miserably existance, which I doubt Eric
endures. Life can be enjoyable, so you can live it because you like
it, or purposefull, so you can live it to get something done. One should
endeavour to make it so, if it is not. Otherwise it would be as you say.
Terrible.
Probably true. Remeber he almost certainly sees that particular joy as
an illusion, and does not want it. So maybe it isn't so bad?
As an atheist, I am free to be a human person. I think, love, choose,
and create.
Ah, now here we begin to diverge. I will not live forever
with anyone.
(I don't think you will either, but you are welcome to your
opinion on the matter.)
I tend to agree with you.
It's my opinion that (unlike drugs) religions are normal
parts of human societies.
I think they have outlived their usefullness, but they
are evidently quite ordinary, normal things that haven't
proved lethal to humanity yet.
I have heard this claim quite a few times. Does anybody here know
who first came up with the "God-shaped hole" business?
You might want to provide some evidence next time you make a claim
like this.
I don't know Eric, but I do not think it is wise to assume he has a less
joy-filled and abundant life because he holds certain beliefs.
---
- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0 | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Looking at historical evidence such 'perfect utopian' islamic states
didn't survive. I agree, people are people, and even if you might
start an Islamic revolution and create this perfect state, it takes
some time and the internal corruption will destroy the ground rules --
again.
Cheers,
Kent | 0 | alt.atheism |
The parable of the Prodigal Son is not about who is and who isn't an
immoral person. It is about grace and the love of God. Most people
would agree with that concerning the younger son. The elder son is
simply a negative example of the some thing. He thinks that he must
earn his father's love, that he has earned it, that he is entitled
to it. His father tells him that he is on the wrong track. He has always
been loved--for the same reason his brother has always been: he is
his father's son.
We are too performance oriented to consistently get the point. We are
willing to be saved by grace, but once we are Christians we want to
go back to earning and deserving.
"Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying
to attain your goal by human effort?" Gal 3:3 NIV | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
There is another way to view this. The True Celebration is Easter,
the Resurrection of Our Lord. This has been true from the foundation
of the world. Pagan practices are then either:
1. foreshadowings of the True Celebration of the Resurrection,
in which dim light was shone forth so that people would
recognize the full truth when it was manifested, OR
2. satanic counterfeits intended to deceive us so that we would not
recognize the truth when it was manifested.
I don't believe the second argument, because I believe in the power
of the Resurrection, the fulfillment of the Incarnation, and our hope.
Earlier or parallel ideas in other religions clearly are dim images of
the truth of the Resurrection. As Paul states, we see through a glass
darkly. So do others. It serves no purpose arguing about who has
the darker or lighter glass. The foreshadowings are not perfect.
So what? Our understnding of God is today imperfect, for we are not
yet perfected. Theosis is not a gift such that WHAM, we're perfect.
Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com)
-- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
First of all, the original poster misquoted. The reference is from 2 Tim 3:16.
The author was Paul, and his revelations were anything but "(at best)
second-hand".
"And is came about that as [Saul] journeyed, he was approaching
Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; and
he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul,
why are you persecuting Me?" And he said, "Who art Thou, Lord?" And
He said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, . . ."
(Acts 9:3-5, NAS)
Paul received revelation directly from the risen Jesus! (Pretty cool, eh?) He
became closely involved with the early church, the leaders of which were
followers of Jesus throughout his ministry on earth.
I agree. I don't believe anyone but the Spirit would be able to convince you
the Spirit exists. Please don't complain about this being circular. I know
it is, but really, can anything of the natural world explain the supernatural?
(This is why revelation is necessary to the authors of the Bible.)
The Spirit is part of God. How much closer to the source can you get?
The Greek in 2 Timothy which is sometimes translated as "inspired by God",
literally means "God-breathed". In other words, God spoke the actual words
into the scriptures. Many theologians and Bible scholars (Dr. James Boice is
one that I can remember off-hand) get quite annoyed by the dryness and
incompleteness of "inspired by God".
That's what the verse taken from 2 Timothy was all about. The continuity of a
book written over a span of 1500 years by more than 40 authors from all walks
of life is a testimony to the single authorship of God.
What source to you claim to have discovered which has information of superior
historicity to the Bible? Certainly not Josephus' writings, or the writings
of the Gnostics which were third century, at the earliest.
