from
stringlengths 3
223
⌀ | subject
stringlengths 2
120
⌀ | organization
stringlengths 1
116
⌀ | text
stringlengths 1
160k
| label
class label 20
classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 <1qj9gq$mg7@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
...
>Plus questions for you: why do subjectivists/relativists/nihilists get so
>het up about the idea that relativism is *better* than objectivism?
>Is good logic *better* than bad? Is good science better than bad? Ought
>I to prefer simple theories with accurate predictions to complex and useless
>theories? Is almost anything preferable to genocide? Is there a sense in
>which such value judgements are objective, or not?
>
>--
>Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
>odwyer@sse.ie from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
Frank-
It's quite simple. Objective is better than subjective. :-)
-Norman
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) | Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened? | Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA | In article <visser.735260518@convex.convex.com> visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
> Attorney General Vampira tells us that todays events were suppose
>to "save" those in the compound. Blowing holes in a building and
>gassing those inside was supposed to "save" them?
Well it may not have saved them (but they were Xians so they were
already "saved"). But it did save the taxpayers the expense of a
nasty trial (there's a budget deficit on, you know!). Not to mention
the costs of extending the seige any longer. And it saved the local
fire depratment the trouble of having to be on station when the feds
started their little action. And it saved the BATF/FBI the embarrassment
of a lot of nasty testimony and accusations by BD's. And let's not
forget how it saves future job-seekers and college-admission-seekers
from having to compete with all those kids in the compound who won't
be growing up to work or go to school. <sarcasm mode off>
But it doesn't save you guys on the net from having to hear me say,
"I told you so!" Whether Koresh started the fire or the feds did
the bottom line is the same: there's a whole lot of dead children
who would be alive today if they had been released back when we were
debating this a few weeks ago.
---peter
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
rjk@world.std.com (Robert J. Kolker) | Odds and Ends | The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA | Just a few cheap shots a Christianity:
Riddle: What is the shortest street in Jerusalem?
Answer: The Street of the Righteous Poles.
Limrick:
There was an archeologist Thostle
Who found an amazing fossil
By the way it was bent
And the knot it the end
'twas the penis of Paul the Apostle.
Jingle:
Christianity hits the spot
Twelve Apostles thats a lot
Jesus Christ and a Virgin too
Christianity's the faith for you
(with apologies to Pepsi Cola and its famous jingle)
Riddle:
How many Christians does it take to save a light bulb.
Answer: None, only Jesus can save.
Aphorism:
Jesus Saves
Moses Invests
Proof that Jesus was Jewish:
1. He lived at home till he was 33
2. He went into his fathers business
3. He thought he mother was a virgin
4. His mother thought he was God.
QED.
So long you all
Bob Kolker
"I would rather spend eternity in Hell with interesting people
than eternity in Heaven with Christians"
--
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
rps@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (raj.sharma) | Re: Bhagavad-Gita 2.32 | AT&T | A poster writes:
> In the Kingdom of God (Vaikuntha) the tigers do not eat other living
> beings. In the material world, everyone is trying to consume everyone
> else. Therefore we all (even tigers, who are by no means invincible)
> should try to get out of the miserable material situation and return to
> the Kingdom of God.
Is the so-called material world "outside" the Kingdom of God?
> Right. But, unfortunately, acting like animals is the number one pastime
> of modern human beings.
Aha, animals are inferior, and humans are superior.
Huh?
[Isn't the desire to be superior so "overwhelming?"]
[that humans constantly "put down" even innocent animals.]
---raj
[P.S. - Request: please e-mail a copy of any response to
raj, as he does not read trm regularly.]
| 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 <sandvik-150493180341@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
#In article <1qkndq$k@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon
#Livesey) wrote:
#> In article <1qjbn0$na4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
#> |> Really? You don't know what objective value is? If I offered the people
#> |> of the U.S., collectively, $1 for all of the land in America, would that
#> |> sound like a good deal?
#>
#> You mean that if you can find a ridiculous price, the rest of
#> us are supposed to conclude that an objectively correct price
#> exists?
#
#Another Gedanken experiment is "selling the London bridge" adjusted to
#this situation, selling USA for $1 to a foreign tourist. Yet again,
#is this an objective deal?
Good question. Under the assumption that things are as they are,
and the seller is not the owner (I assume this is what you mean)
then one can say that with high confidence that this is a bad deal
for any tourist, regardless of their private beliefs. There isn't
enough information to draw good conclusions about the seller - but one
could say (with less confidence) that it can be a good deal for any seller.
That the seller and buyer come out with different values on the deal is
*not* relativism since in fact any number of disinterested observers can
predict this, which sounds pretty objective to me.
--
Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
odwyer@sse.ie from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Sun | In article <C5Hr14.Jxw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> lis450bw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (lis450 Student) writes:
>My definition of objective would be absolute, or fixed, rather than
>
> subjective, or varying and changing.
>
Lets see what the dictionary has to say:
objective adj. 1. As having to do with a material object as distinguished
from a mental concept. 2. Having actual existance. 3.a. Uninfluenced
by emotion or personal prejudice. b. Based on observable phenomenon.
eric
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany | In article <C5v6rB.37F@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>I've seen referrences to "Creation vs Evolution" several times in a.a
>and I have question. Is either point of view derived from direct
>observation; can either be scientific? I wonder if the whole
>controversy is more concerned with the consequences of the "Truth"
>rather than the truth itself.
>Both sides seem to hold to a philosophical outcome, and I can't help
>wondering which came first. As I've pointed out elsewhere, my view of
>human nature makes me believe that there is no way of knowing
>anyhthing objectively - all knowledge is inherently subjective. So, in
>the context of a.a, would you take a stand based on what you actually
>know to be true or on what you want to be true and how can you tell
>the difference?
Translation of the above paragraph:
"I am uninformed about the evidence for evolution. Please send me the
talk.origins FAQs on the subject."
--
thomas kettenring, 3 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Johannes Scotus Eriugena, the greatest European philosopher of the 9th century,
said that if reason and authority conflict, reason should be given preference.
And if that doesn't sound reasonable to you, you'll just have to accept it...
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
riggs@descartes.etl.army.mil (Bill Riggs) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD |
I was slightly surprised to see the "Guns of Roston" open up on me here.
But Gerry has his posting record and I have mine. Although I'm usually more
polite than Gerry is, I'm not afraid of controversy either. If this looks like
an argument that he started just to be contrary, or to pander to the sci.skeptic
masses (to say nothing of the libertarian masses), I'll certainly bow out.
My schedule for the next two weeks does NOT read, "23 April through 8 May:
Debate Gerry Roston on the true meaning of the Declaration of Independence
and the Bill of Rights; include a long discourse on the validity of Jefferson's
claims in the Declaration of Independence."
I've crossposted this to misc.legal, so that REAL lawyers can pass
judgement on Gerry's legal arguments...
In article <GERRY.93Apr21132149@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>In article <2003@tecsun1.tec.army.mil> riggs@descartes.etl.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>
> One thing that should be made clear is that neither the FBI nor
> the BATF is responsible for what happened yesterday. One can argue about
> the initial raid, but it would be worth mentioning, before the facts get
> lost, that
>
> 1. The Branch Davidians were tipped off that the BATF was coming
> during the initial raid.
>
> 2. The Branch Davidians opened fire first.
>
>Sigh, I was waiting some some not-so-intelligent person to bring this
>up. Look, this is a country of laws. To quote a piece of parchment
>that many seem to think is of little importance:
>
> 4th Amendment
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
> shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon
> probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
> particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons
> or things to be seized.
The first question is, "Did the 'tip-off' call indicate to the
Branch Davidians that a "no-knock warrant" was in use (and they could
therefore presumably go into 'Weapons Free' once the compound property
was entered ?" The second question is, "What makes Gerry think that the
Davidians' actions would have been different had another type of warrant
been in use ?"
I'd like to see both of these questions answered before seeking
judgment as to any claims about my IQ.
>
>No, a no-knock warrant is in clear violation of the 4th amendment.
>Okay, what about the fact that they were tipped off - they shouldn't
>have opened fire - right? WRONG! Think about this: I am a drug
>dealer and my competition wants to do away with me. They call me and
>tell me that the Feds are on their way with a no-knock warrant. So,
>being moronic sheep we wait, with our guns holstered. Now, instead of
>the Feds, in comes my competition, and we're history. The only
>acceptable answer to a no-knock warrant is blazing guns! I may sound
>paranoid, but our government is out of control, and killing a few
>federal officers make knock some sense back into it.
A spurious analogy, especially for one so skeptical as Gerry.
The Davidians were NOT drug dealers, and by all accounts feared no one
but the Feds. Any evidence to the contrary ?
Bill R.
--
"When up a dangerous faction starts, "My opinions do not represent
With wrath and vengeance in their hearts; those of my employer or
By solemn League and Cov'nant bound, any government agency."
To ruin, slaughter, and confound; - Bill Riggs (1992)
To turn religion to a fable,
And turn the Government to a Babel;
Pervert the law, disgrace the gown,
Corrupt the senate, rob the crown;
To sacrifice old England's glory,
And make her infamous in story.
When such a tempest shook the land,
How could unguarded virtue stand ?"
- Jonathan Swift (1732)
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) | CHRISTIAN DEVIL REVEALED! | The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'. | >For a while I was puzzled by the the concept of Adam and Eve coming to
>know good and evil. This is how I resolved it. Within God's universe
>each action evokes an equal and opposite reaction. There can be no good
>without evil as an opposite. So the issue is not what you do but to whom
>you give your allegiance. That is why, even in this sinful state, when we
>perform an evil act while we are submitted to God He does not place that
>sinful act to our account (Rom 4:8) In the same vein you can perform all
>the good deeds in the book, if your life is not under God's control you are
>still sinning (see Rom 14:23).
Now, take a good look at at, an tell me man, there is no Christian
Devil? There is, is real, is a virus, a meme, infecting and possessing
the good people and keep 'em from becoming human beings with emphasis on
the being! Is not a matter of good people an evil people, is all good
people see, but some good people vexed of the Christian Devil. An it
can't be burn out or lynch out or rape out. Only wise up let I rise up.
Christian Devil is real man, how else can you explain five hundred years
of history, even more? Can only be explained by Christians invoke
Christian Devil.
you keep on knocking but you can't come in, i got to understand you've
been living in sin, but walk right in and sit right down, i'll keep
on loving you, i'll play the clown, but bend down low, let i tell you
what i know yah
i've been 'buked brothers and i've been stoned, woe, woe, woe, now i'm
hung by a tree in the the ganging on a few, woe, woe, woe, it doesn't
matter who the man is who lives the life he loves, it doesn't matter
what the man does or the honest life he loves, i want somewhere, i want
somewhere, hallelujah, hallelujah, somewhere to lay my head, woe is me
only ska beat in 'eaven man
stiff necked fools, you think you're cool, to deny me for simplicity, yes
you have gone, for so long with your love for vanity now, yes you have
got the wrong interpretation mixed up with vain imagination, so take jah
sun and jah moon and jah rain and jah stars, and forever yes erase your
fantasy, yeah, the lips of the righteous teach many, but fools die for
want of wisdom, the rich man's wealth is in his city, the righteous
wealth is in his holy place, so take jah sun and jah moon and jah rain
and jah stars, and forever yes erase your fantasy, destruction of the
poor is in their poverty, destruction of the soul is vanity, yeah, but i
don't want to rule ya, i don't want to fool ya, i don't want to school
ya, things you, you might never know about, yes you have got the wrong
interpretation mixed up with vain, vain imagination, stiff necked fools,
you think you're cool, to deny me for, oh simplicity
love to see, when yah move in the rhythm, love to see when you're
dancing from within, it gives great joy to feel such sweet togetherness,
everyone's doing and they're doing their best, it remind i of the days
in jericho, when we trodden down jericho wall, these are the days when
we'll trod true babylon, gonna trod until babylon fall
then I saw the angel with the seven seals saying, babylon throne going down
we weeping and we wailing tonight
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK. | frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> (b) I am neither a Christian nor a theist, but I believe in objective
> morality in preference to a relativist soup of gobbledegook.
Well, there are two approaches we can take here. One is to ask you what this
objective morality is, assuming it's not a secret.
The other is to ask you what you think is wrong with relativism, so that we
can correct your misconceptions :-)
mathew
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | University of Colorado, Boulder | In article <1993Apr20.203503.8672@news.cs.brandeis.edu> st922957@pip.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>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.
If that was really what the FBI said, I'm extrelemy suspicious: They
_knew_ the Branch Davidian was a very paranoid group. To say, "...or
you will be gassed" would probably have been understood as _poison_
gas, not tear gas. If the FBI made that remark, I'd say they were
encouraging an extreme reaction.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
"David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu> | Re: Spreading Christianity (Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor) | Misc. student, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA | Not to be too snide about it, but I think this Christianity must
be a very convenient religion, very maliable and suitable for
any occassion since it seems one can take it any way one wants
to go with it and follow whichever bits one pleases and
reinterpret the bits that don't match with one's desires. It
is, in fact, so convenient that, were I capable of believing
in a god, I might consider going for some brand of Christianity.
The only difficulty left then, of course, is picking which sect
to join. There are just so many.
Dean Kaflowitz
Yes, Christianity is convenient. Following the teachings of Jesus
Christ and the Ten Commandments is convenient. Trying to love in a
hateful world is convenient. Turning the other cheek is convenient. So
convenient that it is burdensome at times.
Dave.
=============================================================
--There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke. (Bob Dylan)
--Never let school interfere with your education. (Mark Twain)
--Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated. (Mark Twain)
--TACT is getting your point across without stabbing someone with it.
--Subtlety is saying what you mean, then getting out of the way before
it is understood.
--"If you were happy every day of your life you wouldn't be a human
being, you'd be a game show host." (taken from the movie "Heathers.")
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
<KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET> | re: ABORTION and private health insurance | City University of New York | >In <1qid8s$ik0@agate.berkeley.edu> dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis Kriz)
writes:
>I recently have become aware that my health insurance includes
>coverage for abortion. I strongly oppose abortion for reasons of
>conscience. It disturbs me deeply to know that my premiums may
>be being used to pay for that which I sincerely believe is
>murder. I would like to request that I be exempted from abortion
>coverage with my health premiums reduced accordingly.
I share Dennis's outrage over a similar manner. I have recently become aware
that my health insurance includes coverage for illness and injuries
suffered by Christians. It disturbs me deeply to know that my premiums
may be used to pay for that which I sincerely believe is divine
punishment for their sinful conduct. In addition these folks are able to
avail themselves of such alternative therapies as Lourdes, Fatima,
Morris Cerullo, Benny Hinn, etc. In any case as "Jesus Saves' I feel
that there is no reason for them to be covering their bets at my
expense. I would like to request that I be exempted from Christian
coverage with my health premiums reduced accordingly.
Jack Carroll
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | Cookamunga Tourist Bureau | In article <1993Apr21.180216.7431@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>,
mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas) wrote:
> Either way, I have evidence to support the theory that the BD's burned
> themselves. You made a serious implication that the FBI was responsible
> for the fire and the "destruction of the people". All you have done is
> put doubt on who started the fire without providing any evidence to back
> up your claim that the FBI was responsible.
Last night CNN reported that FBI has infrared pictures showing
that the fires started in three places at the same time. That
would indicate something not resembling an accident.
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
goldm@rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold) | Re: New Religion Forming -- Sign Up | Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute | *yawn* The Church of Kibology did it first and better.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu | Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened? | Stephen F. Austin State University | In article <24APR199302290235@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
> 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:
Didn't expect to find you in the Devil's role, Stephen, but these are
the times that try men's souls.
>
> o What was called many months of *planning* was probably
> the intelligence collecting: paperwork and interviews.
>
Nine months, as I understand it. No doubt this accounts for a
significant amount of the time as government efficiency in spending
our tax dollars would certainly seek its absolute minimum in such
an event. But my gut instinct says there is more at hand. It took
some careful preplanning to demonize D.K. to such an extent. The
attack meshes well with more restrictive gun control legislation
that seems to be the agenda of the day. It also fits a pattern of
increased government interference in personal religious beliefs.
[Randy Weaver is now on trial].
> o It's important to them because it justifies budgets.
>
No quarrel here. The BIG BANG theory is always apt at appropriation
time. They just don't have to possess a single motive.
> o The warrant was sealed to keep from jeopardizing the
> the government's case.
I certainly think publication of the warrant undermines the government's
case since it makes no claims of illegal action. Therefore the federal
judge had reason to seal it. But I am reminded of Senator Frank Church's
remark that "secrecy is the trademark of a totalitarian government."
There is rarely sufficient motive to seal a warrant in a nation of
free people.
>
> 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.
How can I argue with irrefutable logic? I have long suspected that
the government has become a mindless machine and now you go and
confirm my worst fears! Has it become a BEAST that is programmed
simply to say "Kiss my toe and you get your piece of the pie?"
I suspect bugs in the program arise when agents or those who love
this critter have independent thoughts.
> o What they were after, generally speaking, is protecting
> their jobs, budgets, and paychecks.
And watching Terminator II.
>
>
>>> We waited 444 days for our hostages to come home from Iran. We gave these
>>> people 51 days.
>>>
> 186 died at the Alamo. 86 died that day in Waco.
Yes, 186 seeds for a new Republic. And 86 for...?
>
> Rev. 11:9 ...And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and
> nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an
> half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put
> in graves.
>
> Why no burial? Is is that the bodies of the Witnesses will be said
> to be property of the state? Or just a typical bureaucratic delay?
>
Rev. 11:10...And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice
over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one
to another; because these two prophets tormented them
that dwelt on the earth.
Stephen, have you sensed that some have been rejoicing lately....?
> |
> -- J --
> |
> | stephen
>
>
--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Joe Gaut | In the super-state, it really does not
<f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> | matter at all what actually happened.
