from
stringlengths 3
223
⌀ | subject
stringlengths 2
120
⌀ | organization
stringlengths 1
116
⌀ | text
stringlengths 1
160k
| label
class label 20
classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | Stephen F. Austin State University | In article <C5sDyp.C6E@bony1.bony.com>, billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) writes:
> In article <C5rLnE.4pC@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.Virginia.EDU (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
>
>>Arms? Automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers? The sorts of things
>>no family should be without, I guess. Anyway, I've often wondered what
>>business followers of Christ would have with weapons. It's hard to imagine a
>>pistol-packin' Jesus, though I suppose a pump-action shotgun would have
>>made clearing the temple a hell of a lot easier.
>
> FYI, these people were not "followers of Christ". David Koresh was
> their messiah.
After all, if the FBI had thought Koresh was a true prophet, wouldn't
they have burned the building the first day of the siege?
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Joe Gaut | In the super-state, it really does not
<f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> | matter at all what actually happened.
Red-neck and proud of it. | Truth is what the government chooses to
| tell you. Justice is what it wants to happen.
Jim Garrison, New Orleans, La.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
lovall@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Daniel L. Lovall) | Re: Cannibalism was Albert Sabin | Purdue University Physics Department | In article <zxmkr08.733955549@studserv> zxmkr08@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (C
ornelius Krasel) writes:
>In <f1q4yUc@quack.kfu.com> pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>
>>In article <1pk2d0$7q1@access.digex.net>
>>huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>>>In article <f1n#0EP@quack.kfu.com> pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes
:
>>>}Do you have any examples of ritual cannibalism, particulary amongst the
>>>}primates?
>>>Why the "ritual" qualifier?
>
>>I was thinking of instances were a particular food or foods or drinks
>>are used to symbolize or ritualize cannibalism. Do you know of any human
>>cultures that have this type of mythology? For example, where one might
>>eat a food as representative of the body of a god, thus ritualized
>>cannibalism in the absence of the original.
>
>I know of ritual cannibalism among tribes in Papua-Neuguinea (?).
>They used to eat the brain of killed opponents. Sometimes these brains
>contained infectious agents which lead to a disease called "Kuru".
>Since cannibalism was banished by the government, the number of Kuru
>cases has dropped sharply.
>
Oh, yeah? Well---*I* know of ....
Anyways, cannibalism is much more commmon than those who feel that it is wrong
(and then point out that the fact that western civilisation doesn't do it is
PROOF positive that we are more advanced) would have us believe. Cannibalism
is often used in funeral ceremonies as a way of keeping the deceased loved one
alive. Many other cultures (including many American Indian cultures) eat/ate
the flesh of slain enemies, often as a way of showing respect for the valor of
the departed. Hearts are often favored for this, as it contains the spirit.
Have you ever read or seen "Alive", which is the story of the Argentinian boys
soccer team that crashed in the Andes and then ate the bodies of those who died
in order to survive? Finger lickin good. How about the Twighlight Zone
episode "To Serve Man"?
If you want more info on this, a good place to start is on sci.anthropology
Now send me $20 and eat my flesh,
Dan
lovall@physics.purdue.edu
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
zxmkr08@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Cornelius Krasel) | Re: The _real_ probability of abiogenesis (was Re: Albert Sabin) | InterNetNews at ZDV Uni-Tuebingen | In <1qc6tiINNhie@ctron-news.ctron.com> king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
>adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>>1) We're not just talking about proteins. In fact, we shouldn't be
>>talking about proteins at all, since (if I have to say this again I'm
>>goint to be really upset) *nobody*claims*that*proteins*appeared*de*
>>*novo*
>>the proteins did not form randomly.
>>
>Before I repond to 2.), Andy, please clarify 1.). You state that
>proteins did not form randomly. That seems to be my point.
Well, I am not Andy, but if you had familiarized yourself with some of
the current theories/hypotheses about abiogenesis before posting :-), you
would be aware of the fact that none of them claims that proteins were
assembled randomly from amino acids. It is current thinking that RNA-
based replicators came before proteinaceous enzymes, and that proteins
were assembled by some kind of primitive translation machinery.
Now respond to 2. :-)
--Cornelius.
--
/* Cornelius Krasel, Department of Physiological Chemistry, U Tuebingen */
/* email: krasel@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de */
/* "People are DNA's way of making more DNA." (R. Dawkins / anonymous) */
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | sgi | In article <1qukq0$b18@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> In article <1qkna8$k@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> #In article <1qjclt$nh7@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> #|> In article <1qiore$20b@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> #|> #
|> #|> #The intended audience is the set of people who *are* convinced
|> #|> #by those arguments, who therefore finish up as church members.
|> #|> #It doesn't need to be everyone, just enough to count.
|> #|>
|> #|> This is completely refuted by the evidence that I do not belong to any
|> #|> church, and am in fact an agnostic. I'm not canvassing for church
|> #|> members.
|> #
|> #Where did I say that you were a Church member? I just said
|> #that people who buy your kind of arguments finish up as church
|> #members. There's still time.
|>
|> Ho hum. Another confidently asserted falsehood. Counterexample: Ayn Rand.
Randism isn't a church?
|>
|> #|> #It's like GM stays in business as long as *some* people buy
|> #|> #GM cars, so they make their cars for the people who are willing
|> #|> #to buy GM cars. And that's why GM cars are GM cars, and why
|> #|> #Frank's argument are Frank's arguments.
|> #|>
|> #|> Nonsense. Reality is not a business, and I have nothing to sell.
|> #
|> #You undervalue yourself, Frank. You're one of the slickest
|> #salesmen I've seen.
|> #
|> #Not, of course, The Greatest Salesman in the World. That was
|> #Jesus, wasn't it?
|>
|> No, that was Aristotle, in so far as I can extract any meaning from
|> your Newspeak.
Not according to the book of the same name.
jon.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) | Re: The gospels, Josephus, etc and origins | animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome | In article <1993Apr21.225146.20804@rambo.atlanta.dg.com> wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
> The macroevolutionary tree is full of holes. (Please show me a few
> intermediate forms between reptile and bird.)
Are you so ignorant that you have never heard of _Archaeopteryx_?
> // Bill Rawlins <wpr@atlanta.dg.com> //
The special creation "theory" is nothing but holes. Please show me a
species poofed into existence by your god. I have never seen this.
Chris Colby --- email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu ---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu | Re: Burden of Proof | Wesleyan University | In article <1r6uojINN94b@barney.cs.city.ac.uk>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>
> I think you have are addressing the wrong issue. The situation
> is more like: we both see some elves. This is established as
> fact since we can both touch them etc. Then one of us says, the
> elves have always been with us. The other says, no no there was
> a time before elves were here. Which is the positive argument?
I think you are using the wrong analogy. A better one would be:
you see some elves. I don't. Where is the burden of proof there?
Karl
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "Lastly, I come to China in the hope | "All you touch and all you see |
| of fulfilling a lifelong ambition - | Is all your life will ever be." |
| dropping acid on the Great Wall." --Duke | --Pink Floyd |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| A Lie is still a Lie even if 3.8 billion people believe it. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) | Re: Question for those with popular morality | Microsoft Corp. | In article <1993Apr03.044958.15500@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
>understand what the words mean. Someone who inflicts pain on themselves
>because they enjoy it is a masochist.
>
>And, no: there is nothing wrong with it. You may think it's gross or
>bizarre (and I might agree with you here), but my/your disgust is not equal
>to it being morally wrong.
/(hudson)
/If someone inflicts pain on themselves, whether they enjoy it or not, they
/are hurting themselves. They may be permanently damaging their body.
That is true. It is also none of your business.
Some people may also reason that by reading the bible and being a Xtian
you are permanently damaging your brain. By your logic, it would be OK
for them to come into your home, take away your bible, and send you off
to "re-education camps" to save your mind from ruin. Are you ready for
that?
/(hudson)
/And why is there nothing wrong with it? Because you say so? Who gave you
/the authority to say that, and set the standard for morality?
Why?
Because:
I am a living, thinking person able to make choices for myself.
I do not "need" you to show me what you think is the way; I have observed
too many errors in your thinking already to trust you to make up the
rules for me.
Because:
I set the standard for my *own* morality, and I permit you to do
the same for yourself. I also do not try to force you to accept my rules.
Because:
Simply because you don't like what other people are doing doesn't give you
the right to stop it, Hudson. We are all aware that you would like for
everyone to be like you. However, it is obnoxious, arrogant thinking like
yours, the "I-know-I'm-morally-right-so-I-can-force-it-on-you" bullshit
that has brought us religious wars, pogroms against Jews, gay-bashing,
and other atrocities by other people who, like you, "knew" they were
morally right.
(me)
>What is it with you, Hudson? You think you know better than other people,
>so you want to be able to tell them what they can and cannot do to
>themselves? Who died and made you God? How come I can't do the same
>thing?
/(hudson)
/Aren't you? Aren't you indicating that I should not tell other people what
to do? Aren't you telling me it is wrong for me to do that?
It is not a moral standard that I am presenting you with, Hudson. It is
a key to getting along in life with other people. It is also a point of
respect: I trust other people to be intelligent enough to make their
own choices, and I expect the same to be returned. You, on the other
hand, do not trust them, and want to make the choice for them--whether
they like it or not.
It is also a way to avoid an inconsistency: if you believe that you have
the right to set moral standards for others and interfere in their lives,
then you must, by logic, admit that other people have the same right of
interference in your life.
(Yes, I know; you will say that your religion is correct and tells you that
only agents acting in behalf of your religion have the right of interference.
However, other people will say that you have misinterpreted the Word of
God and that *they* are the actual true believers, and that you are
acting on your own authority. And so it goes).
(hudson)
/Who gave
/you the authority to set such a moral standard for me to tell me that I
/cannot set a moral standard for others?
You can set all the standards that you want, actually. But don't be surprised
if people don't follow you like rats after the Pied Piper.
At the most basic form, I am not going to LET you tell me what to do;
and if necessary, I will beat you to a bloody pulp before I let you actually
interfere in my life.
Now, at a more humane level than that, I recognize that all people are
sentient beings possessed of intelligence and capable of reason. I also
recognize that they, like I, appreciate being treated with respect and
allowed to make their own decisions.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
amirza@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Caves) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | Indiana University | In article <gordonsC5rLn3.799@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><solovayC5rKCn.5J9@netcom.com> solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay) writes:
>>
>>(Am I the only one who's reminded of Masada?)
>
>Gentleman, are we also forgetting the near genocide of the Native American
>for the barbaric act of being "heathen" (i.e. a non-Christian) by a
>predominantly Christian government. That's a little over 200 years as I
>recall. I'd say that for the most part it was religious persecution
>(their religion dictated their lifestyle).
No, it wasn't religious persecution. They were in the way of a
greedy, better armed, better supported people. Painting your enemies
as barbarians is one of the oldest, and most well used tactics.
--
Anmar Mirza # Chief of Tranquility #My Opinions! NotIU's!#CIANSAKGBFBI
EMT-D # Base, Lawrence Co. IN # Legalize Explosives!#ASSASINATEDEA
N9ISY (tech) # Somewhere out on the # Politicians prefer #NAZIPLUTONIUM
Networks Tech.# Mirza Ranch.C'mon over# unarmed peasants. #PRESIDENTFEMA
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
jmeritt@mental.MITRE.ORG (Jim Meritt - System Admin) | An invisible God! | UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway | God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts."
(Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his
friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."
(Gen. 32:30)
God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man
see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)
Pick what you want!
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera | In article <1rdlsf$vi@agate.berkeley.edu>, isaackuo@skippy.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo) writes:
=Hmm. The police strategy of bursting in with weapons drawn, clearly marked as
=officers and yelling "Police" repeatedly. This is used every day to bust drug
=houses. The idea is to awe the suspects into submission with surprise and
=display of firepowere in order to avoid a gun fight. As for not knocking, it's
=a sad necessity in many cases since the suspects will attempt to escape or even
=fight. Usually this strategy works; if it didn't, then it wouldn't be used so
=commonly, now would it?
How often is it used when the convoy carrying the brigade is visible for miles
before it reaches the place that's to be searched?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) | Re: Part 1 and part 2 (re: Homosexuality) | Colorado Springs IT Center | hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
> In article <m0njXCg-0000VEC@juts.ccc.amdahl.com> rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com writes:
>
> >Why don't we just stick to the positive and find ways to bring people
> >to Jesus istead of taking bullwhips and driving them away?
>
> Certainly we should not use a bullwhip to drive people from Jesus.
> But we shouldn't water down the gospel to draw people in.
Very well put. And, in the case of someone who calls himself a Christian
brother yet continues in his sin (and claims that his sin is not a sin at
all, but perfectly acceptable), what should be done? Should Christians
just ignore a sinful lifestyle in order to not offend the person? By
reaffirming that the lifestyle is sinful according to the Bible, are
they using "a bullwhip to drive people from Jesus"?
Frankly, I find the occurance of a homosexual Christian attempting to
pass himself off as a 'straight' Christian in order to have other
Christians accept his chastisement better a *lot* more serious than
people reaffirming that the Bible teaches homosexuality is a sin.
Walter
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
anthony.landreneau@ozonehole.com (Anthony Landreneau) | RE: Abortion | Ozone Online Operations, Inc., DBA The Ozone Hole BBS | To: hsims@vax.clarku.edu
From: anthony.landreneau@ozonehole.com
HS>Do you also think we shouldn't fund treatment for heart disease, since after
HS>all, those people are in that situation because of their lifestyle
HS>(overeating, lack of exercise, etc)? What about skin cancer patients
HS>(tanning), lung cancer patients (smoking), car accident victims (driving)?
Man Heather, you are trying to make me think again. First, heart
disease, we are all going to die.
To answer your question above, why should people who are
responsible pay for the irresponsible acts of others? One
more time, if you are going to engage in an act (eating, watching the
tube, smoking, drinking, driving (drinking and driving) you should be
responsible for your actions and the conquences of that action.
HS>Why limit yourself to just situations which are related to sexual behavior?
I'am not, it is just that babies are dieing and I need to move on that
right now. Do one thing right and do it well.
HS>Shouldn't we make all the people mentioned above take all the responsibility
HS>for their situation and not ask you to pay for it, since they too chose the
HS>course they led?
Couldn't have said it better.
Anthony
* SLMR 2.1 * Elvis has left the Room!
----
The Ozone Hole BBS * A Private Bulletin Board Service * (504)891-3142
3 Full Service Nodes * USRobotics 16.8K bps * 10 Gigs * 100,000 Files
SKYDIVE New Orleans! * RIME Network Mail HUB * 500+ Usenet Newsgroups
Please route all questions or inquiries to: postmaster@ozonehole.com
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) | Re: Abortion | Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division | In article <27687.463.uupcb@ozonehole.com> anthony.landreneau@ozonehole.com (Anthony Landreneau) writes:
>To answer your question above, why should people who are
>responsible pay for the irresponsible acts of others? One
Don't understand the concept of insurance, do you Anthony?
What is insurance for?
To spread the cost of illness/accident/etc that does occur in a small
percentage of cases, over many. Those who do not face the accident/etc
have peace of mind that they would not be devestated if they did, those
who do face the accident/etc *are* not devestated (financially anyhow)
in dealing with it.
This 'irresponsible' label in reference to normal but rare life occurances is
stupid. Bad things happen to good people, too, you know.
Adrienne Regard
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) | Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions | University of Georgia, Athens | In article <bskendigC51CqB.K0r@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>Specifically: when I bring up the fact that Genesis contains two
>contradictory creation stories, I usually get blank stares or flat
>denials. I've never had a fundamentalist acknowledge that there are
>indeed two different accounts of creation.
That is because two creation stories is one of the worst examples of
a difficulty with the Bible. "were formed" can also be translated "had been
formed" in chapter two without any problems. So the text does not demand
that there are two creation stories.
Link Hudson.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | Georgia Institute of Technology | In article <C5rLnE.4pC@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.Virginia.EDU (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
:In article <1qvfik$6rf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes:
:
:>Now that Big Brother has rubbed out one minority religion in Waco,
:
:It seems they offed themselves, perhaps in the self-fulfillment of
:prophecy. Wouldn't be the first time.
No, it wouldn't be the first time a group has committed suicide to avoid the
shame of capture and persecution. Ask the Jews. Go visit the ruins of Masada.
:
:>We used to live in a country where everyone enjoyed the free exercise of
:>their rights to worship and bear arms.
:
:Arms? Automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers? The sorts of things
:no family should be without, I guess. Anyway, I've often wondered what
:business followers of Christ would have with weapons. It's hard to imagine a
:pistol-packin' Jesus, though I suppose a pump-action shotgun would have
:made clearing the temple a hell of a lot easier.