Jesus was fully God as well. That's why I'd assert that he is wise.
Please rethink this last paragraph. If there is no God, which seems to be your
current belief, then Jesus was either a liar or a complete nut because not
only did he assert that God exists, but he claimed to be God himself! (regards
to C.S. Lewis) How then could you have the least bit of respect for Jesus?
In conclusion, be careful about logically unfounded hypotheses based
on gut feelings about the text and other scholars' unsubstantiated claims.
The Bible pleads that we take it in its entirety or throw the whole book out.
About your reading of the Bible, not only does the Spirit inspire the
writers, but he guides the reader as well. We cannot understand it in the
least without the Spirit's guidance:
"For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit
searches all things, even the depths of God." (1 Cor 2:10, NAS)
Peace and may God guide us in wisdom.
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=
Carter C. Page | Of happiness the crown and chiefest part is wisdom,
A Carpenter's Apprentice | and to hold God in awe. This is the law that,
cpage@seas.upenn.edu | seeing the stricken heart of pride brought down,
| we learn when we are old. -Adapted from Sophocles
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=+-=-+-=+-=-+=-+-=-+-=-+=-+-= | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Then Mr Mozumder is incorrect when he says that when committing
bad acts, people temporarily become atheists? | 0 | alt.atheism |
Sorry, I was, but I somehow have misplaced my diskette from the last
couple of months or so. However, thanks to the efforts of Bobby, it is being
replenished rather quickly!
Here is a recent favorite:
--
"Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.
They do what god tells them to do. "
S.N. Mozumder (snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu)
--
"Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.
They do what god tells them to do. " | 0 | alt.atheism |
responds to a lot of grief given to him
a.k.a. "The Sagemaster"
[ . . .]
Most of Scotty's followup *was* irrelevant to the original question,
but this is not unusual, as threads often quickly evolve away from
the original topic. What I could not understand is why Jim spent so
much time responding to what he regarded as irrelevancies.
[ . . . ]
[ . . . ]
Well, I guess hypothetical Adam was "the majority of mankind"
seeing how he was the ONLY man at the time.
I understand what you mean by "collective," but I think it is an
insane perversion of justice. What sort of judge would punish the
descendants for a crime committed by their ancestor?
Well, I must admit that you probably read a.a. more often than I read
the Bible these days. But you missed a couple of good followups to
your post. I'm sending you a personal copy of my followup which I
hope you will respond to publically in a.a. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Rob Butera asks about a book called THE LOST YEARS OF JESUS, by
Elizabeth Clare Prophet.
I do not know the book. However, Miss Prophet is the leader of a
group (The Church Universal and Triumphant) derived from the I AM
group founded by a Mr. Ballard who began his mission in the 1930's
(I am writing this from memory and may not have all the details
straight -- for an old account, check your library for a bnook by
Marcus Bach) after an eighteenth-century Frenchman appeared, tapped
him on the shoulder, and offered him a cup of "cosmic essence." A
major tenet of the movement is that there is a monastery in the
mountains of Tibet from which a monk descends to the lower altitudes
every few centuries to preach, and that all major religions have
been founded by monks from this monastery. Typically, the Ballard
family and their successors, the Prophet family (related by
marriage, if I remember aright), base almost all their teachings on
messages they have allegedly received by telepathy from Tibet. I
should be surprised if the book you mention has any scholarly basis. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I was wondering if anyone knew any changes to the temple
ceremony within the last fifty years....
Also, why do you think they were made (revelation,
assimilation to mainstream Christianity, etc.)?
I know that the God Makers was published quite a while
ago. Could rituals have been changed since then?
I am also very interested in the influence of Freemasonry
on early Mormonism, especially in the Smith family and
in the Nauvoo settlement. Info on any new studies would
be appreciated.
Thanks, | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Please, leave heaven out of it. For his own sake, I pray that Dan does
take it literally because that's how God intended it to be taken. Dan,
your view of many groups appears correct from my point of view.
However, I have found a group which is truly meeting requirements laid
down by the Bible on what it means to be a disciple of Jesus. I have no
clue where wwc is, but please mail me. I'd really like to get you in
touch with them.
[insert deletion of ranting about other religions which obviously has
gone off-center of Dan's original context]
Dan, I'm familiar with this one. You've got a point, though. There are
some who don't want to turn over everything and be a disciple, some have
no clue about it because they've not been taught, some have done exactly
that and turned over everything to follow Jesus, some are blocked by
difficult doctrine taught by uncaring Pharisees and teachers of the law.