Remember the Alamo | Truth is what the government chooses to
Remember Waco | tell you. Justice is what it wants to happen.
--Jim Garrison, New Orleans, La.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) | Re: Is it good that Jesus died? | Cookamunga Tourist Bureau | In article <1993Apr25.194144.8358@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:
> In article <C5yMIr.FnE@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> >You said everyone in the world. That means *everyone* in the world, including
> >children that are not old enough to speak, let alone tell lies. If Jesus
> >says "everyone", you cannot support that by referring to a group of people
> >somewhat smaller than "everyone".
> That's right. Everyone. Even infants who cannot speak as yet. Even
> a little child will rebelliously stick his finger in a light socket.
> Even a little child will not want his diaper changed. Even a little
> child will fight nap-time.
Oh boy, get a small baby and figure out how much brain power they
have the first 6 months....
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) | Re: Christians above the Law? was Clarification of personal position | The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'. | In article <1993Apr19.131102.7843@rchland.ibm.com>
xzz0280@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (R. J. Traff) writes:
>|> In article <C5MuIw.AqC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>
>|> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
>|> >question is "On what authority do we proclaim that the requirements of the
>|> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|> >fourth commandment are no longer relevant to modern Christians?" Please
>|> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I don't believe most Christians believe they are *above* the Law. However,
>we are not saved by adherence to the Law. The Law exists to tell us what
>is sinful. We all sin.
Hence we are "all" above the Law where "all" in this case refers to
Christians.
>Jews believe that their sins are atoned for with
>blood sacrifice of animals as described in the Old Testament.
When was the last time you heard about a Jewish animal sacrifice?
>Christians
>believe that their sins are atoned for by the blood sacrifice of Jesus.
The blood sacrifice of an innocent man?
>This does not make the Law 'irrelevant'.
Then why don't Christians follow it, why don't they even follow their
own Ten Commandments?
>Breaking the Law *is* sinful,
>and we are to avoid sinful ways, but sinning, by itself, does not jeopardize
>salvation.
So, in short; Hitler is in heaven and Gandhi is in Hell?
>Note that I'm not a theologian. But this is the gist of several
>sermons I've heard lately and some Bible studies I've been through.
Did you ever wonder if someone, perhaps a great deceiver, was pulling
your leg?
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) | History & texts (was: Ancient references to Christianity) | CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin | -*----
In article <C5ztJu.FKx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
> Why is the NT tossed out as info on Jesus. I realize it is
> normally tossed out because it contains miracles, but what
> are the other reasons?
Far from being "tossed out," the gospels are taken, almost
universally, as the primary source of information about Jesus.
I am curious as to whom Mike Cobb is referring. Who "tosses out"
the New Testament? Undoubtedly a few *naive* atheists do this,
but the phrasing of the question above seems to suggest that Cobb
ascribes this more broadly.
Perhaps the question that gets more to the heart of the matter is
why, except for some *naive* believers (who, unfortunately, far
outnumber nonbelievers, both naive and critical), are the gospels
*not* taken as "gospel truth" that faithfully records just what
happened two thousand years ago? This has an easy answer, and
the answer has *nothing* to do with miracles: no text is taken
this way by a critical reader.
There is a myth among some naive believers that one takes a text,
measures it by some set of criteria, and then either confirms the
text as "historically valid" or "tosses out" the text. I suspect
this myth comes from the way history is presented in primary and
secondary school, where certain texts are vested with authority,
and from writers such as Josh McDowell who pretend to present
historical arguments along these lines for their religious
program. In fact, most texts used in primary and secondary
school history classes ought to be tossed out, even the better
such texts should not be treated as authoritatively as descibed
above, and Josh McDowell would not know a historical argument if
it bit him on the keister twice.
Let me present the barest outlines of a different view of texts
and their use in studying history. First, all texts are
historically valid. ALL texts. Or to put this another way, I
have never seen a notion of "historical validity" that makes any
sense when applied to a text. Second, no text should be read as
telling the "gospel truth" about historical events, in the way
that many students are wont to read history texts in primary and
secondary school. NO text. (This includes your favorite
author's history of whatever.)
Every text is a historical fact. Every text was written by some
person (or some group of people) for some purpose. Hence, every
text can serve as historical evidence. The question is: what can
we learn from a text? Of what interesting things (if any) does
the text provide evidence?
The diaries of the followers of the Maharishi, formerly of
Oregon, are historical evidence. The gospels are historical
evidence. The letters of the officers who participated in the
vampire inquests in Eastern Europe are historical evidence. The
modern American history textbooks that whitewash "great American
figures" are historical evidence. These are all historical
evidence of various things. They are *not* much evidence at all
that the Maharishi, formerly of Oregon, could levitate; that
Jesus was resurrected; that vampires exist; or that "great
American figures" are as squeaky clean as we learned in school.
They are better evidence that some people "saw" the Maharishi,
late of Oregon, levitate; that some of the early Christians
thought Jesus was resurrected; that many people in Eastern Europe
"saw" vampires return from the grave; and that we still have an
educational system that largely prefers to spread myth rather
than teach history.
How does one draw causal connections and infer what a piece of
historical evidence -- text or otherwise -- evinces? This is a
very complex question that has no easily summarized answer.
There are many books on the subject or various parts of the
subject. I enjoy David Hackett Fischer's "Historian's Fallacies"
as a good antidote to the uncritical way in which it is so easy
to read texts present history. It's relatively cheap. It's easy
to read. Give it a try.
Russell
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) | Re: Christian meta-ethics | PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC | In <lsjc8cINNmc1@saltillo.cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
writes:
>In article <C554F5.3GF@panix.com> mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
>
>> The issue, then, is this:
>>
>> Christian A says, "Behavior such-and-such is sinful." What is
>> Christian B supposed to *do* with such a statement?
>>
>> One possibility *always* exists: A may be able to persuade B that the
>> behavior in question *does* exhibit a failure in loving God or neighbor.
>
>Michael, modern liberal that he is, reads a fairly benign meaning
>into this word. He then constructs his religious beliefs around
>this understanding, reading *other* scripture in the context of
>these commandments, with "love" benignly understood.
I regard love as no more or less "benign" than any other Christian does.
You are merely expressing "approval" of the consequences I find therein.
Which says more about our politics and cultural trappings than about my
(or any) religion. "Love" is a highly ambiguous word, of which Christians
can write both the "gentle" words Paul uses of it in 1 Corinthians -- in
a passage that even the "conservatives" will quote at you :-) -- and the
words of T. S. Eliot in his Pentacost Hymn, "Love is the unfamiliar Name
that wove the intolerable shirt of flame ..."
This is in any case rather to the side of what I was attempting to raise
in my note, as will become more evident below.
>As a non-believer, I find Michael's Christianity kinder and gentler.
blechhh. I think you are misreading me, rather seriously. Though,
given my principle that one CANNOT force one's own notion of "sin" on
another, and my unshakeable "disestablishmentarianism", Russel Turpin
and others (believers and unbelievers alike) are under no threat of my
legislating my own understanding of Christian love.
>If I take him at
>his word, he cannot condemn the Inquisitors, because they were
>also following these commandments as *they* understood them. If
You misread. I can do (and have repeatedly done) a complete bill of
accusation against the Inquisition by exhibiting in as thorough a form
as anyone might want a demonstration of the harm it has done to human
beings (in the first place) and to respect for (let alone love of) "God"
in near succession. Please go back to my quoted words above:
The "possibility that always exists" is that I (or, to revert to proper
time sequence, my predecessors over the last several centuries) could
persuade "Christian B" of my case that the Inquisition *does* indeed
constitute an egregious violation of the Law of Love. I must also note
that the majority of Christians HAVE been so persuaded. By Christian
argumentation, as well as by secular [both Christian and non-Christian]
prohibitions.
What Mr. Turpin alludes to is a trickier point:
A. I demonstrate the human pain and violation of love involved
in the Inquisition.
B. The Inquisitor responds that Mother Church must, however
painful this *seems*, "discipline" her children for their
own good -- in this case the salvation of their souls (or
if the tortured heretic will not recant, than by bad example
"deterring" others from the same loss-of-soul.)
A. I point out that this "justification" of a failure in love
depends on a highly speculative construal of texts and of
philosophical assertions that are quite undemonstrable.
B. Burns me at the stake.
My rhetoric has failed, but the point I am making is sustained. What is
going on here has a *lot* to do with "cultural baggage." In this case,
the baggage includes a (nearly universal, and absolutely secular) belief
that an accused person must prove innocence and that testimony is most
believable if taken under torture. The elimination of Inqisitorial
practice (in those places where it *has* been eliminated, or at least
greatly reduced) has very little, if anything, to do with the discussion
of sin in the exchange between A and B.
Mr. Turpin is pointing out that, if I am A versus the Grand Inquisitor's B,
then my persuasion is not very likely to work. I know this; and in what-
ever personal agony, I consign the issue to God and my ghostly defense
attorney. So, "one possibility" fails in this case -- as it will fail in
may others. At the other extreme, the "persuasion" will succeed when it
properly SHOULD not, if it entails mistaken assumptions I share with the
Inquisitor. And that is potentially an even more troubling case, in that
many of the victims of Inquisition will have "accepted" that they were in
fact sinful (in such random cases as they may actually have been guilty
of charges brought against them.)
The point is that the "persuasion" breaks down when the parties do NOT
share enough to agree on all the cultural baggage -- and given the main
thrust of the Inquisition, against "heresy", it is *bound* to break down
in precisely the "worst" cases. The "conservative" (I don't think that
is the right word, BTW) will take refuge in what I attribute to B above,
that he is "justified" in causing harm because he *thinks* that works to
a "greater good." But this is a violent and extravagant REFUSAL to follow
the gospel, as if one's theories about "sin" entitled one to cast aside
Jesus' words on dealing with sinners (cf. Matthew 5:39ff).
I am a "radical" Christian *only* in that I take the gospel seriously.
>(Or, for that matter, what does it mean to love one's fellow
>man?) And what is the "right thing"? And how does one go about
>loving god?
Well, the whole *point* of making these the "base" commandments is that
they *aren't* reducible to rules. A set of rules is a moral code or a
law code or an algorithm for acting. Such things can be very helpful
to individuals or societies -- but not if they are used *instead* of a
personal involvement in and responsibility for one's actions. The Great
Commandment is, more than anything else, a call to act *as if you were
God and accepting ultimate responsibility* in your every action. A
demand that I, like most, would rather *not* hear, but it keeps popping
up nonetheless (along with the reassurance that it is more important
that I be open to trying this, than succeeding at it). "Conservatives"
may twist this "act as if you were God" to mean "lay down rules for other
people and be as nasty to them as possible if they don't keep YOUR rules."
They are so insistent (and obvious) about this that they have convinced a
lot of people (who rightly reject the whole concept!) that such idiocy
IS how God acts. That, after all, is the standard accusation "against
God" by the atheists here and elsewhere. That the "conservatives" have
confused THEIR manipulative, hoop-jumping notions of coercing other
people with the Nature of God is almost the entire content of standard
American atheism -- and I quite agree with it on this point.
>Ethical systems are not differentiated by the nice sounding goo
>up front, much of which sounds pretty much the same, but by the
>*specific* acts, procedures, and arguments that they recommend.
And different bodies of Christians have, from the beginning, urged
*different* "ethical systems" (or in some cases, none). As a result,
it is bizarre to identify any one of these systems, however popular
(or infamous) with Christianity. Christianity DOES NOT HAVE A TORAH.
It does not have a QU'RAN. Specifically Christian scripture has very
little, if anything, in the way of "commandments" -- so little that
the "Christians" who desperately *want* commandments go "mining" for
them with almost no support (and thus almost no obvious limitation :-))
for their efforts. The one, single, thing in the gospels which Jesus
specifically "gives" as "a commandment" to us is "love one another."
[I will be expanding on this point in a reply to Paul Hudson
that I hope to get to in a day or so -- it is quite true that
SOME Christians infer LOTS of commandments from the NT; I'll
point out what has to be going on in these inferences, and why
there is a huge amount of "cultural baggage" involved.]
You are quite right that this is "goo" if one is looking for an ethical
system.
But why should anyone BE looking for an ethical system, since our
society is eager to hand us one or more no matter what we do? It
may be that we need a principle for the CRITIQUE of ethical systems
-- in which case I will profer the _agapate allelou_ once again.
>I am glad that a few Christians,
>such as Michael, find a benign meaning for the goo, and then
>interpret the usually ugly specifics in a more constructive
>fashion. On the other hand, I do think that this tells us more
>about Michael and Christians like him that it tells us about
>Christianity.
I think you are begging the question. Why don't I and the (myriads
of) other Christians like me tell you something about Christianity?
[Nor is this very new in Christianity -- you might want to look up
the origins and fundamental doctrines of the Quakers, from the 17th
century onwards, and they are not at all the first to understand the
gospel in a manner that is congenial to my case.]
--
Michael L. Siemon I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com Most High, all of you; nevertheless
- or - you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com like any prince." Psalm 82:6-7
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
cutter@gloster.via.mind.org (cutter) | Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened? | Gordian Knot, Gloster,GA | bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
> >
> >One way or another -- so much for patience. Too bad you couldn't just
> >wait. Was the prospect of God's Message just too much to take?
>
> So you believe that David Koresh really is Jesus Christ?
>
You know, everybody scoffed at that guy they hung up on a cross too.
He claimed also to be the son of God; and it took almost two thousand
years to forget what he preached.
Love thy neighbor as thyself.
Anybody else wonder if those two guys setting the fires were 'agent
provacateurs.'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
cutter@gloster.via.mind.org (chris) All jobs are easy
to the person who
doesn't have to do them.
Holt's law
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) | Re: Language and agreement | Intelligent Systems Program | I responded to Jim's other articles today, but I see that I neglected
to respond to this one. I wouldn't want him to think me a hypocrite
for not responding to *every* stupid article on t.r.m.
m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
>From my handy dictionary:
[dictionary definitions of "not" "disagree" and "agree" deleted]
>Please operationally differentiate between "not disagree" and "agree".
Oh, but I'm weary of trying to wade through Jim's repertoire of
red herrings and smoke screens.
Let's see what we get when we run all four articles posted by Jim today
through the 'discord' filter (a Markov chain program that Steve Lamont
was kind enough to send me):
Taking action? A white geese be held
as an accomplice to be held as
a decision upon the door
A black and white goose waddles past
the eyes of the door.
Hits it with the confidence interval for
that individual is held responsible
for that, that individual
may be held as a
getaway car may be held
as an uncountably large number
of the driver of something
and agree.
A black goose
waddles past the person imprisoned?
White goose waddles past the
confidence interval for the population
of geese be axed,
fine.
And white goose
waddles past the door.
Does running Jim's articles through 'discord' make them more
coherent? Less coherent?
Or has 'discord' turned Jim's articles into an angst-ridden poem
about making choices in a world filled with uncertainty, yet being
held responsible for the choices we make? Do the geese symbolize
an inner frustration with ambiguity, a desire that everything be
black and white, with no shades of gray? Does the "getaway car"
tell us that to try to renounce the existential nature of our
being is not to "get away" from responsibility for our actions,
but rather to take the role of the passive accomplice, the
"driver" of the getaway car, as it were? Does the juxtaposition
of man and machine, car and driver, reveal a subtext: an internal
conflict between determinism and moral responsibility?
Or am I reading too much into a collaboration between Jim and
a random number generator?
dj
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) | 16 Apr 93 God's Promise in Psalm 32:8 | University at Buffalo |
I will instruct thee and teach thee
in the way which thou shalt go:
I will guide thee with mine eye.
Psalm 32:8
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) | Re: What part of "No" don't you understand? | U S WEST Advanced Technologies | > = eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>> = Steve Novak writes:
>>Because, of course, that possibility existed. Meaning any student who
>>really gave a shit could have a moment of silence on his/her own, which
>>makes more sense than forcing those who DON'T want to participate to
>>have to take part. What other reason is there for an organized "moment
>>of silence"?
>A "moment of silence" doesn't mean much unless *everyone*
>participates. Otherwise it's not silent, now is it?
The whole point is, maybe everyone _doesn't want_ to participate.
[...]
>Blindly opposing everything with a flavor of religion in it is
>utterly idiotic.
Blindly opposing everything with a flavor of religion in it that is
supported by taxpayer money is the only way to keep christianity from
becoming the official U.S. religion.
Not noticing that danger is utterly idiotic.
--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak | |"Ban the Bomb!" "Ban the POPE!!"|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
mikec@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Micheal Cranford) | the nature of light | Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. | In article <30185@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:
[ deleted ]
>Take light as another example. There are two theories: particle and
>wave. Each one fails to predict the behavior of light as some point.
>So which is it: particle or wave?
[ deleted ]
Your information on this topic is very much out of date. Quantum Electro-
dynamics (QED - which considers light to be particles) has been experimentally
verified to about 14 decimal digits of precision under ALL tested conditions.
I'm afraid that this case, at least in the physics community, has been decided.
Laymen should consult "QED - The Strange Theory of Light and Matter" by Richard
P. Feynman and for the more technically minded there's "The Feynman Lectures on
Physics" by Feynman, Leighton and Sands (an excellent 3 volumes). Case closed.
UUCP: uunet!tektronix!sail!mikec or M.Cranford
uunet!tektronix!sail.labs.tek.com!mikec Principal Troll
ARPA: mikec%sail.LABS.TEK.COM@RELAY.CS.NET Resident Skeptic
CSNet: mikec@sail.LABS.TEK.COM TekLabs, Tektronix
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
popec@brewich.hou.tx.us (Pope Charles) | Re: Freemasonry and the Southern Baptist Convention | The Brewers' Witch BBS, +1 713 272 7350, Brewich.Hou.TX.US | lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:
> In article <1qv82l$oj2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony
> >
> >
> > With the Southern Baptist Convention convening this June to consider
> >the charges that Freemasonry is incompatible with christianity, I thought
> >the following quotes by Mr. James Holly, the Anti-Masonic Flag Carrier,
> >would amuse you all...