Automatic weapons? Grenades? Rocket launchers? I didn't see any, other than
the ones toted by the government. I have a feeling the BATF/FBI would have
been much more cautious had the BD's had a case or two of LAWS... would have
made a real hash of their cattle cars.
:
:>I'll bet all you cult haters are happy now, right? Just hope you're not next.
:
:Well, when the nice federal officers come to my house to check out my
:extensive weapons cache, I'll just be sure not to shoot at them.
:"Tea, ladies and gentlemen?"
That's nice... anybody attacks me, my home, or my loved ones with grenades or
automatic weapons and they won't be the only ones dealing death and destruction.
Uncle Sammie was kind enough to provide me with an education that included
studying the Constitution, and even threw in a lot of time on the rifle range...
My oath never said anything about bowing to tyranny, although it did include
"to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
both foreign and domestic"
:
:It's very sad all those people died, especially the kids, but that's going
:to happen in a free society whenever psychologically needy people hook up
:with a charismatic nutcase.
How free a society is it when a religous minority is attacked by an armed
branch of government... especially when the most the BATF would have had
jurisdiction for would have been essentially tax-evasion... Hope you got your
1040 in on time. From what you've said, shit happens and we should just sit
back and accept it. Not on your life! My ancestors came to this country to
escape religous intolerence, and earned their freedom with blood and cordite...
I'll defend mine with the same, if need be...
:
:--
:Peter M. Yadlowsky | Wake! The sky is light!
And Peter is from an academic institution... that used to mean something... but then again, so did the Bill of Rights... lemme see, where's that Brown Bess??
James
former commander, Counter-Insurgency Club
(a student government chartered student organization at Georgia Tech)
--
********************************************************************************
James S. Cochrane * When in danger, or in doubt, run in * This space
gt6511a@prism.gatech.edu * circles, scream and shout. * for rent
********************************************************************************
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | Johns Hopkins University CS Dept. | In article <2017@tecsun1.tec.army.mil> riggs@descartes.etl.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>The second question is, "What makes Gerry think that the
>Davidians' actions would have been different had another type of warrant
>been in use ?"
Just taking a guess, perhaps it was that Koresh had peaceably been served
with warrants before, and he did not shoot anyone but instead went with the
police without fighting.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Turkey Casserole
that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ... Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
-- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)
Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
<A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET> | Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick | City University of New York |
What an exciting thread (finally!)
Mitra is Sanskrit for Friend, as such He started out as an avatar of Lord Visnu
mentioned first in the Vedas. Later he seems to have risen to chief prominence
worshipped by the Persians. Associated with the Sun but NOT the Sun, he is
the lord of contract honor and obedience, therefore naturally worshipped by
soldiers. He was ordered by the Sun to slay the bull of heaven and He reluct-
antly agreed because of His obligation...the blood of that bull spilled and
grew all earth life...then Mitra and the Sun sat down to eat.
Worship of Lord Mitra ended in Persia with the ascension of the Zoroastrians.
Hundreds of years later He was rediscovered and thrown into the Official Roman
Pantheon (tm) for some semi-tricky reason, I forget why. But all references of
Him ended abruptly when He was stricken from same, so apparently His worship
was some sort of vehicle for advancement in the bureaucracy, like membership
in the Communist Party was in the Soviet Bloc. The sociology of religion in
ancient times is fascinating!
Oh, His B-day was 25 Dec. Ahem.
I am not sure if the mystery cult really lasted after His was booted from the
Roman Imperial God Roster or what. It contained mostly soldiers, with 7 levels
of initiation. They worshipped underground in caverns in pews. The bull horns
in those temples were for scaring away or impaling evil spirits, I'm not sure
that they had Mithraic significance or not.
I don't know that the ritual meal was of a cannibalistic nature as is the
Christian masses. But eating deities goes way back to Old Kingdom Egypt.
Someone mentioned bullfighting. Did Mithraists sacrifice bulls? I forget. More
likely, for a religious source, might be the shower of bull's blood enjoyed
by the worshippers of Cybele on the Day of Blood? Cybele worship extended all
throughout even up to France bigtime.
-------
CHARLES HOPE A54SI@CUNYVM A54SI@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
GOVERNMENT BY REPORTERS...MEDIA-OCRACY.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) | Re: Flaming Nazis | Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept. | In article <1993Apr18.020655.14233@news.cs.brandeis.edu> deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>Okay, I'll bite. I should probably leave this alone, but what the heck...
>
>In article <1993Apr14.124301.422@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>,
>gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>>In article <TT3R2B5w165w@brewich.hou.tx.us> popec@brewich.hou.tx.us
>>(Pope Charles) writes:
>>
>>>Rhoemer was the name of the guy responsible for much of the uniforms,
>>>and props used by the early Nazis in their rallies and such.
>>
>>The name is Roehm, not Rhoemer. And Hitler does claim that he came up
>>with the Swastika business.
>
>But didn't he credit the actual flag design to a party member - some dentist or
>other? I believe he gives such credit in Mein Kampf.
>
>>>He was killed in an early Nazi purge. He and many of his associates
>>>were flaming homosexuals well know also for their flamboyant orgies.
>>
>>I have been trying to find if there is any actual evidence for this
>>common assertion recently. Postings to such groups as soc.history and
>>soc.culture.german has not uncovered any net.experts who could provide
>>any.
>
>Well, I'm no expert, but all of the histories of Nazi Germany assert this. They
>make reference to several scandals that occurred long before "the night of the
>long knives". The impression that I got was that homosexuality in portions of
>the SA was common knowledge. Also, a book (by a homosexual author whose name
>escapes me at the moment) called "Homosexuals in History" asserts that Roehm
>and Heines were homosexuals, as well as others in Roehm's SA circle.
[Rest deleted. Can anybody out in a.p.h help out?]
Find out about "the night of the brown shirts".
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza. OK???=
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) | Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions | Youngstown State/Youngstown Free-Net |
Someone posted a list of x number of alleged Bible contradictions. As Joslin
said, most people do value quantity over quality. Dave Butler posted some good
quality alleged contradictions that are taking a long time to properly exegete.
If you want a good list (quantity) - _When Critics Ask, A Popular Handbook On
Bible Difficulties_ by Dr. Norman Geisler deals with over 800 alleged contradictions.
Frank
--
"If one wished to contend with Him, he could not answer Him one time out
of a thousand." JOB 9:3
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) | Re: Albert Sabin | DGSID, Atlanta, GA | |> >|>
|> >|> However, I have read a book:
|> >|>
|> >|> GA Wells, _Did_Jesus_Exist_
|> >|>
|> >|> ISBN 0301860025
|> >|>
|> >|> I found it to be thorough and interesting, but perhaps not the end of the
|> >|> story.
|> >|>
|> >|> Perhaps you should read it and stop advancing the Bible as evidence relating
|> >|> to questions of science.
|> >
|> > There is a great fallacy in your statement. The question of origins is
|> > based on more than science alone. If you met a man who could walk on
|> > water, raise people from the dead, claimed to be the Son of God, and
|> > then referred to the inviolability of the scriptures, this would affect
|> > your belief in the origin of man. (I can expand on this.) Science and
|> > the Bible are not in contradiction. God can supercede the scientific
|> > "laws" as man understands them. Creation is a good example. God has the
|> > power to create something out of nothing, order out of chaos.
|> > If the title of the book you mentioned has anything to do with the
|> > substance of the book, it must be a real laugher. Of course Jesus existed,
|> > and there are volumes of evidence to back it up. I can give many if you
|> > are interested.
|> If I were to experience this strange creature for myself perhaps...
|>
|> However, one highly biased account (as well as possibly internally
|> inconsistent) written over 2 mellenia ago, in a dead language, by fanatic
|> devotees of the creature in question which is not supported by other more
|> objective sources and isnt even accepted by those who's messiah this creature
|> was supposed to be, doesn't convince me in the slightest, especially when many
|> of the current day devotees appear brainwashed into believing this pile of
|> guano...
Since you have referred to the Messiah, I assume you are referring
to the New Testament. Please detail your complaints or e-mail if
you don't want to post. First-century Greek is well-known and
well-understood. Have you considered Josephus, the Jewish Historian,
who also wrote of Jesus? In addition, the four gospel accounts
are very much in harmony.
==========================================================
// Bill Rawlins <wpr@atlanta.dg.com> //
// "I speak for myself only" //
==========================================================
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | Cookamunga Tourist Bureau | In article <2855@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM>,
tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) wrote:
> In article <1993Apr20.220340.2585@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
> >armed to the teeth. A Christian should not have to rely on physical weapons
> >to defend himself. A Christian should rely on his faith and intelligence.
> Faith and intelligence tell me that when a druggie breaks into my house at
> night with a knife to kill me for the $2 in my wallet, a .357 is considerably
> more persuasive than having devotions with him.
...in other words faith in a .357 is far stronger than faith in a
God providing a miracle for his followers. Interesting. Now, if
David Korresh was God, why couldn't he use lightning instead of
semi-automatic rifles? It seems even he didn't trust in himself.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
<34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET> | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | null | In article <1993Apr20.203503.8672@news.cs.brandeis.edu>,
st922957@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (Arnold Schwarzenweisengreenbluenbraunenburger)
says:
>
>Actually, the assault wasn't without warning. The FBI called and said to
>them if they didn't come out they would be gassed. THe Agent was hung up
>on. They knew.
Do you have any independent verification for this statement, or is
this glib assertion based on unquestioning acceptance of the
metamorphic narrative being issued ex post facto by the FBI?
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) | Davidians and compassion | Cookamunga Tourist Bureau | So we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire
on their house, killing most of the people inside.
I'm not that annoyed about the adults, they knew supposedly what
they were doing, and it's their own actions.
What I mostly are angry about is the fact that the people inside,
including mothers, let the children suffer and die during awful
conditions.
If this is considered religious following to the end, I'm proud
that I don't follow such fanatical and non-compassionate religions.
You might want to die for whatever purpose, but please spare
the innocent young ones that has nothing to do with this all.
I have a hard time just now understanding that Christianity
knows about the word compassion. Christians, do you think
the actions today would produce a good picture of your
religion?
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
ins559n@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Andrew Bulhak) | Re: New Religion Forming -- Sign Up | Monash University | Jim Kasprzak (kasprj@isaac.its.rpi.edu) wrote:
: In article <=4z5wqc@rpi.edu>, weinss@rs6101.ecs.rpi.edu (Stephen Andrew Weinstein) writes:
: |> Let me begin by saying I think this is the world's first religion to use
: |> the net as its major recruitment medium. Therefore, even if this
: |> religion does not take off, its founding members will be very important
: |> historically as this method of soliciting membership will eventually become
: |> common.
:
: So what is Kibology? Chopped liver?
Kibo Himself summed it up by saying "Kibology is not just a religion, it is
also a candy mint ... and a floor wax." I personally think that it is more
like Spam Clear.
:
: You really should check out alt.religion.kibology, as Kibo's religion is
: slightly older than yours, makes more sense and has more slack.
Yes! Why send money to B0B when Kibo will pay you to worship him. (Funny, he
doesn't seem to have paid me...)
: ------------------------------------------------------------------
: __ Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State...
: ___/ | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
: /____ *| "I understand the causes, and sympathize your motivations,
: \_| But all the details of this war are just your self-infatuation."
: ==== e-mail: kasprj@rpi.edu or kasprzak@mts.rpi.edu
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Andrew Bulhak | |
| acb@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | David Koresh fried for your sins. |
| Monash Uni, Clayton, | |
| Victoria, Australia | |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) | Re: A KIND and LOVING God!! | Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C. |
In article <sandvik-150493181533@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr15.200231.10206@ra.royalroads.ca>,
|> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
|> > These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had
|> > expressly set apart from the rest of the world. The Israelites were a
|> > direct witness to God's existence. To disobey God after KNOWing that God
|> > is real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately punishable.
|> > Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to
|> > God's chosen people. But Jesus has changed all of that. We are living in the
|> > age of grace. Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death. There is
|> > repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. And not just
|> > for a few chosen people. Salvation is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile
|> > alike.
|>
|> Jews won't agree with you, Malcolm.
|>
|> Cheers,
|> Kent
|> ---
|> sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
A lot of people won't agree with me. That's their right and I respect that.
However, to the point, Jews are also covered by the saving grace of Jesus
Christ. There are Jews who have become Christians.
This brings up another question I still have to ponder: why is there so
much anti-Semitism? Why do people hate Jews? I don't hate Jews. I consider
them to be like anyone else, sinners we all are.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) | Re: Christians above the Law? was Clarification of pe | Cookamunga Tourist Bureau | In article <C62AIG.L62@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu
(Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> In article <C61Kow.E4z@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
> >>Jesus was a JEW, not a Christian.
> If a Christian means someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus, it is safe
> to say that Jesus was a Christian.
I would label him rather an original Christian, not a Pauline Christian,
though. Sad that the original church lost the game.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) | Re: Abortion | null | In article <27403.463.uupcb@ozonehole.com>, anthony.landreneau@ozonehole.com (Anthony Landreneau) writes:
>To: rcstage1@urc.tue.nl (Stage usercode)
>From: anthony.landreneau@ozonehole.com
>
>SU>> When one person is the cause of another's heart to stop beating,
>SU>> that one has committed murder.
>
So kill a cow, you're a murderer?
-jim halat
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) | Re: ABORTION and private health coverage -- letters regarding | Cookamunga Tourist Bureau | In article <1qk73q$3fj@agate.berkeley.edu>, dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis
Kriz) wrote:
> >"Just sign it and send it, sonny, don't read the fine print. Just
> >sign it, sonny! :-).
> If you are paying for a phone, and you don't want call-waiting, YOU DON'T
> NEED TO PAY FOR CALl-WAITING.
>
> This whole Clinton induced abortion debate SHOULD begin to make NARAL
> nervous, because it has exposed a real scam.
Dennis, there are 1E6 things I pay taxes for, and that I don't approve
of, such as paying lawyers to postpone death sentences, creating
silly weapons that are never used, placing China as the preferred
nation while China doesn't have any human rights.
The democracy works by selecting the people you want to govern and
to make sure that your opinion is heard. Remember what Spock said:
"the needs of the few outweight the needs of the many".
As long as government spending does not contradict the Constitution
I don't see any problems in a case where the people have selected
a group of people to make decisions in one direction. And if this is
bad, then we should elect a new government. Democratic systems work
this way, and I don't have anything against you raising an opinion
in your case.
I just hope you realize that each individual should make their
own judgement, and posting pre-filled letters sounds like you
don't trust your fellow Americans to utter their own opinion,
just your own.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Who, me??? | In article <pww-180493195323@spac-at1-59.rice.edu> pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker) writes:
>In article <1993Apr18.210407.10208@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
>Darcy) wrote:
>> The phenomenologist Husserl, for one, considered Intentionality to be the
>> primary ontological "stuff" from which all other ontology was built --
>> perceptions, consciousness, thoughts, etc. Frank is by no means alone in
>> seeing intentionality (or "values", as he puts it) underlying all human
>> experience, even the so-called "objective" experiences, such as
>> measurements of the natural world, or the output of your DES chip.
>
>And others of us see it as intellectual masturbation.
I'll defer to your greater firsthand knowledge in such matters.
- Kevin
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Siemens-Nixdorf AG | In article <1qkn25$k@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
#In article <1qjb40$n4f@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
#|> In article <1qijer$a2r@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> taite@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu () writes:
#|> #you can't force your view of objective morality on me.
#|>
#|> Try me.
#|>
#|> [Note to readers outside t.a. :
#|>
#|> taite has been advocating violent civil disobedience in the U.S.
#|> in order to promote his view that abortion should be illegal. Given the
#|> necessity and the opportunity, I would have no objection to "forcing"
#|> morality on him, if that's what it would take to prevent him carrying out
#|> his stated desire to "hang women who have multiple abortions"]
#
#What do you mean when you say "I would have no objection?"
Right, I mean that I would approve of, and if necessary (it isn't)
assist in such force.
#Do you mean it's moral to use force on someone who advocates
#the use of force?
With a few provisos, yes. Minimum force, for a start. And, it
depends on what is being forced (on either side).
#Or do you mean that sometimes we have to use force on such
#people out of necessity or self-defence, while recognizing
#that our own actions in doing so are not moral?
My opinion is that our actions would be moral, and it would be
immoral not to act if action would be both necessary and effective.
Again, there many caveats and provisios.
Note, my usage of "my opinion" is an admission that I don't have a lock
on morals, not that there is no truth about morality to have a lock on.
#jon.