However, Jesus pointed out what it takes to follow him and to be his
disciple in Luke 9:23-26 and Luke 14:25-33. My question is: why do
people ignore the command and treat it as optional? I certainly don't
have an answer to this.
[insert deletion]
My parents had nothing to do with it. God had and has everything to do
with it. As for these attacking responses, I must say that I disagree
with your tone and what appears to be some very judgmental statements
(possibly to the point of slander) when talking about people, not what
they do. Please, if you have a response, state it instead of flying off
the handle on some discourse which may have nothing truly to do with
what is being discussed. I'm sure both Dan and I would have a much
happier time with your responses. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
^^^^
Just what are these "scientific facts"? I have never heard of such a thing.
Science never proves or disproves any theory - history does.
-Tim
______________________________________________________________________________ | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
No need to correct it, it stands as it is said.
You miss the point entirely. Things defined by contradictory language
do not exist. Though something existing might be meant, conclusions
drawn from the description are wrong, unless there is the possibility
to find the described, and draw conclusions from direct knowledge of
the described then. Another possibility is to drop the contradictory
part, but that implies that one can trust the concept as presented
and that one has not got to doubt the source of it as well.
Neither am I. But either things are directly sensed (which includes
some form of modelling, by the way) or they are used in modelling.
Using something contradictive in modelling is not approved of.
Wonder why? | 0 | alt.atheism |
Pardon me for being a little confused, but at the beginning of your second
paragraph, you say, "God has one set of rules for all his people," yet at the
end of the same paragraph you declare, "please do not combine the ceremonial
and moral laws in one." Not only do I not understand where in the Bible you
find the declaration that there are 2 laws (ceremonial and moral), but I am
also unclear on whether you think it is bad to have 2 sets of laws in the first
place. If it's bad to have 2 sets of laws, how can there be a ceremonial law
that is different from the moral law (and vice versa)?
I would also be interested in your comments on the passage in I Cor. 10:1-16,
where Paul teaches different rules for covering you head while praying
depending on whether you are a man or a woman. Do you think the apostles can
prescribe different sets of rules for men and women? If so, then why not for
Jews and Gentiles? Also, why did Paul, who was so opposed to circumcising
Gentiles, voluntarily circumcise Timothy? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
If this is God's attitude, then I'll think I'll go along with
Terry Pratchett's religious philosophy:
"Oh, I believe in God. I just don't actually _like_ the blighter."
P. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
In the discussion as to why Jesus spoke aloud the "Lazarus, come out",
I'm surprised that no one has noticed the verse immediately preceeding.
Jn 12:41 "Father, I thank you for listening to me, though I knew that
you always listen to me. But I have said this for the sake of the
people that are standing around me that they may believe that you have
made my your messenger." (Goodspeed translation)
My guess is that the "Lazarus, come out!" was also for the sake of the
crowd. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Tammy, is this all explicitly stated in the bible, or do you assume
that you know that Ezekiel indirectly mentioned? It could have been
another metaphor, for instance Ezekiel was mad at his landlord, so he
talked about him when he wrote about the prince of Tyre.
Sorry, but my interpretation is more mundane, Ezekiel wrote about
the prince of Tyre when we wrote about the prince of Tyre.
Cheers,
Kent | 0 | alt.atheism |
It's like refusing 'God's kingdom come'.
In one of Jesus' revelation in this century, "...same thing as in
the old days. People refuse to believe my messengers. Even when
I was alive here on earth, they refuse Me. What more when I am just
talking through somebody else?" (paraphrased).
With all the knowledge believers accumulated, He would think that
we would be 'enlightened' enough to detect which ones are
'authentic and divine' as opposed to 'evil or man-made'.
These signs, these miracles, are you afraid that they are not from God?
That these are the signs we should not open our hearts and mind to for thinking
they are evil?
Well, is faith in God evil?
Is true peace evil? Is true love that is divine and pure evil?
Why can't someone accept that God can do what He wants in fulfillment of His
generous love and Jesus' never ending forgiveness to those who turn back to
Him for salvation?
Why are we refusing God's messenger of this truth? The mother to all who are
in Christ?