> >
> >
> > The following passages are exact quotes from "The Southern
> >Baptist Convention and Freemasonry" by James L. Holly, M.D., President
> >of Mission and Ministry To Men, Inc., 550 N 10th St., Beaumont, TX
> >77706.
> >
> <much drivel deleted>
> > "Jesus Christ never commanded toleration as a motive for His
> >disciples, and toleration is the antithesis of the Christian message."
> >Page 30.
> >
> > "The central dynamic of the Freemason drive for world unity
> >through fraternity, liberty and equality is toleration. This is seen
> >in the writings of the 'great' writers of Freemasonry". Page 31.
> <more drivel deleted>
> > I hope you all had a good laugh! I know *I* did! <g>,
> >
> >
> >Tony
> A Laugh? Tony, this religeous bigot scares the shit out of me, and that
> any one bothers to listen to him causes me to have grave doubts about the
> future of just about anything. Shades of the Branch Davidians, Jim Jones,
> and Charlie Manson.
>
> --Uncle Wolf
> --Member Highland Lodge 748 F&AM (Grand Lodge of California)
> --Babtized a Southern Babtist
> --And one who has beliefs beyond the teachings of either.
>
> >
> >
>
>
Not to worry. The Masons have been demonized and harrassed by almost
every major Xian church there is. For centuries now. And still they
stand. They wil withstand the miserable Southern Boobtists, I am sure.
They may even pick up a little support as people start to listen to the
Boobtists and realize that subtracting the obvious lies and claims of
Satanism that the Masons sound pretty good by comparison. One thing is
known. A sizable proportion of Southern Babtists are Masons! And the
Masons have already fired back in their own magazines against the
Boobtist Witch-hunt.
Since the Consrervatives have already been a divisive element with
their war on Boobtist moderates and liberals, they may now start in on
their Mason/Boobtist brothers and hasten their own downfall as more and
more Southern Boobtists realize their church can't stand being run by a
handful of clowns looking for holy civil wars and purity tests and drop
'em out of the leadership positions they have taken over.
So as far as I am concerned, the louder, ruder, and more outrageous
an Anti-Masonic Crusade these old goats mount, the better.
Pop some pocorn and get a center row seat. The circus is about to begin.
And, Oh Look! HERE COME THE CLOWNS!
Pope Charles Slack!
------------------
popec@brewich.hou.tx.us (Pope Charles)
Origin: The Brewers' Witch BBS -- Houston, TX -- +1 713 272 7350
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) | Laws of God (was Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!) | Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C. |
In article <1993Apr23.142414.20665@sei.cmu.edu>, dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood) writes:
|>
|> mlee@ra.royalroads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
|> >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.
|>
|> Sorry if this is late for the thread, but...
|>
|> I thought God was supposed to be constant and never-changing. How do
|> you reconcile this common Christian view with the paragraph above?
|>
God never changes. He still loves us. Sending Jesus was one of His
attempts to reconcile with mankind. The nature of God has not changed.
|>
|> Also, while we're at it:
|>
|> 1. How do you reconcile "A KIND and LOVING God!!" with the
|> Judeo-Christian view that sin was at one time "immediately punishable
|> by death"? Was killing people for sinning God's way of showing
|> KINDness and LOVE?
|>
Sinning in the face of God was punishable by immediate death. There are
several OT passages to back this up. God is God. He cannot tolerate
the prescence of sin in His midst. And the Israelites knew this! And
still, some of them chose to disobey and were destroyed. Were these
people KIND and LOVing themselves? God gave them every break He could
but in the end, He really had no choice in the matter. Seeing as how
we were failing to achieve salvation on our own, He sent His Son to die
for us - to be the ultimate sin offering. Now we live in the age of
grace.
|>
|> 2. Is the fact the He no longer does this an admission on His part of
|> having made a mistake?
|>
He sent His Son as a consolation to us, out of love.
|> 3. Now that we are "living in the age of grace", does this mean that
|> for our sins, God now damns us to eternal hell after we die, rather
|> than killing us immediately? If so, is this eternal damnation an
|> example of "A KIND and LOVING God!!"?
|>
Hey, let's be fair for a moment here. KIND and LOVING does not mean
a free ride. There is an amount of give and take as in any relationship.
Parents are supposed to be kind and loving but does that mean that
children can do whatever they want? NOT! Part of being a parent means
administering punishment when the child is at fault. Part of being a
parent means giving instruction. God tests us through the trial of
life such that we may grow stronger. He teaches what is right and
what is wrong. The consequences of our actions are made clear to us,
be it Heaven or be it Hell. If God did not follow through with what
He has warned us about, He would not be a very good parent.
In parenting, if a parent issues a warning but does not follow through
with it, the children will not take that parent's words very seriously.
God does the same by telling us who have ears to hear what to do and
what not to do. By life's trials, we see the folly of doing our own
will rather than His. He warns us about the consequences of rejecting
Him when it comes time for Judgement. Do we follow Him?
I will.
Peace be with you,
Malcolm Lee :)
|> Just curious.
|>
|> --Dave Wood
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) | Re: O.T.O clarification | Cookamunga Tourist Bureau | In article <79895@cup.portal.com>, Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth
NagaSiva) wrote:
> They are considered different and largely unrelated by a number of
> sources. I've seen documentation which links them through the figure
> of H. Spencer Lewis. Lewis was apparently involved with Reuss, who
> was the O.H.O. of Ordo Templi Orientis for many years. Apparently it
> is also true that Lewis had a charter to form an O.T.O. body and then
> created A.M.O.R.C. (as a subsidiary? an interesting question).
If anyone is interested in the history of AMORC, I do think Spencer
Lewis published books about the beginning and his mission. The
Alexandria bookstore (that's the name of the book store operated
by AMORC) should have a selection that should provide the interested
reader more insight).
Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (E. Elizabeth Bartley) | Re: What part of "No" don't you understand? | University of Chicago | In article <1rbh3n$hav@kyle.eitech.com>
ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1993Apr24.002509.4017@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>A "moment of silence" doesn't mean much unless *everyone*
>>participates. Otherwise it's not silent, now is it?
>>Non-religious reasons for having a "moment of silence" for a dead
>>classmate: (1) to comfort the friends by showing respect to the
>>deceased , (2) to give the classmates a moment to grieve together, (3)
>>to give the friends a moment to remember their classmate *in the
>>context of the school*, (4) to deal with the fact that the classmate
>>is gone so that it's not disruptive later.
>Yeah, all well and good. The fact is, though, that the pro-school
>prayer types have tried to use a moment of silence as a way
>to get prayer back. At my high school for instance, our dear
>principal ended the moment of silence with "Amen."
I can certainly see opposing the "Amen" -- but that doesn't require
opposing a moment of silence.
>I'll back off when they do.
Does anybody else besides me see a vicious circle here? I guarantee
you the people who want school prayer aren't going to back off when
they can't even manage to get a quiet moment for their kids to pray
silently.
--
Pro-Choice Anti-Roe - E. Elizabeth Bartley
Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
bgarwood@heineken.tuc.nrao.edu (Bob Garwood) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | nrao | In article <1r7os6$hil@agate.berkeley.edu>, isaackuo@spam.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo) writes:
|> In article <C5wIA1.4Hr@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:
|> > The FBI claims, on the basis of their intelligence reports,
|> > that BD's had no plans to commit suecide. They, btw, had bugged the
|> > place and were listening to BD's conversations till the very end.
|> >
|> > Koresh's attorney claims that, based on some 30 hours he spent
|> > talking to his client and others in the compound, he saw no
|> > indication that BD's were contemplating suecide.
|> >
|> > The survivors claim it was not a suecide.
|>
|> It's not clear that more than one of the survivors made this claim. It is
|> clear that at least one of the survivors made the contradictory claim that
|> BD members had started the fire.
No, this is far from clear. We only have the word of the FBI spokepeople that
a survivor made this claim. We have the contradictory word of the lawyers who
spoke with the survivors individually that ALL of them agreed that they did
NOT have a suicide pact and did not intentionally start the fire. In the absense
of any more evidence, I don't see how we can decide who to believe.
Furthermore, its quite possible that there was no general suicide pact and that
some small inner circle took it upon themselves to kill everyone else.
With the state of the area now, we may never know what happened.
|>
|> > BD's were not contemplating suecide, and there is no reason
|> > to believe they committed one.
|>
|> No reason? How about these two:
|>
|> 1. Some of the survivors claimed that BD members poured fuel along the
|> corridors and set fire to it. The speed at which the fire spread
|> is not inconsistent with this claim.
Again, we have only the word of the FBI on this claim. The lawyers who
have also talked to the survors deny that any of them are making that claim.
|>
|> 2. There was certainly a fire which killed most of the people in the compound.
|> There is a very very good possibility that the FBI did not start this
|> fire. This is a good reason to believe that the BD's did.
I will agree on your assessment as to the relative probabilities. Its more likely
that the BD's started the fire than did the FBI. But there is currently NO
way to decide what actually happened based on the publically available evidence
(which is nearly none).
|>
|> 3. Even if the BD's were not contemplating suicide, it is very possible that
|> David Koresh was convinced (and thus convinced the others) that this
|> was not suicide. It was the fulfilment of a profecy of some sort.
|>
|> There are three possibilities other than the BD's self destruction:
|>
|> A. They are not dead, but escaped via bunker,etc. From reports of the
|> inadequacies of the tunnels and the bodies found, I would rate this
|> as highly unlikely.
|>
|> B. The fire was started by an FBI accident. This is possible, but it would be
|> foolish of us to declare this outright until more evidence can back it.
|> Sure, it's possible that the armored vehicle knocked down a lantern
|> which started the fire (why was there a lit lantern in the middle of
|> the day near the edge of the complex?). It's anecdotal evidence that
|> has been contradicted by other escapees.
|>
|> C. The fire was started on purpose by the FBI. This has been suggested by
|> some on the NET, and I would rate this possibility as utterly
|> ludicrous. This is what we in "sci.skeptic" would call an
|> "extraordinary claim" and won't bother refuting unless someone gives
|> any good evidence to back it up.
D. The fire was an started accidentally by the BDs. I am truely amazed that
I have heard (or read) of no one suggesting this possibility.
With all the tear gas and the lack of electical power in the compound and
the adults wearing gas masks, it had to have been chaotic inside.
I can easily image someone leaving a lamp too close to something or
accidentally dropping a lamp or knocking one over. With the winds, it
would have quickly gotten out of control.
|>
|> So we are left with two reasonable possibilities. That the fire was an FBI
|> accident and that the fire was started by the BD. I find the latter more
|> likely based on the evidence I've seen so far.
No, I think that D is also quite reasonable. I personally can't really
asses any relative probablities to either of these 3 probabilities although if
forced to bet on the issue, I would probably take an accident (either FBI or
BD) over intential setting of the fire).
I would also like to add a comment related to the reports that bodies recovered
had gunshot wounds. The coroner was on the Today Show this morning and categorically
denied that they've reach any such conclusions. He pointed out that under intense
heat, sufficient pressure builds up in the head that can cause it to explode and
that this can look very much like a massive gunshot wound to the head which is
quite consisted with te reports I've read and heard.
In short, there's been almost no evidence corroborating any of the many
scenarios as to what happened on Monday. We should remain skeptical until
more information is available.
|> --
|> *Isaac Kuo (isaackuo@math.berkeley.edu) * ___
|> * * _____/_o_\_____
|> * Twinkle, twinkle, little .sig, *(==(/_______\)==)
|> * Keep it less than 5 lines big. * \==\/ \/==/
--
Bob Garwood
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
mls@ulysses.att.com (Michael L. Siemon) | Re: Albert Sabin | AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA | In article <1r67ruINNmle@ctron-news.ctron.com> king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
>
>rfox@charlie.usd.edu writes:
>
>[Discussion on Josephus inserts]
>
>Thanks. Am I correct, then, in assuming that that Josephus
>did in fact write about Jesus, but Christian copists embellished it?
"Correct" overstates the case. The whole point of the discussions
has been that it is *reasonable* to assume that there was some brief
reference to Jesus that has been doctored. By consensus, this is
the *most* reasonable of the proposed solutions -- but not so much
so as to rule out complete fabrication.
--
Michael L. Siemon "Stand, stand at the window
mls@panix.com As the tears scald and start.
mls@ulysses.att.com You shall love your crooked neighbor
-standard disclaimer- With your crooked heart."
| 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 <sandvik-210493213823@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
#Frank, unless you didn't realize it, you are just now involved
#in a debate where we have various opinions, and each entity
#has its own frame where the opinion is expressed. I think I
#don't need to state the dreadful r-word.
So, it's _sometimes_ correct to say that morality is objective, or what?
After all, I could hardly be wrong, without dragging in the o-word.
For your part, when you say that relativism is true, that's just
your opinion. Why do folk get so heated then, if a belief in relativism
is merely a matter of taste? (to be fair, _you_ have been very calm,
I get the impression that's because you don't care about notions of
objectivity in any flavour. Right?)
--
Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
odwyer@sse.ie from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
tph@drake_mallard.sbc.com (Timothy P. Henrion) | Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed) | /usr/lib/news/organization | In article <24APR199300033703@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>In article <1r17j9$5ie@sbctri.sbc.com>, netd@susie.sbc.com () writes...
> ^^-- name?
>>(stephen) writes:
>>>For those who think David Koresh didn't have a solid structure,
>>>or sound Biblical backing for his hour long tape broadcast,
>>
>>I don't think anyone really cares about the solid structure of his
>>sermon.
>
>Other than it tells quite a lot about the Man himself.
I'm curious. Are you referring to Koresh as "the Man"? Why the
upper case M?
>
>>It's the deaths he's responsible for that concern most people.
>
>Are you the spokesman for "most people?"
I never claimed to be a spokesman for "most people". It is an assumption
on my part that people with normal values and morality would be more
concerned with human life than sermon structure.
>
>You missed the point -- which is that the Prophets, the Psalms, and
>Revelation, all together, provide a very rich view of a very special
>event -- a wedding.
>
Are burning children part of this very special event?
>
>My comment stems from the realization that we who love the Lord, are
>human and imperfect. Whatever we "preach," no matter how eloquent, or
>how corrupted -- is of little difference. Those who know the Master's
>voice will recognize Him -- a gem-stone amidst rock. Such is also the
>lesson of the "stumblingblock." For those who have an ear to hear.
What about those who do not know the Master's voice? Does the Master
not care about them? Eloquent, but corrupt, preaching may be of little
difference to you. But I suspect it made a big difference to all of
those who died in the compound.
--
Tim Henrion Southwestern Bell Technology Resources
thenrion@sbctri.sbc.com
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences | 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.
Wonderful, now try alittle imaginative thinking!
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com (Bill Hamilton) | Re: Burden of Proof | GM NAO R&D Center | In article <1r69b7INN539@lynx.unm.edu> cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl) writes:
>In article <1r4b59$7hg@aurora.engr.LaTech.edu>, ray@engr.LaTech.edu (Bill Ray) writes:
>********NOTE: FOLLOWUPS go to alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins!
>
>[deleted]
>> If I make a statement, "That God exists, loves me, etc." but in no way
>> insist that you believe it, does that place a burden of proof upon me.
>> If you insist that God doesn't exist, does that place a burden of proof
>> upon you? I give no proofs, I only give testimony to my beliefs. I will
>> respond to proofs that you attempt to disprove my beliefs.
>
>If you say X statement and give it the authority of fact, I will respond
>by asking you why. You aren't obligated to say anything, but if your
>intent is to convince me that X statement is true, then yes, the burden
>of proof is upon you.
If what was being discussed could be established or disproven by
experiment and observation, then I would agree with you, Chris.
The burden of proof would belong to Bill. But the source
document for Christianity, the Bible, simply assumes God exists
and makes it clear (to us Calvinists, anyway :-)) that when a person
is in fellowship with God, it is because God has taken the initiative
in revealing Himself to that person. So from a Christian point of
view, the burden of proof belongs to God. Bill is being consistent
with what the Bible teaches in relating his own experience with God,
but it would be an error on his part to assume that there is a direct,
causal relationship between his testimony and someone else becoming
convinced that God exists and that he needs to be reconciled to God.
>
>If you are merely giving testimony to your beliefs, then you are an egotist.
Please excuse me if I missed an earlier part of this thread
in which Bill came across like an egotist. What I saw was simply
obedience to the scriptural command to "always be ready
to give a reason for the joy that is in you".
Bill Hamilton
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) | Re: After 2000 posts, can we say that this thread is dead? | University of Virginia | unfortunately not
--
Legalize Freedom
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) | Re: "Owner"? (was Re: After 2000 years blah blah blah) | sgi | In article <1qu85s$6j0@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|>
|> I can produce a list of sufficient conditions for "not owner" which will
|> satisfy almost anyone. It's fairly clear who doesn't own the states. I
|> don't for example, and nor do you. It's also clear that regardless of who
|> owns the states, $1 is a bad deal in all plausible cases. So even in the
|> absence of an objective definition of "owner" (though that is an interesting and
|> important point, which jon livesey has also raised about the word "Freedom")
|> the conclusion stands.
Now I'll raise the issue again in connection with Mr O'Dwyer's use
of the word "plausible".
I can plause all kinds of cases, for example: in which people
actually own land, but don't know that, and so are willing to "sell"
it in play for derisory sums, only to find that they sold it for
real. Cases in which their mental capacity is imnpaired. Cases
in which they err about the true value of what they are selling.
Pretty soon you have to start talking about "informed owner"
"competent owner" "educated owner" and so on, and the concept
gets less and less clear and exceptions more and more plausible.