--
Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
odwyer@sse.ie from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
caldwell@facman.ohsu.edu (Larry Caldwell) | Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick | Oregon Health Sciences University | kosinski@us.oracle.com (Kevin Osinski) writes:
>I recall reading in Michael (?) Rutherford's novel "Sarum" a scene in
>which the son of a Roman nobleman living in Britain takes part in a
>secret ceremony involving a bull. He stands naked in a pit covered
>with some sort of scaffolding while assistants coax a bull to stand on
>the scaffolding. They then fatally stab the bull, which douses the
>worshipper in the pit with blood. This is supposedly some sort of
>rite of passage for members of the bull cult. I wonder if this is
>related to the Mithras cult?
>
>I don't know where Rutherford got his information for this chapter.
>The book is historical fiction, and most of the general events which
>take place are largely based on historical accounts.
There is a rite like this described in Joseph Campbell's
_Occidental_Mythology_. He also described levels of initiation, I think
6? I don't know where Campbell got his info, but I remember thinking he
was being a little eclectic.
>I also wonder what if any connection there is between the ancient bull
>cults and the current practice of bullfighting popular in some
>Mediterranean cultures.
Quite a bit. If you haven't read Campbell, give him a try.
--
-- Larry Caldwell caldwell@ohsu.edu CompuServe 72210,2273
Oregon Health Sciences University. (503) 494-2232
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) | Re: Is it good that Jesus died? | Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco | jasons@atlastele.com (Jason Smith) writes:
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>=
>= And I felt torn when I began to disagree with a lot of what the Bible
>= (and my priests) told me;
>
>Did it start getting a little uncomfortable? Did your style start feeling a
>bit cramped?
Yes, that's exactly what I felt. My heart just felt that what I was
being taught was *wrong* -- a basically good message, but framed in
errors. I could not with a clear conscience accept that women were
somehow not equal to men, that homosexuals are "guilty" of their
lifestyle, that pride in one's work is a bad thing, that Jesus died
for me -- I don't want ANYBODY to die for me, especially as an
impersonal act where the person can't possibly even *know* me well
enough to really know if I'm worth dying for or not.
I was never able to accept the bit about Jesus's death being a good
thing. If that means that I'm just not comprehending a basic message
of Christianity, then so be it. Maybe I'm just not compatible with
Christianity. I just refuse to follow rules blindly, and since I
can't even convince myself that your god even EXISTS in the way you
describe it, I've got to just follow my own conscience in these matters.
>I know how that goes. Knowing I couldn't and didn't want to
>live up to those impossibleand rather incovenient rules are what kept me
>outside, too.
Don't think that my morals are shoddy or nonexistent just because I
don't believe in your god. I will not steal, and I will not murder --
not because I fear divine repudiation, but because these just *aren't*
in my character. You may think there's nothing keeping me from just
running around on a murdering spree, stealing things when I'm able,
insulting people for the heck of it, because I'm not answerable to
anyone; but you'd be wrong. I'm answerable to myself. A life like
that would be a cheap life; I happen to want to earn respect in myself.
>'Till I met the Man, that is.
My initial break with Christianity came after a lot of soul-searching
and a lot of wondering why I could no longer feel the 'presence' of
God with me. I finally decided that I had once "felt" this presence
just as I had "felt" my mighty teddy bear beside me when I was a
little tyke, protecting me from the monsters under the bed -- that I
had believed in God just as I had believed in the teddy bear, as
something of an emotional crutch to protect me from perceived dangers.
Since then, I've never abandoned the possibility that maybe your
supernatural trinity does exist. But there are a few times when, in
my darkened room by my bed, I have set aside everything I believe for
a moment and called out to whatever's out there, because I want to
know the truth even if it means abandoning everything I know. And I
have not yet received an answer.
>= Only when I truly listened to myself, body and soul, did I realize
>= that I could no longer honestly keep up the charade of being
>= Christian. There is a higher truth in the universe, and Christianity
>= just ain't it.
>
>Any suggestions on what (or who or where) it might be, and why?
Nope. It may well be unknowable. Scientists have suggested that the
universe may be finite and wrap around on itself (the three-dimensional
universe may be mapped onto a four-dimensional supersphere in the same
way you can map a two-dimensional plane onto a three-dimensional
sphere; see _Sphereland_, the sequel to _Flatland_, for more thoughts
on this). Our entire universe might just be an electron in a four-
dimensional universe, which in turn may only be an insignificant speck
in a universe above that, and so on and so forth until the variables
become too much for us to even speculate on.
That is, there's no possible way for us to know exactly how we came to
be, so there's no reason at all to believe that your God exists nor
had anything to do with it.
>"OK," you may say. "So now, if I'm just being good, am I doing good enough?"
>
>That's for you to answer. If you feel you're doing fine, then go ahead and
>ignore us foolish little Christians. We can present what we've seen and
>experienced (providing our witness), but it isn't up to us to make that seed
>sprout.
Christians have provided me with nothing except quotes from your holy
book, and all sorts of tactics to try to get me to believe: guilt
trips, insinuations that I'm without morals, arguments from disbelief
("how can you possibly believe that God *doesn't* exist?"), and so
forth. All I'm asking is for you to convince me. I want to be convinced,
but it's not going to be easy.
>So much as you don't like what we're "selling", there just may be someone
>out there that can identify with it. Methinks you could give us all a
>lesson in tolerance and back off.
Having had years upon years of contact with your religion from both
the inside and the outside, I view it as harmful in many ways. It
preys on people who want to find meaning in their lives, and once it's
got these people, it teaches them to have pity (and sometimes starkly
intolerant) of others who do not share these views. Maybe you'll say
that your religion doesn't teach that -- but I've got to judge
Christianity from the Christians I know.
I feel that it is entirely possible and good to have faith in one's
self, and to be a positive influence on society for no better reason
than that.
So I hope that my words in this newsgroup will at least make some
people think. I want Christians to realize that there are perfectly
valid lifestyles and opinions that have nothing to do with their deity
whatsoever, and I want people who are considering Christianity to
realize that Christianity does not hold the sole key to a happy,
fulfilled life.
I have known some very nice Christians who have done some very nice
things. I think what sets these people apart from the general masses
is that they recognize that their religious beliefs may be wrong, and
they know the weaknesses of their religion, yet they still decide to
believe, but they keep their beliefs to themselves and do not think
any less of people who don't agree with them.
>Obviously, the debate on the veracity and reliability of the Source of the
>Christian's faith is far from conclusive, notwithstanding how vehemently we
>propose otherwise.
Precisely my point. You've still not given me a reason to be a
Christian instead of a Buddhist or a Moslem...
>= The nice thing about religion, if you lose yourself deeply enough in
>= it, is that eventually you'll be able to feel justified in most
>= anything you want to do.
>
>Y'know your right. Fortunately for everyone around me, I'm not religious.
>I'm a Christian.
... just as the Moslems aren't religious, and the Buddhists aren't
religious. Who *is* religious, then?
--
_/_/_/ Brian Kendig Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/ bskendig@netcom.com de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/ n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
/ The meaning of life Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
/ is that it ends. -- Rousseau
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) | Re: A KIND and LOVING God!! | Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C. |
In article <1993Apr22.203851.3081@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com>, bittrolff@evans.enet.dec.com () writes:
|>
|> In article <1993Apr20.143754.643@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
|>
|> |>BTW, David Koresh was NOT
|> |>Jesus Christ as he claimed.
|>
|> How can you tell for sure? Three days haven't passed yet.
|>
Well, where is he? Another false Messiah shot down in flames.
Matthew 24:4
"Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my
name, claiming, 'I am the Christ', and will deceive many."
Matthew 24:23
"At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!'
or 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and
false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles
to deceive even the elect - if that were possible. See, I have
told you ahead of time."
Do we listen? Sadly, not all of us do.
Peace be with you, and condolences to the families of those lost at
Waco.
Malcolm Lee
|> --
|> Steve Bittrolff
|>
|> The previous is my opinion, and is shared by any reasonably intelligent person.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) | Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened? | Project GLUE, University of Maryland, College Park | In article <C5w7CA.M3s@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tbrent@ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:
>
>If you check the news today, (AP) the "authorities also found a state-of-the-art
>automatic machine gun that investigators did not know was in the cult's arsenal."
>[Carl Stern, Justice Department]
Yeah. In a fire that reportedly burned hotter than 1000 degrees-- hot
enough to make the bodies still unidentifiable-- the authorities found
a gun that was recognizably fully-automatic and state of the art.
Isn't that CONVEEEENIENT?
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) | Is macroevolution science? (Was: Re: Rawlins debunks creationism) | University of Helsinki | Notice the followup-line.
In article <1993Apr15.223844.16453@rambo.atlanta.dg.com> wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
> We are talking about origins, not merely science. Science cannot
> explain origins.
So you have claimed, but you have never explained why. In detail.
For a person to exclude anything but science from
> the issue of origins is to say that there is no higher truth
> than science. This is a false premise. By the way, I enjoy science.
> It is truly a wonder observing God's creation. Macroevolution is
> a mixture of 15 percent science and 85 percent religion [guaranteed
> within three percent error :) ]
Again, you have claimed this, but you have never explained. You never
did explain how deducing macroevolution from its observable consequenses
(effects) is different from deducing Earth's roundness, its position in
the solar system, the existence of atoms and its components etc., from
observable effects.
Please do so or shut up on this subject.
Tero Sand
--
EMail: cust_ts@cc.helsinki.fi or custts@cc.helsinki.fi
"I feel most ministers who claim they've heard God's voice are eating
too much pizza before they go to bed at night, and it's really an
intestinal disorder, not a revelation." - Reverend Jerry Falwell
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) | Re: DID HE REALLY RISE??? | Microsoft Corp. |
/(emery)
/The one single historic event that has had the biggest impact on the
/world over the centuries is the resurrection of Jesus.
This is hardly possible, as the majority of people in the world were
born, lived their life, and died, without ever knowing anything about
Christ. The majority of the rest of the world have decided that he
is not who Emery thinks he is.
/(emery)
/Why were the writers of the New Testament documents so convinced that
/Jesus really did rise from the dead?
/We have four gospel accounts.
I am leaving out all "proofs" of Emery's which rely on quoting the
bible as proof. Circular reasoning, etc. There have been occasions
already stated many times for later generations of Xtians to change,
edit, or otherwise alter the bible to fit their political gospel.
And if we accept the bible as true just because the bible says it
is true, then (to be fair) we have to do the same to the Bhagavad-Gita
and the Koran, both of which contradict the bible.
Enough said.
/(emery)
/Yet we have no reason to believe these disciples to be immoral and dishonest.
/We have no historic information that would lead us to the conclusion that
/these people were not God-fearing people who sincerely and whole-heartedly
/believed that the resurrection of their Lord Jesus was a real event.
/And for what gain would they lie? To make a stand at that time meant
/persecution, imprisonment, and perhaps even death.
Again, this is only the biblical account and there is no independent proof
of any of this happening. It just isn't there.
Besides, simply being sincere or willing to die for your faith does not
make your faith correct. There are Muslims dying in Bosnia right now;
does the fact that they are willing to die for Islam mean that Islam is
the correct religion?
(emery)
/History bears out the persecution of Christians. Roman historian, Cornelius
/Tacitus, Govenor of Asia, in A.D. 112, writing of Nero's reign, alluded to
/the torture of Christians in Rome:
All you have proven is that these people were tortured for their faith. That
does not prove that their faith is true or correct; it just means that they
were sincere in their beliefs.
Being willing to die for what you believe doesn't make your belief the truth.
It's not that easy. And minority religions have always suffered torture;
Muslims suffer torture and harassment in India and Bosnia today. All religions
are harassed in China today. You haven't proven anything so far.
/(emery)
/With all the suffering and persecution that it meant to be a believer, it
/would be quite probable that at least one of those in the supposed conspiracy
/would come forward and confess that the whole thing was a big hoax.
Not if they didn't believe that it was a hoax.
/(emery)
/Yet not one did. It seems rather reasonable that the disciples did not make
/up the resurrection but sincerely believed that Jesus had actually risen
/from the dead; especially in light of the sufferings that came upon those
/who believed.
The followers of Muhammad firmly believed in the miracles that the Koran
says Muhammad performed. They were attacked and slaughtered for their
beliefs. They didn't denounce Muhammad or Islam. If you are correct,
then that means Islam is the true faith.
You see how stupid your proofs are?
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan) | Re: Is it good that Jesus died? | Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester | In article <1993Apr22.213142.6964@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
To you, it shouldn't matter if you do evil things or good things. It is
all meaningless in the end anyway. So go rob a bank. Go tell someone
you dislike that he is a dirty rotten slime bag. What's restraining you?
Generally, reciprocation.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
brom@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (David Bromage) | Re: New Religion Forming -- Sign Up | Monash University, Melb., Australia. | alt.religion.spam?
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is oxymoronic? | The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'. | In article <C5JrDE.M4z@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>Theory of Creationism: MY theistic view of the theory of creationism, (there
>are many others) is stated in Genesis 1. In the beginning God created
>the heavens and the earth.
Too bad you're starting off with a faulty translation. Try this instead:
When God began to create heaven and earth -- the earth being unformed
and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God
sweeping over the water -- God said, "Let there be light"; and there was
light. God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light from
the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called
Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day.
JPS:Tanakh ISBN:0-8276-0252-9
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com (Harry Erwin) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | TRW Systems Division, Fairfax VA | My apologies. I really didn't have the time to chase down a slew of
references from 10-20 years ago when I was looking at these issues.
>The mother church of Jerusalem disappeared when the Romans took the city.
>Despite some pious legends, the evidence seems to be that the members of
>the church died fighting the Romans during what they believed to be the
>last days. We know that certain Apostles had nicknames connecting them to
>Jewish terrorist groups. For the average inhabitant of the Roman Empire
>(especially after centuries of political instability and terror), the
>Roman policies in Palestine were heartily approved of. When studied with
a
>knowledge of cult psychology, Acts is eerily familiar, especially today.
1. The mother church did disappear at the time of the Roman attack. James
the Just was judicially murdered a few years earlier, but there is
evidence that the church survived him. There is no evidence that it still
existed after the assault on the city. The individuals historically
associated with that church disappear at that time.
2. The followers of Jesus included a number of individuals whose nicknames
suggested connections with the Jewish terrorism of the time (Zealotes,
Iscariot, "Sons of Thunder").
3. For cult psychology, there's an extensive literature.
4. For an understanding of the motivation of the members of the Jerusalem
church, there is a mixed collection of sources. The Anchor Bible has some
interesting articles, but one thing I've noticed about biblical
scholarship is that intellectual honesty and a skeptical approach are
notably lacking. You basically have to spread your net wide and then
winnow. (For example, Allegro and Schoenfeld have some interesting ideas,
but they were both "over the top.") Many interesting ideas have not been
followed up, mostly due to religious reasons. What was the connection of
early Christian theology to Samaritan dualism and proto-gnosticism? (See
Stephen's speech in Acts for a Samaritan interpretation of the
crucifixion.) Schweitzer's interpretation of Jesus's motivations could be
updated, especially now that we have the Essene and Chenoboskian
materials. And so it goes. (For instance, the convincing statistical
evidence concerning the authorship of the Pauline materials has been
completely ignored by biblical scholars.)
I don't track this area much any more. (My coursework is 20 years old.) I
have a personal theory that the synoptics were written in Syria during the
course of the Jewish Revolt. I suspect Mark was written before the fall of
Jerusalem as an apology to get the Romans and Roman-sympathizers off the
back of the local Greek Christians. Matthew and Luke were written with
similar goals, but incorporating additional materials. Given the evidence
in the Gospel of Thomas (Chenoboskien), I suspect Q came from a Samaritan
(proto-gnostic) milieu. In any case, they were written in an environment
cut off by time or circumstances from Jerusalem, not expecting further
contact, and not wanting to be connected by outsiders to the themes of the
doctrines held by the Jerusalem church.
Sorry about the lack of documentation, but the time is hard to find.
--
Harry Erwin
Internet: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com
Have found some interesting work...
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) | Cybele and Transgender/sexualism | The Portal System (TM) | 930425
Charles Hope writes:
Rome was under attack by barbarians, they sent for advice to some Oracle,
and she said Worship Cybele and you'll be saved. They did, they were.
Cybele was the quintessential wiccan goddess, there was Her and her son &
lover, Attis. Yucky idea if you ask me. OK the book says she was Phrygian,
from the neolithic matriarchal society Catal Huyuk (Turkey). Worshipped 1st
as Black Stone (that Kaaba in Mecca ring a bell maybe????) Carried to Rome
in 205BC to save them from Hannibal.
Response:
Is there some relation between the name 'Cybele' and the phenemenon of the
'sibyl'? Your paragraph above seems to indicate there might be.