What brings us these:
fears of being shamed by what others will think or say about us?
which, in contrary, could be pleasing to God?
fears of being humbled?
fears of being judged as wrong (wrt mainstream standard of what is right)?
Why can't we tolerate non-believers' mockery or ridicule of us for the
sake of peace, love and obedience to God? The humbling lessons left to us
by martyrs and saints?
We'd rather engage in never-ending bickering and disproof of each other's
opinion - looking at each other's mistakes - for the sake of arguments,
instead of having communion in one body with Christ.
What makes us go blind to the truth that God is All Powerful and that He can
not be binded by what people wrote and have written about Him in all ages?
Why is our faith in God limited? By all the words and literature we muster?
What prevents us from going *beyond* being saved and extend God's rich love
to others who are not?
Why are our eyes not wide open to see that He continuously sees our faith, hope
and love which glorify Him and so He gives us indications of His
acknowledgements with signs/miracles (ordinary/common or divinely inspired)
everywhere? Isn't that like an atheist/agnostic's view that all these
are just ordinary here on earth and not caused by anything supernatural?
Why then does the Holy Mother comes back to remind us:
"We must really __accept that prayer__ changes the course of things and that
with prayers __even wars can be prevented__."
but then she continues:
"You often have an egotistic attitude. Dear children, in these days you
have prayed very much, __but your hands have remained empty__."
Why hesitate in proclaiming what needs to be done:
"prayer, conversion, peace, penance, fasting, the Holy Mass, living life
as what the Gospel brings."?
Why not do so? How? To the world?
"Start in your family. Be a good example. Live the Word."
Why worry if it is going to be of good use to many?
"The fruits, __leave them to the Lord__, do not worry about anything or
anyone but entrust yourself to the Lord."
Although the Holy Mother does not insist because:
"You are free; I bow before the freedom which God gives you."
but she follows this with:
"You are surprised because I say to you: Decide for God and yet, see how
you have lived this day."
Why does she constantly conveys:
"Take this life toward God in the way as to __experience__ the Lord Himself
in your __behavior__ and __not only__ when you pray" or one time when we
decide that we are saved, or talk/write about God, etc.
The Holy Mother warns:
"Satan (the serpent) is always trying to dissuade you to turn you away from
my peace plan and prayer." (Rev 12:17, the dragon became angry with the woman
and went off to wage war against the rest of her offsprings, those who keep
God's commandments, and bear witness to Jesus.)
Do you have fear or hate for God's current messenger of true peace, love and
our motherly protector from the anti-Christ?
The one who is being apprehensive of communism, wars, famine and other evils
that the serpent brings upon us?
This obedient and blessed new Eve?
The mother who warns us so we can be prepared and be strong against Satan?
Haven't there been renewed faith, hope, love, peace and obedience wherever
this messenger has shared her blessings and graces that God has given her
in good purpose?
Why do we choose to be blind?
Why fear the truth that God has been giving us a chance and sharing Christ's
ever-forgetting forgiveness to us through the obedient mother?
The mother who has been consecrated the task __to reverse__ the disobedient
harm and example done by the ancient Eve.
She has been preparing the new Eden with her Immaculate Heart.
The new Eden as sanctuary (the womb) for the next coming and judgement of the
righteous by our Lord, Jesus Christ; when The Lamb marries His bride.
Shouldn't we give her a hand in her exhaustive job of preparing us for the
second coming of her Son as she has been conceived without sin to bear
the Son of God in her womb?
Why fear true peace, love and renewed faith and obedience to God that Mary
faithfully brings to God's children? She has been protecting the flock
(the rest of the offsprings) from the greedy dragon so as to present more
righteous members for her Son's coming.
Not all apparitions and miracles that resulted from them are worthy
of belief. With prayer and guidance from the Holy Spirit and, of course,
approval of our Church authorities, we should be aware of the true and
divinely inspired ones; specifically, the ones which aligns with the
Scripture.
Also, our Lady reminds us of recommendation of __silence__ in our prayers:
"If you speak unceasingly in your prayers, how will you be able to hear
God? Allow Him room to answer you, to speak to you."
She encourages us (with motherly nurturing) to continue in exuberant
faith, hope and love to Jesus, constantly. NOT with mere emotions,
but with deep, constant obedience to Jesus, her Beloved Son and
acknowledgement of our need to have Him as part of our lives.