But the real problem remains that of looking only at end-points
in a context. Maybe most of us will agree with you that a pebble
is "small" and that the Moon is "big", but that does not mean that
you have an objective measuring scale. Only that these two are
fairly common opinions *in context*.
An astronomer may claim that the Moon is actually "tiny" and
a micro-biologist may remark that a pebble is "huge". Similarly,
if an armed Serbian offers a helpless Bosnian a dollar and his
life for his land, rather than killing him and taking it for free,
the Bosnian may consider that he is getting quite a good deal.
jon.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
markbr%radian@natinst.com (mark) | Re: RFD: misc.taoism | n.o.y.b | In article <1993Apr22.004331.22548@coe.montana.edu> uphrrmk@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Jack Coyote) writes:
>Sunlight shining off of the ocean.
>
The universe, mirrored in a puddle.
>
>Aleph null bottles of beer on the wall, Aleph null bottles of beer!
>Take one down, pass it around ... Aleph null bottles of beer on the wall!
>
Isn't it amazing how there *always* seems to be *another* bottle of bheer there?
Aleph *one* bottles of beer on the wall, Aleph *one* null bottles of beer!
you, too, are a puddle.
As above, so below.
mark
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) | Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened? | Statistics, Pure & Applied Mathematics, University of Adelaide | In article <bskendigC5qyJ2.GEw@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
>>One way or another -- so much for patience. Too bad you couldn't just
>>wait. Was the prospect of God's Message just too much to take?
>So you believe that David Koresh really is Jesus Christ?
Well lets see - a long haired nut case with sexual hangups surrounded
by a lot of gulible losers without a brain between them with a miserable
and meaningless death to boot
Sounds like he fits the bill to me!
Joseph 'Remember David Koresh fried for you' Askew
--
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud In the autumn stillness, see the Pleiades,
jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu Remote in thorny deserts, fell the grief.
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care North of our tents, the sky must end somwhere,
Actually, I rather like Brenda Beyond the pale, the River murmurs on.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
ekr@squick.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | EIT | In article <1qkjvc$4jv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <1qk1md$6gs@kyle.eitech.com> ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>#In article <1qjbn0$na4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>#>Really? You don't know what objective value is? If I offered the people
>#>of the U.S., collectively, $1 for all of the land in America, would that
>#>sound like a good deal?
>#Well, that would depend on how much we wanted the US and how much
>#we wanted the $1, wouldn't it?
>Yes it would. Luckily these parameters are fixed by reality. If I can
>predict with almost 100% accuracy that Americans prefer to own their portions of
>the US than an infinitesmal portion of $1, in what sense are these values
>not objective?
No, I don't see what the popularity of a value has to do with whether
it is objective or not. Pls. explain.
> I don't think I'm way off beam in saying that "something is
>better than nothing" is a rational and objective valuation.
Nope. No tetanus is better than tetanus.
> Do you agree
>with me then that the assertion "no values are objective" is false?
No.
-Ekr
--
Eric Rescorla ekr@eitech.com
Would you buy used code from this man?
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
<LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET> | Re: [rw] Is Robert Weiss the only orthodox Christian? | Brigham Young University | In article <C5vGyD.H7s@acsu.buffalo.edu>, psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert
Weiss) says:
>
> "Orthodox" is a compound word. It comes from 'orthos' (straight, true,
> right) and from 'doxa' (opinion, doctrine, teaching). I use orthodox to
> refer to 'right teaching.' Right teaching is derived from letting God
> speak to us through the Bible. This can be from reading simple truths
> in the Scriptures and by using the Bible to interpret the Bible.
Thanks for the etymology lesson, but I actually know what "orthodox" means.
You're avoiding my question, however, which was: From what body of theology
does your version of orthodoxy come? You seem to simply be saying that
whatever *you* understand the Bible to say is "orthodox."
>ra> Who is that "holds that" Luke meant what you said he meant?
>
> I think that it is apparent from reading the Scriptures that are
> pertinent.
You are obviously mistaken, since many, many people have read the Bible and
many do not agree with you on this point. Once again, Robert, is your
interpretation the only "correct" or "orthodox" one?
>ra> Whenever your personal interpretation of Biblical passages is
>ra> challenged, your only response seems to be that one needs merely to
>ra> "look at the Bible" in order to see the truth, but what of those who
>ra> see Biblical things differently from you?
>
> I seem to be seeing from you the notion that any difference in how one
> views the Bible is somehow legitimate, except, or course, for the stuff
> that I glean from it. Put forward a contrary view and perhaps we can
> have a discussion on that topic. But to decry something that I put
> forward, without putting forward something else to discuss, and to
> dismiss what I put forward while giving credence to other alleged views
> that have yet to be put forward is simply being contentious.
This whole string began as a response to your attacks on Mormonism; no one
is attacking your personal beliefs, only your tendency to present them as
"orthodoxy." I don't much care *what* you believe about the Bible; just don't
present you personal understanding as the only "orthodox" one.
>
>ra> Are we to simply assume that you are the only one who really
>ra> understands it?
>
> If you believe that something that I have drawn from Scripture is
> wrong, then please, show me from Scripture where it is wrong. Simply
> stating that there are other views is not a proof. Show it to me from
> Scripture and then we can go on.
I have never attacked your specific beliefs -- that's *your* approach,
remember?
Stating that other people who depend solely on the Bible have other views
is indeed proof that the Bible can be interpreted many ways, which has been
my whole point all along. The specifics of your belief are your business;
just don't pretend that they are anything more than your personal
intepretation, and be careful about crying "heresy" based on your private
belief system.
>=============================
>Robert Weiss
>psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
--
Rick Anderson librba@BYUVM.BITNET
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Sun | In article <1qkj31$4c6@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <lsr6ihINNsa@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>#In article <1qjahh$mrs@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>#>Science ("the real world") has its basis in values, not the other way round,
>#>as you would wish it. If there is no such thing as objective value, then
>#>science can not objectively be said to be more useful than a kick in the head.
>#>Simple theories with accurate predictions could not objectively be said
>#>to be more useful than a set of tarot cards. You like those conclusions?
>#>I don't.
>#I think that you are changing the meaning of "values" here. Perhaps
>#it is time to backtrack and take a look at the word.
>#value n. 1. A fair equivalent or return for something, such as goods
>#or service. 2. Monetary or material worth. 3. Worth as measured in
>#usefulness or importance; merit. 4. A principle, standard, or quality
>#considered inherently worthwhile or desirable. 5. Precise meaning, as
>#of a word. 6. An assigned or calculated numerical quantity. 7. Mus.
>#The relative duratation of a tone or rest. 8. The relative darkness or
>#lightness of a color. 9. The distinctive quality of a speech or speech
>#sound.
>#In context of a moral system, definition four seems to fit best. In terms
>#of scientific usage, definitions six or eight might apply. Note that
>#these definitions do not mean the same thing.
>No, I'm using definition (3), or perhaps (4) in both cases. 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?
The problem is, your use of the word "objective" along with "values."
Both definitions three and four are inherently subjective, that is
they are particular to a given individual, or personal. You see,
what one person may see as worthwhile, another may see as worthless.
>If on the other hand, some things *have* objective worth, usefulness,
>or importance, it would be interesting to know what they are.
Again, your form of measurement in this sentence, that being of "worth"
is subjective.
>#If you can provide an objective foundation for "morality" then that will
>#be a good beginning.
>I'm not willing to attempt this until someone provides an objective
>basis for the notion that science is useful, worthy, or important in
>dealing with observed facts. Alternatively, you could try to
>demonstrate to me that science is not necessarily useful, worthy
>or important in any situation. In other words, I need to know
>how you use the term "objective".
When I find that my usage of a word is different than the usage of
that word given by another person, I try to find a standard against
which to judge that usage. In most cases, the dictionary is the standard
I use. Here is a definiton of objective:
objective ADJ. 1. Of or having to do with a material object as
distinguished from a mental concept. 2. Having actual existance.
3.a. Unenfluenced by emotion or personal prejudice. b. Based on
observable phenomenon.
By this definition, science does not have an objective worth, since the
phrase "objective worth" is an oxymoron. However you asked something a
little differently this time, you asked for an objective basis for a
notion. The fact that the use of science as an intellectual tool is
responsible for changes in our world (the changes are material, and
thus "objective") would provide an objective _basis_ for an argument.
However, the conclusion arrived at from that argument (that science is
"good") is subjective.
I think that the problem here is one of word usage. Take a little time
and read the definitions of these words: objective, subjective, worth,
value, morality, good, evil. I believe that if you think about the
meaning of them for a while, you will have to conclude that there is no
such thing as an objective morality.
>Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
>odwyer@sse.ie from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
eric
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK. | frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> I am not a Christian, however I suspect that all flavours of
> Christianity hold that (a) objective morality exists and (b) their
> particular interpretation of scripture/revelation/TV is a goodly glimpse
> of it. That they may all disagree about (b) says nothing about the truth
> or falsehood of (a).
Actually, they generally claim that (b) their particular interpretation of
scripture/revelation *is* this objective morality. That there are two
conflicting versions of this objective morality does tell us something about
(a). It tells us at least one fake objective morality exists.
The next logical step is to deduce that any given religion's objective
morality could be the fake one. So caveat emptor.
mathew
--
Atheism: Anti-virus software for the mind.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
martini@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Sheilagh M.B.E. O'Hare) | Re: "Imaginary" Friends - Dragons & Mice | The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas | He sounds really cute, Morte! Kinds like _pete's dragon_, maybe smaller,
maybe a different species.. winge'd? (shakespear wing-ED)
I've always hat a horde of mice to turn to for fun & sort of that kind of
mouse in Cinderella (walt disney). I grew up sort of as an only child,
part time.. my siblings were 10-8-6 years older than me, so i was pretty
commonly a different sort of charater in their games (read: non speaking
hot cocoa-goffer, stand in (still silent) bad guy/good guy/etc), so my
mice were playmates, more than advisors.
Could curt, or whomever has a good list of books please post such list,
in all sorts of fields, like jungian, condensed buddist/etc philosophies,
multiple personailty disorders, or good fiction that has well worked
imaginary friends?
thanks,
sheilagh, wanting a bunch of library catalouge topics to search thru
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) | Re: Kind, loving, merciful and forgiving GOD! | Intelligent Systems Program | m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
>joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
>}m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
>}>}(a) out of context;
>}>Must have missed when you said this about these other "promises of god" that we keep
>}>getting subjected to. Could you please explain why I am wrong and they are OK?
>}>Or an acknowledgement of public hypocrisy. Both or neither.
>}
>}So, according to you, Jim, the only way to criticize one person for
>}taking a quote out of context, without being a hypocrite, is to post a
>}response to *every* person on t.r.m who takes a quote out of context?
>
>Did I either ask or assert that? Or is this your misaimed telepathy at work again?
(1) Stephen said you took a quote out of context
(2) You noted that Stephen had not replied to some other t.r.m article
(call it A) that took a quote out of context
(3) But the lack of evidence for X does not constitute evidence for the
lack of X (a common creationist error)
(4) So the fact that Stephen did not reply to A does not justify the
conclusion that Stephen condoned taking quotes out of context in A
(5) You asked Stephen to explain why you were wrong and they were OK,
or to acknowledge that he was being a hypocrite.
(6) Both of the choices you give Stephen assume that he condoned
taking quotes out of context in A.
(7) I assumed you were being logical, and that the sentence that begins
"Could you please explain ..." was not a nonsequitur, but was intended
to follow from the sentence that preceded it.
(8) Therefore, I concluded that you believed that (2) implied that Stephen
condoned taking quotes out of context in A
(9) But we've already seen that (2) does not imply this
(10) Therefore, you were incorrect to believe that (2) implied that Stephen
thought it was okay to take quotes out of context in A, and were
making an error of a kind that is frequently made by creationists.
Is that better Jim? It's called an argument. If you disagree with it,
explain why the argument is not sound. (I admit that my assumption in (7)
may have been a bit hasty.) If you agree with it, just say "yup."
dj
"Yup." -- Jim's e-mailed response when I pointed out, in a posted article,
that one of his arguments was a straw man argument, reminiscent of a
frequent creationist ploy. (3/22/93)
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) | Re: 666 - MARK OF THE BEAST - NEED INFO | ITC/UVA Community Access UNIX/Internet Project | On a slightly different note:
There are two buildings in NY state with big 666 numbers on the
roof :)
One in Manhattan and one near Garden City. The Garden City one
is a nice black unmarked building...
--
------ Join the Pythagorean Reform Church! .
\ / Repent of your evil irrational numbers . .
\ / and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart! . . .
\/ Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568 . . . .
| 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 <1qktj3$bn9@squick.eitech.com> ekr@squick.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
#In article <1qkn1t$59l@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
#>In article <1qk1pp$6hj@kyle.eitech.com> ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
#>|Perhaps you should explain what you think "science has it's basis
#>|in values" means. The reason why people DO science is that
#>|they value it's results. That does not mean that science has
#>|it's basis in values. Any more than DES stops working if I stop
#>|valuing my privacy.
#>It's partly as you say: the reason why people do science is that they value it's
#>results.
#Right.
#
#> If one follows relativism to the letter, then, the theories
#>and predictions which are the results of science can only be subjectively
#>valued as 'objective', 'correct', or anything else.
#Twaddle. You're overloading the meaning of the word "value",
#that's all. Whether I care if the results are true is a "value".
#I fail to see how whether they are true (correct, whatever) is
#a value.
The result's actual truth is independent of what you think of it, if you
care to look at it that way - however your perception of a result's
truth cannot match its actual truth, unless you care to follow the (a?)
procedure to obtain truth ("science") correctly. You have to pick
the right procedure, and note its importance. You've got to value it.
Otherwise you don't care about actual truth, and shouldn't object
to the statement "objectivism is true".
Now if we're valuing procedures subjectively, and science is a procedure,
science cannot be valued non-subjectively. If we're picking facts
and hypotheses subjectively, then we are using a maybe-not-quite-sure
method on maybe-not-quite-sure observations. That should lead
to maybe-not-quite-sure results, no? The fact that it does not seem
to might make one question the premise, which is that our subjective
valuations are necessarily unreliable.
No, wait - I've a better idea: "And the result's actual truth is..."?
Yeah, that's the ticket.
#Like I said before, DES works whether I value my privacy or
#not.
O.K., which DES? The abstract function DES? that stops working in any
important sense if no-one cares for the importance of truth, mathematics,
meaning, information, etc. A DES chip or DES s/w? That stops working in any
important sense if no-one values science, objective reality, etc. DES
does not work in a value vacuum. Nothing else does, either.
--
Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
odwyer@sse.ie from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Johns Hopkins University CS Dept. | In article <30192@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:
>>>> > There's no objective physics; Einstein and Bohr have told us that.
>>>> Speaking as one who knows relativity and quantum mechanics, I say:
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>Speaking as someone who also knows relativity and quantum mechanics, I say:
>>>Go ahead, punk, make my day. My degree can beat up your degree.
>>Simple. Take out some physics books, and start looking for statements which
>>say that there is no objective physics. I doubt you will find any. You might
>>find statements that there is no objective length, or no objective location,
>>but no objective _physics_? (Consider, for instance, that speed-of-light-in-
>>vacuum is invariant. This sounds an awful lot like an objective
>>speed-of-light-in-vacuum.)
>Or, you can try not confuse a construct with the constructor. If you take
>a look at Quantum Mechanics, many objective observations can be made
>as well. However, Physics is not objective. Bohr said the randomness
>of atomic motion is inherent in the motion itself. Einstein said that
>nature is deterministic; it is our method of observation that inserts the
>randomness. They were talking about the exact same results.
That some results are not "objective" means neither that all results are
non-objective, nor that "physics" is non-objective.
--
"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
|
kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) | Re: Branch Athiests Cult (was Rawlins debunks creationism) | FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany | In article <1r9dd7INNqfk@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
>scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle) writes:
>> For your information, I checked the Library of Congress catalog,
>>and they list the following books by Francis Hitching:
>
>I believe I've just discovered an anthopological parallel. In my many
>"discussions" with the fundies, their main tactic is to discredit
>my sources. They shrilly bleat:
[..]
Possibly the parallel just stems from your tending to use bad sources...
Anyway, don't you think that similarity is rather shallow? You're only
looking at the surface, at the way of argumentation.
And now you should perhaps go a little deeper and try to find the difference,
for example, find out whether you can find real science done by Hitching.
If you can't, will you then admit that your attempt at quoting an authority
has backfired?
--
thomas kettenring, 3 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Johannes Scotus Eriugena, the greatest European philosopher of the 9th century,
said that if reason and authority conflict, reason should be given preference.
And if that doesn't sound reasonable to you, you'll just have to accept it...
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) | Re: 5 Apr 93 God's Promise in Psalm 85: 8 | The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'. | In article <C50KDr.Duz@acsu.buffalo.edu>
psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
> I will hear what God the LORD will speak:
> for he will speak peace
> unto his people, and to his saints:
> but let them not turn again to folly.
Psalm85(JPS): For the leader. Of the Korahites. A psalm. O LORD, You
will favor Your land, restore Jacob's fortune; You will forgive Your
people's iniquity, pardon all their sins; Selah; You will withdraw all Your
anger, turn away from Your rage. Turn again, O God, our helper, revoke
Your displeasure with us. Will you be angry with us forever, prolong
Your wrath for all generations? Surely You will revive us again, so that
Your people may rejoice in You. Show us, O LORD, Your faithfulness;
grant us Your deliverance. Let me hear what God, the LORD, will speak;
He will promise well-being to His people, His faithful ones; may they
not turn to folly. His help is very near those who fear Him, to make His
glory dwell in our land. Faithfulness and truth meet; justice and
well-being kiss. Truth springs up from the earth; justice looks down
from heaven. The LORD also bestows His bounty; our land yields its
produce. Justice goes before Him as He sets out on His way.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
berryh@huey.udel.edu (John Berryhill, Ph.D.) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | little scraps of paper, mostly | I don't know who's next, but I hope it's people who pick their noses
while driving.