My understanding is that Islam was founded on the remains of a goddess
cult or two. Many Muslims would not like to hear that. ;>
You:
It gets more interesting. Romans called her Great Mother (Magna Mater),
could be the reason why so many of those Mary statues in Europe are black,
prob. IS connected to that Ka'aba they've got in Mecca, 3rd cent. AD She was
supreme Goddess in Lyons, France . . . Attis was castrated and formed into
a pine tree . . . she should be worshiped on 25 Mar . . . in Rome it was
an ecstatic cult, her priests wore drag, worked themselves up in dance and
castrated themselves in order to initiate to her, lived their lives as women.
They wore make up and jewelry and the whole bit.
Only other such primitive transsexualism I know of goes on in India (where
else?) where they do that castration thing under some meditation maybe, I
forget by now...there's a book on that.)
Of course, that excepts that weird Russian / Romanian 18th cent. Xian cult
that did all kinds of self-castration too, I forget their name.
Response:
I'd love to get details or references on any of the above. My own exploration
of this issue has only extended to a brief examination of the Zuni 'berdache'.
_The Zuni Man-Woman_, by Will Roscoe, University of New Mexico Press, 1991
probably has some interesting things to say about them. I've yet to
procure it.
Any details or references on:
Ecstatic cults in Rome, India, Russia/Romania (Christian too?) which
exhibit any type of transsexualism or transvestitism, male OR female
(though I expect mostly the former will be found ;>).
Thanks for your interesting posts, Charles. :>
| WILL
\ | / LOVE
\\|// !! !!
__\\|//__ \{}}}{{{}/
____|___________|@@| "Come as you like shall be the whole of the Law."
| | - The Abyss
Thyagi / \
NagaSiva |(*)(*)| Thyagi@HouseofKAos.Abyss.com
\^^^^^^/ House of KAoS
-^^^^- 871 Ironwood Dr.
~~ San Jose, CA 95125-2815
'Fr.Nigris' on Divination Web
Telnet seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu 9393
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) | Re: Koresh Doctrine -- 4 of 4 | Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept. | In article <C5yy8I.EBn@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>
>In article <1993Apr23.171256.5541@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu(The_Doge) writes:
>
>|>
>|> Deleted: vast quantities of carefully-annoted spew from "David Koresh"
>|> I don't know about the rest of you, but I think Mr. Tice needs a hobby.
>
>He has one. He spent last summer telling everyone who doubted the word
>of the great Perot that they were bigotted perot-bashers, right up to the
>moment he chickened out on them. He then kept quiet for a bit and then
>came back when Perot re-entered.
>
This seems appropriate, somehow...>:-)>
>
>
[....]
>Then there is the rumour that Loresh in fact survived the fire in a secret
>hideyhole and rose again on the third day only to be spirited away by
>FBI agents and disposed of in order to prevent a cult following.
>
Hah! I have it on the very *best* authority (mine) that Koresh is
whooping it up in a time-share condo in Dallas with Elvis, JFK, and (of course)
J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, who also owns the place and everything else in Texas.
Look for "koresh" sightings in the Weekly World News and National
Enquirer in the coming months.
************************************************************
* The_Doge of South St. Louis *
* Dobbs-Approved Media Conspirator(tm) *
* "One Step Beyond" -- Sundays, 3 to 5 pm *
* 88.1 FM St. Louis Community Radio *
* "You'll pay to know what you *really* think!" *
* -- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs" *
************************************************************
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
cma@titan.ucs.umass.edu (COLIN MA) | Re: Albert Sabin | University of Massachusetts, Amherst | I just started reading this newsgroup and haven't been following the
thread. I'm just curious: How did this thread get started with
"Albert Sabin" and changed into something else? What was it about
Sabin that initiated a religious discussion?
Colin
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Siemens-Nixdorf AG | In article <pww-150493204912@spac-at1-59.rice.edu> pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker) writes:
#In article <1qkj31$4c6@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank
#O'Dwyer) wrote:
#> If there
#> is no objective worth, usefulness, or importance then science has no
#> objective worth, usefulness, or importance. If nothing is inherently
#> worthwhile or desirable, then simple theories with accurate predictions
#> are not inherently worthwhile or desirable. Do you see any flaws in this?
#>
#Count me for one. The simple theory that makes accurate predictions does so
#whether or not we value it.
If the quality x does not exist, nothing has quality x. Which part did
you not understand?
#Frank, you're desperately confusing science with the reasons we, as
#individuals and as a society, *want* to do science.
Peter, you may assert that I am confused about this all you want, but
wishing it does not make it so. A simple theory is not simple until
someone judges it to be. A theory merely makes predictions. Predictions
are not accurate until someone judges them to be. You are choosing
theories at subjective whim, in other words? At what point do things
get objective, Peter?
--
Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
odwyer@sse.ie from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
"Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> | Re: History & texts (was: Ancient references to Christianity) | Performance Systems Int'l | >DATE: 24 Apr 1993 11:53:48 -0500
>FROM: Russell Turpin <turpin@cs.utexas.edu>
>
>
>The diaries of the followers of the Maharishi, formerly of
>Oregon, are historical evidence.
Are you confusing Bhagwan Rajneesh (sp?) with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
here by any chance? I think Bhagwan was in Oregon with all the Rolls
Royces. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi founded Transcendental Meditation and
does the yogic flying stuff. Bhagwan's group was a communal, free sex
kind of thing. I think they both had beards, though.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) | Re: 14 Apr 93 God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7 | Cookamunga Tourist Bureau | In article <1qknu0INNbhv@shelley.u.washington.edu>, > Christian: washed in
the blood of the lamb.
> Mithraist: washed in the blood of the bull.
>
> If anyone in .netland is in the process of devising a new religion,
> do not use the lamb or the bull, because they have already been
> reserved. Please choose another animal, preferably one not
> on the Endangered Species List.
This will be a hard task, because most cultures used most animals
for blood sacrifices. It has to be something related to our current
post-modernism state. Hmm, what about used computers?
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) | Re: Albert Sabin | Ministry of Silly Walks | In article <1993Apr15.225657.17804@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com
(Bill Rawlins) writes:
> Since you have referred to the Messiah, I assume you are referring
> to the New Testament. Please detail your complaints or e-mail if
> you don't want to post. First-century Greek is well-known and
> well-understood. Have you considered Josephus, the Jewish Historian,
> who also wrote of Jesus? In addition, the four gospel accounts
> are very much in harmony.
Bill, I find it rather remarkable that you managed to zero in on what is
probably the weakest evidence.
What is probably the most convincing is the anti-Christian literature put out
by the Jewish councils in the second century. There are enormous quantities of
detailed arguments against Christianity, many of the arguments still being used
today. Despite volumes of tracts attacking Christianity, not one denies the
existance of Jesus, only of his activities.
I find this considerably more compelling than Josephus or the harmony of the
gospels (especially considering that Matthew and Luke probably used Mark as a
source).
| __L__
-|- ___ Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
| | o | kv07@iastate.edu
|/ `---' Iowa State University
/| ___ Math Department
| |___| 400 Carver Hall
| |___| Ames, IA 50011
J _____
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) | To Rob Lanphier | Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ. | Dear Rob,
>When I read Brian K.'s postings, I find someone who is honestly seeking
>the truth. When I read your response here, I see condescension. When you
>reply to a post, reply to the post you quote. This statement undermines
>any good points you might have had (it was enough to make me stop reading).
Sometimes I do come across condesending, and I am sorry I come across that
way at times. Thank you for the reproach, I really do appreciate it. I'll
try to get better.
Rob, at the same time, I have also learned that some people respond to the gentle
approach while others respond only at a harsh rebuke. Brian K., so far,
only responds to the latter. And I am glad he responds at all. In both
cases of approach, my intention is to be loving. I am making no excuse
for myself if I am coming across condesending. I apologize for that.
Rob, sometimes Brian K. comes across as honest. I know this. But Brian K.
vasillates back and forth. One post looks honest; the next is
an excuse. Now he wants me to explain the universe in 50 words or less.
I think Brian Kendig is really trying but he is too comfortable with
his set of excuses.
I just want Brian K. to be honest with himself. If he really wants
to know, he will ask questions and stop asserting irrelevant excuses
which have nothing to do with my God. I wish Brian would read the
Bible for himself and come to his own decisions without being
sidetracked with the temptation to mock God.
From my perspective Rob, when I look at Brian Kendig, I see a man
standing out in the middle of a highway. Off into the distance I
see a Mack truck heading right for him, but Brian K. is faced away
from the oncoming truck. He doesn't see it. Here's is how I see
the dialog:
Me: "Brian K, please step aside before you get run over."
BK: "There is no truck."
Me: "Turn around at look."
BK: "No."
Me: "Look! You will be healthier if you do take a look at
the oncoming truck."
BK: "No. Explain to me why trucks exist."
Me: "Turn around or you will run over."
BK: "No. I won't because I like hiking and tomorrow is Tuesday."
Me: "You blind fool! Why do you choose ignorance? You have nothing
to lose if you look. But if do not look, you will certainly lose your life."
I do not want to see you squashed all over the road.
BK: "It is my life to lose. I rather not look.
Besides, a truck running over me will not harm me."
And by the way, I really have an open mind."
So is my motivation to belittle Brian, or to love Brian the best I know how?
I do not wish to single Brian Kendig out. Because millions if not
billions of people fall into the same category. Perhaps all people
fall have fallen into this category at one time in their lives. I have.
I can now see the truck behind Brian.
My hope is that Brian will look and will see the ramifications of the
truck coming towards him. My hope is that Brian will want to step out
of the way. My fear, though, is that Brian will instead choose to glue himself
to the middle of the highway, where he will certainly get run over. But if
he so chooses, he so chooses, and there is nothing I can do beyond that
to change his mind. For it is his choice. But at this very moment,
Brian hasn't gotten even that far. He is still at the point where he
does not want to look. Sure he moves his eyeball to appease me, but his
head will not turn around to see the entire picture. So far he is
satisfied with his glimpse of the mountains off in the distance.
Thank you again Rob for your reproach. I really do appreciate it. (My
wife tells me the same thing at times.) :-) I will try to do better.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) | Re: A KIND and LOVING God!! | The University of Texas at Arlington | In article <sandvik-150493181533@sandvik-kent.apple.com>,
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes...
>In article <1993Apr15.200231.10206@ra.royalroads.ca>,
>mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
>> These laws written for the Israelites...
>> Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied
>> only to God's chosen people. But Jesus has changed all of that. We
>> are living in the age of grace. Sin is no longer immediately punishable
>> by death. There is repentance and there is salvation through our
>> Lord Jesus Christ. And not just for a few chosen people. Salvation
>> is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile alike.
>
>Jews won't agree with you, Malcolm.
Which Jews KS?
(ex. as a people, as a language, religiously, politically, or...)
Do you mean those Jews who are God's chosen?
{And Malcolm, please, if you will, set your word wrap at 75 or less
to avoid clutter?}
|
-- J --
|
| stephen
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
joakimr@ifi.uio.no (Joakim Ruud) | Re: The Universe and Black Holes, was Re: 2000 years..... | Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway |
In article <1r4cvpINNkv2@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
>
> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>
> > Let's say that we drop a marble into the black hole. It races, ever faster,
> >towards the even horizon. But, thanks to the curving of space caused by the
> >excessive gravity, as the object approaches the event horizon it has
> further to
> >travel. Integrating the curve gives a time to reach the event horizon
> of . . .
> >infinity. So the math says that nothing can enter a black hole.
Isn't that just a variation of the "Achilles & the turtle" paradox, which
states that achilles could never possibly overtake a turtle?
How should one deal with a man who is convinced that
he is acting according to God's will, and who there-
Jokke fore believes that he is doing you a favour by
stabbing you in the back?
-Voltaire
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) | [lds] Thief goes to Paradise; Kermit goes off tangent | University at Buffalo |
Kermit Tensmeyer quoted from a few sources and then wrote something.
I will attempt to construct a facsimile of what was previously said, and
then address Kermit's offering.
John Redelfs originally wrote...
jr> I learned that a man cannot frustrate justice by repenting on his
jr> death bed because repentance is more than a feeling of remorse. It
jr> requires faith in Christ proven by following him, by keeping his
jr> commandments. Such cannot be accomplished on ones deathbed.
Tom Albrecht responded...
ta> So Jesus must have lied to the thief on the cross.
John Redelfs wrote back that...
jr> Paradise and salvation are not the same thing. Salvation is better.
jr> Refer to John 14:2.
I responded to John that...
rw> I don't see the effort to equate salvation with paradise.
rw>
rw> Rather, I see implied the fact that only those who are saved
rw> may enter paradise.
To which Kermit wrote...
kt> Incomplete reference:
kt>
kt> See also the discussion: Did Jesus go into Hell in the BibleStudy group
kt> for the arguments that Paradise and Hell(sheol) are places after death
kt> The discussion (no LDS were involved as far as I could see) argued using
kt> standard Christian argument from the Bible that pretty much support the
kt> LDS position.
kt>
kt> Christ went to paridise after his death and burial.
kt>
kt> He taught the prisoners and freed them from Darkness.
kt>
kt> When he was resurrected, he had not yet ascended to his father.
kt>
kt> The arguement centered around what was or wasn't the proper biblical
kt> terms for those places.
I respond.
The question that was raised was not if Jesus went to infernal Paradise
before entering into heaven. No one has made a point for or against
that issue, nor have they compared the LDS position against orthodox
belief. The infernal paradise is held to be Abraham's bosom (Luke 16),
the place of the righteous dead in sheol (equivalent to hades).
The point that was raised by John was that someone could not repent
on their death bed. Tom Albrecht pointed to a Biblical example that was
contradictory to what John's position put forward. The thief on the
cross was promised by Christ to be with Him in Paradise, the abode of
the righteous dead. John's position possibly needs to be reworked.
Kermit needs to address the topic at hand.
=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Okcforum Unix Users Group |
: In my mind, to say that science has its basis in values is a bit of a
: reach. Science has its basis in observable fact.
I'd say that what one chooses to observe and how the observation is
interpreted and what significance it's given depends a great deal on
the values of the observer. Science is a human activity and as such,
is subject to the same potential for distortion as any other human
activity. The myth that scientists are above moral influence or
ethical concern, that their knowledge can be abstacted whole and pure
from nature untainted by the biases of the scientist, is nonsense.
Bill
: If one is to argue for objective values (in a moral sense) then one must
: first start by demonstrating that morality itself is objective. Considering
: the meaning of the word "objective" I doubt that this will ever happen.
: So, back to the original question:
: And objective morality is.....?
This may be an unfortunate choice of words, almost self-contradictory.
Objective in the sense used here means something immutable and
absolute while morality describes the behavior of some group of
people. The first term is all inclusive, the second is specific. The
concept supposedly described may have meaning however.
If there is a God as described by the Christians (for instance), then
He has existence apart from and independent of humankind; His
existence is outside of our frame of reference (reality). If this
being declares a thing to be so, it is -necessarily- so since He has
defined Himself as omnipotent and, if His claims are to be believed,
He is at least omnipotent relative to us. God is intrinsically
self-defined and all reality is whatever He says it is - in an
objective sense.
If God determines a standard of conduct, that standard is objective.
If human beings are held accountable for their conformance to that
standard while permitted to ignore it, they substitute a relative
morality or mode of conduct, giving the term morality a nebulous,
meaningless sense that can be argued about by those pretending to
misunderstand. The standard is objective and the conduct required to
meet that standard is therefore objectively determined.
Just because it is convenient to pretend that the term morality is
infinitely malleable, doesn't mean that the objective standard itself
doesn't exist. Morality has come to mean little more than a cultural
norm, or the preferred conduct of "decent" people, making it seem
subjective, but it is derived from an absolute, objective, standard.
Ironically, this objective standard is in perfect accord with our true
nature (according to Christianity at least), yet is condemned as being
contrary to human nre, oppressive and severe. This may be due as
Bill
much to our amoral inclinations as to the standard itself, but like it
or not, it's there.x
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) | Re: Comments on the Koresh 3-02 Transcript | The University of Texas at Arlington | In article <1993Apr14.200259.20419@microsoft.com>,
iank@microsoft.com (Ian Kennedy) writes...
(stephen) wrote:
>>Correction to my prior post, proper citation is:
>>
>> Isaiah 30:26 -- Moreover the light of the moon shall
>> be as the light of the sun, and the light of the
>> sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days,
>> in the day that the LORD bindeth up the breach of
>> his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound.
>
>So we have to wait for the sun to nova?
More along the lines of Hebrews 12:25-29, I reckon...
See that you refuse not him that speaks. For if they
escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much
more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that
speaks from heaven:
Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he has promised,
saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also
heaven.