Let's not wait to the last minute to renew our faith and the life
that God wants us to live; when there won't be enough time or when
it will be late.
Nowadays, Mary says,
"Pray, pray, pray for peace...reconciliation, my children."
Have peace within yourself first before you can promote peace to
others. For without peace, you can not fully accept my Son."
And you think she's just an ordinary lady. Not to me. She's
our good Mother/messenger from God and she is so nice enough to
share God's kingdom to us through her Son and experience it.
With Mary, we are assured that The Lamb always succeeds.
-----
Note: All enclosed in quotes are from "Latest News of Medjugorje"
Number 10, June, 1991 by Fr. Rene' Laurentin.
----- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Koberg,
Just a couple of minor corrections here...
1) The Churches of Christ do not usually believe in speaking in
tongues, in fact many of them are known for being strongly opposed to
Pentecostal teaching. You are probably thinking of Church of God in
Christ, the largest African-American Pentecostal denomination.
2) I'm not sure what you mean by "signifying believers" but it
should be pointed out that the Assemblies of God does not now, nor has it
ever, held that speaking in tongues is the sign that one is a Christian.
The doctrine that traditional Pentecostals (including the A/G) maintain is
that speaking in tongues is the sign of a second experience after becoming
a Christian in which one is "Baptized in the Holy Spirit" That may be
what you were referring to, but I point this out because Pentecostals are
frequently labeled as believing that you have to speak in tongues in order
to be a Christian. Such a position is only held by some groups and not the
majority of Pentecostals. Many Pentecostals will quote the passage in
Mark 16 about "these signs following them that believe" but they generally
do not interpret this as meaning if you don't pactice the signs you aren't
"saved".
3) I know it's hard to summarize the beliefs of a movement that
has such diversity, but I think you've made some pretty big
generalizations here. Do "Neo-Pentecostals" only believe in tongues as a
sign and tongues as prayer but NOT tongues as revelatory with a message?
I've never heard of that before. In fact I would have characterized them
as believing the same as Pentecostals except less likely to see tongues as
a sign of Spirit Baptism. Also, while neo-Pentecostals may not be
inclined to speak in tongues in the non-Pentecostal churches they attend,
they do have their own meetings and, in many cases, a whole church will be
charismatic. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I have seen Jeff Fenholt speak and I didn't find him judgemental. I think
that the wording for that add was certainly inappropriate, but I think they
were trying to say that headbangers would like the program. But I would
NOT put headbangers in the same class as alcholics, etc. it is
condescending. And I believe that Jeff was wearing black when I saw him.
By the way, Fenholt played Jesus in Jesus Christ Superstar.
Personally, I'm a headbanger at times too, but I have a hard time with what
most of the secular metal groups promote. Free sex and drugs (my opinion
that many promote these) aren't my thing. I HAVE found several good
Christian metal groups that I like.
Jon
------------------------------------------------
Jon Ogden - jono@mac-ak-24.rtsg.mot.com
Motorola Cellular - Advanced Products Division
Voice: 708-632-2521 Data: 708-632-6086
------------------------------------------------ | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
First of all, I resent your assumption that you know why I
am threatened by science, or even that I am threatened at all,
although I admit the latter. The reason I am threatened by Science
has nothing to do with my need for proof of my Lord's existence--
God reveals Himself in many ways, including, to some degree,
Science.
My problem with Science is that often it allows us to
assume we know what is best for ourselves. God endowed us
with the ability to produce life through sexual relations,
for example, but He did not make that availible to everyone.
Does that mean that if Science can over-ride God's decision
through alterations, that God wills for us to have the power
to decide who should and should not be able to have
children? Should men be allowed to have babies, if that
is made possible.
People have always had the ability to end lives
unnaturally, and soon may have the ability to bring lives
into the world unnaturally. The closest thing to artificially
created life is artificially created death, and as God
has reserved judgement about when people should die to
Himself, I believe we should rely on God's wisdom about how
people should be brought in to the world.
This is not to say that I reject all forms of
medical treatment, however. Treatment that alleviates
pain, or prevents pain from occuring, is perfectly
acceptable, I believe, as it was acceptable for Jesus
to cure the sick. However, treatment that merely
prolongs life for no reason, or makes unnecessary
alterations to the body for mere aesthetic purposes,
go too far. Are we not happy with the beauty God
gave us?