--
John Berryhill
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is oxymoron | St. Andrews University, Scotland. | In article <a5kB3B1w165w@anarky.tch.org> melchar@anarky.tch.org (Melchar) writes:
>
> It took someone THIS long to figure that out?
What is "aluminium siding"? I keep seeing references to it. Something to do
with railway lines, perhaps?
E-mail reply please, I'll never find it otherwise.
-Norman
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
dcriswel@oracle.uucp (David Criswell) | Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed) | Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores CA | (st) Stephen Tice
(km) Ken McVay
(st)Seems to me Koresh is yet another messenger that got killed
(st)for the message he carried. (Which says nothing about the
(km)Seems to be, barring evidence to the contrary, that Koresh was simply
(km)another deranged fanatic who thought it neccessary to take a whole bunch of
(km)folks with him, children and all, to satisfy his delusional mania. Jim
(km)Jones, circa 1993.
I think there's plenty of evidence to the contrary - six "rescued"
Davidians consistantly recounted that the Federal tank knocked over a barrel
of propane. These guys haven't exactly been spending time together,
plotting an elaborate and consistent story. It would be contradictory
for Koresh to go for "mass suicide" - remember that Koresh's death was
the opening of the sixth seal - the signal that Armageddon had begun.
His army (the people in the compound) would then fight the powers of
evil and win, ending in the Rapture. The fire wiped out his army. I
read earlier that Koresh was planning to walk out of the compound
and blow himself up with a grenade - that would jibe better with
his teachings.
(st)In the mean time, we sure learned a lot about evil and corruption.
(st)Are you surprised things have gotten that rotten?
(km)Nope - fruitcakes like Koresh have been demonstrating such evil corruption
(km)for centuries.
I'd think you'd be the last one to support gassing people and
burning them to death for their religious beliefs. Corrupt? Evil?
I don't know. We'll never know. And when you start calling people
fruitcakes about their religious beliefs, that's dehumanizing people.
We saw what happened when many Germans started believing that Jews
were subhuman.
In one neat stroke, they destroyed all the evidence that could have
pointed to wrongdoing. And killed all the witnesses, including 12
children whose last view of life was choking and pain, followed by
burning them alive.
I am extremely saddened that this tragedy occurred. I'm furious that
they used my money to do it.
=====================================================================
"So I become an accessory Dave Criswell
And I don't have an alibi Oracle Corporation
To the victim on my doorstep
Only way I can justify
It's family business ... " Fish
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) | Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions | Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco | hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>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.
Really? I don't get it... Genesis first says that God created the
earth, then the animals, then humans; then it turns around and says
that humans were created before animals! How can you escape this
contradiction?
--
_/_/_/ 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
|
ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) | Re: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars | Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) |
In a previous article, Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) says:
>
>"It is known only to a few that there exists an external visible
>organization of such men and women, who having themselves found
>the path to real self-knowledge, and who, having travelled the
>burning sands, are willing to give the benefit of their experience,
>and to act as spiritual guides to those who are willing to be
>guided.
>"While numberless societies, associations, orders, groups etc.
>have been founded during the last thirty years in all parts of
>the civilised world, all following some line of occult study,
>yet there is but ONE ancient organization of genuine Mystics
>
Up to that point I thought you were talking about the
Rosicrucian Order... :-) [No offense intended!]
Tony
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) | Re: Abortion | null | In <17858.459.uupcb@ozonehole.com> anthony.landreneau@ozonehole.com (Anthony Landreneau) writes:
>
>The rape has passed, there is nothing that will ever take that away.
True. But forcing her to remain pregnant continues the violation of
her body for another 9 months. I see this as being unbelievably cruel.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) | Re: Food For Thought On Tyre | Intelligent Systems Program | af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes:
>PPS...Am I giving you too many clues?
Too many clues, not enough substance. You ask a lot of
good questions, though, but they are questions *you* should
be worried about, not me. I'm not the inerrantist here.
Let me know when you are ready to get serious.
dj
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
rjk@world.std.com (Robert J. Kolker) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA | Just to follow up on Casper's posting. I have been following this business
since it started 52 days ago. The Branch Davidians have occupied the Mt.
Carmel location for some years, and their neighbors (you know, the people
next door) have said to a man, that the BD folks were quiet and never
bothered anybody.
There were some defector from the BD who alleged child abuse within the
movement, but how does this bring in the Feds? In particular what interest
would ATF have in child abuse. O.K. It was the allegation of possesing
illegal automatic weapons. A search warrant could have been obtained
(properly) only on probable cause. This means that some evidence that an
illegal auto weapon was shipped in, or an illegal kit for converting
semi-auto weapons to full automatic was purchased or shipped.
In either case, how does this require an NO-KNOCK warrent, with a bunch of
macho hot dog assholes busting into the place *without* identifying
themselves. Milleniests tend to be a bit paranoid anyway. It is no
surprise they shot when invaded. Hell I am not a religious extremist and I
might have done the same myself. If the DEA busted into my house by
mistake without identifying themselve and I had a gun in my hand, I would
shoot first and wonder later.
So if it was illegal guns, the ATF should have gotten a normal warrant
(how can you flush a 50 calibre machine gun down the toilet?) and
presented it in a peaceful normal way. David Koresh has had brushes with
the law, even standing trial for attempted murder in which he was
acquitted. In every prior brush with the law, Koresh and his people acted
peacibly. There was no prior action on the part of the BD folks to
indicate that they were any danger to society.
NOTE: The question of whether the BD people were religious extremists or
slight daft is totally irrelevant. It is *not* against the law to be
looney or zany.
Look and learn folks. And be VERY afraid.
Conan the Libertarian
--
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
bobwest@code3.com (Bob Westover) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | 3M HIS | >In article <1qvfik$6rf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes:
>>We used to live in a country where everyone enjoyed the free exercise of
>>their rights to worship and bear arms.
I can't contest the constitutional right to "bear arms", but I sort of
draw the line at worshipping them. Can you say "avodah zarah?"
Meanwhile, back in soc.culture.jewish....
I had expected to see some commentary on the Lubavitcher Rebbe Shlita
announcement that was posted here a while ago. How did it go?
--
There was a young man from Dwight ....... | bobwest@code3.code3.com
Who traveled faster than light; ......... | Gluecklichkeit ist Recht haben!
Taking a trip one day, in a relative way, | Freiheit ist Rechte haben!
He arrived the previous night! .......... | Legalize Updoc!!! ...bw
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
alanf@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Alan M Feuerbacher) | Re: Rawlins debunks creationism | Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. | In article <1993Apr20.160519@IASTATE.EDU> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>In article <1r15rvINNh8p@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E. King)
>writes:
>>"The modern theory of evolution is so inadequate that it deserves to be
>>treated as a matter of faith." -- Francis Hitching
>
> Neither I, nor Webster's has ever heard of Francis Hitchings. Who is he?
>Please do not answer with "A well known evolutionist" or some other such
>informationless phrase.
Francis Hitching is the author of, among other books,
_The Neck of the Giraffe_." He believes evolution is
directed by some sort of cosmic force, but does not like
Darwinism. He wrote in this book [ _The Neck of the
Giraffe_, Ticknor & Fields, New Haven, Connecticut, 1982,
p. 12 (p. 4, paperback)] that:
For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the
great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after
a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of
trouble. Evolution and Darwinism are often taken to
mean the same thing. But they don't. Evolution of
life over a very long period of time is a fact, if we
are to believe evidence gathered during the last two
centuries from geology, paleontology, molecular biol-
ogy and many other scientific disciplines. Despite
the many believers in Divine creation who dispute this
..., the probability that evolution has occurred
approaches certainty in scientific terms.... On the
other hand Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism, its modern
version) is a theory that seeks to explain evolution.
It has not, contrary to general belief, and despite
very great efforts, been proved.
Research on Hitching turned up the following: Hitching is
basically a sensational TV script writer and has no scien-
tific credentials. In _The Neck of the Giraffe_ he claimed
to be a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute, but an
inquiry to that institute said he was not. He implied in
the "Acknowledgements" of _The Neck of the Giraffe_ that
paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould had helped in the writing
of the book, but upon inquiry Gould said he did not know him
and had no information about him. Hitching also implied
that his book had been endorsed by Richard Dawkins, but upon
inquiry Dawkins stated: "I know nothing at all about Francis
Hitching. If you are uncovering the fact that he is a char-
latan, good for you. His book, _The Neck of the Giraffe,_
is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for
years."
Hitching believes in the paranormal and has written on
Mayan pyramid energy and for some "In Search Of..." episodes
on BBC television. The reference work _Contemporary
Authors,_ Vol. 103, page 208, lists him as a member of the
Society for Psychical Research, the British Society of
Dowsers and of the American Society of Dowsers. His writ-
ings include: _Earth Magic,_ _Dowsing: The Psi Connection,_
_Mysterious World: An Atlas of the Unexplained,_ _Fraud,
Mischief, and the Supernatural_ and _Instead of Darwin_.
Hitching's book spends much of its time attacking Dar-
winian evolution, borrowing heavily and uncritically from
young-earth creationist arguments. Many of Hitching's "ref-
erences" are lifted from young-earth creationist literature
rather than being quoted directly from their original
sources. One magazine had this to say [_Creation/Evolution
Newsletter_, 7, No. 5, pp. 15-16, September/October 1987]:
Speaking of the Biblical Creation Society, there was
an interesting letter in the January 1983 issue of
their journal Biblical Creation (p. 74) concerning a
review of Francis Hitching's 1982 book _The Neck of
the Giraffe_. Hitching's book is strongly anti-
Darwinist, and is enthusiastically hailed by most cre-
ationists (though he also pokes fun at fundamentalist
creationists). The letter, by creationist Malcolm
Bowden (author of _The Rise of the Evolution Fraud_),
points out that Hitching simply "culled his informa-
tion from the creationist literature." This is indeed
the case: many creationist works are cited favorably
(Anderson, Coffin, Clark, Daly, Davidheiser, Dewar,
Gish, Morris, Segraves, Whitcomb, and Wysong, plus
various anti-Darwinists). Hitching does cite Bowden's
earlier book _Ape-Men -- Fact or Fallacy?_, but Bowden
accuses Hitching of "lifting" several passages and
illustrations from his book without acknowledgment:
in other words, plagiarism. "Hitchin's [sic] book is
largely an exposition of the creationists [sic] view-
point from the beginning to almost the end," Bowden
points out.... Hitching is also a paranormalist, an
advocate of psychic evolution.... [Hitching's book]
_Earth Magic_ is a wild, extremely entertaining and
thoroughly psychic interpretation of megalithic struc-
tures.... Hitching also includes in his scheme cosmic
cataclysms, Atlantis, pyramidology, dowsing, ESP,
miraculous healing, and astrology.
-------------------------------------------------------
Alan Feuerbacher
alanf@atlas.pen.tek.com
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) | Re: Clarification of personal position | University of Georgia, Athens | In article <C5MuIw.AqC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
>If it were a sin to violate Sunday no one could
>ever be forgiven for that for Jesus never kept Sunday holy. He only
>recognized one day of the seven as holy.
Jesus also recognized other holy days, like the Passover. Acts 15 says
that no more should be layed on the Gentiles than that which is necessary.
The sabbath is not in the list, nor do any of the epistles instruct people
to keep the 7th day, while Christians were living among people who did not
keep the 7th day. It looks like that would have been a problem.
Instead, we have Scriptures telling us that all days can be esteemed alike
(Romans 14:5) and that no man should judge us in regard to what kind of
food we eat, Jewish holy days we keep, or _in regard to the sabbath. (Col. 2.)
>The
>question is "On what authority do we proclaim that the requirements of the
>fourth commandment are no longer relevant to modern Christians?"
I don't think that the Sabbath, or any other command of the law is totally
irrelevant to modern Christians, but what about Collosions 2, where it says
that we are not to be judged in regard to the keeping of the sabbath?
Link Hudson.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com | "Ex-Gay"? (was: HOMOSEXUALITY Fact & Fiction) | null | Tony-
While I honestly believe you believe you are doing a "good thing" by posting
that piece of propaganda, I believe the more people believe that the more they
will feel justified in their blatant persecution of gay oriented people. I
have seen the film called "The Gay Agenda" and along with my church we found
it to be horrifying. Not because of what was actually shown (cleaver use of
editting can create any image one wants to portray), rather becaseu we are familia
familiar with how widely it was actively distributed and how many naive people
are actually believing the garbage found within it. The truth is that neither
you nor I can fully speak for anyone who calls themself gay, but knowing as
many as I do and knowing their testimonies and witnessing thier faith and life
I have to say that the report you posted is a very biased report, something
obviously claimed against gays as well. The truth is that unless YOU are
innately gay you cannot know what harm you are causing. I speak as an
abolitionist who supports affirming gay rights in our society. I do not
support wild sex or any other misrepresentations perpetrated by Christian
Fundamentalist extremists, but I know people who are not the sexual deviants
your report paints them to be. It is no mistake that the APA removed
homosexuality from it's list of mental illnesses, it is also no mistake that
there are many Christians and homophobes who long to bring it back to the list.
I do not feel threatened by gays, I don't understand why others are.
The following is an article concerning two of the more popular ex-gay min-
istries: Exodus International & Homosexuals Anonymous.
THE FOUNDER OF AN "EX-GAY" SUPPORT GROUP CHOOSES HOMO OVER HETERO
by Robert Pela (from Gay oriented magazine ADVOCATE)
In December 1985, David Caligiuri received one of The Advocate's homophobia rewaa
awards: the A Prayer A Day Keeps the Lust Away citation. As director of FREE
INDEED, a national ex-gay ministry, Caligiuri was singled out for offering
discontented gays and lesbians "a way out of the homosexual death-style"
through prayer. "I'd like to give the award back," Caligiuri now laughs, "I'm
no longer deserve it."
Caligiuri's eight year involvement with the national "ex-gay" movement peaked
with his founding of the Phoenix chapter of Homosexuals Anonymous (HA) as well
as Free Indeed. He has since abandoned his pulpit and now says that the ex-
gay movement is a fruitless effort based on deception. "There's no reality
in it," he says, "I was selling a product, and my product was a lie."
Headed up by national ministries like Exodus International and Courage, the
organizations of the ex-gay movement rely on the tenents of born-again
Christianity to convince disatisfied homosexuals -- usually young gay men who
are just coming out -- that they can shed their sexuality by suppressing their
sexual urges and embracing Christianity. "We offer support to people who are
seeking to leave the sin of homosexuality," explains Bob Davies, director of
Exodus. He ventures that "about 80% of those seeking to abandon their homo-
sexuality are men."
"Anybody who is involved in the ex-gay ministry is misguided and is wasting
their time," says Lisa Seeley, a former "redeemed lesbian" who worked with
Caligiuri as HA and appeared with him on the Sally Jessy Raphael show. "These
organizations are for people who are spiritually and emotionally wounded."
"It's possible to change your identity or your behavior," says sex educator
Brian McNaught, author of _On Being Gay_. "But it's really impossible to
change your orientation. These people are no longer calling themselves gay,
but they continue to have same-sex erotic feelings."
Caligiuri says he founded Free Indeed after an ominous week in 1981 when all
hell broke loose in his personal life. A few days after his lover ended both
their romance and their business partnership, Caligiuri was sexually assaulted
by a man he picked up in a bar. "I was really drunk," he recalls, "and I
went home with this guy. He tied me up and raped me. He left me tied up all
night, and the next morning he raped me again."
When Caligiuri was eventually freed by the attacker, he returned home to the
home he shared with his ex-lover. "He had another man there with him,"
Caligiuri recalls. "I thought at this time, 'If this is what being gay is
about, I don't want to be this way anymore."
Caligiuri vowed that if he could find a way out, he would share his discovery
with others. He organized an antigay contingent to demonstrate at Phoenix's
gay pride parade in June 1985, and a few months later Free Indeed held its
first public protest. At a meeting to promote a gay civil rights ordinance,
Free Indeed members loudly blasted gays, telling them ther were sinners headed
for hell.
Free Indeed began receiving about a hundred telephone calls a week, thanks
in part to a deceptive listing in the local yellow pages. "We were listed
under Lesbian and Gay Alternative Services," Caligiuri says, "so people
thought we were a gay information switchboard. People would call to find out
where the local bars were, and we'd preach to them about the sins of homo-
sexuality." Ruses like this are typical of the movement, Caligiuri says,
adding, "They'll do anything to reach these people."
"David used to go on radio and say really stupid things," recalls Peter
Kelly, a counselor at Phoenix's Catholic diocese AIDS program, "like that
he knew he was gay when he started wearing pastel colors."
Caligiuri's family first found out about his ministry when they saw him on
Raphael's syndicated talk show in 1985. "They were relieved," he recalls.
"They figured that if they had to have a gay person in the family, better
that I should be a 'reformed' gay person."
But Caligiuri was hardly reformed. "By the time I appeared on Sally's
show," "I'd started having sex with men again. Men would call our hotline
and tell me about thier latest sin: sex with their pastor, sex with their
father. I was horny all the time."
Unable to risk going to gay bars, where he might be recognized from his
numerous television appearances, Caligiuri says he "used to go to bookstores
and get blowjobs." When he wasn't working the bookstores, he was sleeping
with other "reformed" homosexuals.
"I didn't realize it at first, but a lot of the HA leaders were having sex
with one another," Caligiuri says. "We'd go to conferences in other cities,
and we'd be paired up in hotel rooms. Everybody was sleeping with everybody
else."
By the time he appeared on 'AM Philadelphia' television show in May 1988,
Caligiuri was having anonymous sex a couple times a week. When the show's
host asked him if he ever "acted on temptation," his answer was a lie.
Caligiuri's duplicity began to take it's toll on him, however. He was
suffering from chrinic fatigue syndrome and candidiasis, a dibilitating
yeast infection, and this led to his escape from the sect. "I was too sick
to go to church," he explains. "The more time I spent away from those people
the more I began to feel like myself. I began to remember who I used to be."
Late in 1991, Caligiuri turned Free Indeed phone lines over to a local
church and closed the ministry's doors. "I'd convinced myself that there
is no need in the world for ex-gay people," he says.
Today, Caligiuri, 31, is studying alternative spiritualities ("I'm interest-
ed in belief systems that aren't judgemental."), considering romance ("But
not with a CHristian!"), and searching for a new project to devote himself to.
"I feel compelled to commit myself to gay causes," he says. "I want to
eventually stop feeling guilty about what I did and make up for the damage I
may have brought to our community."
---end article---
Caligiuri's tory is by no means unique and I have read several other articles
of former leaders and founders of 'ex-gay' ministries who have said very similar th
similar things. Fortuantely not all of them have left Christianity, but have
come to realize that God loves them despite the attitudes of others. Some,
like Chris Glaser, director of the Presbyterian "Lazarus Project" of West
Hollywood Presbyterian Church have actually been working with the gay community
to bring them into the sheepfold of Christ and encouraging real ethical values
of sexuality within the sphere of being gay. I have also, as I said talked and become
and become close friends with many who once attended such groups as "Love In
Action" and others, who either once claimed to have been "reformed" or who
were too honest with themselves to live a lie, no matter who was disappointed
in them. Some were even encouraged to marry as a way of "sealing" their
new heterosexuality, only to eventually start hitting the bars, bathhouses
and bookstores, since these were usually activities under the concealment of
night and one-night-stands of promiscuous behavior meant no continuous "sin"
through a committed relationship. This is a horrible trap which the CHurch
has dumped on the backs of the truly gay oriented people, and the very inno-
cent victims in these cases are the wives and children of such marriages. Yet
the church insists that there are only two options they are willing to allow
gay people: 1) heterosexuality or 2) celebacy. This is sad. What is also
mrtifying, is in the cases of those who cannot suppress their desires and
fear for thier sanity in such a mixed up confusion that the church forces on
them, they may even opt for 'suicide' or surgical dampering of the brain
functions. In the past lobotomies and heavey drug suppressants were common-
place. There are now becoming available more and more literature on the
threat of coercive Christianity toward gays, such as Sylvia Pennington's
_"Ex-Gays? There Are None_. and others. There are also a great many fact
based books being written to help people trapped in this confusion such as
Maury Johnston's _Gays Under Grace_, and Chris Glaser's _Come Hom!_. I
seriously recommend those for people seeking help for this persecution and
self-acceptance.
Thank you.
| 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 <C5srEw.FCG@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tbrent@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:
...
>Give me a break! What fireman should have to deal with a blaze like that
>AND get shot at at the same time.
Nearly all of them. Witness LA> Firemen are among our real
heroes most of the time. I wonder when they were actually
aasked to come, or if they found out about the fire over the
TV ....
Shot at by whom? prove it!
>
>These people were breaking the law. I agree these weren't the best tactics,
When "law" replaces "justice" the system is dying or dead.
Note that we had a small revolution 216 years ago on this
point.
>they probably should have backed off, pulled the perimeter way back, and let
>them sit there with no media attention until they decided to come out. The
>only other alternative I see would have been to send in a couple of special
>forces guys to capture or assassinate Koresh. But remember, these fruit-
Or perhaps just wait.
Or maybeeven send in a few agents who are Christian to
sit down and pray outside the line? Try affinity
rather than subversion?
>loops were putting their lives on the lines voluntarily. Why should
Chuckle. SO would you if someone points a gun at you.
At that point you can die or live; and if living means
stayng in a building to keep badge carrying nuts off your
kids, I suspect you might as well.
BOTH sides were wrong.
>law-abiding citizens have to put themselves in any more danger than necessary
>when dealing with a nut? Look at the man who jumped out of his Bradley to
>grab a flaming women who was running back into the building. Yeah, I would
>have to say they were trying to save those people. I don't think I would
>risk my life that much to save someone that stupid that obviously didn't
>even want to be saved.
Try again: go see the movie Sophie's CHoice.
Grow up.
>
>-Tim
royc
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
halat@panther.bears (Jim Halat) | Re: Rawlins debunks creationism | null | In article <1r15rvINNh8p@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
>
>
>adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>
>>> Macroevolution is
>>> a mixture of 15 percent science and 85 percent religion [guaranteed
>>> within three percent error :) ]
>
To repeat what I had said in an earlier post: Evolution is
a theory. If you accept it as fact, then that is faith and
not much different from religion. If you accept it as the
theory it is, then there is 0% religion involved and it
can be quite useful in the realm of science.
Simply put, evolution/creation when each is looked at
properly -- theory/assertion not fact/fiction -- is a
specific example of exactly what separates soft athiesm
and science from religion.
-jim halat
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | Iowa State University, Ames IA | In <1993Apr21.045548.17418@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
st922957@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (Arnold SK...) 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.
Not so, Arnie. You forget repeating arms (which include machine
guns, gatling-style guns, etc...), cannon, rifles, and let's not forget
the bullets they managed to use. Everything from rocks to lead to
a couple iron balls with a chain between them. If you think warfare
is brutal today, buddy you have no idea how brutal things can get.
< 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
|
goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA | In article <C5rLps.Fr5@world.std.com> jhallen@world.std.com (Joseph H Allen) writes:
>In article <1qvk8sINN9vo@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
>
>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.
As far as I am concerned, neither allegation has been proven.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
martini@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Sheilagh M.B.E. O'Hare) | Re: Honor (was: A Parable For You) | The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas | While mark claims that his honor would demand that he apologize, it seems
that he would apologieze *if* he were wrong, which takes seeing that he
would be wrong in some situation or other.
Woolfie (lupus would be a cool name for a child) points out that his
brother would see himself as honorable, and not see his mother's point of
view.
My sister has played go between, twixt me and my mother, since I can't
seem to find words that my mother understands on some issues of boundaries,
and such personal things. Not that we dont talk, or anything quite so
drastic, but that it can be hard to reconsile two points of view..
thanks, wolfie, i see some of your point.. and mark, i may see yours,
but it doesnt quite follow the same path, to me, as wolfe's..
sheil
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
mls@ulysses.att.com (Michael L. Siemon) | Re: Societal basis for morality | AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA | In article <C5r8vH.AI7@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
writes:
>I'm actually not trying to make a point. I'm just trying to find out the
>coherence of the societally based morality position. Is my assumption of
>societally based morals wrong?
No, but you would need a lot of background reading in sociology to get
to a point where the discussion would be focused enough to be helpful.
The interaction of values and behavior among people has been a major
defining element of both psychology and sociology for a century now, and
is the part of both disciplines (as social psychology) that strikes me
as most relevant to the various naive arguments about morality on the
net.
An exceptionally good place to get a clear view of "social norms" in
action is the "micro" sociology of Ervin Goffman. There are some very
good introductory essays ("Deference and Demeanor" is a classic), as
well as accessible books like _Interaction Ritual_. More difficult and
theoretical are some of his later books like _Frame Analysis_. But even
at his most academic, Goffman escapes the dreadful boredom and heavily
jargon-laden theorizing that makes most standard sociology unreadable.
Morality is essentially the playing out of individual goals and aims in
the setting of their expectations of other people, and others' expectations
of them. This becomes "systematized" in a "socially mandated" way simply
because otherwise we'd have to invent the entire context of interpersonal
realtions with every single interaction -- and we engage in social inter-
actions usually hundreds or thousands of times a day, so that a renego-
tiation of human interaction each time is a pretty ridiculous notion.
We simply learn it (most of it) early, along with language (which is one
of the main exemplars.)
--
Michael L. Siemon "Stand, stand at the window
mls@panix.com As the tears scald and start.
mls@ulysses.att.com You shall love your crooked neighbor
-standard disclaimer- With your crooked heart."
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) | Re: Ancient references to Christianity (was: Albert Sabin) | Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences | In article <C5ztJu.FKx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>Why is the NT tossed out as info on Jesus. I realize it is normally tossed
>out because it contains miracles, but what are the other reasons?
It is not tossed out as a source, but would it be regarded as
unbiased and independant?
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) | Re: 14 Apr 93 God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7 | Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco | brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>
>Brian Kendig contorts . . .
>
>> It can not be a light which cleanses
>> if it is tainted with the blood
>> of an innocent man.
>
>. . . now showing how Brian Kendig is in the dark of the
>most fundamental basic of the Old Testament. Concepts like
>santification and Lev. 17:11 must be foreign to you. Too bad
>you are not interested in understanding. Too bad you prefer
>blurting folly even to your own shame.
Lev 17:11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given
it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is
the blood that makes atonement for the soul.
The Old Testament was very big on the "eye for an eye" business. It
makes sense that Leviticus would support physical injury to "repay"
moral wrongdoing.
I know about sanctification. I've been taught all about it in Sunday
school, catechism class, and theology classes. But even after all
that, I still can't accept it. Maybe I'm still not understanding it,
or maybe I'm just understanding it all too well.
From the bottom of my heart I know that the punishment of an innocent
man is wrong. I've tried repeatedly over the course of several years
to accept it, but I just can't. If this means that I can't accept the
premise that a god who would allow this is 'perfectly good', then so
be it.
> What ignorance you can show us next? I guess I'll wait
>till tomorrow.
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.
--
_/_/_/ 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
|
lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin | In article <1f2P02UA40zB01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>Capser, before you deceive everone into thinking that the latter-day
>saints have undergone undue persecution through the years for just
>believing in their religion, perhaps you would like to tell us all what
>happened in the Mountain Meadow Massacres and all the killings that were
>done under the Blood Atonement Doctrine, at the command of Brigham Young?
I recently watched a an episode of "The Old West" a TV show on the
Discovery Channel (or perhaps the A&E Network), the one hosted by Kenny
Rogers. This episode was all about the Mormons and how they settled Utah,
etc.
A large portion of the broadcast was about the "Mountain Meadows Massacre".
The program very specifically pointed out that Brigham Young knew nothing
about the incident until long after it had happened (before telegraph), and
it occured as a result of several men inciting a bunch of paronoid Moromn
settlers into what amounted to a mob. All participants in the incident were
prosecuted and eccomunicated from the LDS Church.
I suggest you watch a rerun of that episode (they play them over and over)
and see what they (non-Mormons) have to say about it.
Lance
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lance W. Bledsoe lwb@im4u.cs.utexas.edu (512) 258-0112 |
| "Ye shall know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall make you free." |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
critus@cwis.unomaha.edu (Michael J. Abboud) | Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions | University of Nebraska at Omaha | critus
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
field@cae.wisc.edu (Michael Brian Field) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering | All you BD apologists seem to be conveniently forgetting
Jonestown. It would have looked much worse if the feds had just
waited till they all committed suicide. This was a no win situation,
although the final raid was a tragic failure - they should have
been able to get more people out alive.
-Mike
P.S. The title for this thread is ridiculous. Feds couldn't give a hoot
about their religous ideas - weapons was the problem. Similar situations
have popped up with those "I'm not gonna pay taxes" freaks in Idaho, etc.
where religion clearly has no bearing. Religous freedom here, as an issue,
is a complete smokescreen.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) | Re: ABORTION and private health coverage -- letters regarding | null | In article <nyikos.735335582@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <syt5br_@rpi.edu> rocker@acm.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>
>>In <1qk73q$3fj@agate.berkeley.edu> dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis Kriz) writes:
>
>>>If one is paying for a PRIVATE health insurance plan and DOES NOT WANT
>>>"abortion coverage" there is NO reason for that person to be COMPLELLED
>>>to pay for it. (Just as one should not be compelled to pay for lipposuction
>>>coverage if ONE doesn't WANT that kind of coverage).
>
[...stuff deleted...]
There's a very good reason for it. The insurance industry sets it's premiums
through a spread-the-cost-of-risk approach. (Yes, even though
non-smokers pay less, they still pay more than if there were no smokers
at all. And smokers pay for CEO quadruple bypass operations. And it
just goes on and on.) Insurance is capitalist-socialism at its very best.
And if you don't like it, you're only choice right now is not to
participate at all, else start up your very own firm that ignores the
risks you don't like.
--
jim halat halat@bear.com
bear-stearns --whatever doesn't kill you will only serve to annoy you--
nyc i speak only for myself
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
mike@inti.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) | Re: Religion and history; The real discuss | N.I.C.E. | Matthew Huntbach writes:
sm[?]>a real Christian unless you're born again is a very fundamental biblical
sm[?]>conversion and regeneration are 'probably' part of some small USA-based cult
>the "born-again" tag often use it to mean very specifically
>having undergone some sort of ecstatic experience (which can in
>fact be very easily manufactured with a little psychological manipulation),
>and are often insultingly dismissive of those whose
>Christianity is a little more intellectual, is not the result
Some of these "cults", which seems like a rather dismissive term
to me, are pretty big here in the USA. Most of them
are quite respectable & neiborly & do not resemble Branch Davidians
in the least; confusing them is a mistake. What about "live &
let live", folks? I'm sure we can uncover a few extremist loonies
who are Catholic -- the anti-abortion movement in the USA seems to have a
few hard cases in it, for example.
>I've often heard such people use the line "Catholics aren't
>real Christians". Indeed, anyone sending "missionaries" to
>Ireland must certainly be taking this line, for otherwise why
>would they not be content for Christianity to be maintained in
>Ireland in its traditional Catholic form?
I have to agree Matthew with this; I have certainly encountered a lot
of anti-Catholic-religion propaganda & emotion (& some bigotry) from
members of certain religious groups here. They also practice their
missionary work with zeal among Catholics in the United States, but to
someone who is or was raised Catholic such rhetoric is pretty
off-putting. It may work better in an environment where there's a lot
of popular anti-clericalism.
Follow-ups set elsewhere, this no longer seems very relevant to Celtic issues
to me.
--
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) | Re: Burden of Proof | Computer Science Dept, City University, London | In article <C5t5sF.8oz@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> frittsbc@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Brian Fritts) writes:
> I saw one theist on this net talking about the absurdity of one saying he
>doesn't believe in god, and how can we be sure. The problem with this and
>other arguments assumes that the burden of proof lies with the atheist. Wrong!
>In philosophy the one who is making a positive argument must give reasons for
>his believing so, not the negative. If I were to make the statement elves
>exist, then it would be up to me to prove my positive assertion, not the
>person saying that elves don't exist. If the negative in this case had to
>prove elves don't exist he would have to omniscient and know every inch of the
>universe. The same applies with god. Give me your reasons, and you (the theist) make the case.
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?
--
________ Lionel Tun, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk ________
/ /_ __/\ Computer Vision Group /\ \__ _\
/___/_/_/\/ City University, London EC1V 0HB \ \___\_\_\
\___\_\_\/ 071-477 8000 ext 3889 \/___/_/_/
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is oxymoronic? | Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK. | arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <930420.101210.8Y7.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew
><mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>>Would you like to argue that Western policies are, in fact, completely
>>harmless to the people of the Third World? Or even beneficial? If so, star
>>a thread about it. I can't imagine how you'll support the contention, but
>>I'm happy to discuss it.
>
> This is sort of like asking an atheist "would you like to prove that God
> doesn't exist"? Doubting something does not imply affirming the contrary.
Funny, we've been here before. What was the issue last time?
It is, of course, logically reasonable to doubt X even when you have no
evidence of not-X. Carry on doubting everything you want. It is noticable to
me, however, that you only ever seem to follow this course when you want to
do so for the sake of an argument.
mathew
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) | Re: A KIND and LOVING God!! | The University of Texas at Arlington | In article <sandvik-160493205355@sandvik-kent.apple.com>,
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes...
>(stephen) wrote:
>> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) quotes ML...
>> >> 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?
>
>Most religious Jews with the exception of the Messianic ones and
>atheists/agnostics, Malcolm.
KS, I see you're wanting Malcolm's response. Allow me one last inter-
jection then please:
Distinguishing among the religious Jews, you've excepted the Messianic
for obvious reasons. Specifically, are you saying it's these religious
Jews, who trace their lineage back to Abraham by blood and orthodoxy,
rather than by faith, who won't agree? Orthodox Jews?
As to the a/a (if I understand your direction), the issue remains
unproven I suspect, considering how atheists and agnostics so often
look to reason. Atheist, it is reasonable to conclude will not agree.
For agnostics, a poll seems in order. Who knows? Myself, I'm not so
sure the atheists can be counted out.
For the orthodox, I wonder how many would follow Moses, or Abraham,
or David in accepting God's Word? Is the particular covenant to which
one adheres, more important than God promisimg? I reckon for many it
depends on the ongoing dialogue. Under these considerations, you might
understand why I think it's premature to assert who will and won't agree.
|
-- J --
|
| stephen
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) | Proof Of Christian Kultural Oppression | Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper |
Was Subject: Re: Gilligan's island, den of iniquity
In article 5869@nuscc.nus.sg, matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Matthew MacIntyre at the National University of Senegal) writes:
>beb@pt.com (Bruce Buck) writes:
>: In article <1993Apr13.011033.23123@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Matthew MacIntyre at the National University of Senegal) writes:
>: >: >> Gilligan = Sloth
>: >: >> Skipper = Anger
>: >: >> Thurston Howell III = Greed
>: >: >> Lovey Howell = Gluttony
>: >: >> Ginger = Lust
>: >: >> Professor = Pride
>: >: >> Mary Ann = Envy
>: >
>: >Assorted Monkeys= Secular Humanism
>:
>: Assorted Headhunters - Godless, Heathen Savagery
>: Russian Agent who looks like Gilligan - Godless Communism
>: Japanese Sailor - Godless Barbarism
>: Walter Pigeon - Godless Bird Turd
>: The Mosquitos (Bingo, Bango, Bongo, Irving) - Godless Rock'n'Roll
>: Harold Heckuba (Phil Silvers) - Hollywood Hedonism
>: John McGiver - Butterfly flicking
>: Tonga, the Fake Apeman - Deceit, Lust
>: Eva Grubb - Deceit, lust
Need we way anything MORE about how the Hideous Hand
of the Evil Right Wing Religious Fanatics have TRIED
to corrupt the Moral Fibre of American Children using
the New TV Media to implant Ideologically Dangerous IDEAS
into the Heads of Innocent Children.
ciao
drieux
ps: Clearly it is TIME to support Madaline Murry O'Hare's Quest
to stop this FORM of Christian Prosylatizing........
---
"All Hands to the Big Sea of COMedy!
All Hands to the Big Sea of COMedy!"
-Last Call of the Wild of the Humour Lemmings
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | University of Virginia | Bill Gripp writes
>>Anyway, I've often wondered what business followers of Christ would have
>>with weapons.
>FYI, these people were not "followers of Christ". David Koresh was
>their messiah.
ok, but didn't Jesus figure somewhere into their beliefs? Anyway, my
original question regarding christians and weaponry still stands.
--
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
|
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C. |
In article <9601@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, rjl+@pitt.edu (Richard J. Loether) writes:
|>
|> Yes, of course, as in Matthew 10:34-35 "Do not suppose that I have come to
|> bring peace to the earth; it is not peace I have come to bring but a sword..."
|> :
Remember the armor of God? The sword that Christians wield is the
Word of God, the Bible.
God be with you,
Malcolm Lee :)
|> RJL
|> --
|> Rich Loether Snail mail: University of Pittsburgh The Ideas:
|> EMail: rjl+@pitt.edu Computing and Info Services Mine,
|> Voice: (412) 624-6429 600 Epsilon Drive all
|> FAX : (412) 624-6426 Pittsburgh, PA 15238 Mine.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) | Re: Food For Thought On Tyre | Rowan College of New Jersey |
There has been a lot of discussion about Tyre. In sum, Ezekiel prophesied
that the place would be mashed and never rebuilt; as there are a lot of
people living there, it would appear that Ezekiel was not literally correct.
This doesn't bother me at all, because I understand the language Ezekiel used
differently than do so-called Biblical literalists. For example, it sometimes
happens that someone says "My grandson is the cutest baby!" and then turns
around and sees the granddaughter and says "Oh! Isn't she the cutest thing!?"
This person is not literally claiming to have lined up all the babies in the
world according to cuteness and discovered his own grandchildren tied for
first. Rather, he is trying to express his emotions using words that are very
object-oriented. Because this example is one that is common to many people,
nobody misunderstands the intent of the statements; the Bible, however, is
often at the mercy of people who assume that everything within must be exactly
literally true. For those people, the existence of Tyre is a problem; for me,
it is not.
Turning to the latest person trying to defend Ezekiel, we read this from
John E King:
> The prophesy clearly implies that people would still be living in the
> area[.]
No, it implies nothing of the kind. If you had nothing but the prophecy from
Ezekiel, and you were told you interpret it literally, you would never say
"Oh, he means that there will be houses and businesses and plants and stuff
like that." You would read "I will make you a bare rock" and "You will never
be rebuilt", and you'd conclude that Tyre would be a bare rock. The only way
to get from `fishing nets' to `houses and buildings and a medium-large
population' is if you KNOW that all that latter stuff is there.
In other words, your answer means that Ezekiel misled everybody who read the
prophecy at the time it was written. There is no way that, given a literal
reading, they could read this passage and conclude "medium-size city".
You seem to feel that "Never be rebuilt" means "be rebuilt" -- maybe so, but
it is hardly a `clear implication'.
Mr King also writes:
> 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.
Well, no. That's only a bit less than the population of Annapolis, where I'm
from. You know, the Naval Acadamy, the state capital, George Washington
resigned his commission in the statehouse? Annapolis may not be New York, but
it's at least a two-horse town.
But supposing 22,000 people is a "small town" -- it's still 22,000 people
MORE than Ezekiel predicted.
And you've said nothing about the other problem. In chapter 26, Ezekiel
predicts that Nebuchadnezzar will will destroy Tyre and loot all their
valuables. However, Nebuchadnezzar did NOT destroy Tyre, and in chapter 29
Ezekiel even quotes God as saying "he and his army got no reward from the
campaign he led against Tyre."
Let's ignore Alexander for a moment, and just pay attention to chapter 26.
Ezekiel says N. would destroy Tyre, and N. did NOT destroy Tyre. Ezekiel says
that N. would plunder their valuables, but N. did NOT plunder their valuables.
Regardless of what you think about Tyre _now_, the fact is that N. died before
the place was destroyed. Ezekiel said N. was going to do it, and N. did not.
*
This post is, of course, pointless. Inerrantists have an amazing ability
to rewrite the Bible as needed to fit whatever they want it to say.
For example, I expect Mr King to respond to the comments about Ezekiel 26
by pulling some "clear implications" out of hat.
When Ezekiel said that N. would "demolish your towers", that clearly implied
that the walls would still be standing so people would know where the towers
used to be. And when Ezekiel said that N. would "demolish your fine houses
and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea", that clearly implied
that N. would never set foot on the island. And when Ezekiel wrote that N.
would "build a ramp up to your walls", that clearly implies that N. would
spend 13 years stomping around on the mainland and never get close to the
walls.
See? A few "clear implications" that are totally contrary to the text, and
you can reconcile anything you want.
Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
"[Do] You know why I'm the enabler? Because you demand it!" -- Cliff Claven
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
<LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET> | [rw] Is Robert Weiss the only orthodox Christian? | Brigham Young University |
Robert, you keep making references to "orthodox" belief, and saying things
like "it is held that..." (cf. "Kermit" thread). On what exact body of
theology are you drawing for what you call "orthodox?" Who is that "holds
that" Luke meant what you said he meant? Whenever your personal interpretation
of Biblical passages is challenged, your only response seems
to be that one needs merely to "look at the Bible" in order to see the truth,
but what of those who see Biblical things differently from you? Are we to
simply assume that you are the only one who really understands it?
Just curious,
--
Rick Anderson librba@BYUVM.BITNET
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
ss@apmaths.uwo.ca (SULTAN SIAL) | Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick | Applied Mathematics, U.W.O | In article <93111.195217A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET> <A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
[stuff about Mithras deleted]
>Oh, His B-day was 25 Dec. Ahem.
I thought that Saturnalia was celebrated by the Romans at that time. Was
Mithras connected with this?
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) | Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened? | Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) |
In a previous article, spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont) says:
>... or consider the thousands in Central America killed by those brave
>CIA/NSC sponsored "Freedom Fighters."
>
>Thus far, Slick Willie is a piker.
ONLY if you weight Americans equal to SAlvadorans.
I don't.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Technical University Braunschweig, Germany | In article <1qj9gq$mg7@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
(Deletion)
>Plus questions for you: why do subjectivists/relativists/nihilists get so
>het up about the idea that relativism is *better* than objectivism?
Straw man, you are trying to replace pragmatics by morals. And what about
a Subjectivis saying Subjectivismis better for me?
>Is good logic *better* than bad? Is good science better than bad? Ought
>I to prefer simple theories with accurate predictions to complex and useless
>theories? Is almost anything preferable to genocide? Is there a sense in
>which such value judgements are objective, or not?
>
Make those predictions and don't waste our time with circular definitions
and assertions without evidence. In this example, when genocide is so
commonly abhorred, why does it happen so often in the context of religion?
Does it allow to conclude that there is something about religion that
catalyses genocide? Or, in case it has nothing got to do with religion,
that the premise is wrong, genocide is not abhorred?
Benedikt
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
Kevin Kelly <ACAD8009@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> | Re: Tieing Abortion to Health Reform -- Is Clinton Nuts? | Ryerson Polytechnical Institute | In article <1qpd98$b7e@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, taite@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu () says:
>
>In article <rayC5Mvvn.LJ1@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>taite@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu () writes ...
>>> If all choices should have federal funding so poor people can afford
>them,
>>>then shouldn't firearms be federally subsidized? After all, it is the
>people
>>>in the ghettoes who are most affected by the proliferation of weapons among
>>>criminals. Shouldn't they have federal funding so they can protect s
>themselve
>>>and their families from inner city criminals?
>>
>>Criminals mostly (70%) get (steal) their guns from people who buy them
>>legally. In order to reduce the number of guns criminals use, you'd
>>need to to _reduce_, and not increse, the number of legally held guns.
>
> Wrong, NYC subway breath. Criminals are going to have guns regardless
>of what legislative remedy you come up with. However, it is the law-abiding
>citizens who suffer when guns are harder to obtain. Case in point:
>Washington,
>D.C. is the murder capital of the U.S., but has banned handguns and has some
>of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. They ain't working,
>big brother Ray.
They don't work because you need a nation-wide confiscation of all guns,
Ralphie. That's why it dosen't work in D.C. They didn't confiscate the guns
that all ready exist. Therefore what Ray said still applies.
> If only we could keep guns
>out of criminals hands, we would just have a bunch of citizens getting
>stabbed,
>choke|, and beaten to death.
However Ralphie, the amount of killings would go down. Think about it. With
guns it just takes the pull of a trigger. Other forms of murder require much
more effort on the part of the murderer.
>In the UK, I read recently that some young women
>have been killing even without guns (which are nearly impossible to obtain
>there) and it is a cause of great concern to the Brits. Well-armed citizens
>mean that this country will never fear from the government, criminals or
>invasion. We may have twice the murder rate of the UK, but who gives a flip?
You should! Although maybe you're right. Well armed citizens wouldn't have
to worry about little boys and their threats against women and abortion
clinics.
>Why should we want to compare our society which is extremely heterogeneous and
>wealthy to one that is basically homogeneous and in dire straits?
Ralphie, ever been to London or any major city in the UK? You know not what
you speak. And as far as England being in dire straits, have you forgotten
your lines about civil wars and society erupting in the U.S.
> What about
>Japan? If Americans were willing to give some of the Draconian punishments
>that the Japs are, perhaps we wouldn't need guns. Or the Germans. They have
>a 20th century history of being extremely reactionary, so guns or no guns
>those
>suckers know how to take care of bih'ness.
Do you have a point here? Except to explain the crap that follows.
> Point is, Raymeister, that America is violent. And to put up in an OhSo
>DarwinianManner, the toughest on this planet survive. Not the GoodPeople
>[tm],
>but the tough ones. The top 3 nations in GNP in the world are Japan, Germany,
>and the U.S. All these countries have a violent tradition. Pure coincidence?
>I doubt it.
>
Ralphie, only you in your sick mind would think that this is the reason Japan
and Germany's GNP are two of the highest. Probably had more to do with the
economic re-building after World War II. I think you need to study the issue
a little more. But in Ralphie's World, violence is to be worshipped. Isn't it
Ralphie (or whichever of your multiple personalities wrote this post)?
> Ralph D. Taite
> President, Institute for Conservative Policy Review
>
>>--
>>Ray Fischer "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of
>truth
>>ray@netcom.com than lies." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
>
>---
>One man come in the name of love.
>One man come and go.
>One man come here to justify.
>One man to overthrow.
>
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) | Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed) | Somewhere in the Twentieth Century | cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>Once again, where's your proof? Suicide is considered a sin by Branch
>Davidians. Also, Koresh said over and over again that he was not going to
>commit suicide. Furthermore, all the cult experts said that he was not
>suicidal. David Thibedeau (sp?), one of the cult members, said that the fire
>was started when one of the tanks spraying the tear gas into the facilities
>knocked over a lantern.
In two places at once? Bit of a coincidence, that.
Whatever the faults the FBI had, the fact is that responsibility
for those deaths lies with Koresh.
P.
--
moorcockpratchettdenislearydelasoulu2iainmbanksneworderheathersbatmanpjorourke
clive p a u l m o l o n e y Come, let us retract the foreskin of misconception
james trinity college dublin and apply the wire brush of enlightenment - GeoffM
brownbladerunnersugarcubeselectronicblaylockpowersspikeleekatebushhamcornpizza
| 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 <1r22qp$4sk@squick.eitech.com> ekr@squick.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
#In article <1r0m89$r0o@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
#>In article <1qvu33$jk3@kyle.eitech.com> ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
#>#In article <1quokn$c49@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
#>#>In article <1qktbg$bmh@squick.eitech.com> ekr@squick.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
#>#>#No, I don't see what the popularity of a value has to do with whether
#>#>#it is objective or not. Pls. explain.
#>#>If almost all people agree that the sun exists (in the usual, uncritical sense),
#>#>and almost all people agree that a deal is bad, it's a reasonable
#>#>conclusion that the sun really does exist, and that the deal really is bad.
#>#I disagree completely. Until rather recently, most people did not
#>#believe in evolution or the possibility of the atom bomb. Popular
#>#opinion is notoriously wrong about matters of fact.
#>True, but nevertheless the basis of all "matters of fact" is overwhelming
#>popular opinion, and some overwhelming popular opinion *is* fact ("the
#>sun shines"). If it were not so, physics would be a personal matter,
#>assumed to be different for each of us. There would be YourGravity and
#>MyGravity and no theoretical framework to encompass them and predict
#>both.
#This is simply complete nonsense. The basis for 'matters of fact' is,
#if any class of opinion, the majority of INFORMED popular opinion
#for some value of informed. I would really hate to base my knowledge
#of, for instance, QM on what the overwhelming popular opinion is.
The *basis*, Eric, is people peering at the world and saying what
they see. I'm talking about uninterpreted facts - observations. _People_
do those. Agreement on some observations is a prerequisite for a theory
that is more than personal.
#>about *raw* observations ("the dial reads 1.2") matter, in other words, though
#>they can surely be mistaken (or even lying) there too ("I saw the statue
#>move!"). Getting to theories from raw facts is certainly error-prone, but
#>one assumes that the raw facts are usually as reported, otherwise science
#>is impossible.
#Opinions about 'raw facts' as you call them are somewhat different
#than interpretations of those raw facts.
I know this. You know this. Can we proceed?
#>Now I take an experience of good/evil to be every bit as raw a fact as an
#>experience of pain, or vision.
#That might seem like a good first pass guess, but it turns out to
#be a pretty cruddy way to look at things, because we all seem to
#have rather different opinions (experiences) about what is good
#and evil, while we seem to be able to agree on what the meter says.
You're not comparing apples with apples. If we all look at the same meter,
we'll agree. If we're all in the same situation, that's when we'll
agree on fundamental values, if at all. People who say that nobody agrees on
values to the same extent that they agree on trivial observations seem
to be unaware of the extent of agreement on either.
#> For me, an ethical standard can be nothing
#>more than a hypothesis about the modification of observed value through
#>human actions ("It will be better if..." == "You ought").
#See above. We can't seem to agree on what's better.
See above. We sometimes can. There is also the matter of inertia
against experimentation. Most, if not all, moral hypotheses are necessarily
tested by way of thought experiment. Few people will attempt genocide
or experience a lifetime in jail to find out if it's really as bad as
all that.
#> In that context,
#>then I see the choice as being between scepticism, relativism, and
#>objectivism. IMO, the existence of supermajority experiences of
#>good (life, freedom, truth, peace, love, intelligence) testifies that
#>objectivism is true for fundamental values - and this in turn is weak
#>evidence that objective ethics may be possible.
#I don't see that it's any evidence at all.
#As I point out above, I'm really not interested very much in
#what the popular opinion is. I'm prepared to trust--to some extent--
#the popular opinion about direct matters of physical observation
#because by and large they accord with my own. However, if everyone
#else said the dial read 1.5 and it looked like a 3 to me, I would
#hope that I would believe myself. I.e. believing other people about
#these matters seems to have a reasonable probability of predicting
#what I would believe if I observed myself, but the possibility exists
#that it is not. Since I know from observation that others disagree
#with me about what is good, I believe I can discount popular opinion
#about 'good' from the beginning as a predictor of my opinion.
#I would say that the fact that it seems almost impossible to get
#people to agree on what is good in a really large number of situations
#is probably the best evidence that objective morality is bogus, actually.
Firstly, if everyone else said the dial was 1.5 and I saw 3, I'd check
my lens prescription. Secondly, your observation that people
disagree shows nothing - people may be looking at different things,
by virtue of being in different situations. If I look at an elephant, I'll
see an elephant. That doesn't imply that you will see an elephant if you
look at an iguana. Thirdly, I question your assumption that when
people disagree about how to achieve fundamental or secondary goals, that
they therefore do not have the same fundamental goals (that seems to be the
disagreement you refer to).
--
Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
odwyer@sse.ie from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C. |
In article <C5rLps.Fr5@world.std.com>, jhallen@world.std.com (Joseph H Allen) writes:
|> In article <1qvk8sINN9vo@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
|>
|> 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.
I don't necessarily agree with Pat Robertson. Every one will be placed before
the judgement seat eventually and judged on what we have done or failed to do
on this earth. God allows people to choose who and what they want to worship.
Worship of money is one of the greatest religions in this country.
I do agree that it was a terrible tragedy and, yes, the FBI 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.
Cult status, maybe, but they didn't have to take up arms to protect themselves.
As you may recall, the early Christians were pacifists preferring to avoid
physical confrontation rather than dealing with it in like manner. Why else
do you think the apostles were thrown into jail so often and beaten up for the
sake of their beliefs?
|> It is perhaps worthwhile to consider that the
|> Branch Dividians' apocalyptic prophecies have been fulfilled.
Self-fulfilled. I heard that Koresh was predicting that the FBI would be the
ones to burn. It doesn't take any great insight to light yourself on fire, maybe
perverse delusion.
|> Maybe David
|> Koresh really was Jesus Christ (sure sounds like a neat opening epic for a
|> new major religion to me).
|> --
NOT! He was an egomaniac who had the attention of the entire world for a brief
moment in time. Rather than live with the shame of being taken captive by the
FBI, Koresh chose to kill himself and his followers. Sick and . . . sad.
|> /* 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
|
cjk@netcom.com | Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened? | Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) | In article <C5stEL.K0E@boi.hp.com> dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes:
>>Dear Brother Bill,
>>
>>One way or another -- so much for patience. Too bad you couldn't just
>>wait. Was the prospect of God's Message just too much to take?
>
> So do you want the president to specifically order each and every activity
>of the FBI, or what? And how willing are you to blame Reagan and Bush,
>directly, for the incidents that took place in the War on Drugs in their
>administration? Are you going to blame Bush for the fact that Weaver's wife,
>infant, son were killed? It happened while he was president.
>
This was obviously a lot different than the ordinary FBI adventure.
I believe that the Federal officers had a conflict of interests here.
Throught out the whole affair, it seamed to me that they were chiefly
concerned with saving face rather than saving lifes. Its true that
The BD were resisting arrest and that they should have surrendered
when they first realized that these where federal officers. But they
didn`t.
But when they didn`t, the FBI should not have treated as a hostage
situation, it wasn't.
I think more discussions, possible independant negotiators, and
family intervention should have been used.
Of course this is just monday morning Quartberbaking...or is it?
I don`t think I shall every forget Reno responding to Ted
Koppels Questions last night. Watching the AG squirm when
telling us that the only reason they "stepped it up" a bit
was because of there fear for the safety of the Children.
When I think of the Chief role of the Government--To protect and
to serve....I ask myself--Just who where they protecting and just
who where they serving?
I did see a flag at half mast today. I wonder who they are mourning.
cjk@netcom.com
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
tbrent@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) | Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened? | Purdue University Engineering Computer Network | In article <26APR199315363120@rigel.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>In article <1993Apr26.022246.18294@scubed.com>, wilkins@scubed.com (Darin Wilkins) writes...
>>>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]
>
>>In article <1r7hmlINNc6@mojo.eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>>>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?
>
>
>>Assuming the most favorable interpretation of your '1000 degree'
>>measurement (that the temperature is in Centigrade, rather than the
>>more common -in the US- Fahrenheit), you are still laboring under at
>>least 2 misconceptions:
>
>>1. You seem to believe that steel melts somewhere around 1000 C.
>> Actually, the melting point of most iron alloys (and steels are
>> iron alloys) is in the neighborhood of 1400 C. Even if the gun
>> were found in area which achieved the 1000 C temperature, the steel
>> parts of the gun would not be deformed, and it would still be
>> trivial to identify the nature of the weapon.
>
> Steel may not melt at 1000C, but it will weaken, expand and deform.
> If there is enough of a load on the steel, like the load on a steel
> roof truss, or the pressure exerted by steel parts in a machine
> trying to expand against each other, the steel can and will
> deform extensively. For the record, any weapon found in
> the cult compound should be indentifiable, but it may be
> impossible to do normal ballistics tests because of the
> damage done to the weapon.
If, if, if.... Anyway, the question was if the gun was identifiable, which
it is.
-Tim
> Mitchell S Todd \\\\/ / _____/__________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
| | |
| Timothy J. Brent | A man will come to know true happiness, |
| BRENT@bank.ecn.purdue.edu | only when he accepts that he is but a |
|=========$$$$==================| small part of an infinite universe. |
| PURDUE UNIVERSITY | -Spinoza |
| MATERIALS SCIENCE ENGINEERING | [paraphrased] |
|_______________________________|_________________________________________|
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) | Re: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars | The Portal System (TM) | 930418
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. [Honestly.]
The word of Sin is Restriction. [Would I kid you?]
Does one man's words encompass the majestic vision of thousands
of individuals? Quoting a man is not the same as quoting the
Order. Taken out of context, words can be interpreted much
differently than had one applied them within the confines of
their original expression.
I think this is the case regarding Hymenaeus Beta, Frater Superior
of the Order to which I belong. When he included that bit
from Merlinus X' he did us all a service. He showed us the extremes
to which Order members have been known to go in their fervor.
I have little knowledge regarding Reuss' background, but surely
he was an unusual man, and he was an important force in the Order
for many years.
Yet as people change so do Orders change, and while we look back
so carefully at the dirty laundry of O.T.O. remember that this is
only the surface skim and that many perspectives are now encompassed
which extend beyond any one individual. I hope to show that there
was and is much room for a difference of opinion within the Order
itself, perhaps by testing the limits myself.
Let us examine this issue a bit more closely....
"In 1895, Karl Kellner (1850-1905), a wealthy Austrian industrialist
and paper chemist, as well as a high-grade Mason, founded the Ordo
Templi Orientis. Kellner had traveled widely in the East, where he
met three adepts who instructed him specific magical practices.
Kellner's efforts to develop the Order were later assisted by Franz
Hartmann, Heinrich Klein and Theodore Reuss, who had worked together
prior to joining the O.T.O. The Order was first proclaimed in 1902
in Reuss's Masonic publication, 'Oriflamme'. On Kellner's death,
Reuss succeeded him as Outer Head [O.H.O.]. The 'Jubilee' edition of
the 'Oriflamme', published in 1912, announced that the Order taught
secret of sexual magic.
"Theodore Reuss was an interesting character. Born June 28, 1855 in
Augsburg, he entered Masonry in 1876. He was a singer, journalist and
possibly a spy for the Prussian political police, infiltrating the Socialist
League founded by Karl Marx's daughter and her husband. Reuss was
later associated with William Wynn Westcott, a leader of the Golden
Dawn, who later introduced him to John Yarker. Yarker chartered Reuss to
found the Rites of Memphis and Mizraim in Germany. After several
attempts to concretize various Masonic Rites, Reuss settled on the
development of the O.T.O.
"The Order experienced reasonably steady growth under Reuss' leadership.
For example, he chartered Papus in France, Rudolph Steiner in Berlin
and H. Spencer Lewis in the USA. In 1912, the historic meeting between
Reuss and Crowley occurred. Crowley wrote that Reuss came to him and
accused him of revealing Order secrets. When Crowley looked at it afresh,
the initiated interpretation of sexual magick unfolded itself to him for
the first time. Reuss appointed Crowley as Supreme and Holy King of all
the English speaking world, and it was this authorization that he invoked
when publishing the material of the Equinox.
"Reuss resigned as Outer Head of the Order in 1922 after suffering a
stroke and named Crowley his successor. All was well until 1925 when
_The Book of the Law_ was translated into German. There was a break
in the continuity of the Order. Manyk members split with the new O.H.O.
over the book, which Crowley was actively promulgating through the Order.
He had earlier revise dthe Order rituals at Reuss's request, deeply
infusing the doctrines of the New Aeon revelation."
_An Introduction to the History of the O.T.O._, by Ad Veritatem IX'
Within _Equinox III:10_, Edited by
Hymenaeus Beta, Frater Superior, Rex Summus Sanctissimus,
Caliph of the United States of America,
Published by Samuel Weiser, 1990.
There are many possible reasons that our Frater Superior included this
material in _Equinox III:10_. And this is the real point, is it not?
Why did he wish to publish such things about the history of his own
organization? Does he represent a dogmatic threat to the principle
of Thelema? Or is he exercising his True Will and putting forth very
complex pictures with no easy answers? A picture which leaves room
for very many interpretations.
It is quite easy for me to see, for example, that all of O.T.O. derived
out of the dribble of faltering Masonry, purchased by clever hucksters
with an ounce of courage and some writing ability to aid them. And I
can take that all the way down to our present Caliph, whose feeble
support of the 'Law of Thelema' is laughable at best.
Would I be thrown out of the Order for speaking in this way?
Will I?
I think not.
Why? Because my Frater will see it as a perspective, an interjection
I am using as an example. My illustration shows that we may express things
in the context of a larger work and the true significance of this may be
quite difficult to apprehend at first.
So it may be with OTO and Merlinus X'. Please look O.T.O. more carefully.
I do not support Reuss's words myself, as I am not qualified to assess
them, and I am critical of their pomposity. If I who am a member of
the Order take such a stand and am allowed to continue doing so, then
what can this say about the health of the Order? Does it mean that
the Order has 'gone soft' and abandoned its moral principles? Or
does it mean that it is strong in its ability to let the will of
universal kinship arise on its own, not shackled by some dogmatic
requirement? How shall we resolve these two possibilities?
I find a high calibre of individual associated with Ordo Templi Orientis.
They are often quite intelligent and sometimes very well versed in arcane
or usual information. They are quite often artists and geniuses.
Having met some 20 longstanding members in the SF Bay Area (many who are or
were very heavily involved with the Order), I can vouch for the integrity
of the organization as it stands.
I have sometimes questioned the policy of Hymenaeus Beta. In these moments
I followed my intuition, and I've found little to stop me from requesting
a Second initiation from a different O.T.O. body. I'm happily participating
in social groups (Feasts or Initiations) and have come to know the Gnostic
Mass well enough for my tastes.
This doesn't make me an authority on Order politics and explanations, however.
I can only hypothesize and relay to you what I understand based on my
limited contact with other members.
I urge you not to take the words of Merlinus X too far. There are many
ways to interpret words, and many people who have become involved with
the Order feel very strongly about the sanctity of personal freedom
and the preservation of individual vision.
I welcome other comment on this issue and will be writing more in response
to other posts in this thread.
Invoke me under my stars. Love is the law, love under will.
I am I!
Frater (I) Nigris (DCLXVI) CCCXXXIII
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
bittrolff@evans.enet.dec.com () | Re: A KIND and LOVING God!! | Digital Equipment Corporation |
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.
--
Steve Bittrolff
The previous is my opinion, and is shared by any reasonably intelligent person.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) | What we can learn from the Waco wackos | Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept. |
There are actually a few important things we can glean from this mess:
1) When they start getting desperate for an answer to the question: "What's
it all about. Mr. Natural?", pinkboys will buy darn near *anything*, which
means:
2) There's still plenty of $$$$ to be made in the False Jesus business
by enterprising SubGenii. Just remember that:
3) Once you've separated the pinks from their green, don't blow it all
on automatic weapons from Mexico. Put it in a Swiss bank account. Smile a
lot. Have your flunkies hand out flowers in airports. The Con will just
shrug you off as long as:
4) You never, never, NEVER start to believe your own bulldada! If
"David Koresh" hand't started swallowing his own "apocalypso now" crap, he'd
be working crossword puzzles in the Bahamas today instead of contributing to
the mulch layer in Waco. This is because:
5) When you start shooting at cops, they're likely to shoot back. And
most of 'em are better shots than you are.
In short:
- P.T. Barnum was right
and
- Stupidity is self-correcting
Thus endeth the lesson.
************************************************************
* 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
|
swansont@comphy.physics.orst.edu () | Re: Rawlins debunks creationism | IBM T.J. Watson Research, NY |
>What is the fact of evolution? There is a difference between calling evolution a
>fact and talking about the theory of evolution providing facts (I happen to think
>the latter is more accurate ). And you said it best yourself: If you assess
>the _theories_ of evolution objectively... Why didn't you say, If you assess
>the _facts_ of evolution objectively...
--
> jim halat halat@bear.com
>bear-stearns --whatever doesn't kill you will only serve to annoy you--
> nyc i speak only for myself
The fossil record, for example, shows us the FACT of evolution. The THEORY of
evolution attempts to explain how the changes shown in the fossil record have
occurred. The theory does not provide the facts; they are there already.
__________________________________________________________
Tom Swanson | I really should be working on my thesis...
OSU Physics |
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) | Re: To Rob Lanphier | Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ. | I wrote:
> My hope is that Brian K. 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.
Kent Sandvik writes:
>The problem is that you imagine him inside this huge wall, unable
>to see reality. While he imagines the same about you. Clearly we
>have a case where relativity plays a big role concerning looking
>at opposite frames of reality.
Kent, with regards to the information contained in the Bible (which
is the original context of this thread), Brian Kendig is inside a huge
wall. Brian *IS* inside. The Bible and the information contained therein
are outside the wall. Brian Kendig proves this very sad fact by the
absurd things he says. For example, "If I get through into the firey
pit, I will cease to exist." The Bible doesn't say that. He hasn't
a clue even to what Jesus said about hell. That is but one example.
Now in your sense, Kent, of sensing reality--that is a different
matter. And to you and to Brian, relativity does play a big role.
What we perceive to be true, depends on our vantage point. Since I
have read the Bible, and Brian Kendig shows that he hasn't, he has
a narrower perspective than mine (at least in the respect
of knowledge of the Bible). I am proposing to Brian, "Brian, come up here
and take a look from this vantage point." But Brian replies, "I rather
not thank you. I am content where I am. Besides, the vista from up
there stinks." And in the meanwhile, Brian ignores the facts that
he has never up there nor does he realize I had shared the same
plateau where Brian now stands.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
tph@susie.sbc.com (Timothy P. Henrion) | Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed) | /usr/lib/news/organization | In article <1993Apr22.125956.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>In article <1r477q$1vk@sbctri.sbc.com>, tph@susie.sbc.com (Timothy P. Henrion) writes:
>
>> Please explain how Koresh was defending himself from those children who
>> burned.
>
>Who ever said he was? What is obvious is that he was defending himself, and his
>followers, from the government. Whether you think he was right or wrong in
>this is another question. If he was right, then he had the moral right to kill
>those kgBATF agents.
>--Ray Cote
>
The killing of the ATF agents is a separate issue. My point is that many
children died because of Koresh defending himself. Did he have what you
call the "moral right" to keep those children in a dangerous enviroment in
order to defend himself?
--
Tim Henrion Southwestern Bell Technology Resources
thenrion@sbctri.sbc.com
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Siemens-Nixdorf AG | In article <1qvtk4$jep@kyle.eitech.com> ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
#In article <1qu2c9$4o4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
#>Ordinarily, it is also a *value* judgement, though it needn't be (one
#>could "do science" without believing it was worth a damn in any context,
#>though that hardly seems sensible).
#No, you're just overloading the word "value" again. It is an
#estimation of probability of correctness, not an estimation of "worth."
#Shit, I don't even know what "worth" means. Consider the possibility
#that I am not interested in knowing truth. I could still believe
#that science was the most likely way to get truth, and not value
#science at all.
But once you make a decision on the value of truth, and the likelihood of
science getting it, the rest follows. In your example, science is necessarily
worthless, and so are its results, because truth is worthless, assuming that's
all science is good for. And it's no accident that phrases such as "good
for" fit so naturally in this context.
#Just because evaluating an arithmetic expression
#and asking how much you value life both involve the word "value" doesn't
#mean that they refer to the same thing at all. I understand that
#the word value is used for both, but you have to be clear in what
#sense you are using the words. I agree with judging science as a
#value in the first sense, but not the second.
But I don't use it in the second sense. Consider that F=ma is no
different than F=$3 until I note the connection with reality that F=ma has, and
F=$3 does not. I'm making a decision as to the importance of F=ma
over other expressions I can compute. I'm valuing it, whether implicitly or
directly, because I'm saying that things that have a basis in reality
are different to other things which do not. And _no-one_ points
out an _unimportant_ difference, _except_ to say that it's unimportant.
"Important", "useful", "worthy", etc. are all words with evaluative
power, quite different from evaluating an expression. I'm careful
to use "value" in the sense I mean, which is invariably the first.
#>#I don't understand your point here. What do you mean by "not quite-sure
#>#observations?" It gets observed all the time that if you don't
#>#buy into a whole series of assumptions about how science is
#>#done, the results become meaningless.
#>Well, how do you know that "it" gets observed all the time? This
#>is your own private, subjective, "it" is it not? It is not binding
#>on the rest of us.
#Huh? What are you talking about? People frequently point out the
#point I made above. That is what I mean by 'observed'.
O.K., I misunderstood. I thought you meant observed in the sense
of 'not-quite-sure-observations', by which I mean those undertaken
by people.
#>#>DES does not work in a value vacuum. Nothing else does, either.
#>#This is just truth by blatant assertion. Your "in any important sense"
#>#seem to be just weasel words. Imagine that I have a box which
#>#accepts 16 bytes and uses the first 8 to ECB the second 8.
#>#It still does a perfect job of DESing, whether or not any input
#>#is being made at the time--whether or not anyone values mathematics..
#>The concept of a DES box which can be assumed to work as you describe in
#>the absence of an assumption of objective reality is incoherent. Such a box
#>may as well be assumed to wear a dufflecoat and go to the Limerick Races.
#Truth by blatant assertion again, Frank. It's observationally the
#case that when you measure it, it works. It can be reasonably well
#assumed that it will work even when you are not measuring it, barring
#quantum silliness about how it might have disappeared and reappeared.
#It doesn't take a notion of objective reality to discuss my observations.
Yes it does. You're saying in effect "it works independently of what I
believe", and basing that statement on your "reasonable assumption" (i.e.
unsupported belief) that it works indepently of what you believe. It
begs the question rather obviously. And of course, "reasonable
assumption" seems to be weasel words for "seems useful", "useful"
belonging to world of ghosts and values, and therefore being unreal.
--
Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
odwyer@sse.ie from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
alamut@netcom.com (Max Delysid (y!)) | Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?! | Longinus Software & Garden ov Delights | In article <1qppef$i5b@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes:
>
> 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.
Can we assume from this statement that you are >unequivocally< saying that
AMORC is not a spin off of OTO? .. and that in fact, OTO may well be a spin
off of AMORC??
i would be quite interested in hearing what evidence you have to support this
claim.
>Study Harder,
Study Smarter, not Harder! :-)
--
--->|<-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<---|---> More. More of Everything. More of Everything for Everybody.
<-|-> "Real total war has become information war, it is being fought now..."
<---|---> !MaX! Delysid - alamut@netcom.com - ALamutBBS 415.431.7541 1:125/51
--->|<-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 19talk.religion.misc
|