And this word, Yet once more, signifies the removing of
those things that are shaken, as of things that are made,
that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.
Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved,
let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably
with reverence and godly fear:
For our God is a consuming fire.
Or 2nd Thessalonians 1:7-10...
And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord
Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God,
and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from
the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be
admired in all them that believe (because our testimony
among you was believed) in that day.
Kinda gives Flaming a whole new meaning, I reckon.
- < > -
The impression I got from talking with Livingston was that the coming
of the Lord, power-wise, is going to be something that those who are
unprepared can't handle -- kinda like overloading a fuse -- due to
guilt. Somehow it seems to also apply to the entire physical world as
we know it. LF suggests that God doesn't want that and has sent Koresh
as a reminder.
Seems that those who have been purified through salvation, or that those
protected by the Seals, will be the ones who survive. And no -- I don't
have a good idea yet what "being shielded by the seals" actually involves
or how exactly it relates to salvation. (Other than it involves the
marriage of the Bridegroom and the Bride... for those of you Biblical
well versed.)
- < > -
Me personally, I'm totally 100% dependent on God through Christ, so
if God wants me to understand, good. If not, also good. If God wants
to save me, or dispose of me, that's great either way. Being born in
the Spirit, means being part of the Body of Christ (Ephesians 2), so
who and what I was, matters little. * What's important is loving GOD *
Come Nova, Nuke, or Apocalypse -- who cares? Satan might even be able
to pull off a pretty convincing fake. Big deal. Not worth fearing or
worrying about though, not before:
-* The Greater Glory of GOD *-
Maybe Koresh is right, maybe he isn't, and it should be interesting to
see the new message (or prophecy). The tour of the Bible I've taken in
studying the passages he points to in the 3-02 text, has been most re-
warding. But the test of prophecy is still the fruit it bears -- which
is not yet clear.
Much much more important is "Charity" -- which by definition *is* --
Love for GOD
(I hope Dear Reader, you've taken all this as an expression of faith,
and not a statement of mere fact. Seems many folks get real upset at
reminders. ;-)
|
-- J --
|
| stephen
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) | Re: Christian Owned Organization list | University of Arizona | In article <?a$@byu.edu> $stephan@sasb.byu.edu (Stephan Fassmann) writes:
>In article <1993Apr13.025426.22532@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <47749@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> shopper@ucsd.edu writes:
>>>
>>>Does anyone have or know where I can find a list of christian-owned
>>>corporations and companies? One that I know of is WordPerfect.
>>
>>I believe that WordPerfect is actually owned by the Mormons.
>
>Sorry, WordPerfect is own by A mormon not the LDS Church.
Slight semantical difference. The LDS Church does own a heck of
a lot however. They are the largest land holder in MIssouri
(where they think Christ will appear at the second coming).
I believe they also own some large beverage company like Pepsi
(that was why they had to take caffiene off of their "forbidden
substance" list).
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK. | frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> In article <930421.102525.9Y9.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew
> <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> #frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> #> Presumably this means that some moral systems are better than others?
> #> How so? How do you manage this without an objective frame of reference?
> #
> #Which goes faster, a bullet or a snail? How come you can answer that when
> #Einstein proved that there isn't an objective frame of reference?
>
> Not that Einstein "proved" anything,
Oh, yes he did. You may not agree with his premises, and what he proved may
not apply to "reality" (if such a thing exists), but he certainly proved
something.
> but you can't answer it, and your
> answer be in general true.
Got it in one. Similarly, a moral relativist will not judge one moral system
to be better than another in every possible circumstance. This does not,
however, preclude him from judging one moral system to be better than another
in a specific set of circumstances. Nor does it preclude a set of moral
relativists from collectively judging a moral system, from some set of
circumstances which they all agree they are in.
> And even that statement assumes an
> objective reality independent of our beliefs about it.
Eh? Could you explain this? Which "that statement" are you talking about?
> #> And what weasel word do you use to describe that frame of reference, if
> #> it isn't an objective reality for values?
> #
> #I'm sorry, I can't parse "an objective reality for values". Could you try
> #again?
>
> s/an objective reality for values/some values are real even in the face
> of disagreement/
I still don't quite see what you're trying to say. I assume by "values" you
mean moral values, yes? In which case, what do you mean by "real"? What is
a "real" moral value, as opposed to an unreal one?
> If you are saying that some moral systems are better than others, in
> your opinion, then all you get is infinite regress.
Sorry, but in what way is it an infinite regress? It looks extremely finite
to me.
> What you do not get
> is any justification for saying that the moral system of the terrorist
> is inferior to that of the man of peace.
Sorry, but that's not so. I can provide a justification for asserting that
the moral system of the terrorist is inferior to that of the man of peace. I
just can't provide a justification which works in all possible circumstances.
Similarly, I can provide a justification for asserting that bullets move
faster than snails. That justification won't hold in all possible frames of
reference, but it will hold in almost all the frames of reference I am ever
likely to be in.
> Your saying it does not
> make it so, and that's according to your premise, not mine.
I don't think I agree with this. My saying it *does* make it so *from my
point of view* and according to *my premises*, unless the argument is invalid.
It may indeed not make it so from your point of view, but I never claimed
that it did. In fact, I don't even claim that you exist enough to have a
point of view.
mathew
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
cayley@plains.NoDak.edu (Michele Cayley) | Re: New Religion Forming -- Sign Up | North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network |
refrettably you are mistaken. alt.drugs was used to recruit people for the
worldwide pot religion. I, however hve no problem being in both of them
Death to Dupont
Free Bobby Fischer
Michele Cayley is my mom, sue me not her
johan engevik (drunken naked genius at large)
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana | hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
>In article <wcscps.735321331@cunews>, wcscps@superior.carleton.ca (Mike Richardson) writes:
>[Lots of good points re Mormons in the US]
>The founding fathers of the US were hardly great on religious freedoms. At
>least one history I have read formed the opinion that they left for the
>US not to practice religious freedom but to practice religious intolerance.
Bzzt. Thank you for playing.
You're confusing the puritans/pilgrims with the founding fathers.
Difference of ~150 years and a much different culture...
>Phill Hallam-Baker
--
Phil Fraering |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) | Re: That Kill by Sword, Must be Killed by Sword | Cookamunga Tourist Bureau | In article <20APR199306173611@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu
(stephen) wrote:
> tional as that is for so many). One direct benefit is being able to
> keep things in perspective, KS.
>
> Such as who hurts more -- the ones who died, or the loved ones who
> are left? Besides the lessons. It's also time for many to grieve.
> Including those who've lost their faith in others, or in God.
>
> I'm learning to be patient, and let things heal. God willing.
Christians through ages have had to learn to be patient. I do think
it's time to face the reality. The events during the last 52 two
days showed what the world is really like.
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) | Re: Is it good that Jesus died? | Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco | brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>
>Even though a new-born is innocent as can be, his sinful nature
>will surely manifest itself more explicity as he gets older. For
>as surely as he grows hair on his head and teeth within his mouth,
>he will show the signs of his innate sin by rebelling
>against mommy and daddy with that loud proclamation "No."
That's not "showing the signs of his innate sin", that's testing the
limits of his newfound independence. A two-year-old will continually
test you to see just how much he can get away with, just as a pet dog
will.
If a child always submitted to your will in a docile fashion, would
you praise him and suspect that he's the Second Coming of Christ, or
would you seek professional help about his emotional development?
--
_/_/_/ Brian Kendig Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/ bskendig@netcom.com de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/ n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
/ The meaning of life Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
/ is that it ends. -- Rousseau
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | NEC America, Inc Irving TX | In article <C5wI5n.19v@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com> max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) writes:
>In article <1993Apr16.193723.19050@asl.dl.nec.com> duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr16.173720.19151@scic.intel.com> sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth J. Bradley) writes:
>>>
>>>How does one falsify God's existance? This, again, is a belief, not a scien-
>>>tific premise. The original thread referred specifically to "scientific
>>>creationism". This means whatever theory or theories you propose must be
>>>able to be judged by the scientific method. This is in contrast to
>>>purely philosophical arguments.
>>>--
>>
>>How does one falsify any origin theory? For example, are a forever existing
>>universe or abiogenesis strictly falsifiable?
>
>Guess you must have slept through all the recent excitement when the
>COBE experiments confirmed a prediction of the Big Bang theory. Superstition
>resolves contradictions by postulating new miracles and "it just kinda sorta
>looks that way" (apparent age) - hence it never makes predictions. Science
>resolves contradictions by changing the theories involved.
>
>Too bad your programming does not allow you that luxury.
You sound absolutely convinced! Tell me how long did it last, what color
was it? It must be so exciting to know for sure. By the way, it seems as
though there is a fine line between "postulating new miracles" and postulating
new theories.
--
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| Joe Duffy duffy@asl.dl.nec.com |
| NEC America, Inc. |
| Advanced Switching Laboratory |
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) | Re: That Kill by Sword, Must be Killed by Sword | University of Virginia | In article <sandvik-210493225738@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <C5uvvD.GDD@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) wrote:
>> I am also unhappy (or actually, very suspicious) that the FBI was dismissing
>> out of hand any chances that they might have accidentally set the blaze
>> themselves. I mean, I guess we are just supposed to believe that
>> ramming modified tanks into the walls of a building and injecting
>> toxic gases into the building are just routine procedures, no WAY
>> anything could go wrong.
>
>My core point was, and still is, that 19 children died, and Mr.
>Koresh could just have opened the door and asked the children to
>go out before all this happened. You might blaim FBI, ATF,
>President Clinton, Satan, Pepsi Coke or anything else, but
>you can't avoid the fact that one single action would have
>saved small children from a dreadful and painful death.
1) Well, Mr Koresh allowed other children and adults to leave the compound
during the course of the siege; why didnt these children leave then?
I dont know myself, and certainly havent heard any answers on this here.
2) Yes, one simple non-action, ie NOT attacking the compound with
modified tanks, would have prevented this tragedy. I bet you blamed
the MOVE people for the deaths that occurred in adjacent row
houses in Philadelphia, not the government which dropped the
firebomb, right?
--
Legalize Freedom
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson) | Re: Christian Owned Organization list | University of Arizona | In article <1993Apr13.025426.22532@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <47749@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> shopper@ucsd.edu writes:
>>
>>Does anyone have or know where I can find a list of christian-owned
>>corporations and companies? One that I know of is WordPerfect.
>
>I believe that WordPerfect is actually owned by the Mormons.
Sorry, but Mormons aren't generally considered to be Christians.
>--
>=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
>=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza. OK???=
>="Do you have some pumps and a purse in this shade? A perfume that whispers, =
>='please come back to me'? I'm looking for something in Green."-Laurie Morgan=
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) | 26 Apr 93 God's Promise in Matthew 5:6 | University at Buffalo |
Blessed are those
who hunger and thirst
for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Matthew 5:6 (NIV)
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Case Western Reserve University | In article <C5JrDE.M4z@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>Theory of Creationism: MY theistic view of the theory of creationism, (there
>are many others) is stated in Genesis 1. In the beginning God created
>the heavens and the earth.
What was before the beginning?
---
" Whatever promises that have been made can than be broken. "
John Laws, a man without the honor to keep his given word.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) | Is it good that Jesus died? | Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco | brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>Brian Kendig writes:
>
>>If you can explain to me why the death of Jesus was a *good* thing,
>>then I would be very glad to hear it, and you might even convert me.
>>Be warned, however, that I've heard all the most common arguments
>>before, and they just don't convince me.
>
>Ask Jesus himself. He himself said why in John 12:23-32. It
>isn't a mystery to anyone and there certainly is no need for
>a persuasive argument. Read Jesus's own reply to your
>question.
John 12:24-26: "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat
falls onto the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it
produces much grain.
"He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in
this world will keep it for eternal life.
"If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there My
servant will be also. If anyone serves Me, him My Father will honor."
Why would I want an eternal life if I hate this one?
If we were created by a deity, why would that deity not wish us to
enjoy what he has given us?
Why would I want to live forever? The challenge in my life is that I
will die, and that I must give my life the meaning I wish it to have
before that happens. My time is here and will someday pass; I will be
content to live on in the memories of my friends, and once they too
are dead, then I will no longer have any reason to exist.
In short: even if your deity *does* exist, that doesn't automatically
mean that I would worship it. I am content to live my own life, and
fend for myself, so when I die, I can be proud of the fact that no
matter where I end up, it will be because of *my* actions and *my* choices.
If your god decides to toss me into a flaming pit for this, then so be
it. I would much rather just cease to exist. But if your god wants
my respect and my obedience, then it had better earn these; and if it
does, then they will be very strong and true.
>Jesus gives more reasons in John 16:7. But one obvious reason
>why Jesus died, (and as with everything else, it has nothing do with
>his punishment) was that he could rise to life again--so that
>we would "stop doubting and believe" (John 21:27). The fact
>that Jesus rose from the dead is my hope that I too will rise
>from the dead. It is an obvious point. Do not overlook it.
>Without this obvious point, I would have no hope
>and my faith would be vanity.
Jesus wasn't the only one who rose from the dead -- I think it was
Osiris who did the same, as well as a few characters from Greek or
Norse legend, if memory serves.
But still: WHY would I want to rise from the dead? Why do *you* want to?
>Why did Jesus suffer in his death? Again, ask Jesus. Jesus
>says why in John 15:18-25. That's no mystery either. "The
>world hates him without reason." It is a direct proclamation
>of how far we humans botch things up and thus, how much we
>need a Saviour.
If your god wants to win my devotion, then it knows what it can do --
provide some way for me to believe without having to resort to blind
faith that could be applied equally well to any religion.
>And why can't you, Brian K., accept this? How can you? "The
>world cannot accept him because it neither sees him nor knows
>him." (John 14:17).
That's precisely it. I neither see nor know Zeus either, nor Odin.
Shall I offer them the same devotion I offer Jesus?
>The animosity and the lack of knowledge
>that comes out in your twistings of Robert's daily verses is
>very convincing testimony of the truth of John 14:17 and 16:25.
You've got to understand my point-of-view: I see Christians spouting
Bible verse all the time as if it were some sort of magic spell that
will level all opposition. Truth is, it's not. Robert has never
demonstrated that he actually understands what the verses imply; he
just rattles them off day by day. Some brazenly fly in the face of
common sense and reality, and I point these out where I can.
But even more than that, even when Christians *do* try to explain the
verses in their own words, they do so from a Christian point of view,
which is that every human being would want to be a Christian if only
he or she understood the Christian message properly, and then all
strife and suffering on the earth would end. Here's the problem with
that: substitute "Moslem" or "Buddhist" or "Satanist" instead of
"Christian", and it means the same thing.
Christanity is a very nice belief set around a very nice book. But if
you want to make me believe that it has any bearing on the REAL WORLD,
you've got some convincing to do.
>I pray and hope that I do blurt out such animosity and lack of
>knowledge. I am not perfect either. But regardless of that, I thank
>God that Jesus revealed himself to me, without whom I'd also be
>bumbling about blindly though arrogantly slandering the very
>Person who created me and who loves me.
And in my opinion, you're bumbling about blindly making up entities
where there aren't any, and depriving yourself of a true understanding
and enjoyment of your life. As long as you keep your beliefs to
yourself, I'll keep my beliefs to myself -- but as soon as you start
waving them around, expect me to toss in my opinions, too.
--
_/_/_/ Brian Kendig Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/ bskendig@netcom.com de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/ n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
/ The meaning of life Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
/ is that it ends. -- Rousseau
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) | Re: [rw] Is Robert Weiss the only orthodox Christian? | Cookamunga Tourist Bureau | In article <1993Apr23.170101.19708@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:
> No. I also understand it. I have read the Bible from cover to cover, examining
> each book within, cross-comparing them, etc. And I have come to same conclusions
> as Robert Weiss.
>
> So Rick, why not read the Bible for yourself? It is written in plain
> english. Decide for yourself.
I'm curious to know if Christians ever read books based on critique
on the religion, classical text such as "Age of Reason" by Paine,
or "The Myth Maker" by Jacobi. Sometimes it is good to know your
enemy, and if you want to do serious research you have to understand
both sides, and not solely the one and only right one.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | Stratus Computer, Inc. | In article <1993Apr21.045548.17418@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, st922957@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (Arnold Schwarzenweisengreenbluenbraunenburger) writes:
> Y'know, when the right to bear arms was "invented", all we had to worry
> about was the shotgun and pistol. Now, we have to worry about drive-bys
> with Uzis sparaying the entire neighborhood with bullets.
'Scuse me, I'm over here. The large, rotund thing you're addressing is
a replica of Thomas Jefferson's private cannon.
Followups to t.p.g.
--
cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com write today for my special Investors' Packet...
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
trev@netcom.com (Trevor Bauknight) | Re: Abortion | Jes Grew Carriers -- Metaphysical Bunko Squad | anthony.landreneau@ozonehole.com (Anthony Landreneau) writes:
>TB>There appears to be a single part of the three necessary elements for a
>TB>pregnancy omitted from the above expression of your concern. The Mother.
>What are you trying to say? Please be more clear.
You seem to be forgetting about the life of the mother. You contend that
the life of the unborn child is more important than the crimes of the
father, but you label the stuggle of a rape victim to survive and put her
nightmare in the past as a matter of "convenience!" Outrageous.
>Spoken like a true Jugde, Jury and Executioner. Kill the baby for
>convenience, kill the baby, kill, kill, kill. It's time for the killing
^^^^^^^^^^^
If you showed the same compassion for the pregnant woman that you do for
the unfortunate baby, I might have more tolerance for your views. You
seem, however, to be intent on questioning a woman's wisdom in allowing
herself to be raped. If you can, please understand that I am talking
about those cases in which the woman has no control over whether she
becomes pregnant...such cases do, in fact, exist.
Trevor Bauknight trev@netcom.com
+-----------+
| _> ### |
Plug in your head... | | |
+-----------+
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) | Alice in Wonderland | University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept. | In article <1rgmjn$567@access.digex.net> huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>If I wanted
>to do this for _Alice in Wonderland_, I'd visit the British Museum where I
>would find the original manuscript and be able to compare it to the printed
>edition that I own (I'd find many differences including a different title).
WHAT!!?!?? Are you trying to tell me, that the master of nonsenses'
most famous work is not what is published? I'M SHOCKED!!!
What are some of the differences? Did _Through_the_Looking_Glass_ also
get changed? I've been using Martin Gardners Annotated Alice for
my copy of that, how close is that to the real thing?
--
***************************************************************************
* mccullou@whipple.cs.wisc.edu * Never program and drink beer at the same *
* M^2 * time. It doesn't work. *
***************************************************************************
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
popec@brewich.hou.tx.us (Pope Charles) | Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick | The Brewers' Witch BBS, +1 713 272 7350, Brewich.Hou.TX.US | caldwell@facman.ohsu.edu (Larry Caldwell) writes:
> kosinski@us.oracle.com (Kevin Osinski) writes:
>
> >I recall reading in Michael (?) Rutherford's novel "Sarum" a scene in
> >which the son of a Roman nobleman living in Britain takes part in a
> >secret ceremony involving a bull. He stands naked in a pit covered
> >with some sort of scaffolding while assistants coax a bull to stand on
> >the scaffolding. They then fatally stab the bull, which douses the
> >worshipper in the pit with blood. This is supposedly some sort of
> >rite of passage for members of the bull cult. I wonder if this is
> >related to the Mithras cult?
> >
> >I don't know where Rutherford got his information for this chapter.
> >The book is historical fiction, and most of the general events which
> >take place are largely based on historical accounts.
>
> There is a rite like this described in Joseph Campbell's
> _Occidental_Mythology_. He also described levels of initiation, I think
> 6? I don't know where Campbell got his info, but I remember thinking he
> was being a little eclectic.
>
> >I also wonder what if any connection there is between the ancient bull
> >cults and the current practice of bullfighting popular in some
> >Mediterranean cultures.
>
> Quite a bit. If you haven't read Campbell, give him a try.
>
> --
> -- Larry Caldwell caldwell@ohsu.edu CompuServe 72210,2273
> Oregon Health Sciences University. (503) 494-2232
Yes. I cannot remeber which works I read about this in, as it was many
years ago. This ritual was called The Tarobaullum I believe, (The
spelling may be off).
Pope Charles
------------------
popec@brewich.hou.tx.us (Pope Charles)
Origin: The Brewers' Witch BBS -- Houston, TX -- +1 713 272 7350
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry) | Re: Burden of Proof | Decision Support Inc. | In article <1993Apr21.182030.888@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
> The default condition, in the absence of a preponderance of
>evidence either way, is that the proposition or assertion is undecidable.
>And the person who takes the undecidable position and says that he/she
>simply disbelieves that the proposition is true, is the only one who
>holds no burden of proof. This is why the so-called "weak atheist"
>position is virtually unassailable -- not because it stands on a firm
>foundation of logical argument, but because it's proponents simply
>disbelieve in the existence of God(s) and therefore they hold no burden
>of proof. When you don't assert anything, you don't have to prove
>anything. That's where weak atheism draws its strength. But its
>strength is also its Achilles' heel. Without assertions/axioms, one
>has no foundation upon which to build. As a philosophy, it's virtually
>worthless. IMO, of course.
Yes, as a philosophy weak atheism is worthless. This is true in
exactly the same sense that as a philosophy Christians' disbelief in
Zeus is worthless. Atheists construct their personal philosophies
from many different sources, building non-god-based ideas in the same
way as Christians build non-Zeus-based ideas of thunderbolts.
Atheists no more *base* their philosophy on atheism than Christians
base theirs on the nonexistence of Zeus.
The "weak atheist" position is logically extremely assailable -- any
logical demonstration of the existence of a god completely destroys it
as soon as the demonstration is made in the presence of a given weak
atheist. Atheists in this newsgroup are barraged regularly with
attempts to provide such a logical demonstration, and they all fail
miserably. In fact, most of the people around here who claim the
"strong (as opposed to mathematical) atheist" position do so on this
basis: not only do we not believe in a god, but also all the arguments
presented in favor of particular gods have to date proven unsound;
therefore, one can say that those gods as argued by those arguments do
not exist. This doesn't apply to such philosophers' gods as are
defined to be logically undemonstrable, but these are not the gods of
popular religion, and the coherence of such claims is quite
questionable.
--
Jim Perry perry@dsinc.com Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
These are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | St. Andrews University, Scotland. | In article <1r59na$e81@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1993Apr21.141259.12012@st-andrews.ac.uk>, nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson) writes:
>|> In article <1r2m21$8mo@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
...
>> Ok, so you don't claim to have an absolute moral system. Do you claim
>> to have an objective one? I'll assume your answer is "yes," apologies
>> if not.
>
>I've just spent two solid months arguing that no such thing as an
>objective moral system exists.
>
>jon.
Apologies, I've not been paying attention.
-Norman
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) | Re: Abortion | Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division | In article <1r7utbINNgoc@bigbird.williams.edu> 96csw@williams.edu (Walter "Gib" Gibson) writes:
> And therefore conclude that the argument that "Well, it would
>be better that the baby NOT be brought up under poor conditions" makes
>no sense, and is in fact a very egocentric point of view-
Scuse, please, are you under the impression that this argument is made in
a vacuum, and that somehow only the fetus' potential life is being considered?
I would guess, from your 'very egocentric' comment that you do not, in which
case I have to ask just what the hell is wrong with egocentrism when one is
making a fundamental choice about one's life? Don't *you* consult *your*
*own* wants when *you* make decisions about your life? I haven't noticed you
asking *me* about what *I* want from you....
I've got some *great* ideas. If egocentrism is ruled out, you can show up
tomorrow 8am and I'll put you to work.
Adrienne Regard
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth J. Bradley) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Intel Corporation | In article <C5L14I.JJ3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>Why isn't this falsifiable? I.E. There is no God, the world has existed forever
>and had no starting point. ?
How does one falsify God's existance? This, again, is a belief, not a scien-
tific premise. The original thread referred specifically to "scientific
creationism". This means whatever theory or theories you propose must be
able to be judged by the scientific method. This is in contrast to
purely philosophical arguments.
--
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SCIC
Internet: sbradley@scic.intel.com UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one. The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare. On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!" -Michael O'Brien
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) | Ceci's "rosicrucian" adventure :-) | Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) |
Hello Ceci:
My name is Tony and I have a few comments on your "rosicrucian"
adventure. I hereby state that I am not claiming or denying membership in
any Order, fraternity etc. with or without the word "Rosicrucian" in the
name of the organization. I only claim having done some "homework" :-)
This is intended as a friendly article and if at times it seems
different, it's my lack of writing skills showing, nothing else. Heck,
English may be my second language! (And then again maybe not by now :-)
I proceed:
>
>I had an ehum, interesting experience with the Rosicrucians, or at
>least Rosicrucians of some sort last Sunday.
>
Let's start with the name "Rosicrucian". I took me a long time to come
to the conclusion that there is a difference between a *member* of a
"rosicrucian" body and BEING *a* ROSICRUCIAN. So when you say that you met
some 'rosicrucians' you mean "members of a group that calls themselves
rosicrucian". At least that is what your observation suggests :-)
I'd prefer if you would have stated up front that it was the Lectorium
Rosicrucianum, only because they may be confused, by some readers of this
newsgroup, with the Rosicrucian Order AMORC based (the USA Jurisdiction) in
San Jose, CA; this being the RC org with the most members (last time I
looked). Of course, "most members" does not *necessarily* mean "best".
Anyway, the Lectorium Rosicrucianum claims they
descend (at least in part) from what was the "Gold-und-Rosenkreuz" (Golden
and Rosy Cross), from the 18th century. There were two "Golden and Rosy
Cross", the first (chronologically) more alchemical, the second with
Masonic tinges, but their history is the subject of a complete chapter :-).
"You'll have to trust me" when I tell you that if that
lecture/class/whatever had been presented by AMORC, it is unlikely that you
would have had the same impression, i.e., you'd probably have had a
positive impression more likely than a negative one, IMHO.
>The first guy also said that the R:s are a mystical Christian order, and
>that they base their teachings on the teachings of the Kathars
>(English?) from the thirteenth century.
>
Again, instead of R:s, it should be "Lectorium Rosicrucianum" :-). It
is curious to know that 3 other RC 'orders' (in the USA) claim to be *non-
sectarian*.
The Cathars were a 'heretic' christian sect that directly challenged
the 'authority' of the medieval catholic church. They flourished during the
12th century, century which saw the religious zeal expressed in the
crusades and also the growing disillusion with the catholic church and the
worldly ways of its clerics. It was largely in response to the church's
unseemly pomp and splendor that Catharism took root, first in northern
Italy, then throughout the south of France.
>What made me a bit suspicious, was the way they first said that we all
>contained something divine, and could find our way back to divinity,
>then that we couldn't become divine as the persons we are currently,
>but if we worked really hard we would reach eternal bliss.
I don't see nothing *fundamentally* wrong with "us containing
something divine"... And yes I don't like phrases like "eternal bliss"
either! :-)
>How to robotize people and brainwash...
>
For a moment I thought you were referring to Madison Ave :-)
(Madison avenue in New York City is where the most influential (read
$$$) *commercial* advertising is produced here in the USA :-)
Peace,
Tony
BTW, I have read the intro letters of the LRC which they will mail you free
of charge.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) | Re: Is it good that Jesus died? | Cookamunga Tourist Bureau | In article <C62Ar1.LDt@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu
(Ken Arromdee) wrote:
>
> In article <1993Apr25.194144.8358@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
> >Even though a new-born is innocent as can be, his sinful nature
> >will surely manifest itself more explicity as he gets older.
>
> Ah, so you admit newborns are innocent? Then you cannot say _everyone_ is a
> sinner.
>
> About the only way top get out of this one is to claim that a newborn is a
> sinner despite having not committed any sins, which is rather odd.
This all would also implicate that in order for the sinning 2 month
old baby to get forgivance, he or she has to ask for help from Jesus.
Somehow I find this a little bit amuzing.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
irfan@davinci.ece.wisc.edu (Irfan Alan) | A TREATISE ON THE MIRACLES OF MUHAMMAD, PART-3 | Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison; Electrical & Computer Engineering | DROPLET VOL 1, No 11, Part 3
D R O P L E T
From The Vast Ocean Of The Miraculous Qur'an
Translations from the Arabic and Turkish Writings of
Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, The Risale-i Noor
VOL 1, No 11, Part 3
------------------------------------------------------------------
NINETEENTH LETTER
MU'JIZAT-I AHMEDIYE RISALESI
A TREATISE ON THE MIRACLES OF MUHAMMED SAW, Part 3
(continued from Droplet Vol 1, No 11, Part 2)
THIRD SIGN: The miracles of Muhammad (SAW)
are extremely varied. Because his messengership is
universal, he has been distinguished by miracles that
relate to almost all species of creation.
Just as the supreme aide of a renowned ruler, arriving
with many gifts in a city where various people live, will be
welcomed by a representative of each people who
acclaims him and bids him welcome in his own language
so, too, when the supreme messenger of the Monarch of
Pre- and Post-Eternity (Ezel and Ebed Sultani) honored the
universe by coming as an envoy to the inhabitants of the
earth, and brought with him the light of truth and spiritual
gifts sent by the Creator of the universe and derived from
the realities of the whole universe, each species of
creation -from water, rocks, trees, animals and human
beings to the moon, sun and stars- welcomed him and
acclaimed his prophethood, each in its own language, and
each bearing one of his miracles.
Now it would require a voluminous work to mention all
his miracles. As the punctilious scholars have written
many volumes concerning the proofs of His prophethood,
here we will briefly point out only the general category
into which fall fhe miracles that are definite and accepted
as accurate reports.
The evidences of the prophethood of Muhammad
(SAW) fall into two main categories:
The first is called irhasat and includes the paranormal
events that happened at the time of his birth, or before his
declaration of prophethood.
The second group pertains to all the remaining evidences
of the prophethood, and contains two subdivisions:
1) Those wonders that were manifested after
his departure from this world in order to confirm his
prophethood, and
2) Those that he exhibited during the era
of his prophethood. The latter has also two parts:
2.1) The evidences of his prophethood that became manifest
in his own personality, his inner and outer being, his moral
conduct and perfection, and
2.2) The miracles that: related to substantial matters.
The last part again has two branches:
2.2.1) Those concerning the Qur'an and spirituality, and
2.2.2) Those relating to matter and creation. This last
branch is again divided into two categories:
2.2.2.1) The first involves the paranormal happenings
that occured during his mission either to break the
stubbornness of the unbelievers, or to augment the
faith of the belivers. This category has twenty different
sorts, such as the splitting of the moon, the flowing of
water from the fingers, the satisfying of large numbers with
a little food, and the speaking of trees, rocks and animals
Each of these sons has also many instances, and thus
has, in meaning, the strength of confirmation by
consensus.
2.2.2.2) As for the second category, this
includes events lying in the future that occured as he had
predicted upon Allah (SWT)'s instructions. Now starting
from the last category, we will summarize a list of them.(1)
(1) Unfonunately, I could not write as I had intended
without choice, I wrote as my head dictated, and I could
not completely conform to the order of this classification.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To be Continued Allah Willing.
Irfan Alan, A Servant of Islam.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) | Re: Catholic Right & Pat Robertson | PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC | In <93105.093812KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET> <KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>Rocco L. Martino, a Philadelphia business
>executive wrote: "Separation of church and state is a false premise
>that must finally be cast aside and replaced by the true meaning of
>our constitution."
blechhhh. Gimme that ole' time Inquisition ...
>Oh yes, the organization's "national ecclesisatical advisor" is
>Catholic politician Cardinal John J. O'Connor of New York.
It figures, doesn't it?
--
Michael L. Siemon We must know the truth, and we must
mls@ulysses.att.com love the truth we know, and we must
- or - act according to the measure of our love.
mls@panix.com -- Thomas Merton
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
battin@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu (Laurence Gene Battin) | Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened? | Indiana University | In article <24APR199302290235@utarlg.uta.edu>, stephen (b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu) wrote:
> In article <1993Apr21.190441.4282@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>,
> f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes...
> >In article <1993Apr21.164554.1@ccsua.ctstateu.edu>,
> >parys@ccsua.ctstateu.edu writes:
> >> I told some friends of mine two weeks ago that Koresh was dead.
> >> The FBI and the BATF could not let a man like that live. He was
> >> a testimonial to their stupidity and lies.
> >>
> > [...deleted...]
> >
> >Unfortunately, I think you've got it figured pretty well. I also ask
> >myself the question "Why did they plan for so many months. Why was
> >this so important to them? What was the government really up to?
> >Why did they seal the warrant? Were they after Koresh or were they
> >after the first and second amendments, among others?
> Allow me to play devils advocate a moment JG:
> o What was called many months of *planning* was probably
> the intelligence collecting: paperwork and interviews.
> o It's important to them because it justifies budgets.
> o The warrant was sealed to keep from jeopardizing the
> the government's case.
> o There was probably no one actually exercising oversite.
> Instead, a system of bureaucratic rules has been set
> up for such incidents. Like computer programs -- these
> have to be debugged periodically. Especially when used
> in fringe areas. (cf. the "hostage rescue" program).
> Therefore -- NO ONE WAS IN CHARGE. And no one can
> reasonably be held responsible.
Baloney. Either the programmer or the people who decided to let their
actions be governed by the program are clearly at fault. If you neglect
to do maintenance on your car, and the steering goes out, you _are_
responsible for the death of all those kids on the sidewalk your car
subsequently drives over "on its own".
Gene Battin
battin@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu
no .sig yet
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) | Re: Is it good that Jesus died? | The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'. | In article <1993Apr22.213142.6964@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>And we do not end perfect either. We are never perfect. Can you name
>one person, young or old, past or present, that you deem perfect?
Krishna.
BG10:20(Miller) I am the self abiding in the heart of all creatures; I am
their beginning, their middle, and their end.
BG10:32(Miller) I am the beginning, the middle, and the end of
creations, Arjuna; of sciences, I am the science of the self; I am the
dispute of orators.
BG10:41(Miller) Whatever is powerful, lucid, splendid, or invulnerable
has its source in a fragment of my brilliance. (42) What use is so much
knowledge to you, Arjuna? I stand sustaining this entire world with a
fragment of my being.
BG11:32(Miller) I am time grown old ...
I can provide more names of perfect people should just one be insufficient.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | LA&W RR | In article <C5rLnE.4pC@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.Virginia.EDU (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
>Arms? Automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers? The sorts of things
>no family should be without, I guess. Anyway, I've often wondered what
>business followers of Christ would have with weapons. It's hard to imagine a
>pistol-packin' Jesus, though I suppose a pump-action shotgun would have
>made clearing the temple a hell of a lot easier.
FYI, these people were not "followers of Christ". David Koresh was
their messiah.
--
Two wrongs don't make a right,
but three rights make a left.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) | Re: Food For Thought On Tyre | Cookamunga Tourist Bureau | In article <1qh4m5INN2pu@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E.
King) wrote:
> Not exactly. The prophesy clearly implies that people would
> still be living in the area, but by the same token it would
> never be "rebuilt". Obviously , if people are still there they
> would live in houses, correct? Their "nets" implies a fishing
> village. This is exactly what it has become -- a far cry from
> its original position of stature .
Let's see, if Alexander destroyed Tyre, and people move back, and
they construct houses, and after a while 14000 people live there
and still call it Tyre, it is not considered to be rebuilt. Instead
it's considered to be 'just-some-people-that-got-together-for-fishing-
and-they-needed-houses' place.
> So far I've seen stated figurers ranging from 15,000 to 22,000.
> Let's assume the latter one is correct. By modern standards
> we are talking about a one-horse town.
Sigh, I was never born in a city then (my home town has 10.000
people). I have to consult my city and inform them that it's from
now a fishing village. When this city (Kristinestad) was founded
in the 17:th century about 1000 people lived there, so the norms
were even more bizarre for dumb Swedish queens who founded cities
along the coast of Finland.
I would like to know why Paul thought is was worth mentioning the
small fishing place of Tyre in Acts. Again, maybe he was a keen
fisherman and wanted to visit the shores of Tyre? :-)
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) | Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened? | Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco | visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
>
> They cut off the water, there were no fire trucks present
They refused to bring in fire equipment for fear that the firemen
would be shot at.
>and the FBI/ATF go blasting holes into the builing and firing gas munitions.
They used a tank to knock a hole in the wall, and they released
non-toxic, non-flammable tear gas into the building.
--
_/_/_/ Brian Kendig Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/ bskendig@netcom.com de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/ n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
/ The meaning of life Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
/ is that it ends. -- Rousseau
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | DESYDeutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA |
In article <wcscps.735321331@cunews>, wcscps@superior.carleton.ca (Mike Richardson) writes:
[Lots of good points re Mormons in the US]
The founding fathers of the US were hardly great on religious freedoms. At
least one history I have read formed the opinion that they left for the
US not to practice religious freedom but to practice religious intolerance.
I don't think that my lot were particularly mainstream in those days either.
Mind you like the Budhists I somehow doubt the Quakers would ever form a
militant religious fanatic movement.
|> Or laws to stop companies from making look-alike Ford/GM car parts, and
|>selling them as the real thing? The first people that got raided were antique
|>companies who made 'real GM' parts for 1930's cars.
Wooa there!!! I have a classic car. If I buy a body pannel for $300 after
being told that it is genuine BL and discover that it is a non original
copy value $50 I get real pissed. If I can get the genuine article I will
pay a lot for it because not only will it cost much less to fit (probably
meaning that its cheaper overall) but it also means that the car is worth
a hell of a lot more. Even on a twenty year old car there is a big
difference in a baddly restored car where much of the work needs to be
redone and a concours classic. I got mine for 600 quid because it was
in a shitty state from bad repairs. If it had been well repaired it would
be worth a hell of a lot more.
Are you really saying that Ford and GM are having companies beat up for
infringing copyright on parts they don't make? I find that very hard to
beleive. In the UK they are very sympathetic - Ford recently dug out
the Cortina Mk I body press so that some company could make a few more.
BL does amazing stuff, they kept the entire assembly line for the MGs
and helped set up a company to remanufacture new bodyshells.
There is a hell of a difference between remanufacturing and passing off.
The former I can't see anyone trying to stop. Most car cos see classic
vehicles as a damn good ad for them. The latter though is fraud. If a
part is described to me as real GM and money taken under that assurance
when they know it ain't GM that's fraud.
|> It's the people who blindy believe that the government does the best in
|>everything for them who are _really_ dangerous.
It really is odd. I post saying that the US govt does appauling things
under Regan, Bush etc. in foreign policy. The right get really pissed.
Then when I point out that nobody seems to have posted a better suggestion
as to how to solve the WACO affair they come with the govt paranoia
bit. It's like they reserve their ability to criticise the govt for
when they feel their interests are threatened but don't give a cuss about
anyone else.
You should revers that attitude. When your interests are threatened its
way too late. You have to challenge the govt when it is attacking
someone else's interests.
That does not mean however that you can start calling the govt the
equivalent of the NAZI party on the basis of an unfortunate outcome
in a hostage situation.
Phill Hallam-Baker
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | University of Virginia | John Berryhill, Ph.D. writes
>I don't know who's next, but I hope it's people who pick their noses
>while driving.
umm, please don't lump us all together. It's those blatant,
fundamentalist pickers that give the rest of us a bad name. Some of
us try very hard to be discreet and stay alert.
--
Peter M. Yadlowsky | Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia | Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU | - after Basho
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree) | Re: That Kill by Sword, Must be Killed by Sword | Red Barn Data Center | In article <20APR199306173611@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>In article <sandvik-190493201048@sandvik-kent.apple.com>,
>sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes...
...
>>So are you happy now when 70+ people, including innocent kids,
>>died today?
It's amazing how everyone automatically blames one side or the other.
One thing for sure: Koresh will have no chance to defend himself
against the statements (lacking in fact or COurt sponsored verification)
made by agents who participated in the situation that killed him.
I don't know they murdered him; I also don't know
that the Branch Davidians set a fire and suicidede.
It is SICK of BATF or FBI spokepeople to make such
comments in advance of forensic pathology.
Stephen: thank you. God speed.
>No. Kinda numb. I thought something like this was going to happen
>over a week ago. One of the things that's been obvious from the
Yah.
>start is that when there are two armed camps, neither of which
>yields, it's usually get slaughtered -- when any little spark
>sets it off.
>
>Which is why Koresh and company shouldn't have stockpiled weapons,
>and why the BATF shouldn't have come primed for a raid.
BINGO. Am I the only one to notice:
a) No peaceful attempt to serve a warrant.
b) Six months to develop a scene and six days to end it?
c) .... ah God:
25 children
at least 64 adults
plus 6 at the beginning
and more BATF agents
all dead.
>
>Painful point #1:
>
> If the Davidians fired first -- why were the BATF
> on the roof -- rather than taking cover?
Has anyone asked themselves these questions:
1) Have you seen the ENTIRE video sequences taken during the
opening rounds? I seem to recall missing several key parts:
a) The first five minutes of day one; only the shooting
part comes out.
b) What happened to the Feds video units? You mean they do
not carry helmet cams? Wonder why not?
2) How is it you can have camera crews with live transmission
video present and NOT have an uninterrupted record?
a) You realize the units carry ittle bitty 8mm backups?
That hold 90 minutes per unit? And there are
twounits on the professional handhelds (so no
tape turnover gaps)?
b) Until all views are seen, it is premature to point
fingers in either direction.
As you well point out, Stephen.
>
> Anyone (BATF, BD, X-BD, Other) could have touched it off,
> by mistake or maliciously?
More on this below.
>
> Once Koresh was shot... (disregarding his being a religious
> leader, and apocalyptically obsessed) most likely the people
> inside just went on drill. Just like the BATF outside.
>
>Is the lesson that automatic responses are very hazardous last resort
>measures?
Yes. But it is so hard toremain human under the full
pressure of hazard, game playing, and life.
>
>
>Painful point #2:
>
> Either side could have backed off, to help defuse the
> situation. We see the problem constantly here on the
> net with flaming.
>
>Ego problems. Nuff said.
More to the point: when someone dies (almost like it was intended
that way), both sides will kill to maintain their innocence --
a contradiction in terms.
>
>
>Painful point #3:
>
> It doesn't help to take sides in such a situation. Just
> adds fuel to the fire. Better is to let it burn out on
> it's own.
True. Usually I pick the unpopular side and point out
from the evidence seen what might have alternatively happened.
>
>Best example I can think of is Christ with the tax coin. He didn't
>have one (and so didn't sanction the Roman authority unduly). When
>they showed it to him, he noted that it was Caesar's minting, and
>so said give it to him, (no waste of time). And then he got back to
>more worthwhile concerns -- God's will.
This requires someone interested in God's Will. Please note
that the outstanding _overt_ problem in this country today
is one where the Government:
wants Caesar's coin to pay off the debt.
>
>The anti-tax movement of today, and the anti-ssan-as-i.d. groups,
>would do well to note who the issuing authority is. Ditto for those
Yes: The AMerican People. Not the Federal Government.
ANd if it is not spent towards that end, _no_one_ deserves
the coin.
>made in the image of God.
Yah. Fewpeople hear the contradiction:
Money
made
in the image
of God
>
>No need to stir things up in ever larger revo-revo-revolution, as
>governments turn over, and over, and over.
I wish you were wrong. Many pundits are saying 3 years.
The onyl good thing to come out of my divorce (and my
exposure to the Damned (pardon me) American Divorce Attorney
is:
I have no money left to lose to taxes or inflation.
>
>
>painful point #4:
>
> For many, this was just entertainment.
>
> Thumbs-up. Thumbs-down.
>
> Just another thriller like "Terminator 2,"
> or a good-old ball game.
>
>Is the lesson that we've become jaded to media reality?
25 children dead. If anyone thinks blaming Koresh -- or the BATF
helps this any at all, is sick. and wrong.
The reason you can tell that the BATF may not be entirely
straight on this is that the leaders at press conferences
havew made ANY comments about even the POSSIBILITY that
Koresh or his followers caused this.
The BATF agentss are more concerned with their repuations
and morals ("not my fault, Koresh did it!") than they
are with:
25 dead children.
Same goes for Koresh & his followers - who are all (mostly) dead.
>
>
>
>Painful point #5:
>
> LA burned. The Davidians burned. In one case society has
> abandoned the people -- which has returned to a frontier.
> In the other -- the outskirts were bumping against the
> suburbs.
>
>Is the lesson that what's lawful in different areas of society,
>depends more on conditions than laws?
More on power and favoritism. (My personal opinion).
Look to history: whenever privilege has replaced whatever
token of objective law and justice a society has had,
Hitlerrs have followed.
>
>
>If we don't learn-the-lessons, or at least make an honest effort,
>the next conflagration will no doubt be closer to home.
>
>Rather than putting out fires, aren't there much more important
>concerns for us to work on??
You do your name sake proud, Stephen.
Its hard, but please keep on keeping on:
each voice in the wilderness now will
save a generation unborn from horror
>
>>Kent
>>....who can't 'cheers' today exactly.
>
>What keeps me from being a bomb-thrower is my loving God (as irra-
>tional as that is for so many). One direct benefit is being able to
>keep things in perspective, KS.
The day I _need_ a gun or abomb to protect myself in this
society is the day that society is already beyond redemption
and that aint' redundant, if you have any Christian
belief aytall.
... and the day that I cannot peacefully enjoin others in the
act that Thoreau called Civil Disobedience to rectify the
wrongs that my society practises, without undue harm or
punishment befalling me, is the day that society has ceased to
be a human society, and become a society of animals.
We are _very_ cclose to that.
>
>Such as who hurts more -- the ones who died, or the loved ones who
>are left? Besides the lessons. It's also time for many to grieve.
>Including those who've lost their faith in others, or in God.
>
>I'm learning to be patient, and let things heal. God willing.
Six years fighting an unjust COurt issue: still struggling to be
patient.
For those who like contrary questions:
NB: I was not there. I am not a Branch Davidian nor a law
official hater. I do hate liars or the six letter variety of same.
The official side has its advocates already; lets balance the
equation and asj a few questions on the other side, for the sake
of an old saw the BATF abd FBI seem to want to bypass:
innocent until proven guilty.
not
innocent until presumed guilty.
1) Where are the video tapes from the tanks? ALL of them.
Don't tell me they do not exist. They are standard
equipment.
2) So you think Koresh fired the place, because of the explosion?
a) Tear gas comes with an aerosol to spread it. This
aerosol is DELIBERATELY made to be as non-flammable
as possible. It is as non-flammable as possible.
.... gotcha!
... when in isolation from other substances.
WHy was a pipe deliveryu system used rather than remote
launchers? WHy did the FBI not announce "this window,
blown in plus tear gas, five minutes; then the wall come
down", and maintain a left to right sequence?
b) Most aerosols also have a secondary compound, that when
mixed in, becomes a VERY flammable (and difficult to trace)
suspension, with a VERY special property: exposure to
brief eruptions of high heat (muzzle blasts) or long
exposure to low heat (matches, a stove) will NOT tend
to ignite.
What other chemicals come up in the forensics?
Who else will be allowed to test the site?
c) After a few minutes to hours (ifdesired, the combnation
rate can be controlled as desired), the mixture can be made
to become veryignitable onb exposure to a temperature
above a certain point (a tracer round) for a certain
heat quantity (a small explosive charge) or for a length
of time (start a wall fire and wait).
Check your military records; look at the tapes.
Why were tanks (large capacity delivey systems),
tear gas (why not somnorifics?), and now (why
the hurry. was there still a comm channel open
to the outside?).
Do you see any trace of fire coming BACK to the
compound in the videos? ALL the videos? Which ones
are missing?
Do I sound paranoid? Maybe. Am I? Probably not.
You trust the FBI and BATF to render judgement?
IN advance of a Court? God help us.
(For we are surely not helping ourselves).
You trut the Federal Gevernment to give us a clean slate?
You are 4.3 trillion (admitted!) down and counting.
Look again.
Did it happen that way? I do not know. I was not there.
AND IT SHOULD WAIT FOR A COURT TO DECIDE.
But will that happen? 89 people will NOT have the chance
to tell their side as the BATF leader was, on camera.
No one wins. Except: more force next time.
Listen to your hearts, people.
Thanx again Stephen.
>
> |
>-- J --
> |
> | stephen
>
roy andrew crabtree
roy: red haired king
andrew: the virtuous one
crabtree: iron workers, ...
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) | The Universe and Black Holes, was Re: 2000 years..... | Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences | (Wouldn't it be nice if Subject: lines had something to do
with nessage bodies!)
I wonder if the Universe would look like a Black Hole
from "outside"? How could we posit an "Outside", whether called
DeSitter space, hyperspace, parallel universes, whatever?
Suppose that such a space existed, and that our universe
looked like a Black Hole in it. Then our Universe could be open
to it through Hawking radiation, the same way Black Holes are
within our Universe. Note this is all the purist speculation
and noone knows what laws govern QM beyond the event horizon
of our universe. Can laws change at such boundaries of space-time?
Bruce Salem
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell) | Re: Religion and homosexuality | University of Chicago | > magarret@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (COMPUTER DUDETTE) writes:
>I just recently realized that I am bisexual, and also just recently returned to
>religion, and have a good friend who has pointed out to me that homosexuality
>is a sin in the bible. Well, I don't see how it could be considered a sin,
First of all as far as I know, only male homosexuality is explicitly
mentioned in the bibles, so you're off the hook there, I think. In
any event, there are *plenty* of people in many denominations who
do not consider a person's sexual identification of gay/lesbian/bisexual
as an "immoral lifestyle choice"
>Also, I have always been a somewhat liberal feminist, and am pro-choice, and it
>seems that being pro-choice and being religious don't mix either. I am told
This is another misconception. You are not being told the whole story.
My former minister is a lesbian, and I know personally and
professionally several openly gay and lesbian ministers. I am
a Unitarian-Universalist and like most others in my denomination,
am pro-choice. You needn't go looking to the Unitarian Universalists
(which is a liberal religion) for acceptance of your sexual
identification and pro-choice views, however; there are many of us
who believe in spirituality AND freedom of conscience.
Good Luck on your journey!
--
Daniel O'Connell
Meadville/Lombard Theological School
University of Chicago Divinity School
<dsoconne@uchicago.edu>
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
jhallen@world.std.com (Joseph H Allen) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA | In article <1qvk8sINN9vo@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
>I'm short of patience tonite, but rabid dogs deserve and get better treatment
>than the BDs got.
Although I'm an atheist, the events in Waco have really sickened me. It's
truely a sad day for religious freedom in this country. The Branch
Dividians may have been nutty (my general opinion of all religious people),
but tax evasion and illegal possesion of firearms are certainly not grounds
for destroying a people.
The killing of the four BATF agents was surey a dispicable act, but that was
an escalation of the confrontation which the BATF started. War is bad
precisely because of humanity's tendancy for escalation. That principle
applies to all cases of warfare- whether it's between nuclear superpowers,
feuding families or fledgling religious groups and our federal govt. Why
was warfare chosen as the course of action when patience and subtlety would
also have worked? Why is the petty letter of the law more important than
peoples' lives and religious beliefs? Perhaps the supposed professionals in
our federal law inforcement agencies are just plain stupid.
It was interesting to watch the 700 club today. Pat Robertson said that the
"Branch Dividians had met the firey end for worshipping their false god." He
also said that this was a terrible tragedy and that the FBI really blew it.
However, I still feel that he's forgetting that every major religion in the
world had a similarly humble 'cult-status' beginning- even, and perhaps
especially, christianity. It is perhaps worthwhile to consider that the
Branch Dividians' apocalyptic prophecies have been fulfilled. Maybe David
Koresh really was Jesus Christ (sure sounds like a neat opening epic for a
new major religion to me).
--
/* jhallen@world.std.com (192.74.137.5) */ /* Joseph H. Allen */
int a[1817];main(z,p,q,r){for(p=80;q+p-80;p-=2*a[p])for(z=9;z--;)q=3&(r=time(0)
+r*57)/7,q=q?q-1?q-2?1-p%79?-1:0:p%79-77?1:0:p<1659?79:0:p>158?-79:0,q?!a[p+q*2
]?a[p+=a[p+=q]=q]=q:0:0;for(;q++-1817;)printf(q%79?"%c":"%c\n"," #"[!a[q-1]]);}
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
rosst@pogo.wv.tek.com (Ross Taylor) | Re: Davidians and compassion | Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR. | Is there evidence independent of the FBI that indicates that the Branch
Davidians set the fire? What have the survivors said? Did the press see
anything?
There is, unfortunately, precedent for the U.S. government saving children by
roasting them alive. (There is precedent for religious self-imolation
as well.)
I still wonder why the government couldn't just leave them alone.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree) | Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened? | Red Barn Data Center | In article <keng.735334134@tunfaire> keng@den.mmc.com (Ken Garrido) writes:
[lotsa stuff taken out]
Bottom line: due process was not served. No peaceful attempt to serve
a warrant occurred.
Think on that.
royc
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) | Re: Albert Sabin | Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA | In article <1ph4c8$8j6@shrike.und.ac.za> dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace) writes:
}Herb Huston (huston@access.digex.com) wrote:
}
}: Actually, cannibalism is quite widespread. My favorite examples are sand
}: sharks and mackerel sharks. The fetuses begin cannibalizing each other, and
}: the one that is eventually born enters the sea with a full stomache. Would
}: you like some more gruesome examples?
}
}Fair enough - I'm pretty well aware of the examples used - and mine were very
}rapidly and thoughtlessly pulled out of thin air, but the point I'm making is
}that our non-cannibalism doesn't imply any `value' over other animals.
Did something happen while I wasn't looking? When did _Homo sapiens_ become
non-cannibalistic?
-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.com
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Case Western Reserve University | In article <1993Apr17.162105.3303@scic.intel.com> sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth J. Bradley) writes:
>Ifone simply says "God did it", then that is not falsifiable.
Unless God admits that he didn't do it....
=)
---
" I'd Cheat on Hillary Too."
John Laws
Local GOP Reprehensitive
Extolling "Traditional Family Values."
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | Iowa State University, Ames IA | In <mcclaryC5snpq.KB1@netcom.com> mcclary@netcom.com (Michael McClary) writes:
Just thought I'd clear up a few of the murky areas...
>Actually, after surviving being driven out of Nauvoo, and later Carthage,
>the Mormons DID fortify Utah. They still arm themselves to "defend the
>faith", and stockpile food as well. They have been involved in quite a
>lot of illegal activity - including multiple (and often underage) wives
>for the leaders - a practice still in vogue with some splinters of their
>sect. The parallels between Koresh and Joseph Smith are striking.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Joseph Smith started the sect. After he and his brother Hyram
were murdered in a Nauvoo, Il. jail cell, church membership split over
who to follow. Initially, Smith was considered a prophet (just like
Mohammed, a rather interesting parallel considering Muslims consider
Christ to be a prophet the same as Jews, I'm led to understand. Make
no mistake, this was no messiah we're talking about in Smith). The
thought at the time was that the gift of prophecy was to be handed
down father to son. After Joseph Smith died, his son was only
entering his teens. Brigham Young and a few others claimed to have
been bequeathed the gift and leadership prior to his death. The
Council of Twelve, the Church governing body, wasn't of much help
here, and this basic conflict is still a wedge between the sects.
Brigham Young took his followers to Salt Lake. The rest waited
for Smith Jr. to grow up enough to assume leadership. The other
claimants to the leadership were soon ignored, like Mike Dukakis. ;-)
Both sects practiced the "1-year food stockpile" doctrine,
and this being frontier and farming country most carried or at
least owned weapons. There is little evidence that they were a
militaristic sect, given that they tended to move on rather than
face large-scale opposition. Brigham Young, having suffered a
great deal getting to Salt Lake, seems to have been quite
justified in making military training a good thing. Remember,
this was far beyond where even the US Army went, and these people
had nobody to turn to save themselves.
Just a little context to put this all in perspective.
>So what did the Mormons get? It seems that J. Edgar Hoover was very
>impressed with the way they kept secrets. (They're pledged to defend
>secrets with their lives and atone for sin with blood. Many actually
>do - even to the point of suicide.)
The RLDS, the Reorganized LDS, are friendly rivals of the LDS
and delight in telling stories about them, which generates quick retorts
from the LDS members and everybody has a grand time. At no time have
I ever even heard this hinted at. I'm taking it with a salt block.
> So he hired virtually no one but
>Mormons, until the FBI was almost exclusively staffed by members of the
>Church of Later Day Saints. Though J. Edgar is finally gone, the FBI
>personnel (especially the field agents) are still heavily Mormon.
>I have often wondered how this might affect the FBI's treatment
>of religious organizations a Mormon would consider heretical.
If it's true, there would be little affect. LDS and RLDS
philosophy is that all other religions have strayed from the true
Church as set down by Jesus, but that God will judge each on his
own merits. In addition, the RLDS also contend (and the LDS may
as well) that ignorance of the True Way (tm) is an excuse. You
can only be condemned if you had been tought the way and rejected
it. In short, LDS and RLDS suffer everybody from Lutherans to
Buddhists, secure in the knowledge that though they are wrong they
will not be penalized for ignorance. It is more likely that Hoover
liked them because of their rather strict upbringings which forbade
alcohol, tobacco, hot drink (like coffee or tea), and the like.
These people are the "salt of the Earth" and as such are more
easily made to follow orders and have few vices to be used against them.
That's my somewhat educated guess, anyway. Both sects have
splinter groups that don't mirror the masses, but these are small
and rare, and hardly worth noting their common ancestry.
None of this has any relevance to guns, though. When a
man's religion is used to deny him the right of self-protection with
the weapons suitable for the job, he'll find an ally in me.
< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
< ISU only censors what I read, not what I say. Don't blame them. >
< USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines. Meet exciting, >
< unusual people. And flame them. >
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) | Rosicrucian Order(s) ?! | Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) |
Kent:
You say that
>There are about 4-10 competing Rosicrucian orders existing today,
^^^^^^^^^
>most of them are spin-offs from OTO and other competing organizations
>from the 19th century France/Germany. Maybe I should write an article
Please don't! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>about all this, I spent some time investigating these organizations
>and their conceptual world view systems.
Name just three *really* competing Rosicrucian Orders. I have
probably spent more time than you doing the same.
None of them are spin-offs from O.T.O. The opposite may be the
case.
Study Harder,
Tony
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) | Re: Albert Sabin | California Institute of Technology, Pasadena | wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
>>[...] it is patently untrue (as has been demonstrated ad
>>nauseum) that the complexity of life is a contradiction of the second
>>law.
>My point is that order does not come from disorder.
It does not... or it can not? When you freze water, you've created an
ordered crystal from a disordered liquid. Overall, the entropy is
increased, but locally order is increased.
>... the creation od DNA by random processes is incalculably remote.
And, you find the idea of a god more likely?
Besides, we can apply the anthropic principle to circumvent any
probablilty problems.
keith
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
jmeritt@mental.mitre.org | By the sword... | UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway | Deuteronmy 20:13
And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite
every male thereof with the edge of the sword
Joshua 6:21
And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, bith man and women,
young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
Joshua 10:32
And the Lord delivered Lachish into the hand of Israel, which took it on the
second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that
were therein, according to all that he had done to Libnah
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu> | Re: Theists And Objectivity | Sponsored account, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA | trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
> Can a theist be truly objective? Can he be impartial
> when questioning the truth of his scriptures, or
> will he assume the superstition of his parents
> when questioning?
I think that if a theist were truly objective and throws out the notion that
God definitely exists and starts from scratch to prove to themselves that
the scriptures are the whole truth then that person would no longer be a
theist.
> It usually all has to do with how the child is
> brought up. From the time he is born, the
> theist is brought up with the notion of the
> "truth" of some kind of scripture-- the Bible,
> the Torah, the Qur'an, & etc. He is told
> of this wondrous God who wrote (or inspired)
> the scripture, of the prophets talked about in
> the scripture, of the miracles performed, & etc.
> He is also told that to question this (as
> children are apt to do) is a sin, a crime
> against God, and to lose belief in the scrip-
> ture's truth is to damn one's soul to Hell.
> Thus, by the time he is able to read the
> scripture for himself, the belief in its "truth"
> is so ingrained in his mind it all seems a
> matter of course.
You're missing something here. There are people who convert from
non-theism to theism after being brought up in a non-theist household. (I
don't have any statistics as to how many though. That would be an
interesting thing to know.) I think that religion is a crutch. People are
naturally afraid of the unknown and the unexplainable. People don't want
to believe that when they die, they are dead, finished. That there is
nothing else after that. And so religion is kind of a nice fantasy.
Religion also describes things we don't know about the universe (things
science has not yet described) and it also gives people a feeling of
security... that if they just do this one thing and everything will be ok.
That they are being watched over by a higher power and its minions. This
has a very high psychological attraction for quite a few people and these
people are willing to put up with a few discrepancies and holes in their
belief system for what it gains them. This is why I think it's kind of
useless to try too hard to convert theists to atheism. They are happy with
their fantasy and they feel that other people will be happy with it too
(they can't accept the fact that there are people who would rather accept
the harsh reality that they are running from).
Anyway, I'm getting kind of carried away here. But my point is that theism
doesn't have to be ingrained into a child's mindset for that person to grow
up as a theist (although this happens far too often). Theism is designed
to have its own attractions.
>
> _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ * Atheist
> _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ * Libertarian
> _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ * Pro-individuality
> _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ * Pro-responsibility
> _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Jr. * and all that jazz...
Nanci
.........................................................................
If you know (and are SURE of) the author of this quote, please send me
email (nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu):
If you are one in a million, then there are 7 and a half of you in NYC.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) | Re: Tieing Abortion to Health Reform -- Is Clinton Nuts? | null | In <1qpd98$b7e@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> taite@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu () writes:
>We may have twice the murder rate of the UK, but who gives a flip?
Presumably, most of those being murdered "give a flip"...
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
hall@boi.hp.com (Hal Leifson) | Re: [lds] kermit's reply [was: Re: Tony Rose was : FREE BOOK OF MORMON | Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho | Robert Weiss (psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu) wrote:
:
(lots of stuff about the Nicene Creed deleted which can be read in the
original basenote. I will also leave it up to other LDS netters to
take Mr. Weiss to task on using Mormon Doctrine to declare the difinitive
word on what the LDS Church teaches as doctrine. Hopefully the LDS
netters will be amiable in their explanation.)
Since it would do no good to rebut what Mr. Weiss has stated on the origin
of the Nicene Creed and its status as devine and inspired (I say "no good"
because it cannot be proved through discussion or debate as to whether or not
the authors of the Creed were inspired), I leave you (it will be some time
before I post again) with the following thought authored by Eugene England,
Professor of English at Brigham Young University. Mr. England wrote the
following as part of a book review section in This People's magazine (Spring
1993 edition):
"I conclude with a little sermon because I believe we will not be a Mormon--
or human--family until we can get over labeling and rejecting each other
with terms like feminist or patriarchal, liberal or conservative (Christian
or non-Christian -- Hal 8^). When we are tempted to draw a circle around
a set of beliefs and traditions and styles and call it American, then exclude
those who don't fit, it may be well to consider that perhaps the most central
defining characteristic of a good American might be "one who doesn't draw
exclusive circles" -- that the surest way of excluding ourselves from the
central American ideal is by excluding others. And when we are tempted to
draw a circle around "Mormon" or "Christian," to decide who is "orthodox"
and who isn't by how much they agree with us, it might be well to consider
that the central pillar of Christ's "orthodoxy" is our ability to love
unconditionally those who are different and include them in our family.
"I recently spent some time in a "Christian" bookstore in California. The
service was excellent, the clerks and customers all smiling, neat, and
well-scrubbed, and there were the expected wholesome offerings of scriptural
commentaries, sentimental fiction, and collections of evangelistic sermons.
But I was dismayed to find how much shelf space was given to attacking
others, often viciously---whether the political left, our modern American
culture, or other religions. A whole section was devoted to "Cults and the
Occult," and as you might expect, Mormonism was right there under the same
rubric and indictment (often by the same authors) as Satanism. And I found
I could either rent or buy (in English or Spanish) copies of The God Makers
(that absurdly inaccurate, even libelous, but very popular and dangerous
anti-Mormon film that uses exaclty the same techniques and even accusations
of the Nazi films that scapegoated Jews in the 1930s).
"It seems to me one major indication that a person is a genuine convert to
Christ and his redemptive love is his lack of paranoia and anxiety ("Perfect
love casteth out fear," I John 4:18). I have always been pleased that the
LDS Church has not engaged in attacks on other faiths, though I find a
disheartening increase in willingness of individual Mormons to engage in the
same kinds of stereotyping and scapegoating---and even threats of coercive
action---as the "religious right wing" has launched this year against the
political left and American cultural and religious styles they don't like.
It is a fearful irony that in so doing Mormons take common cause with the
very people who have most slanderously attacked Mormons---people who would,
if they had power, forcefully restrict Mormons' rights along with those of
others they believe to be evil."
The above "sermon" was addressed to the LDS audience who usually subscribe
to This People's magazine, but would certainly apply to all of us who
rely on the mercies and grace of Jesus Christ to bring us back into His
arms.
Even though the LDS Church claims devine authority to exercise the principles
of the restored gospel---as in the days of Christ, the Church does not claim
perfection and infallibility in how those with authoritative status have or do
now lead the Church. I, for one, do not wish to be labelled "Christian", if
those who profess themselves as Christians attack my beliefs because they are
intollerent (for example) of the way my religion may interpret Biblical
scriptures of the same source to have a different meaning and implication
than mainstream Christianity would give it. Once again, being in the
majority does NOT in and of itself PROVE anything except that your collective
voice is louder. That's really all the critics of the LDS Church have to stand
on in terms of the kind of Biblical interpretation used as proof to counter
the LDS Church' interpretation! Using someone elses biased research of truths
and non-truths (whose to say what the mixture is?) as an authoritative tool to
disprove or discredit is not being fair to anyone, least of all themselves.
Let us simply agree to disagree, and share beliefs through adult discussion
and conversation, thereby uplifting everyone.
Hal Leifson -- signing off!
| 19talk.religion.misc
|