I cannot draw a solid line regarding where I
would approve of Scientific study, and where I would not,
but I will say this: Before one experiments with the
universe to find out all its secrets, one should ask
why they want this knowledge. Before one alters the body
they have been given, they should ask themseles why their
body is not satisfactory too them as it is. I cannot
make any general rules that will cover all the cases, but
I will say that each person should pray for guidance
when trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe, and
should cease their unravelling if they have reason to
believe their search is displeasing to God. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I've been thinking about the idea that was raised (by Michael Covington,
I think) that words mean what we think they mean, regardless of
etymology. I've been reflecting on what certain words meant in my
childhood and tracing how this shaped some of my attitudes.
I grew up in a home where Christ was a bad word. People who were very
angry said it. The word Christian meant someone who was not a Jew. It
carried connotations of otherness, of threat, of enemy. It took some
time to figure out that there was a connection between `Christ' and
`Christian'. When I accepted Jesus, I expected to be disowned. To
become a Christian meant to join the enemy. I knew others would
consider me a traitor. At some level, I agreed, but was still prepared
to pay this price. Like Esau, I sold my birthright. However, I made a
better bargain. He only got some stew, but I got the incomparable
riches of knowing Christ.
As it turned out, my parents did not disown me. I found out later that
they were hoping it was a phase that I would grow out of. By the time
they had decided it wasn't a phase, they were sort of used to it. They
didn't disown me but they didn't completely accept the situation either.
For example, they didn't come to my wedding because it was in a church.
When I visited my grandmother in the hospital a few days before her
death, she said to me, "As far as I'm concerned, you still are a Jew."
What she meant was that she loved me and forgave me. But I am not a
Jew. I am a Christian. (I'll concede, one that likes chicken soup with
matzoh balls.:-))
I do not keep kosher. I do not celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday. My
sons are not circumcised. But these things are true of some people who
do consider themselves Jews. It is not these rules that make people
Jews; it is the heritage from the past. I gave up the past.
This is why I find it hard to relate to Messianic Jews. Their
experience is unlike mine. They still consider themselves Jews while
following Jesus. Some would even say that I *must* do so, too.
I am at a stage of my life now where I would like to have a heritage.
It was not something I valued very much when I gave it. But I did have
a sense that I was giving it for God. It may have been a small
sacrifice. It may have been an unnecessary sacrifice. But I gave it
and do not want to ask for it back.
And while I don't have the heritage I was born with, I do have another.
I am an outcast from the house of Israel, but I am a member of the
Church. One of the things I like about being a Catholic Christian is
that it is rich in tradition. It gives me a feeling of, once again,
being rooted in the past.
This is probably one of the reasons why I don't like it when people mess
around with Christian traditions (for example, changing the name of
Easter). These traditions fill an important emotional need of mine.
I suppose the point of all this is that people shouldn't assume that all
believers of Jewish background are the same. For some `Jewish
Christian' is a good name, for others it is an oxymoron. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I have made this clear elsewhere but will do so again. Khomeini put a
price on the head of someone in another country, this makes him a jerk
as well as an international outlaw. Khomeini advocates the view that
there was a series of twelve Islamic leaders (the Twelve Imams) who
are free of error or sin. This makes him a heretic. In the Qur'an
Muhammad is chastised for error directly by God; the Qur'an says that
Muhammad is the greatest example of proper Islamic behavior; thus
no muslim is free from error.
Perhaps it seems so to you, but this is hardly the case. There is
widespread agreement about matters of Islam. There certainly are
many viewpoints on issues which are not particularly Islamic in
and of themselves, but this is so for any large group of people
under the same name.
The Qur'an is not particularly imprecise in wording, though it is true
that several interpretations are possible in the interpretations of
many words. However, as an entire text the Qur'an makes its meanings
precise enough for intelligent people free from power lust to come
to agreement about them.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
I disagree. People marry each other. When they commit fully to each
other as life partners, they are married. The ceremony may assist in
emphasizing the depth of such a commitment, but is of itself nothing.
God knows our hearts. He knows when two have committed themselves to
be one, he knows the fears and delusions we have that keep us from fully
giving ourselves to another. The way I see it, you'd have to be living
together in a marriage for somewhere between 10 and 100 years before anyone
knew if a marriage really existed, but God knows. I don't think God keeps
a scorebook. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |