from
stringlengths 3
223
⌀ | subject
stringlengths 2
120
⌀ | organization
stringlengths 1
116
⌀ | text
stringlengths 1
160k
| label
class label 20
classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
ptyaxel@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Seymour Axelrod) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | SUNY at Buffalo | In article <mcclaryC5snpq.KB1@netcom.com>, mcclary@netcom.com (Michael McClary) writes...
>
>So what did the Mormons get? It seems that J. Edgar Hoover was very
>impressed with the way they kept secrets. (They're pledged to defend
>secrets with their lives and atone for sin with blood. Many actually
>do - even to the point of suicide.) So he hired virtually no one but
>Mormons, until the FBI was almost exclusively staffed by members of the
>Church of Later Day Saints. Though J. Edgar is finally gone, the FBI
>personnel (especially the field agents) are still heavily Mormon.
>
>I have often wondered how this might affect the FBI's treatment
>of religious organizations a Mormon would consider heretical.
>
Hoover was for many years up near the top of my hate list. And I hold no
brief for the FBI. But where does this notion come from that Hoover made
special efforts to recruit LDS members? And is there credible evidence for
the assertion that they are "pledged to defend secrets with their lives and
atone for sin with blood"? I've known only a few Mormons; but none of them
seemed to me to fit this description. Sounds to me reminiscent of the Jewish-
and Masonic-conspiracy theories of blessed memory.
--sa
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | null | In article <1r3qab$o1v@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <930421.102525.9Y9.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>#frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>#> In article <930420.100544.6n0.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew
>#> <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>#> #This is complete nonsense. Relativism means saying that there is no absolut
>#> #standard of morality; it does NOT mean saying that all standards of morality
>#> #are equally good.
>#>
>#> Presumably this means that some moral systems are better than others?
>#> How so? How do you manage this without an objective frame of reference?
>#
Either Frank O'Dwyer or mathew said:
[...stiff deleted...]
>#Which goes faster, a bullet or a snail? How come you can answer that when
>#Einstein proved that there isn't an objective frame of reference?
[...stiff deleted...]
Speed is a quantifiable measure resulting from a set of methods that
will result in the same value measured no matter the reference. A
bullet with zero velocity sitting on a table on a train moving 60mph
will be moving at a speed of
(a) 0mph to someone on the train.
(b) 60mph to someone stationary next to the train.
The reference frame makes the speed relative. But what's interesting
here is that every person on the train will see a stationary bullet.
Every person off, a bullet moving 60mph.
I know of no train where all the people on it, every time it is
filled, will see a moral problem in exactly the same way.
--
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
|
pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) | Daniel v. Zoroaster, was The Jewish Discomfort With Jesus | The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'. | In article <1746.2BD37A66@paranet.FIDONET.ORG>
Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson) writes:
> Since everywhere I look, Zoroaster is suggested as being a probable
> descendant of Daniel; suppose you prove he wasn't.
Zoroaster is far older than Daniel. If anything, one could claim that,
in a sense, Daniel is a descendant of Zoroaster; as Daniel, though being
Hebrew, has assimilated into Zoroastrianism and has successfully
introduced the religion into the Tanakh of Judaism. [However, the majority
of the book is in Hellenistic Aramaic (not Babylonian Aramaic) and only has
Kethuvim or Writing status.]
Ref: Encyclopedia of Religion, Mircea Eliade:
DANIEL, or, in Hebrew, Daniyye'l; hero of the biblical book that bears his name.
Daniel is presented as a Jew in the Babylonian exile who achieved notoriety in
the royal court for his dream interpretations and cryptography and for his
salvation from death in a lion's pit. He also appears in the last chapters of
the book as the revealer of divine mysteries and of the timetables of Israel's
restoration to national-religious autonomy. As a practitioner of oneiromancy in
the court, described in Daniel 1-6 (written in the third person), Daniel per-
forms his interpretations alone, while as a visionary-apocalyptist, in Daniel
7-12 (written in the first person), he is in need of an angel to help him
decode his visions and mysteries of the future. It is likely that the name
Daniel is pseudonymous, a deliberate allusion to a wise and righteous man known
from Ugaritic legend and earlier biblical tradition. (Ez. 14:4,28:3).
The authorship of the book is complicated not only by the diverse narrative
voices and content but by its language: Daniel 1:1-2:4a and 8-12 are written in
Hebrew, whereas Daniel 2:4b-7:28 is in Aramaic. The language division parallels
the subject division (Daniel 1-6 concerns legends and dream interpretations;
7-12 concerns apocalyptic visions and interpretations of older prophecies). The
overall chronological scheme as well as internal thematic balances (Daniel 2-7
is chiliastically related) suggest an attempt at redactional unity. After the
prefatory tale emphasizing the life in court and the loyalty of Daniel and some
youths to their ancestral religion, a chronological ordering is discernable: a
sequence from King Nebuchadrezzar to Darius is reported (Dn. 7-12). Much of
this royal dating and even some of the tales are problematic: for example,
Daniel 4 speaks of Nebuchadrezzar's transformation into a beast, a story that
is reported in the Qumran scrolls of Nabonidus; Belshazzar is portrayed as the
last king of Babylon, although he was never king; and Darius is called a Mede
who conquered Babylon and is placed before Cyrus II of Persia, although no such
Darius is known (the Medes followed the Persians, and Darius is the name of
several Persian kings). Presumably the episodes of Daniel 2-6, depicting a
series of monarchical reversals, episodes of ritual observances, and reports of
miraculous deliverances were collected in the Seleucid period (late fourth to
mid-second century BCE) in order to reinvigorate waning Jewish hopes in divine
providence and encourage steadfast faith.
The visions of Daniel 7-12, reporting events from the reign of Belshazzar to
that of Cyrus II (but actually predicting the overthrow of Seleucid rule in
Palestine), were collected and published during the reign of Antiochus IV prior
to the Maccabean Revolt, for it was then (beginning in 168 BCE) that the Jews
were put to the test concerning their allegiance to Judaism and their ancestral
traditions, and many refused to desecrate the statues of Moses and endured a
martyr's death for their resolute trust in divine dominion. All of the visions
of Daniel dramatize this dominion in different ways: for example, via images of
the enthronement of a God of judgment, with a "son of man" invested with rule
(this figure was interpreted by Jews as Michael the archangel and by Christians
as Christ), in chapter 7; via zodiacal images of cosmic beasts with bizarre
manifestations, as in chapter 8; or via complex reinterpretations of ancient
prophecies, especially those of Jeremiah 25:9-11, as found in Daniel 9-12.
The imagery of the four beasts in chapter 7 (paralleled by the image of four
metals in chapter 2), representing four kingdoms to be overthrown by a fifth
monarchy of divine origin, is one of the enduring images of the book; it sur-
vived as a prototype of Jewish and Christian historical and apocalyptic schemes
to the end of the Middle Ages. The role and power of this imagery in the
fifteenth and sixteenth century work of the exegete Isaac Abravanel, the
scientist Isaac Newton, and the philosopher Jean Bodin and among the Fifth
Monarchy Men of seventeenth century England, for example, is abiding testimony
to the use of this ancient topos in organizing the chiliastic imagination of
diverse thinkers and groups. The schema is still used to this day by various
groups predicting the apocalyptic advent.
The encouragement in the face of religious persecution that is found and
propagandized in Daniel 11-12 contains a remarkable reinterpretation of Isaiah
52:13-53:12, regarding the suffering servant of God not as all Israel but as
the select faithful. Neither the opening stories about Daniel and the youths nor
the final martyrological allusions advocate violence or revolt; they rather
advocate a stance of piety, civil disobedience, and trustful resignation.
Victory for the faithful is in the hands of the archangel Michael, and the
martyrs will be resurrected and granted astral immortality. Persumably the
circles behind the book were not the same as the Maccabean fighters and may
reflect some proto-Pharisaic group of hasidim, or pietists. The themes of
resistance to oppression, freedom of worship, preservation of monotheistic
integrity, the overthrow of historical dominions, and the acknowledgement of
the God of heaven recur throughout the book and have served as a token of
trust for the faithful in their darkest hour.
ZARATHUSHTRA, founder of the religion know as Zoroastrianism or Mazdaism (from
Mazda or Ahura Mazda, the name of the god prophesied by Zarathushtra.) The
etymology and history of Zarathushtra, the Avestan and oldest form of the name,
as uncertain, both in various Iranian languages and in related forms else-
where. There may have been an Old Persian form, Zara-ushtra, from which the
Greek form, Zoroastres, may be derived, and there may have existed an Old
Iranian form, Zarat-ushtra, to which may be linked the Middle Iranian Zrdrwsht,
several Middle Persian forms (such as Zrtwsht), and the New Persian Zardusht.
We can state with certainty only that the second half of the name, ushtra,
means "camel." The form Zoroaster, derived from the Greek Zoroastres, was used
traditionally in European culture until the eighteenth century, when
Zarathustra, closer to the original (and as found in Nietzsche), came into
common use after the rediscovery of the Avesta, the collection of sacred books
of Zoroastrianism, and the resulting studies in Iranian philology. [See Avesta.]
Notwithstanding the great and continued popularity of Zarathushtra, even in
Western culture, the sources available to us are few, extremely fragmented,
and heterogeneous. Our principle sources are the five Gathas ("songs"),
attributed to Zarathushtra himself and included in the Yasna section of the
Avesta: Gatha Ahunavaiti (Yasna 28-34), Gatha Ushtavaiti (Yasna 43-46), Gatha
Spentamainyu (Yasna 47-50), Gatha Vokukhshathra (Yasna 51), and Gatha
Vashishtoishti (Yasna 53), the last of which was probably written after the
prophet's death.
Other sources of considerable, albeit varying, importance are the Younger
Avesta and the remaining Zoroastrian religious literature, in particular the
Pahlavi texts of the ninth and tenth centures CE. Although the Achaemenid
inscriptions (sixth to fourth centures BCE) never mention Zarathushtra, he is
mentioned by some Greek sources of the time (not, however, by Herodotus, who
seems unaware of him).
The Avesta does not provide any direct or explicit data concerning the true
chronological history of Zarathushtra. But the text is useful in an indirect
way, as it clearly implies that the environment in which Zoroastrianism arose
was not that of Iran under the Medes or the Persians. The Greek sources, on the
other hand, do provide some information concerning the time of Zarathushtra,
although from a historical point of view they are unreliable. Some place him
six thousand years before the Trojan War (Xanthus of Lydia, Eudoxus of Cnidus,
Hermippus, Hermodorus, Aristotle, Plutarch, Diogenes Laertius, and Pliny). The
account by Xanthus of Lydia, however, has also been interpreted by some to mean
six hundred, rather than six thousand, years before the expedition of Xerxes
against Greece. This interpretation is favored by Diogenes Laertius, who makes
reference to Xanthus, but although a few scholars (A. S. Shabazi, Helmut
Humbach) have recently attempted to rehabilitate it under various pretexts, it
is generally rejected.
Although the historical value of the Greek sources is negligible, they are
nonetheless important in that they show that the millenarian doctrine of history
of the cosmos had already been developed in Iran by the Achaemenid period, as
the above account would seem to demonstrate. They also show that by this time
Zarathushtra was already seen as an almost mythical figure, one from an
extremely distant past. All of this leads to the conclusion that the prophet
could not have belonged to a historical period contemporary with, or even close
to, that of the Achaemenids.
Later Zoroastrian sources, the Pahlavi texts, do provide an absolute chrono-
logy for Zarathushtra, one that was also accepted by some Arab authors. Accord-
ing to these sources, Zarathushtra lived 300 or 258 years before Alexander.
Again, scholars are divided on the validity of the chronology; some view it as
historically reliable while others believe that it is devoid of historical
justification. The most convincing arguments, however, seem to support the
latter position. The figure of 258 years is accurate only on the surface
because it represents, in fact, the more general one of 300, which was employed
by Sasanid propagandists to locate Zarathushtra's lifetime roughly around the
beginning of Iranian domination. For a number of reasons connected with complex
problems inherent in the Iranian chronology, there was also a desire on the
part of the Sasanid propagandists to avoid any millenarian threat. In this
context, Zarathushtra, whom tradition places early in the ninth millennium after
the beginning of the cosmos, converted Vishtaspa at the age of forty-two, and
Vishtaspa's conversion was viewed by some as the beginning of the millennium
(thus explaining the double date of 300 and 258 years before Alexander).
Given the unreliability of the few available sources, we are forced to
reconstruct an absolute chronology on the basis of other elements, principally
on the contention that Zarathushtra must have lived a few centuries before Cyrus
the Great, Cambyses, and Darius, as there is no mention in the Avesta of the
great political achievements that took place in western Iran in the middle of
the first millennium BCE. Nor is there any mention of the history of that
period, which was to lead Iran to a position of such predominance. At the same
time, for a number of reasons, going back much further in history would not be
justified. Consequently, the traditionally accepted theory of placing Zara-
thushtra around the beginning of the first millennium BCE appears to be the
most legitimate.
As to Zarathushtra's land of origin, many scholars agree, on the basis of
valid arguments, that he must have come from eastern Iran. Some have held that
he was a Mede, largely because of a late Iranian tradition linking Zarathushtra
with Azerbaijan, but also because of linguistic reasons, based on the language
of the Avesta. This hypothesis, however, should be discarded, as we can suppose,
both on historical and linguistic grounds, that Zarathushtra came from the east,
even though we do not know precisely from which region. There is a considerable
variety of opinion on this particular matter, including the improbable view
that he came from Chorasmia, or present-day Khorezm, or from a wider Chorasmian
region, reaching as far as the oases of Merv and Herat. Most likely, however,
Zarathushtra's land of origin is somewhere in the vast area stretching from the
Hindu Kush mountain range to the more southern regions of Bactria and Arachosia
(modern Qandahar), as well as Drangiana (the area of lake Helmand). It would
thus be located in what is now Afghanistan or in the border regions of Iran.
Zarathushtra himself tells us that he belonged to the priestly caste (Yasna
33.6). He was a zaotar (cf. Sanskrit hotr), that is, a priest belonging to a
specific group connected with a school that produced very elaborate and learned
religious poetry. Even in the so-called Younger Avesta he is described as an
athravan (Yashts 13.94), a more general term encompassing the entire priestly
caste. To enter it he had undergone a long and rigid training, which he used
to lend dignity (as in the Gathas) to the contents of his new message, the
product of a great and original ethical mind.
Zarathushtra also belongs to that venerable priestly tradition, linking India
to Iran in another way, by centering his teachings on the praise of the ashavan,
or "possessor of asha," that is, the one who, as in the Vedic rtavan, seeks
truth and masters it, thus becoming ashavan in this life - almost an initiate -
and blessed after death. Any good follower of such teachings seeks the "vision
of asha," just as those chosing the right path in Vedic India aspired to the
"vision of the Sun," a manifestation of rta. Behind these concepts and this
language lies the great tradition of "Aryan mysticism," that is, of Indo-Iranian
mysticism.
Zarathushtra's greatness, however, does not lie in his having belonged to a
particular religious tradition. Rather, it lies in the innovation and strength
of his message, which was in itself a break in the tradition, one that force-
fully and effectively introduced two great revolutionary ideas: dualistic
monotheism (the Wise Lord who fathers two twin spirits, the beneficent and the
evil); and the expectation of a transfiguration (Av., Frashokereti; Pahl.,
Frashgird) of life and existence. [See Frashokereti]
Both his monotheistic and dualistic ideas and his particular soteriological
doctrine deeply separate Zarathushtra's teachings from the Indo-Iranian tradi-
tions of his upbringing. They exemplify his rebellion against a formalistic
and ritualistic religion that did not provide adequate answers to the problem
of evil. Because of his basic tenets, Zarathushtra, who advocated an inward
religiosity and the right of the individual to resist the imperatives of tradi-
tion, can be numbered among the greatest of religious figures.
Another original facet of Zarathushtra's message, one that is not easy to
understand but which, however, holds the key to a deeper understanding of the
complex intellectual and poetic structure of the Gathas, is the doctrine of the
Amesha Spentas, the "beneficent immortals." These are spiritualizations of the
abstract notions of good thought, best truth, desirable power, bounteous
devotion, wholeness, and immortality, all of which operate according to a
system of interrelations and correlations and can simultaneously be the
manifestations of a divinity and of human virtue. [See Amesha Spentas.]
Other than the names of his father, Pourushaspa ("possessing gray horses"),
and of his mother, Dughdova ("one who has milked"), we know almost nothing of
Zarathushtra's life. A late Pahlavi text also give the names of four brothers.
According to tradition, Zarathushtra left home at the age of twenty, and at
thirty he was subject to a revelation, both through an intense and powerful
inspiration and through a vision. Only after ten years had passed, however, did
he succeed in converting a cousin of his, Maidhyoimah, to his beliefs. He was
strongly opposed in his native land by kavis, karapans, and usijs, priestly
groups associated with traditional teachings and practices. This hostility
caused him to leave his region (Yasna 46:1) and to seek refuge at the court of
Kavi Vishtaspa, a ruler who had been converted to the new religion together with
his wife, Hutaosa, when the prophet, according to tradition, was forty-two
years old. We also know the name of a son, Isat Vastra ("desiring pastures"),
and of three daughters born of his first wife, as well as the names of two more
sons, Urvatatnara ("commanding men") and Hvarecithra ("sun-faced"), born of
his second wife, Hvovi, a member of the influential Hvogva ("possessing good
cattle") family. Two other figures belonging to the Hvogva family are mentioned:
Frashaoshtra and Jamaspa, the former as Hvovi's father, and the latter as the
husband of the third daughter of the prophet, Pouruchista ("very thoughtful"),
whose wedding is celebrated in the fifth hymm in the Gathas (Yasna 53). Again,
according to tradition, Zarathushtra died at the age of seventy-seven. He was
assassinated by a karapan, a priest of the old religion, who belonged to the
Tuirya tribe and was called Tur i Bradres (his name is known only in the Pahlavi
form).
The paucity of information on the prophet's life is compensated by a tradi-
tion, rich in legendary detail, that arose through the centuries in Zoroastrian
communities. The main texts documenting the tradition are the seventh book of
the Denkard, a Pahlavi work dating from the ninth century CE, as well as
passages from other Pahlavi texts and a New Persian work from the thirteenth
century, the Zarathusht-nama (Book of Zarathushtra), written by Zaratusht-i
Bahram-i Pazhdu. Mythical and ritual elements prevail in the later legends about
Zarathushtra, which idealize him into a symbol and make him the archetype of the
perfect man.
Zarathushtra's great popularity in the ancient world continued throughout the
Renaissance until the Enlightenment. During the Classical and Hellenistic
periods he was viewed as a wise man, a typical representative of an "alien
wisdom," a master of the secrets of heaven and earth, a seer, astrologer,
psychologist, and wonder worker. Pythagorean thinkers went so far as to see the
influence of Zarathushtra on Pythagoras himself, and the Academicians always
openly admired the Persian thinker who founded the school of the Magi and
advocated a doctrine of dualism. Earliest Christianity viewed Zarathushtra as
a precursor of the Christian faith, one who not only prophesied, as had the
biblical prophets, the advent of the Messiah but also predicted the supernatural
sign of his coming, the star that was to appear in the East and guide the three
Magi to the manger in Bethlehem. [See Magi.] This Christian interpretation is
derived from the Zoroastrian doctrine of the Saoshyant, the Savior of the
Future. [See Saoshyant.] Later, however, religious struggles arose during the
Sasanid empire in Persia (third to seventh centuries CE), which linked the
spread of Christianity with the Roman empire. Zarathushtra's popularity in the
Christian world began to decline. The Iranian prophet, who had been praised
often by the gnostic schools and who had been seen by Mani as one of the three
great messengers from the past, was now seen, instead, as a leader of imposture
and heresy, a teacher of the diabolic arts of witchery. But during the Renaiss-
ance and the Enlightenment, European cultures reverted to the image of Zara-
thushtra that had come down through Classical and Hellenistic antiquity. He was
viewed, once again, as a great and wise man, as the author of the _Chaldean
Oracles_ and probably inventor of Qabbalah, as a teacher of astrology, as a
possible bridge between Christianity and Platonism, and, at times (as in
Voltaire), as a symbol of non-Christian wisdom.
After Western philology rediscovered Zarathushtra during the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries, Friedrich Nietzsche, in an intentional paradox, gave
the name Zarathustra to the hero of his work _Also sprach Zarathustra_ (1883-
1892). Nietzsche saw the Iranian prophet as the first to have discovered the
true motive force underlying all things, that is, the eternal struggle between
good and evil. [See also Zoroastrianism]
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | EIT | In article <1993Apr24.152611.5376@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1qvtk4$jep@kyle.eitech.com> ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>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 you STILL value likely ways over unlikely ways, correct?
For the times when I'm interested in the truth, I do.
>If I wanted to
>know the "truth" about, say, the specific gravity of chicken soup, I could
>employ science -- meters, gauges, scales, etc. -- or I could just talk a walk
>on a beach somewhere. Both have a possibility of generating the truthful
>answer -- in the case of the walk on the beach, it would have to be some sort
>of sudden inspiration about the specific gravity of chicken soup which just
>happened to be truthful -- so what makes me choose the scientific method of
>truth-determination over the "walk on the beach" method? Because I *VALUE*
>science's higher probability of obtaining truth, that's why. Everywhere one
>turns, there is intentionality and value judgments lurking just beneath the
>veneer of detached objectivity. It is an inescapable aspect of the human
>condition.
This strikes me as rather obvious. What is your point about this,
Kevin?
>>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.
>Well, I would add that the attribute "works even when not being measured" is
>*ALSO* something which is valued and intended, Eric. All you've succeeded in
>doing is kicking this up another level in the hierarchy of values.
Huh? Of course I intend that it works. But the fact that I want it
to work, and want to use a procedure that will show that it works,
has no bearing on the logical standing of the procedure that
I choose (empiricism.)
I don't see how this is any kind of problem, Kevin.
-Ekr
--
Eric Rescorla ekr@eitech.com
"What we've got here is failure to communicate."
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | Purdue University Engineering Computer Network | 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.
>
> BD's were not contemplating suecide, and there is no reason
> to believe they committed one.
The FBI also alleges hearing through those devices that Koresh had mentioned
that he was not planning on coming out alive.
Even more interesting are the reports from CNN that say the children in the
compound had recent gunshot wounds... The speculation continues...
--
John Mechalas "I'm not an actor, but
mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu I play one on TV."
Aero Engineering, Purdue University #include disclaimer.h
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Case Western Reserve University | In article <1qkhju$43c@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> Truth is better than falsehood,
So, if you were housing a Jew in your home in Holand, 1942; and
the SS troopers asks if you are housing a Jew, is it objectively better to
tell the truth, " I am holding a Jew ", than a falsehood, " No I am not
holding a Jew"?
In this case, let us assume that if you lie, the SS trooper leaves,
never to bother you. Either way, nothing is ever done to you- no prison,
trouble, etc.
Of course, if you tell the truth, then the Jew will be executed.
Is it better to tell the truth, or lie?
[ In this case, I would consider not saying anything to be a lie.
Or, at the very least, it implies that falsehood is on the same level of
telling the truth. Or, we can stipulate that the SS have methods to make you
say something: only they can not control whether or not you say "yes" or
"no". Only that you will say one or the other. ]
---
Only when the Sun starts to orbit the Earth will I accept the Bible.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | University of Illinois at Urbana | In <kmr4.1593.734933711@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>In article <C5JrDE.M4z@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike
Cobb) writes:
>>Theory of Creationism: MY theistic view of the theory of creationism, (there
>>are many others) is stated in Genesis 1. In the beginning God created
>>the heavens and the earth.
> What was before the beginning?
Ah. A real question/comment. Creation was the beginning of time. Before that
existed an uncaused cause. Whew! That oughta generate some responses.
MAC
>---
> " Whatever promises that have been made can than be broken. "
> John Laws, a man without the honor to keep his given word.
--
****************************************************************
Michael A. Cobb
"...and I won't raise taxes on the middle University of Illinois
class to pay for my programs." Champaign-Urbana
-Bill Clinton 3rd Debate cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
With new taxes and spending cuts we'll still have 310 billion dollar deficits.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
riggs@descartes.etl.army.mil (Bill Riggs) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD | In article <C5u5u5.Gw@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) 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.
>
>
> See, this is what really bugs me about this whole incident, and
> also about Usenet: Here we are almost two months after the original
> raid, a raid witnessed by several members of the press, and there is
> STILL no agreement about the basic facts. Riggs, here, and others,
> are claiming that the BD's shot first, while others on the net claim
> that the feds did, in the form of concussion grenades.
>
> I suggest that before ANY of you make any claims about who shot
> first, you DOCUMENT your claim with actual evidence, and not just
> FOAF or "he said / she said". Otherwise don't use words like
> "fact" above - it just makes you all look stupid.
Perhaps I don't get my news from the right sources. Reading
the Washington Post practically every day, I had considered the "facts"
I stated above to be a matter of public record, and hardly in dispute.
So, if "others on the net" - and in the rest of the media as well, are
claiming something else, I'll be glad to entertain such claims in an
open-minded manner. To date, this is the first I've seen of any claim
that the BATF used ANY weapons BEFORE the Branch Davidians opened
fire on them. So - please - enlighten me.
Bill R.
--
"The only proposals in the Senate that I "My opinions do not represent
have seen fit to mention are particularly those of my employer or
praiseworthy or particularly scandalous ones. any government agency."
It seems to me that the historian's foremost - Bill Riggs
duty is to ensure that virtue is remembered,
and to deter evil words and deeds with the
fear of posterity's damnation."
- Tacitus, _Annals_ III. 65
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN) | I don't see what this has to do with Jewish culture. Could all of you
gun-nuts and anti-gun-nuts kindly stay in your own newsgroup?
--
Ron Newman rnewman@bbn.com
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
mikec@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Micheal Cranford) | Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions | Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. | Jim Brown wrote :
[ deleted ]
>I feel that those who use the KJV as a basis for arguing Biblical
>contradictions are either being intellectually dishonest (purposefully
>wanting to show the Bible in the worst light possible), or they are
>being mentally lazy and are taking the easy way out. Either way, they
>leave the theist the option of countering with, "Well, that's just the
>KJV, that's not what my XXX version says."
[ deleted ]
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The KJV is preferred by the majority
of fundamentalists (at least here). The second part of your argument fails
as well, since that statement can be used against any version (not just the
KJV).
[ deleted ]
>I've based my argument on one of the best modern translations
>available which is based on the work of the leading Biblical scholars."
[ deleted ]
I would not find this statement to be very useful since it is an appeal
to authority and the opposition will just claim that their authorities are
"better". A second tact that local creationists have used is to reply "but
those scholars are atheists and cannot be believed" (they will also use this
phrase to describe any theologians that they don't agree with).
[ deleted ]
>>>/GEN 30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth
>>>/cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
[ deleted ]
The verse being discussed clearly claims that sympathetic magic works (i.e.
placing stripped sticks in the cattle breeding grounds causes stripped and
spotted calves to be born) and should be attacked on that basis (no biologist
has ever observed this claimed correlation).
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) | Re: NEW BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS [still not] ANSWERED (Judas) | Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR. | Mr DeCenso, in spite of requiring Scholarly opinion on the hanging of Judas,
rejects that the scholarly opinion of the those scholars and then rephrases
those scholars opinion on the subject:
> ...we do know from Matthew that he did hang himself and Acts probably records
> his death. Although it's possible and plausible that he fell from the hanging
> and hit some rocks, thereby bursting open, I can no longer assume that to be
> the case. Therefore, no contradiction. Matthew did not say Judas died as a
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> result of the hanging, did he? Most scholars believe he iprobably did, but..?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I quoted all that to show that I highly regard the scholars' explanations, but
> in looking at the texts initially, we can't assume Judas died. It is,
> however, highly probable. ^^^^^^
and
> Also, there is nothing in the Greek to suggest success or failure. It simply
> means "hang oneself".
Actually, if you do further research as to the Greek word "apacgw," you will
find that it does denote success. Those scholars did indeed have an excellent
reason to assume that the suicide was successful. As I pointed out, I
recently checked several Lexicons:
"Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament," Louw and Nida
"Robinson's Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament"
"Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament," Grimm
"Word study Concordance," Tynsdale
"A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and other
early Christian Writings," Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich
"The New Analytical Greek Lexicon," Perschbacher
A couple simply stated "hanged oneself", and a couple were more explicit
and stated that "apacgw" means specifically "kill yourself by hanging." A
couple also noted that the meaning of one the root words for "apacgw" is
"strangle, throttle or choke" (which pretty much invalidates the guy who
suggested to David Joslin that Judas was hung upside down). One of the best
references though, "Robinson's Greek and English Lexicon of the New
Testament," not only stated the translation, it gave both the root words, the
literal translation, related greek words which use the same roots, and also
other presented specific examples of the word in greek literature (to give
further context).
The word "apagchw" has two root words: "gchw" is the "to strangle" root, and
the root word "apo" means literally "away." This root words is included in
words which denote a transition. It can mean a transition in place (eg: the
greek word "apagello" means to send a message). "Apo" can also denote a
change in state and specifically the change from life to death. Robinson
specifically makes comparison to the word "apokteiuo," which means "to kill."
In literal meaning the word "apacgw" means "to throttle, strangle to put out
of the way," and implicitly denotes a change in life state (ie: away from
life, to death). So while the word "apacgw" does mean "to hang," it
specifically denotes a death as well. Thus Robinson is quite specific when he
state that it means "to hang oneself, to end one's life by hanging." He then
notes the the use of "apacgw" in Homers Odessy 19:230 to denote context. He
presents that example of "apacgw" as being used to explicitly mean "suicide by
hanging." Now since there is a perfectly good word for strangling, without the
added denotation of "death," and as you insist that the Bible was written by
God, and every word is precicely correct, you are stuck with the complete
meaning of "apacgw" (ie: Since the word "apacgw" was used, then death is
denoted as the result).
By the way, I note that Mr DeCenso also presents an example of "apacgw":
> In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT used at the time of Jesus),
> it's only used in 2 Samuel 17:23 : "Now when Ahithophel saw that his advice
> was not followed, he saddled a donkey, and arose and went home to his house,
> to his city. Then he put his household in order, and hanged himself, and
> died; and he was buried in his father's tomb." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^
> Notice that not only is it stated that Ahithophel "hanged himself" [Gr. Sept.,
> APAGCHO], but it explicitly adds, "and died". Here we have no doubt of the
> result.
> In Matthew, we are not explicitly told Judas died.
Note Mr DeCenso, as you say, the Septuagint was a translation from Hebrew to
Greek, and you have not shown the original meaning of the Hebrew (ie" the the
Hebrew say "and died"), and thus whether it was simply echoed in the Greek.
It should also be pointed out that, regardless of the added "and died", the
correct translation would still be "apacgw," as the man did indeed die from
strangulation (redundant, but correct). Further, we have evidence that the
Septuagint was repeatedly rewritten and reedited (which included versions
which contradicted each other), and such editing was not even necessarily
executed by Greeks. Thus I am not sure that you can use the Septuagint as it
now stands, as a paragon of ancient greek. So, what you really need to prove
your point Mr DeCenso, is an example, in ancient greek, of someone committing
"apacgw" and surviving. Otherwise I would see you as simply making worthless
assertions without corresponding evidence.
Now I would note Mr DeCenso, that everytime I go out of my way to research it
one of your apparently contrived exegisis, I pretty much find it false. Thus,
I think that if you are going to add to the text, something over and above
what the source clearly says, then you had better have an explicit Greek or
historical source to justify it.
By the way, as to Mr Rose's statement about trees around the Potter's Field:
> There are still trees around the ledges and a rocky pavement at the bottom.
Unless Mr Rose can show that these trees are two thousand years old, or that
there are 2000 year old stumps there, or has a 2 thousand year old description
of the area which mentions such trees, then it is inappropriate for him to
assert that the present placement of trees prove the location of the trees two
thousand years ago (after all, things change).
Now as to your other argument, ie: that the money Judas used is not the same
as the 30 silvers:
> As to your second question Mr DeCenso, you ask how we could be sure that the
> money with which Judas purchased the land, was indeed for the betrayal, rather
> than some other source. I would point out that in Acts, where it specifically
> mention "the reward of iniquity" [Acts 1:18], it also specifically mentions
> what act of iniquity they were talking about (ie: Acts 1:16 "...concerning
> Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus."). Now I would point out
> that when the Bible describes an act of "iniquity," and then immediately
> discusses "*the* reward of iniquity," it would be rather inane to suggest that
> it was an action of iniquity other than the one discussed."
>
>
> Notice that in verse 16, the word "iniquity" is not used. Rather, it states
> that Judas "became a guide to those who arrested Jesus".
> But the writer DID NOT stop there...vs. 17, "for he was numbered with us and
> obtained a part in this ministry." What part did Judas play in their ministry?
> ^^^^^^
True, Peter (or the author of Acts) does not specifically call Judas' betrayal
"an iniquity," but for that matter, neither does John specifically call Judas'
actions "an iniquity" either. Further John 13:29 did not say that Judas took
the money box, but rather said:
"Some thought that because, Judas had the money box, Jesus was telling
him "Buy what we need for the feast"; or that he should give something
to the poor, So after receiving the morsel he immediately went out, and
it was night."
Note that it is said that Judas left, it does not say that he took the money
box. Thus when I see your explanation it still seems to me you would choose
the a an unproven iniquity, mentioned by another author, in a different
book, written at a different time, over the iniquity explicitly mentioned by
the author of acts. I find this forced and contrived.
Of course this particular argument becomes moot, since we have have seen
evidence that "apacgw" means suicide. You see, since Judas' hanging was
successful, he could not have spent the money mentioned in John 13:29, because
Matthew and Mark explicitly say the betrayal was on the high holy day (ie:
Passover), and thus he could not have spent the money before killing himself
the next day. Thus the money which bought the "Field of Blood" would have to
have been the 30 pieces of silver (Of course he got the 30 pieces of silver
that night as well, and thus couldn't have spent that either. Oh dear, I
believe that the house of cards is comming down).
Maybe we should at this point, discuss now whether Jesus was crucified on
Friday or Saturday as that is now part of the argument about Judas.
By the way, as to where the prophesy of the Potter's field came from (ie: the
mention of it in Matthew), you say:
> Please, when we are done with this study on his death, remind me to discuss
> this with you.
I am reminding you now to discuss it now. It's all part of the same verse we
are discussing, and I wish you would quit procrastinating and sidestepping
these issues.
Later,
Dave Butler
A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
David Hume, Philosopher
An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding
PS. I would note again, that you are not stating that that Bible
is not possibly inerrant; you are stating that it *IS* inerrant.
Since you have been, by your own admission, presenting merely "possible"
reconciliations (I of course don't rate them that highly), then the
best you can do is say that the Bible is "possibly" inerrant, not that
it *is* inerrant.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | University of Illinois at Urbana | If some society came up with a good reason for why rape and murder are ok I
would be consistent with my position and hold that it was still wrong. My
basis of morality is not on societal norms, or on current legalities. My basis
is, surprise surprise, on both the Bible and on inherent moral abhorrences, for
lack of a better way to put it, to certain things. Yes, that's vague, and the
only way I know off the top of my head to defend it is to say that all humans
are similarly made. Yes, that falls into the trap of creation, and why follow
the Bible. My arguments are that it is better to exhibit trust, goodness,
love, respect, courage, and honesty in any society rather than deceipt, hatred,
disrespect, "cowardness", and dishonesty. No, I haven't been everywhere and
seen everyone, but, according to my thesis, I don't have to, since I hold that
we were all created similarly. If that makes an unfalsifiable thesis, just say
so, and I'll both work out what I can and punt to fellow theists.
MAC
--
****************************************************************
Michael A. Cobb
"...and I won't raise taxes on the middle University of Illinois
class to pay for my programs." Champaign-Urbana
-Bill Clinton 3rd Debate cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
With new taxes and spending cuts we'll still have 310 billion dollar deficits.
| 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 <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:
#>In article <kmr4.1571.734847050@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
#># You have only pushed back the undefined meaning. You must now define
#>#what "objective values" are.
#>
#>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? I don't think I'm way off beam in saying that "something is
better than nothing" is a rational and objective valuation. Do you agree
with me then that the assertion "no values are objective" is false?
--
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 <1993Apr21.183307.18345@rosevax.rosemount.com>, grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
|> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
|>
|> : God allows people to choose who and what they want to worship.
|> : Worship of money is one of the greatest religions in this country.
|>
|> At least I can prove that money exists. Can you say the same for your
|> god?
|>
I have evidence that you will not accept that proves to me that God
exists. I have my personal experiences that have proven to me time
and again that God does exist. My life has not been a bed of roses
and He has been there for me when no one else was around and pulled
me through those times. Of course, I know this means nothing to you
because it didn't happen to you. I can't prove to you that God
exists anymore than you can prove that He doesn't.
It ultimately boils down to faith. Whether or not you believe in
God is a matter strictly between you and Him. I am just the messenger.
I don't judge and I don't condemn you for not accepting God. That is
not my place. You are not my enemy. Satan is our common enemy. And
the only way we can defeat Satan is through Jesus Christ.
|> : |> 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.
|>
|> I see. And what was that guy two thousand years ago who thought he
|> was god? Sounds like an egomanic to me. How do you know that Koresh
|> wasn't who he claimed?
|>
He fulfilled the prophesies told about Him. He performed miracles.
You know, healing the sick and ressurrecting the dead. Jesus died
and rose from the dead just as He said He would. He preached that
we should love God and love one another as we do ourselves. Jesus
put into practice that which He preached. And He rose from the
dead! His spirit now lives in me. He changed the world not through
the use of a sword that cleaves the flesh but the Word of God that
cleaves us from sin.
Compare this to DK who made promises of surrendering and then balked
when his deluded predictions didn't come to pass. In the end, he
chose to kill himself and everyone with him to hide the shame of
being a false Messiah.
|> : Rather than live with the shame of being taken captive by the FBI,
|> : Koresh chose to kill himself and his followers. Sick and . . . sad.
|>
|> Jesus allowed himself to be killed. Many of his followers have killed
|> and died for _thier_ beliefs. Sorry, I don't see the difference.
|>
Jesus allowed himself to be killed in order to fulfill prophecy. As
you may recall on the Mount of Olives, Jesus prayed to God that if this
fate could have been avoided He would have taken it. But instead,
out of love for mankind, Jesus chose to accept the agonizing sentence
placed upon Him and thus redeem all mankind. Jesus died to save
everyone, even those who crucifed Him. He's already gone to Hell and
back for you and for me. All He asks is your love.
Which followers do you refer to? There have been many who have used
His name to further their own gains. They would have done the same
even if there was no Jesus in the first place. For example, Bush
claimed that God was on their side when they attacked Iraq and Saddam
claimed to have God on his side when he invaded Kuwait. IMO, God
would have nothing to do with either side. They were fighting over
oil, plain and simple.
God be with you,
Malcolm Lee :)
|>
|> --
|> Grant Edwards |Yow! Where do your SOCKS go
|> Rosemount Inc. |when you lose them in th'
|> |WASHER?
|> grante@aquarius.rosemount.com |
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
isaackuo@skippy.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | U.C. Berkeley Math. Department. | In article <GERRY.93Apr21132149@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>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.
Hmm. The police strategy of bursting in with weapons drawn, clearly marked as
officers and yelling "Police" repeatedly. This is used every day to bust drug
houses. The idea is to awe the suspects into submission with surprise and
display of firepowere in order to avoid a gun fight. As for not knocking, it's
a sad necessity in many cases since the suspects will attempt to escape or even
fight. Usually this strategy works; if it didn't, then it wouldn't be used so
commonly, now would it?
Whether or not it was appropriate to use this strategy on the BD is not my
point, since I don't think any of us have enough information to make a clear
judgement on this issue.
I merely point out that it IS a valid strategy which is used every day.
Furthermore, we don't know of any substitute strategy capable of apprehending
potentially dangerous and armed suspects. Do you suggest that the police
always knock with guns holstered and never arrest any suspects until they have
been allowed to inspect the officers's badges? Just what should the police do
when apprehending potentially dangerous and armed suspects? How far can they
reasonably go to identiy themselves? What do you suggest they can do which
can't be faked by the "competition"?
Even if you've got deadly enemies who may pretend to be cops, that's not an
excuse to murder police. In the case of the BD's, there was almost definitely
at most the paranoid delusion of deadly enimies who would pretend to be cops.
--
*Isaac Kuo (isaackuo@math.berkeley.edu) * ___
* * _____/_o_\_____
* Twinkle, twinkle, little .sig, *(==(/_______\)==)
* Keep it less than 5 lines big. * \==\/ \/==/
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
wvhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William VanHorne) | Re: Why did they behave as they did (Waco--reading suggestion) | The Ohio State University | In article <pgf.735710979@srl03.cacs.usl.edu> pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>How come noone mentions Eric Hoffer when talking about
>fanatic behavior anymore?
Good point. If you haven't read "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer, do
so at your first opportunity. I don't know why Hoffer is out of style
now, but "The True Believer" is still the best explanation of nutball
behavior ever written.
---Bill VanHorne
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) | Re: Rawlins debunks creationism | DGSID, Atlanta, GA | In article <2BC8B03B.29868@ics.uci.edu>, bvickers@net1.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
|> wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
|> >Science and the Bible are not in contradiction. God can supercede the
|> >scientific "laws" as man understands them. Creation is a good
|> >example. God has the power to create something out of nothing, order
|> >out of chaos.
|>
|> Precisely why creationism is not science. Precisely why it should
|> remain out of science classrooms.
|>
|> No one makes the case for the pseudoscientific nature of creationism
|> better than the creationists. Thanks Bill!
We are talking about origins, not merely science. Science cannot
explain origins. For a person to exclude anything but science from
the issue of origins is to say that there is no higher truth
than science. This is a false premise. By the way, I enjoy science.
It is truly a wonder observing God's creation. Macroevolution is
a mixture of 15 percent science and 85 percent religion [guaranteed
within three percent error :) ]
--
==========================================================
// Bill Rawlins <wpr@atlanta.dg.com> //
// "I speak for myself only" //
==========================================================
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) | Re: NEW BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS [Fallaciously] ANSWERED (Judas) | Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR. | I produced an error last week about CHORION:
>> (By the way Mr DeCenso, you really should have looked in the index of your
>> Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich Greek lexicon. You would have found that the word in
>> Acts for "lot" is "kleros," not "CHORION" as stated by Mr Archer, and nowhere
>> in the very large discussion of kleros in done the to "Theological Dictionary
>> of the New Testament" by Bromley, is the meaning "burial plot" discussed. It
>> discusses the forms of "kleros" (eg: kleros, kleroo, etc), and the various
>> meanings of "kleros" (eg: "plot of land," and "inheritance"), but mentions
>> nothing about CHORION or "burial plot." (Why does this not surprise me?) Thus
>> it would seem to be a very good thing you dumped Archer as a reference).
>
> I was wrong. I admit that I do not have a handle on Greek grammar, and thus
> confused "kleros", the second to last word in Acts 1:17 as being the plot of
> land discussed. In actuality it is "chorion", which is the last word Acts
> 1:18. Unfortunately my Greek dictionary does not discuss "chorion" so I
> cannot report as to the nuances of the word.
I abhor publishing trash (I abhor it of myself even more than I do from
others, but since I do not present myself as an authority on the subject, I do
not feel dishonest, though I do openly admit ignorance and incompetence in
this example). Thus I felt honor bound to do a better set of research
specifically on the word. First it should be noted that Greek grammar is not
as tough as I first assumed (it is not nontrivial by any means, and I still am
not competent with it, but it is not as opaque as I had thought). It turns
out that while the Index for the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich "Greek Lexicon" renders
each verse in order, each word within a verse is put in greek alphabetical
order. Thus while the the meaning of the verse is decipherable, the syntax is
far from clear. On the other hand, a Greek-English Intralinear Bible makes
things a lot more comprehendable. And yes, the word for field in Acts 1:18 is
indeed "chorion."
Now I've checked several Greek-English lexicons:
"Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament," Louw and Nida
"Robinson's Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament"
"Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament," Grimm
"Word study Concordance," Tynsdale
"A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and other
early Christian Writings," Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich
"The New Analytical Greek Lexicon," Perschbacher
In each case the meaning of the word Chorion was given variously as:
A space, place, region, district, field, area, "country place,"
land, farm, estate, "a bit of tillage", and similar meanings.
Nowhere do any of these books mention anything about "grave." As some of these
books go into great detail, I would be very surprised to find that these books
are all inadequate and Mr Archer is the only competent scholar in Greek. I
think it more likely that Mr Archer's investigations into "contradictions" to
be once again, as your friend said it, "lacking in substance," and thus Archer
is again shown worthless as an expert witness (By the way Mr DeCenso, I would
have honorably presented my results on this matter, even if I had found them
to support Mr Archer's contentions).
By the way, among these lexicons, (eg: Robinson's) is the definition of
"agros," the word used in Matthew 27 to describe the field bought. The word
"agros" is defined as "a field in the country." Chorion is specifically noted
as a synonym to agros. This is significant, as it is evidence of how silly
Bullinger's exegisis was, which stated that the word for "field" in Matthew
(ie: agros) is different from the word for "field" in Acts (ie: chorion), and
thus we must be talking about two different fields (Of course you already
admit how stupid Bullinger's exegisis is, but this was a small serendipity
which drives the point home).
So as of now, unless Mr DeCenso show compelling reasons to believe otherwise
(eg: a reputable scholar with reputable references), I consider this
particular issue closed. See Mr DeCenso, now you can go on to answer
questions about the denials of Peter, the day of the Crucifixion, Tyre, and
the fact that the author of Matthew quoted from the wrong prophet in
discussing the "Potter's Field."
Later,
Dave Butler
Precise knowledge is the only true knowledge, and he who does not teach
exactly, does not teach at all.
Henry Ward Beecher
American Clergyman
as recorded by George Seldes
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis Kriz) | Re: ABORTION and private health coverage -- letters regarding | U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility | In article <sandvik-150493175038@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <1qk73q$3fj@agate.berkeley.edu>, dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis
[on my posting of two form letters regarding private insurance and
abortion coverage]
>I just hope you realize that each individual should make their
>own judgement, and posting pre-filled letters sounds like you
>don't trust your fellow Americans to utter their own opinion,
>just your own.
>
>Cheers,
>Kent
Kent,
Have you ever been part of any activist group or campaign, from
Amnesty International, Green Peace, etc onward? Making out form
letters and handing out copies to others to send is common among
all of these groups.
You may not like what I have done, but it is hardly unique.
Additionally, I certainly wouldn't mind if people wrote their own
letters. I offered a template to work from (IF PEOPLE SO CHOOSE).
If not, that is fine too. Again, what I have done is make use of a
approach as old as this country itself.
dennis
dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) | Re: ABORTION and private health coverage -- letters regarding | DESYDeutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA |
In article <1qid8s$ik0@agate.berkeley.edu>, dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis Kriz) writes:
|>RE: Abortion and my health insurance coverage
|>
|>
|>TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
|>
|>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.
Unless Dennis's parents were excentric in their naming a girl with
a boy's name I strongly suspect that abortion might be a medical service
that his insurers were not counting on him requiring.
When an insurance company attempted to set up lower rates for non smokers
in the early 80s they got spiked by the tobacco industry. Anyone know what
the current status is on the smoking issue?
If Denis really wants to have a "fair" insurance premium I take it he would
be willing to have DNA fingerprinting done so that the company could weed out
all but the cast iron non risk cases?
US health financing system sucks, certainly its killing a hell of a lot of
people every year.
Phill Hallam-Baker
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
king@ctron.com (John E. King) | Re: Rawlins debunks creationism | Cabletron Systems Inc. |
vickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
>Here's another quote from the same source as your quote above:
>"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 biology 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." (Hitching, _The Neck of
>the Giraffe_).
Of course. Hitchings believes in evolution. The purpose of the quote I
sited was to show the ambivalance that evolutionists have with their own
theory. For example, on page 107 he states, "...one may question an
evolution theory so beset by doubts among even those who teach it. If
Darwinism is truely the great unifying principle of biology, it encompasses
extraordinarily large areas of ignorance. It fails to explain some of the
basic questions of all -- how lifeless chemicals came alive, what rules of
grammer lie behind the genetic code, how genes shap and form living things."
Jack
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | null | In article <1qie61$fkt@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>Objective morality is morality built from objective values.
And organized religion is a religion built from organized values.
And Ford Tempo is a Tempo built from Ford values.
And rational response is response built from rational values.
And unconditional surrender is surrender built from unconditional values.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
uncle!
bye
-jim halat
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | sgi | In article <1qjclt$nh7@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> In article <1qiore$20b@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> #
|> #The intended audience is the set of people who *are* convinced
|> #by those arguments, who therefore finish up as church members.
|> #It doesn't need to be everyone, just enough to count.
|>
|> This is completely refuted by the evidence that I do not belong to any
|> church, and am in fact an agnostic. I'm not canvassing for church
|> members.
Where did I say that you were a Church member? I just said
that people who buy your kind of arguments finish up as church
members. There's still time.
|> #It's like GM stays in business as long as *some* people buy
|> #GM cars, so they make their cars for the people who are willing
|> #to buy GM cars. And that's why GM cars are GM cars, and why
|> #Frank's argument are Frank's arguments.
|>
|> Nonsense. Reality is not a business, and I have nothing to sell.
You undervalue yourself, Frank. You're one of the slickest
salesmen I've seen.
Not, of course, The Greatest Salesman in the World. That was
Jesus, wasn't it?
[rest of Frank's tantrum mercifully deleted].
jon.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | Purdue University Engineering Computer Network | >In article <1993Apr21.180216.7431@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas) writes:
>>
>> And the survivors claim the fire was started from the outside. Outside
>>meaning outside the compound?
>
> No, they meant that BD's did not set the place on fire.
According to the latest of CNN reports, one BD said they started the fire
themselves, and one said the FBI did it. Now, given the choise of two,
which do you belive? It's hard to answer, but add that to the latest
reports (again from CNN, if I remember correctly), that several kersone
containers were inside the compund, make me believe the first guy.
>
>Yes, the FBI reported seeing two people
>>(according to CNN reports) using torches to set the compound on fire. They
>>were outside.
>
> That was the initial claim, but I do not believe it has been repeated
> since. Anyway, I'd like to see a tape. The FBI surely videotaped
> the whole operation. All conversations must have been recorded too.
Me too. We'll see if it comes up. More info on the "listening devices"
is coming on CNN now...I can't keep up with all this. Though, the FBI
says that they heard no plans of a mass suicide.
> How come the two were not shot by the FBI snipers?
After the initial fiasco where the ATF went in with guns blazing, I seriously
doubt the American public would care much for the "assassination" of two
people, no matter what they were doing.
>> Either way, I have evidence to support the theory that the BD's burned
>>themselves.
>
> What evidence?
See above. One BD admitted that they started the fires themselves. It's
possible he's lying, but I don't see what the BD's would gain from that.
It only implicates them more.
Granted, it's very weak evidence, and everything is going to be in
a different later on. But for now, there is more evidence to suggest
that the FBI *did not* intentionally destroy the BD's, which is what the
initial poster claimed. Again, as more information becomes available,
things may change.
>> 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.
>
> That is what the survivors claim. I'd like to see some evidence
> that people that everyone agrees were not going to commit suecide
> actually did it.
I'm not sure I understand that last sentance...can you re-state it?
--
John Mechalas "I'm not an actor, but
mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu I play one on TV."
Aero Engineering, Purdue University #include disclaimer.h
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA | |In hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:
|> The founding fathers of the US were hardly great on religious freedoms. At
|> least one history I have read formed the opinion that they left for the
|> US not to practice religious freedom but to practice religious intolerance.
Maybe I should take Phill out of my kill file, it looks like his rantings
are starting to get amusing.
Phill, once again you are demonstrating your extreme ignorance. The founding
fathers were for the most part born in the area that was to become the US.
They did not leave anywhere to come here.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) | Re: ABORTION and private health coverage -- letters regarding | ACME Products | In article <0fphl0C00iUzQ2jewR@andrew.cmu.edu>, "David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> On 21-Apr-93 in Re: ABORTION and private he..
> user Not a Boomer@desire.wrig writes:
>> And while courts have found it ok to charge women less for auto
>>insurance, it's illegal to charge them more for health insurance (because they
>>live longer) or make them pay more into retirement funds so the legal arena
>>isn't being 100% consistent on the gender issue.
> Not so in PA. Recently the gender inequity in auto insurance was
> removed. Just a point.
That's encouraging news. Maybe it will spread here to Ohio :).
Brett
________________________________________________________________________________
"There's nothing so passionate as a vested interest disguised as an
intellectual conviction." Sean O'Casey in _The White Plague_ by Frank Herbert.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) | Re: What RIGHT ? | Sun | In article <1993Apr24.171130.8975@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>In article <1993Apr22.133142.23772@ifi.uio.no>, joakimr@ifi.uio.no (Joakim Ruud) writes:
>|> Recently, I've asked myself a rather interesting question: What RIGHT does
>|> god have on our lives (always assuming there is a god, of course...!) ??
>He is God.
In other words, the right of might.
>|> In his infinite wisdom, he made it perfectly clear that if we don't live
>|> according to his rules, we will burn in hell. Well, with what RIGHT can god
>|> make that desicion?
>He is God.
In other words, the right of might.
>|> Let's say, for the sake of argument, that god creates every
>|> one of us (directly or indirectly, it doesn't matter.). What then happens, is
>|> that he first creates us, and then turns us lose. Well, I didn't ask to be
>|> created.
>God granted you the gift of life whether you were sinner or saint.
In other words, he can do it, he did it, and your in no position to
argue about it.
>|> Let's make an analogue. If a scientist creates a unique living creature (which
>|> has happened, it was even patented...!!!), does he then have the right to
>|> expect it to behave in a certain matter, or die...?
>The scientist creates the living creature to examine it, poke and prod it and
>learn about its behaviour. He will kill it if it becomes a threat. For
>example, let's say the scientist creates a Tyrannosaurus Rex and it breaks
>free of its confines and starts devouring the population. The scientist
>would not hesitate in killing it.
>God creates us to be His loving companions. He knows whether we are true in
>our love for Him or not. And He lets us know the consequences of rejecting Him.
>God cannot abide by sin. By rejecting God, a person becomes an enemy of God,
>one that must be killed by Him. Note: I say that God and God alone is
>worthy to be Judge, Jury and Executioner. We are not called to carry out
>such duties because we are not worthy.
In other words, you better do what this God wants you to do, or else!
>|> Who is god to impose its rules on us ? Who can tell if god is REALLY so
>|> righteous as god likes us to believe? Are all christians a flock of sheep,
>|> unable to do otherwise that follow the rest?
>God is God. Who are we to question the Creator? If you doubt God's doing
>in certain situations, do you claim to know a better solution? Would you
>be playing the role of God?
In other words, its his game, he made the rules, and if you know whats
good for you you'll play his game his way.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) | Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened? | Project GLUE, University of Maryland, College Park | In article <20APR199303363759@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>Several possibilities:
>
> (a) a few of the rogue BATF/FBI types arranged for
> a mix of cs and fuel based gas for cover-up,
> to be set off by previously placed timed
> incendiaries.
Or Janet "Rizzo" Reno arranged this personally. Note that the man who
supposedly slipped through FBI lines to get inside emerged shortly
before the fire.
>Oh yeah, let me add a possiblity...
>
> o What better way to cover up mistakes than a fire?
> (You pick which side.)
Exactly.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | sgi | 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:
|> #>In article <kmr4.1571.734847050@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
|> #># You have only pushed back the undefined meaning. You must now define
|> #>#what "objective values" are.
|> #>
|> #>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?
Not only are they not objective, but they don't even stay constant
over time. A young farmer and an old farmer on the verge of
retirement have quite different ideas about the relative values of
a piece of land and a dollar bill.
Similarly, a person viewing an anonymous piece of land, and a
person viewing a piece of land that his family has lived on for
generations.
These values are essentially subjective, and that's why we have
markets: to allow people to match their valuations of land and
dollar bills.
jon.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH | dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <BD.93Apr22083220@bd.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>
>>Assuming for the moment that the FBI believed in the bible and
>>were afraid of the seven seals, then they would also know
>>that God is the one who has to open the seals, not some
>>little prophet like Koresh.
>Fear doesn't usually follow reason.
Nice sound-bite, David, but not relevant. At the moment
I reason that that tornado is coming right at me, I begin
to feel fear. At the moment I realize that that car coming
toward me is in *my* lane, I begin to feel fear.
I was responding to a post which suggested that the FBI
attacked the compound because they were afraid Koresh would
unlock the power of the seven seals. If the FBI actually
believed tjhat Koresh could do that, fear is a reasonable
reaction.
Why call Koresh a prophet? Why not? My dictionary has at
least two definitions for the word that fit this situation.
"One who prophesies future events" Seems like Koresh fits
this one nicely, as he
correctly predicted death
by conflagration.
"An effective spokesman for a Seem like he wins on this one, too.
group, a cause, or the like" At least, he certainly got the
public's attention.
IMHO, being a "prophet" and a nut-case are not mutually
exclusive.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | University of Illinois at Urbana | In <1993Apr15.074615.957@abo.fi> MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
writes:
>In <C5Hr14.Jxw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> lis450bw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
> (Is that you, Mike Cobb, or is someone else using a "MAC" sig?)
> (And why on earth was this crossposted to talk.abortion?)
>> My definition of objective would be absolute, or fixed, rather than
>> subjective, or varying and changing.
> Inotherwords, any moral system (that _is_ still what we're talking
>about, right?) can be 'objective', provided you stick to it no matter
>what? Doesn't sound good to me, stifles progress.
Yup. This is me. I don't know why it crossposted. I was accessing nn
from another system and that might have caused the glitch.
I hold that an objective moral system exists regardless of my knowledge or
application of it. I relate it to the idea that there is scientific truth
that is truth even though I may not know about it.
Some morals I wouldn't want to change, and would not consider it progress
for
a society to oneday say that rape and murder are ok. Some underlying
themes (morality, honesty, courage, respect, etc.) are used to base
actions. I don't consider the idea that we should have been moral, should
be moral now, and should be so in the future a limitation, when it includes
such morality. Aberrances in a moral system, i.e. it is immoral to marry
someone of the opposite sex, it is immoral to listen to rock and roll, etc.
seem to be different than the above lists, and if specific actions are given
moral status I tend to question those morals.
MAC
>--
> Disclaimer? "It's great to be young and insane!"
--
****************************************************************
Michael A. Cobb
"...and I won't raise taxes on the middle University of Illinois
class to pay for my programs." Champaign-Urbana
-Bill Clinton 3rd Debate cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
With new taxes and spending cuts we'll still have 310 billion dollar deficits.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
markp@avignon (Mark Pundurs) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Wolfram Research, Inc. | mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>markp@elvis.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>> In <930415.112243.8v6.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk
>> (mathew) 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.
OK, refer us to the place in Einstein's (or Bohr's) writings where
he said 'there's no objective physics.'
>>>There's no objective reality. LSD should be sufficient to prove that.
>>
>> Speaking as one who has taken LSD, I say:
>> Bullshit.
>Well, I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge on that one, but I think I
>detect a pattern in your responses. How about some actual support for your
>dismissals?
You take LSD, and it skews your perception of reality. You come down,
and your perceptions unskew.
>>>> One wonders just what people who ask such questions understand by the term
>>>> "objective", if anything.
>>
>>>I consider it to be a useful fiction; an abstract ideal we can strive
>>>towards. Like an ideal gas or a light inextensible string, it doesn't
>>>actually exist; but we can talk about things as if they were like it, and
>>>not be too far wrong.
>>
>> How could striving toward an ideal be in any way useful, if the ideal
>> had no objective existence?
>Wow! An actual point!
>A perfectly efficient power station would convert all of the energy in coal
>into electricity. There is absolutely no way we can build a perfect power
>station; it's an ideal. But striving towards that ideal is undeniably useful
>and valuable, is it not?
OK, let me narrow the question. Is it useful to strive toward a
(nonexistent) objective ethics? In what way?
>mathew
--
Mark Pundurs
any resemblance between my opinions and those
of Wolfram Research, Inc. is purely coincidental
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U | In article <30160@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:
>Speed is a quantifiable measure resulting from a set of methods that
>will result in the same value measured no matter the reference.
Hmmm.
>A bullet with zero velocity sitting on a table on a train moving 60mph
>will be moving at a speed of
>
> (a) 0mph to someone on the train.
> (b) 60mph to someone stationary next to the train.
What a coincidence! That's exactly how I've experienced it too.
So far.
Trouble is, I've no way of knowing if it is just coincidence.
That is, it appears to have been that way in all measurements to date.
But I wouldn't go as far as saying that it will always be so - or that it need
always be so.
>The reference frame makes the speed relative. But what's interesting
>here is that every person on the train will see a stationary bullet.
>Every person off, a bullet moving 60mph.
More coincidence! Wow.
Still - I wish I could be *sure* that it was always going to be like that.
tommy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition: PHYSICS - To cut a short story long...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) | Re: [rw] Is Robert Weiss the only orthodox Christian? | Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ. | Rick Anderson writes:
> Are we to simply assume that you [referring to Robert Weiss] are the only
> one who really understands it [Biblical Scriptures]?
No. I also understand it. I have read the Bible from cover to cover, examining
each book within, cross-comparing them, etc. And I have come to same conclusions
as Robert Weiss.
So Rick, why not read the Bible for yourself? It is written in plain
english. Decide for yourself.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
david@terminus.ericsson.se (David Bold) | No News Is Bad News | Camtec Electronics (Ericsson), Leicester, England | I'm having trouble receiving News at the moment due to an overloaded
News server. I think that I can post out reasonably quickly, though.
I'm in a couple of threads at the moment which may be pending replies.
If anyone wants a reply from me over something I've posted then I
suggest sending an e-mail copy of the point to me so that I can reply by
News.
This is one way to shut me up!!
Cheers,
David.
---
On religion:
"Oh, where is the sea?", the fishes cried,
As they swam its clearness through.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK. | markp@avignon (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>>markp@elvis.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>> In <930415.112243.8v6.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk
>>> (mathew) 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.
>
> OK, refer us to the place in Einstein's (or Bohr's) writings where
> he said 'there's no objective physics.'
Ah, you taking everything as literal quotation. No wonder you're confused.
First, can I ask that we decide on a definition of "objective"?
>>>>There's no objective reality. LSD should be sufficient to prove that.
>>>
>>> Speaking as one who has taken LSD, I say:
>>> Bullshit.
>
>>Well, I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge on that one, but I think I
>>detect a pattern in your responses. How about some actual support for your
>>dismissals?
>
> You take LSD, and it skews your perception of reality. You come down,
> and your perceptions unskew.
And?
>>> How could striving toward an ideal be in any way useful, if the ideal
>>> had no objective existence?
>
>>A perfectly efficient power station would convert all of the energy in coal
>>into electricity. There is absolutely no way we can build a perfect power
>>station; it's an ideal. But striving towards that ideal is undeniably
>>useful and valuable, is it not?
>
> OK, let me narrow the question. Is it useful to strive toward a
> (nonexistent) objective ethics?
I'd guess that it might be.
> In what way?
It may be the case that some people are unable to evaluate complex moral
issues. Rather than leaving them to behave "immorally", it might be better
to offer them an abstract (nonexistent objective) system of ethics which they
can strive towards, coded into rules which they don't have to derive for
themselves.
I tend to feel that this is pretty much what we all have as morality
anyway...
mathew
| 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 <lefty-220493122007@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
#In article <1qu0f6$489@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank
#O'Dwyer) wrote:
#>
#> In article <30134@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:
#> #In article <1qjbn0$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?
#> #
#> #That happens to be a subjective example that the people of the
#> #US would happen to agree on. Continue to move the price up;
#> #at some point a few people would accept then more then more until
#> #probably all would accept at a high enough number.
#>
#> And this "high enough number" is...? :-)
#>
#> My point is that the deal is bad, and pretty much anyone can see it is so.
#
#Really? I suspect my neighbor would jump at your deal.
#
#Of course, she's only three, but if it were "objectively" bad, you wouldn't
#think it would make a difference...
And my two-year old says there is a white volvo across the street. But
there isn't. If matter were objective, you wouldn't think it would
make a difference... No, failed that one.
--
Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
odwyer@sse.ie from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) | See? ( was Re: Apology to Jim Meritt (Was: Silence is concurance) | MITRE Corporation, McLean VA | In article <9473@blue.cis.pitt.edu> joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
}m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
}>}So stop dodging the question. What is hypocritical about my
}>}criticizing bad arguments, given that I do this both when I agree
}>}with the conclusion and when I disagree with the conclusion?
}>
}>You are the one who has claimed to possess the fruits of precognition,
}>telepathy, and telempathy. Divine it yourself.
}
}Another dodge. Oh well. I'm no match for your amazing repertoire
}of red herrings and smoke screens.
}
}You asked for an apology. I'm not going to apologize for pointing out
}that your straw-man argument was a straw-man argument. Nor for saying
}that your list of "bible contradictions" shows such low standards of
}scholarship that it should be an embarrassment to anti-inerrantists,
}just as Josh McDowell should be an embarrassment to the fundies. Nor
}for objecting various times to your taking quotes out of context. Nor
}for pointing out that "they do it too" is not an excuse. Nor for calling
}your red herrings and smoke screens what they are.
How about the following inaccurate, unsubstantiated accusations:
In 8257@blue.cis.pitt.edu
>Jim has been threatening
- but no "threat" produced
>once he realized that
- display of telepathy
>threatening to quote me
- in spite of no "threat" produced, nor forecast ever happening (precognition?)
>responding Jim's threat to quote me
- in spite of claimed threat never being given
>Jim, preparing to...
- in spite of it never happening. telepathy or precognition?
>Jim again, still mystified
- unsubstantiated and untrue. more telepathy? Or maybe telempathy?
>Jim, still scandalized
- unsubstantiated again. Seems to be a habit...
Having more trouble with reality, it appears. Why get bothered with the facts when
you appear to have the products of paranatural divination methods?
*yawn*
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) | Re: Spreading Christianity (Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor) | T.S.A.K.C. | nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
->I addressed most of the key issues in this very long (284 lines) post
->by Dean Kaflowitz in two posts yesterday. The first was made into the
->title post of a new thread, "Is Dean Kaflowitz terminally irony-impaired?"
->and the second, more serious one appeared along the thread
->"A Chaney Post, and a Challenge, reissued and revised"
if you're so insecure about people reading your posts
that you feel the need to write new posts announcing
what you wrote in old, posts, why bother? accept it
PHoney, you're a laughingstock.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
gt6511a@prism.gatech.EDU (COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | Georgia Institute of Technology | In article <1993Apr21.045548.17418@news.cs.brandeis.edu> st922957@pip.cc.brandeis.edu 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.
>
>Just because someting was good once, does not mean it will be forever.
Y'know, the perp who commits a drive-by near the homes of some of my friends
ain't gonna be in any condition to do so again... and most of the places with
large numbers of drive-bys are places where guns are strictly controlled, or
the residents can't afford them..
Just because you once had freedom of speech, we've decided information is too
easy to transmit, so for the public good we will start armed raids on anyone
who says something that violates what we believe is proper to say.
You attack one Constitutional right as being outdated, and I can probably come
up with a like justification to attack the others. Retaining any of your rights
requires retaining all of your rights.
James
--
********************************************************************************
James S. Cochrane * When in danger, or in doubt, run in * This space
gt6511a@prism.gatech.edu * circles, scream and shout. * for rent
********************************************************************************
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) | Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened? | Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA | In article <bskendigC5rCBG.Azp@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
>>
>> They cut off the water, there were no fire trucks present
>
>They refused to bring in fire equipment for fear that the firemen
>would be shot at.
>
>>and the FBI/ATF go blasting holes into the builing and firing gas munitions.
>
>They used a tank to knock a hole in the wall, and they released
>non-toxic, non-flammable tear gas into the building.
Non-toxic tear gas?!? Do you know what tear gas is?
I do: once upon a time I happened to be in a room when someone threw
a tear-gas grenade in (that was supposed to be a joke:). The sensation
was incredible: I felt my eyes and nostrils were being torn apart.
I remember us - a bunch of young men in our early 20's - running out
like a herd of wild animals, knocking down the door and jumping
out of the windows (thank G-d we were on the first floor).
I can't imagine this kind of stuff being used against children.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) | Re: A KIND and LOVING God!! | Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, B.C. |
In article <1r0hicINNjfj@owl.csrv.uidaho.edu>, lanph872@crow.csrv.uidaho.edu (Rob Lanphier) writes:
|> Malcolm Lee (mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca) wrote in reference to Leviticus 21:9
|> and Deuteronomy 22:20-25:
|> : 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.
|>
|> Hmm, for a book that only applied to the Israelites (Deuteronomy), Jesus sure
|> quoted it a lot (Mt 4: 4,7,10). In addition, he alludes to it in several
|> other places (Mt 19:7-8; Mk 10:3-5; Jn 5:46-47). And, just in case it isn't
|> clear Jesus thought the Old Testament isn't obsolete, I'll repeat the
|> verse in Matthew which gets quoted on this group a lot:
|>
|> "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have
|> not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until
|> heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke
|> of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is
|> accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments
|> and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of
|> heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called
|> great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your
|> righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law,
|> you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Mt 5:17-20 NIV, in
|> pretty red letters, so that you know it's Jesus talking)
|>
|> This causes a serious dilemma for Christians who think the Old Testament
|> doesn't apply to them. I think that's why Paul Harvey likes quoting it so
|> much ;).
|>
|> Rob Lanphier
|> lanph872@uidaho.edu
I will clarify my earlier quote. God's laws were originally written for
the Israelites. Jesus changed that fact by now making the Law applicable to
all people, not just the Jews. Gentiles could be part of the kingdom of
Heaven through the saving grace of God. I never said that the Law was made
obsolete by Jesus.
If anything, He clarified the Law such as in that quote you made. In the
following verses, Jesus takes several portions of the Law and expounds upon
the Law giving clearer meaning to what God intended. If you'll notice, He
also reams into the Pharisees for mucking up the Law with their own contrived
interpretations. They knew every letter of the Law and followed it with their
heads but not their hearts. That is why He points out that our righteousness
must surpass that of the Pharisees in order to be accepted into the kingdom
of Heaven. People such as the Pharisees are those who really go out of their
way to debate about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
They had become legalistic, rule-makers - religious lawyers who practiced the
letter of the Law but never really believed in it.
I think you will agree with me that there are in today's world, a lot of
modern-day Pharisees who know the bible from end to end but do not believe
in it. What good is head knowledge if there is nothing in the heart?
Christianity is not just a set of rules; it's a lifestyle that changes one's
perspectives and personal conduct. And it demands obedience to God's will.
Some people can live by it, but many others cannot or will not. That is their
choice and I have to respect it because God respects it too.
God be with you,
Malcolm Lee :)
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota) | Re: Albert Sabin | The University of South Dakota Computer Science Dept. | In article <1993Apr15.231515.19982@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
>In article <C5FtJt.885@sunfish.usd.edu>, rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota) writes:
>|> In article <1993Apr10.213547.17644@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
>|>
>|> [earlier dialogue deleted]
>|>
>|> >|> Perhaps you should read it and stop advancing the Bible as evidence relating
>|> >|> to questions of science.
>|>
>|> [it = _Did Jesus exist?_ by G. A. Wells]
>|>
>|> > There is a great fallacy in your statement. The question of origins is
>|> > based on more than science alone.
>|>
>|> Nope, no fallacy. Yep, science is best in determining how; religions handle
>|> why and who.
>
> The problem is that most scientists exclude the possibility of the
> supernatural in the question of origins. Is this is a fair premise?
Not entirely. Its not a premise, its a conclusion. Second, that scientists
(for the most part) exlude the possibility is not a problem, its a necessity.
Scientists are empircists, not theologians.
> I utterly reject the hypothesis that science is the highest form of
> truth.
So do scientists, and long before you did. Clearly you have a deep and
fundamental misunderstanding of science.
>|>
>|> > If you met a man who could walk on
>|> > water, raise people from the dead, claimed to be the Son of God, and
>|> > then referred to the inviolability of the scriptures, this would affect
>|> > your belief in the origin of man. (I can expand on this.)
>|>
>|> Nope, wouldn't affect my knowledge (not belief) of origins of anatomically
>|> modern humans. If that man could show me something better, I'd change, even if
>|> it was the biblical story in exact detail. But then I would ask, "Why in the
>|> world did your father endow us with intellect and reason, and then proceed to
>|> fool us. I mean, the bible says nothing about the human-like creatures that we
>|> know exist.
>
> Some of these so-called human-like creatures were apes. Some were
> humans. Some were fancifully reconstructed from fragments.
Absolutely and utterly false (except for some were AMHs). Lucy (Australopithecus
afarensis, ca. 3 to 3.25 mya) is 40% complete, and about 80% taking into
consideration bilateral symmetry. Lucy walked upright and bipedally, just
like humans, and the two share a remarkably similar dental pattern. Her
cranial morphology is unlike humans or modern apes. There are hundreds of
other specimens of this and other species, of which only some are *partially*
reconstructed. They exist Bill. You can touch them, feel them, hold them.
But forget hominids. The earth, the universe, the cultural record all look and
test out as ancient indeed. They are not reconstructions. Has God has tricked
us here too? It won't go away, Bill.
>
>|>
>|> I doubt any of us will meet a man like this. But, Bill, if your version of all
>|> this is absolutely correct, I'm still no worried about my salvation. I'll
>|> probaby make it (I don't steal, murder, covet, etc, and I like to help other
>|> people). All I did was use the reason and intellect your god provided.
>|> He or she - benevolent and loving - will understand my dilemma, don't you
>|> think?
> Good deeds do not justify a person in God's sight.
> An atonement (Jesus) is needed to atone for sin.
So *you* and other fundamentalists say. What about the billions who don't
say so? Beware of people who say they have the truth, Bill, and reconsider
each time you think you do.
>|>
>|> > Science and
>|> > the Bible are not in contradiction. God can supercede the scientific
>|> > "laws" as man understands them. Creation is a good example. God has the
>|> > power to create something out of nothing, order out of chaos.
>|>
>|> Haven't been on t.o. long, but I have a feeling, Bill, that the veterans will
>|> agree with you here. No contradiciton, and god *can* do anything at will. So,
>|> what's the beef? (or more properly, "where's")
>
> My point: God is the creator. Look's like we agree.
That was not your point, Bill. Your point above was God *has* the power ....
Scientists generally agree with that. That's a far cry from saying God did.
Please attempt to understand your own posts.
>|>
>|> > If the title of the book you mentioned has anything to do with the
>|> > substance of the book, it must be a real laugher. Of course Jesus existed,
>|> > and there are volumes of evidence to back it up. I can give many if you
>|> > are interested.
>|>
>|> Its not a laugher, Bill. Its a scholarly book that many happen to disagree
>|> with. I am definitely (and seriously) interested in confirmation. I know of
>|> the bible, inferences therefrom (e.g., prophecies), apocrypha, the Koran and
>|> others. What I am interested is independent evidence. Do you have any? I
>|> know of Josephus, but this is almost certainly an insertion. Also I know of a
>|> few Roman documents (e.g., Pliny), but these deal only with early Christians.
>|> Do you have any independent evidence? I am most interested. Please Email or
>|> post. Thanks, and best regards.
>
> I'll send you some info via e-mail.
> Regards, Bill.
I have your info, and I have replied - several days ago. Hope you have it.
Somehow your post above appeared at my server only today.
Rich Fox, Anthro, Usouthdakota
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
bvickers@net1.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) | Re: Rawlins debunks creationism | University of California, Irvine | 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
Wee. It's the old creationist argumentum ad quotation. Pitiful,
dishonest, creationist saps like yourself seem only to know how to
takes quotes out of context.
Here's another quote from the same source as your quote above:
"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 biology 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." (Hitching, _The Neck of
the Giraffe_).
Mr. King, next time you quote someone, at least read the rest of what
the person has to say before you make a fool of yourself in front of
everyone. (Of course, we all know you have probably never even looked
at the book; you most likely copied that quote off some list your
pastor gave you.)
Another creationist builds the case against creationism. Thanks,
John!
--
Brett J. Vickers "Don't go around saying the world owes you
bvickers@ics.uci.edu a living. The world owes you nothing.
It was here first." - Mark Twain
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) | Re: [rw] Is Robert Weiss the only orthodox Christian? | Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ. | >I'm curious to know if Christians ever read books based on critique
>on the religion, classical text such as "Age of Reason" by Paine,
>or "The Myth Maker" by Jacobi. Sometimes it is good to know your
>enemy, and if you want to do serious research you have to understand
>both sides, and not solely the one and only right one.
Yes, one does. I examined a critique of the Book of Romans by
I think, Benjamin Franklin once, a Deist. I found it amazing that
Benjamin Franklin missed the whole boat. I also have the writings
on Thomas Jefferson sitting on my shelf, and it is amazing how
much he missed. I have studied Plato's Theory of Forms and
Aristotelian Hylomorphesism. What a pile of junk. Jesus
makes Plato and Aristotle look like kindergardeners. Psychology,
the id, ego, superego by Freud? Elements of truth, but Jesus
explained it far better and gave reasons.
Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson are mere men. They
can screw up the Bible just as well as any man. I do not put these
men on a pedestal. And if I remember T.J.'s autobiography correctly,
he thought Thomas Paine was the most unread man he ever met.
Here's some more circular reasoning to you. Paul says to the Corinthians
that "that the gospel will be foolishness to the world, because it is
spiritually discerned." And so, people without the spirit of God haven't a
clue to what the Bible is saying. From your point of view, that's
incredibly circular and convenient. To me, it is mysteriously and supernaturally
bizarre. I can see it, but you can't. This is not arrogance on
my part. Trust me. It is as bizarre to you as it is to me. But nonetheless,
it is a truth, explainable or not.
Are any of you color blind to red and green? I am. Remember those
dot tests they do at the optomologist's? They put pictures in front
of you and you are supposed to identify the pattern in the dots? If
your eyes are perfectly normal, you can see letters or numerals
embedded in the dots. They are a slightly different color and stand
out from the background. But if you are color blind to red and green,
you will not see anything but gray-shaded dots. That is how a dot
test appears to me. I do not see a pattern at all.
A normal seeing person will see the patterns. And to him, I seem like a
total anomaly. To him, I appear as if I am missing the universe or something.
It is hard for him to understand why I can't see anything
that to him is as plain as day.
That it what it is like with the Bible, the Word of God, to the believer.
The believer can see the meaning in the words. I can see how the patterns
fit together. There is such depth. Such consistency. But then, on the
other hand, I notice the non-believer. He doesn't see it. He thinks
I am weird because he thinks I am seeing things. I look at him, and
say, "No, you are weird. You do not see." Then it is time for a sanity
check. I go to another Christian and say, "Do you see this." And
they go, "Yes. It is an "X"". And I say, "Thank God, I see the "X"
too."
It is truly the strangest thing. It adds a little extra dimension to
the phrase,
"He will make the blind see, and the deaf hear."
I am glad that Jesus has enabled me to see. I wish every non-believer
could see what they are missing.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) | Re: Abortion | null | In <18275.459.uupcb@ozonehole.com> anthony.landreneau@ozonehole.com (Anthony Landreneau) writes:
>To: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
>From: anthony.landreneau@ozonehole.com
>
>LM>> >>The rape has passed, there is nothing that will ever take that away.
>LM>>
>LM>>LM>True. But forcing her to remain pregnant continues the violation of
>LM>>LM>her body for another 9 months. I see this as being unbelievably cruel.
>LM>>
>LM>>Life is not a "violation".
>
>LM>But forcing someone to harbor that life in their body *is* a violation.
>
>Letting a mother force a child from her body, in order to end that
>childs life is the ultimate violation.
I happen to take the violation of a person much more seriously than the
"violation" of a mindless clump of cells smaller than my thumb.
Your mileage may vary.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota) | Re: Rawlins debunks creationism | The University of South Dakota Computer Science Dept. | In article <1r9fuj$bdi@lll-winken.llnl.gov>, dk@imager (Dave Knapp) writes:
>In article <C5wo5C.EBv@sunfish.usd.edu> rfox@charlie.usd.edu writes:
>>
>>Simply put, evolution/creation when each is looked at properly - theory/fact
>>vs. assertion/fiction - is a specific example of exactly what separates reason
>>and science from nonsense.
>
> Although I agree that creation is nonsense, I submit that you are making
>the same mistake that creationists commonly do. In this and previous posts,
>I think you have been engaging in the fallacy of false dichotomy; you have
>consistently characterized science/religion as rationalism/nonsense, when
>in fact the latter do not form a complete set of options. Neither do the
>former, for that matter.
>
> I wish that the semi-explicit linking of evolution to so-called "rational"
>atheism could be avoided; it just gives the creationists fuel for their
>often-repeated incantation that "evolution leads to atheism."
>
> -- Dave
No, Dave, and as an anthropologist I take great umbrage with this
misrepresentation. I sense that it is you that has made the jump from creation
(science) to religion (see above). I have characterized science/*creation
science* as rationalism/nonsense, and that it is. When people promote their
religious beliefs as science they become nonsense. Kept where they belong
they are meaningful and useful, as virtually any anthropologists will tell you,
and as I have said several times in this group. And it works the other way,
too, and I have repeatedly said so. Never have I said or meant anything
different, here or elsewhere, and I don't think my communication skills betray
me. Nor do I presume to offend people's spiritual sensibilities, as
I would hope others would not disparage mine.
Rich Fox, Anthro, Usouthdakota
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) | Re: Rawlins debunks creationism | Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University | In article <30151@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:
>In article <C5snCL.J8o@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>
>>Evolution, as I have said before, is theory _and_ fact. It is exactly
>>the same amount of each as the existence of atoms and the existence of
>>gravity. If you accept the existence of atoms and gravity as fact,
>>then you should also accept the existence of evolution as fact.
>
>I don't accept atoms or gravity as fact either.
[deletions]
Jim - we essentially agree, except about the definition of "fact."
The scientific definition of "fact" is not "the ultimate truth," but
rather "a theory which is so supported by evidence and so predictive
that it is pointless to test it anymore."
So, we have the fact of evolution and we have theories of evolution
(just as we have the fact of gravity and theories of gravity, and
the fact of the atomic nature of matter and atomic theory). The fact
of evolution is that the current diversity of life arose through
common descent: this is so supported by the evidence that no one ever
bothers to try to test it anymore. Theories of evolution include
theories regarding the mechanism of common descent (natural selection
vs. drift) or the actual "pathways" of evolution, or any number of
other things. These are constantly being tested, because the actual
mechanisms, etc, behind the fact of common descent are still up for
question.
Note that the fact of evolution is still a theory. In other words, it
could, theoretically, still be falsified and rejected. But since it's
so predictive, and so consistently supported by evidence, it seems
pointless to explicitly try to falsify it anymore.
[description of atomic theory, and alternative theories of gravity, deleted]
>Both are very useful models that
>have no religious overtones or requirements of faith, unless of course you
>want to demand that it is a factual physical entity described exactly
>the way the theory now formulated talks about it.
Here is where you fail to make an important distinction. You have
shoehorned the _facts_ of the _existence_ of gravity and atoms and
evolution into one category with the _theories_ which have been
proposed to explain the _mechanisms_. The existence of these things
is so predictive as to be considered fact. The mechanisms, on the
other hand, are still worth discussing.
> jim halat halat@bear.com
--
--Andy
"God is a real estate developer / with offices around the nation
They say one day he'll liquidate / his holdings on High
I say it's all speculation." -- Michelle Shocked
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson) | Re: Koresh Doctrine -- 4 of 4 | Carleton University | Question for those of you who seem to be fundamentalists (Stephen
Tice, the Cotera, Joe Gaut, et al)(apologies if I've mislabelled any
of you, I've only started reading t.r.m since the BD disaster. But I
know the Cotera is a fundy) and are defending Koresh and his beliefs
as an example of True Christianity under persecution from the the Big
Bad Secular State: what is your opinion of his reported sexual habits?
If the reports are accurate, what IYO does this say about the quality of
his Christianity? Or are the allegations just part of the Big
Cover-Up?
(I remain deliberately neutral on the cause of the fire: I wouldn't
put it past Koresh to have torched the place himself. On the other
hand, if the propane-tank-accident story is correct, I wouldn't put it
past the FBI to try to cover its ass by claiming Koresh did it. I
hope your government does a VERY thorough investigation of the whole
debacle, and I'll be disappointed if a few heads don't roll. The
authorities seem to have botched the original raid, and in the matter
of the fire, are guilty of either serious misjudgement, or reckless
endangerment.)
--
| Steve Watson a.k.a. watson@sce.carleton.ca === Carleton University, Ontario |
| this->opinion = My.opinion; assert (this->opinion != CarletonU.opinion); |
"Somebody touched me / Making everything new / Burned through my life / Like a
bolt from the blue / Somebody touched me / I know it was you" - Bruce Cockburn
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) | Re: Is it good that Jesus died? | Lunar & Planetary Laboratory, Tucson AZ. | Jesus:
> "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but
> men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds
> are evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will
> not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be
> exposed."
Kent Sandvik says:
>It seems we are dealing with a black-and-white interpretation.
>Brian, are you subtly accusing me of evil things because I never
>saw the light? However, this is even more confusing because
>I even admit that I don't like the situation where I'm not
>informed.
Black and white. A spade is a spade. There is no hidden
agenda behind this, so stop trying to look for one. It is an
easy and as straight forward as it reads.
Kent, I am not accusing you of evil things. Jesus is accusing you.
And it is not only you that He is accusing. He is accusing everyone.
Me, you and everyone in the world is guilty. Whether one
sees the light or does not seen the light has nothing to do with
whether we do evil things. We do them regardless.
Jesus uses the word "men". I am included. Jesus is not soloing you out.
Jesus is making a general statement about out the sad state of man.
Christians are not immuned from doing evil things. A Christian
is just a person in whom the Holy Spirit indwells. A Christian
can see the evil he is doing--because his evil has been brought
out into the light. Jesus is not saying that just because evil has been
exposed, that the Christian will stop doing evil. If you haven't
seen Jesus's light, your evil deeds simply haven't been
exposed to the His light. You may shed some light on your
own. Your human spirit shines at perhaps 1 candela. But the
Holy Spirit shines at a Megacandela. The Holy Spirit can
shine light into places inside us where we didn't even know
existed.
So do you see Jesus's point? Christians are not perfect. Nonchristians
are not perfect. Nonchristians do not want to come into the
Light of Jesus because they will see all the problems in their lives,
and they will not like the sight. It is an ugly thing to see how far
we have fallen from Jesus's perspective. Do you think you want to
know how really ignorant you are? Do you think Brian Kendig wants
to know? Do you think I want to know? Ego verses the truth,
which do you choose?
>I'm watching the news about a man who saw the light, and made
>sure that the 19 children burned to death as part of his insight
>into the light. I don't think the world is that simple. And if
>you act in such ways when you are enlighted, then I'm a happy
>man and I pray I will never receive such 'light'.
And I watched Koresh too, an imposter who thought he saw the light,
who made sure that the 19 children burned to death, sadly, as part
of his delusion. It is even sadder that the people who
died with him chose to die with them, and that ignorance was
their downfall to death.
And Kent, don't you bury yourself underneath a rock with an
excuse like bringing up Koresh--as if Koresh actually had truth in him.
David Koresh was no light and no excuse for
you to stay away from the real Jesus Christ. David Koresh, who
claimed to be Jesus, was a fraud. It was obvious. David Koresh
was born in America. Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Koresh wasn't
even a good imposter having missed an obvious point as that.
Jesus warned of such imposters in the end-times. David
Koresh wasn't anything new to Jesus. Jesus told us to be
aware of imposters 2000 years ago.
So the next time an imposter makes a scene and claims to
be Jesus. Ask the obvious. Where were you born? Was your
mother's name Mary? If the Branch Davidians asked that
simple question, they would have labeled Koresh a liar
right from the start. The wouldn't have followed Koresh.
They wouldn't have died. But look what happened. Their
ignorance cost them their lives. Their choice to be ignorant
cost them a lot.
Kent, since you studied the Bible under Lutheranism, do you
not remember what tactic Satan used to try to tempt Jesus?
Did not Satan quote the Bible out of context? Do you
remember what tactic the serpent of Genesis used to tempt
Eve? Did he not misquote God? What Satan used on Eve and succeeded,
was the same ploy he tried on Jesus. But in Jesus's case,
Jesus rebuked Satan back with the Bible _in_ context. It
didn't work with Jesus.
Does what Satan did to Eve in the Garden and what Satan
tried to do with Jesus in the desert remind you of what
Koresh did to his followers? Who did Koresh emulate?
Who was Koresh's teacher? Koresh did to his followers what
Satan did to Eve. Did not Koresh kill his followersr? Did
not Satan cause Adam and Eve to die as well? Did not
the cult followers believe Koresh even though they knew
the real Christ was born in Bethlehem? Did not Eve
choose to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil despite knowing that it would cause her death? God
held them all responsible--deceiver and the rebeller. None
of them had an excuse.
As opposed to the Branch Davidians, we have a second chance.
Follow Jesus and he will escort us to the path of eternal life.
Don't follow Jesus, and you stand condemned already, for like
the Branch Davidian complex, your house is already on fire.
Satan, Adam and Eve have already set it ablaze. It is just
a slow burn, but it is burning nevertheless.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) | Re: ABORTION and private health coverage -- letters regarding | LLNL | In article <1r7ltt$g4t@agate.berkeley.edu> dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis Kriz) writes:
[Argument that he is not an illiterate about health-care plans...]
How much choice does one have with (say) employer-offered
benefits?
>In anycase, fundamentalist Christians make up about 1/3 of the
>population. Add to that conservative Catholics, and that becomes
>1/2 of the population. That is a VERY LARGE market share of the
>health care business, far too large to ignor or run roughshod
>over simply questionable ideology.
_However_, a sizable fraction of _these_ are willing to get
abortions. One study found that at some places at least, 1/6 of the
women professed to be "Born Again". Furthermore, a large fraction of
Catholics use "artificial" birth control methods frowned on by the
Church. So this abortion-rejecting health-care market might be much
smaller than one would think.
But never underestimate the willingness of some professed
opponents of abortion to get them.
"If you are against abortion, DON'T HAVE ONE!"
goes one pro-choice slogan I once saw on someone's car (or was
it a pickup truck?). I had been following an old railroad line that is
to be used for a BART extension in South San Francisco, and I saw this
car with this bumper sticker along the way.
>As for someone suggesting that "no one would be upset if I were
>to give money to support women with crisis pregnancies, etc" But
>I have, having initiated and supported an ad in USC's student
>newspaper regarding a Catholic health clinic offering assistance
>to women in crisis pregnancies. I've also devoted my life to a
>consistent life ethic. I've been arrested as part of this, not
>at Operation Rescue protests (though I do have friends who have
>participated in them and may at some point participate in them
>too) but at protests sponsored by Pax Christi regarding nuclear
>weapons manufacture, both at the Nevada Test Site and the
>Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. What have you done folks?
Operation Rescue? Dennis Kriz, be aware of some of the company
you keep. I'm talking about seriously militaristic right-wingers who
would _love_ to execute those who provide and get abortions. Although there has
been only one such assassination so far, I wonder how many other
opponents of abortion would be willing to perform such assassinations
if they could get away with it.
--
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) | Restore the Patriachy | Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper | Komrade EMIL,
How many times need we point the obvious OUT to you.
As LONG as the Patriarchy has been Decimated by
ModernSeXularHumanism and ITS imposition that only
the STATE is authorized to Wield Capital Punishment,
We can NEVER restore WholeSomeGodFearingBibleBelievingTraditionalFamilyValues!
Now Just Imagine Father Abraham in the Modern Era?
God Comes unto him and demands that he take his son up
to the Hills to be sacrificed unto the Lord.
Now Abraham being a devout man leads out his son for a
sacrifice to God On High, and BANG!!!! Out Comes the BATF
with Tanks and Air Support to cover the Child Protection Agency
with a Warrent for Abraham's arrest as a Moral Deviant and a
Child Abuser!!!! The BATF Lays SIEGE to Father Abraham's home
for months on END and will NOT LISTEN to the VOICE of GOD!!!!
As LONG as ModernSeXularHumanism is allowed to DENY the
God Given Rights of the Patriarchy we CAN NOT be SAFE!!!!!
ciao
drieux
ps: please, and none of this "Know two things" Party
Platform about knowing about a bust of George Washington
and the shortest verse in the bible as some basis for
a Civil Governing of the People.....
---
"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
|
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | Johns Hopkins University CS Dept. | In article <C5s6As.Kwo@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmy@vivaldi.acc.Virginia.EDU (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
>>>Well, when the nice federal officers come to my house to check out my
>>>extensive weapons cache, I'll just be sure not to shoot at them.
>>>"Tea, ladies and gentlemen?"
>>Actually, that's pretty much wht the "Branch Davidian" siad when
>>the local Sherrif knocked on their door.
>>Of course, when armed men assaulted them without warrning, it was a
>>different matter...
>Why? Did they not know that these men were federal officers?
Do you know what a "no-knock search" is?
--
"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
|
jmeritt@mental.mitre.org | Rawlins has been listening to the Devil | UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway | God ItSelf appeared to me and spoke to me, saying "Rawlins has been listening to
a deamon, and has been taken in by its satanic words!"
Now, how we tell which divine inspiration comes from the One True God and which
comes from a satanic trickster?
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is oxymoronic? | Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK. | jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
> Oh goody, I get to defend China again on alt.atheism. Just exactly what
> 'policy of mandatory forced abortion in Tibet' are we talking about here?
> What are the words 'policy' and 'mandatory' doing there - you mean there
> is a law requiring all (or even some) ethnically Tibetan babies to be
> aborted? Just how many are we talking about? Hundred? Dozens? One or two?
> You are aware of course that even in the days when the one child policy was
> enforced the Tibetans and all other ethnic minorities were exempt? Of course
> you do. And you are aware that if the Chinese wanted to kill all the Tibetans
> they have lots of better means and they have had a rather long time in which
> to do it. But for some reason there seems to be more Tibetans now than at any
> other time. Odd for a people supposedly suffering a 'policy of mandatory
> forced abortion'.
"Laugh if you want to,
or say you don't care;
If you cannot see it,
you think it's not there.
It doesn't work that way.
Peek-a-boo!"
-- DEVO
> Don't suppose you care to provide a credible citation?
Read your own newspapers. I don't have the space to keep them all. If I
kept enough records to be able to respond with a couple of pages of citations
every time some idiot said "Nyaah nyaah, prove it, gimme a citation", I
wouldn't have any space left in my flat. It's enough work to track down
references to prove that George Bush really said atheists shouldn't be
considered citizens, or that Einstein wasn't a Christian, and those used to
get demanded every week.
And I suspect if I did track down the various issues of The Guardian which
have carried detailed reports on the subject, you'd dismiss them as "liberal
propaganda", just like Gregg dismisses the articles about Islam in The Times.
Did you miss Amnesty International's widely-announced report about torture in
China? It was in the news a couple of weeks ago. Oh, I forgot, that's just
liberal propaganda. I mean, is it plausible that the country responsible for
the Tienanmen Square massacre would torture and kill people? Naaah. Forget
it.
Keep up the good work. I'm sure China's "Most Favoured Nation" status will
be renewed in June, and you can feel really proud.
mathew
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is oxymoronic | The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'. | In article <930416.140529.9M1.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>
mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>Not, of course, The Greatest Salesman in the World. That was Jesus, wasn't it?
>No, J.R. "Bob" Dobbs.
Definitely, J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, numero uno, top dog, not one can touch, not
one can knock Bob out of the box. Bob kills me mon! Everyday!
But close El Segundo (el subliminal) is the infamous Paul (birthname Saul) the
Evangeline who became famous as a result of his numerous trampoline act
tours of the eastern Mediterranean.
Jesus on the other hand was duped, a pawn of the Con, fell pray to the
Holywood Paradox (ain't nothing but a sign in the hills!). Like many
Afro-Asians, Jesus found the earth all too pink! And to think that after
his death, the Con changed him into a tall blond Holywood sun god! And I
do mean that in the kindest way possums! Now Jesus does gigs with Hendrix,
Joplin, Morrison, Lennon, Marley, Tosh, etc. Mostly ska beat jah-know!
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | University of Virginia | COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH writes
>it wouldn't be the first time a group has committed suicide to avoid the
>shame of capture and persecution.
This group killed itself to fulfill its interpretation of prophecy
and to book a suite in Paradise, taking innocent kids along for the
ride. I hardly think the feds were motivated by persecution. If they
were, all Koresh would have had to do was surrender quietly to the
authorities, without firing a shot, to get the American people behind
him and put the feds in the hot seat. But no, God told him to play
the tough guy. There's great strength in yielding, but few appreciate
this.
--
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
|
drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) | More Scary Thoughts about Hets | Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper | In article 422@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de, gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>I *have* found a great
>deal of evidence that there were many flaming heterosexuals among the
>Nazis. This seems to include all of the worst ones--Hitler, Himmler,
>Goebbels, Goering, Heydrich, Eichmann, and many more.
Oh Deary ME......
Do you think that clayton cramer is aware of this
Nazi-Het connection?????
My, My, My!!!!
Clearly Proof Enough for ME that we
must Register Hets NOW!!!!
ciao
drieux
ps: It's just SHOCKING where Hets crop up....
---
"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
|
<A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET> | Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick | City University of New York |
In article <ss.113@apmaths.uwo.ca>, ss@apmaths.uwo.ca (SULTAN SIAL) says:
>
>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?
>
I also heard the Romans had a large Solar festival on this day because this
day, about 3 days after the Winter Solstice, was when you could notice a
change in the shadows and be sure that the Sun was indeed returning. In fact,
I remember the latin phrase Natalis Solis Invicti (sp!) associated here.
I can't say for certain when Saturnalia was, since I can't locate my Master
Holiday List. I think it was 2 weeks or so however.
-------
CHARLES HOPE A54SI@CUNYVM A54SI@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
GOVERNMENT BY REPORTERS...MEDIA-OCRACY.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth J. Bradley) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Intel Corporation | In article <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.
This is a belief, not a theory. A theory makes predictions and is falsi-
fiable. What you've stated makes no predictions and is not falsifiable.
If it was that easy, the ICR wouldn't have it as rough as they do :-).
--
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SCIC
Internet: sbradley@scic.intel.com UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one. The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare. On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!" -Michael O'Brien
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) | Re: Part 1 and part 2 (re: Homosexuality) | Colorado Springs IT Center | rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com writes:
>
> The results of the passing amendment in
> Colorado has created an organization who's posters are appearing all over
> Colorado called "S.T.R.A.I.G.H.T." (I forget the whole definition off hand,
> but the last part was Against Immoral Gross Homosexual Trash) and their motto
> is "Working for a fag-free America" with an implicit advocation for violence.
I live in Colorado, and have never heard of such a group. Obviously claims
that their posters are appearing "all over Colorado" are a tad overdone...
> This is sick, and it seems to be what you and Mr. Hudson, and others are
> embracing.
Hardly. Saying that homosexuality is a sin is a far cry from
"Working for a fag-free America". Saying that I wouldn't want
a homosexual babysitting for my kids doesnt mean I endorse
"Against Immoral Gross Homosexual Trash".
> We Christians have a LOOOOOOOOOONG tradition of coersion and oppression
> towards those we feel don't 'measure up',
And now we have homosexual advocates telling us that if we don't teach
our kids that homosexuality is natural and a perfectly acceptable
alternative lifestyle, then they will have it done for us. No, thanks.
> The Gospel I believe is not so negative, rather it seeks ways to "include"
> people.
Absolutely. And the message is always, "go and sin no more". Not,
Go and do whatever "feels good".
One question, at the start of your post, you wrote:
> I know many gays and I will NOT turn my back on them or their right to be free
> form discrimination...I may have lost face with the greater Christian
> community for the unpopularity of my beliefs, but so did the abolitionists
> against the oppression of African-Americans. Many were even killed and
> treated as runaway slaves for being "nigger-lovers" and such. I guess I've
> decided the challenge is worth it.
This sounds real nice, but struck me as a little odd. You're
presenting yourself as if you were a straight Xian, who is sticking
his neck out and taking on the challenge of speaking out in support
of gays in the church. But I was under the impression that you
yourself are gay. That's all well and fine, but presenting yourself
as sticking out your neck to help "repressed others" seems a bit
untruthful under the circumstances....
Walter
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
jon@atlas.MITRE.org (J. E. Shum) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | The MITRE Corp. McLean Va. |
In article <mcclaryC5snpq.KB1@netcom.com>, mcclary@netcom.com (Michael McClary) writes:
> In article <1qvh8n$gf4@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> friedenb@maple.egr.msu.edu
> (Gedaliah Friedenberg) writes:
> >
> >Give me a break. If the Mormons fortified Utah and armed it to the teeth,
> >and were involved in illegal activity, then they deserve whatever they get.
>
> Actually, after surviving being driven out of Nauvoo, and later Carthage,
> the Mormons DID fortify Utah. They still arm themselves to "defend the
> faith", and stockpile food as well. They have been involved in quite a
> lot of illegal activity - including multiple (and often underage) wives
> for the leaders - a practice still in vogue with some splinters of their
> sect. The parallels between Koresh and Joseph Smith are striking.
>
> So what did the Mormons get? It seems that J. Edgar Hoover was very
> impressed with the way they kept secrets. (They're pledged to defend
> secrets with their lives and atone for sin with blood. Many actually
> do - even to the point of suicide.) So he hired virtually no one but
> Mormons, until the FBI was almost exclusively staffed by members of the
> Church of Later Day Saints. Though J. Edgar is finally gone, the FBI
> personnel (especially the field agents) are still heavily Mormon.
>
> I have often wondered how this might affect the FBI's treatment
> of religious organizations a Mormon would consider heretical.
You make some very interesting claims here. I'm not challenging them,
mind you, but could you provide a reference or two about the make-up
of F.B.I. personnel? Thanks very much.
--
Clinton Administration e-mail addresses | clintonhq@campaign92.org (MCIMail)
provided as a public service by | 75300.3115@compuserve.com (CompuServe)
Jon Edward Shum (jon@mitre.org) | clintonpz@aol.com (America Online)
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
rh@smds.com (Richard Harter) | Re: Rawlins debunks creationism | Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc. | In article <1993Apr15.223844.16453@rambo.atlanta.dg.com> wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
> We are talking about origins, not merely science. Science cannot
> explain origins. For a person to exclude anything but science from
> the issue of origins is to say that there is no higher truth
> than science. This is a false premise. By the way, I enjoy science.
> It is truly a wonder observing God's creation. Macroevolution is
> a mixture of 15 percent science and 85 percent religion [guaranteed
> within three percent error :) ]
Let us explore this interesting paragraph point by point, sentence by
sentence.
1) We are talking about origins, not merely science.
Origins of what? Are we speaking of the origins of life, the human
species, the universe, physical law, biological diversity or what?
2) Science cannot explain origins.
This is a false statement unless it is carefully qualified. It depends
on what origins we are talking about.
3) For a person to exclude anything but science from the issue of origins
is to say that there is no higher truth than science.
Again, this is a false statement. To begin with, the notion of "higher
truth" is distinctly dubious. Many people believe that there are ways
to ascertain truth that are not in the repetoire of science; they even
believe that there are ways that are more reliable and certain. Many
believe that there are truths that cannot be expressed using the language
of science. Let it be so. These truths are neither "higher" or
"lower"; they are simply true.
More to the point, restricting one's discussion of origins to science
does not reject other sources of knowledge; it simply restricts the
scope of discussion.
4) This is a false premise.
If this is intended as asserting that the previous sentence was false
then (4) is actually true. However the context identifies it as another
false [or at least theologically unsound] statement.
5) By the way, I enjoy science.
On the evidence Mr. Rawlins lacks sufficient understanding of science
to enjoy science in any meaningful sense. One might just as well say
that one enjoys literature written in a language that one cannot read.
However one cannot mark this sentence as false -- to follow the analogy,
perhaps he likes the pretty shapes of the letters.
6) It is truly a wonder observing God's creation.
Let us not quibble; count this one as true.
7) Macroevolution is a mixture of 15 percent science and 85 percent
religion [guaranteed within three percent error :) ]
Still another false statement. However one can make it come out true
with the following contextual modification:
"Macroevolution, as misunderstood by Rawline, is a mixture of 15 percent
of what Rawlins erroneously thinks of as science, and 85 percent of
what Rawlins erroneously thinks of as religion."
-----
It is distinctly noticeable that Mr. Rawlins fails miserably to touch
on truth except when he reports personally on what he feels. [I do
him the justice of assuming that he is not misinforming us as to his
personal reactions.] One can account for this by the hypothesis that
he has an idiosyncratic and personal concept of truth.
--
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc. Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742. Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA | In article <1993Apr20.220340.2585@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>
>armed to the teeth. A Christian should not have to rely on physical weapons
>to defend himself. A Christian should rely on his faith and intelligence.
Faith and intelligence tell me that when a druggie breaks into my house at
night with a knife to kill me for the $2 in my wallet, a .357 is considerably
more persuasive than having devotions with him.
--
Tom Albrecht
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) | Re: Albert Sabin | Technical University Braunschweig, Germany | In article <1993Apr15.225657.17804@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>
wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
(Deletion)
>
> Since you have referred to the Messiah, I assume you are referring
> to the New Testament. Please detail your complaints or e-mail if
> you don't want to post. First-century Greek is well-known and
> well-understood. Have you considered Josephus, the Jewish Historian,
> who also wrote of Jesus? In addition, the four gospel accounts
> are very much in harmony.
>
Since this drivel is also crossposted to alt.atheism, how about reading
the alt.atheism FAQ? The Josephus quote is concidered to be a fake even
by Christian historians, and the four gospels contradict each other in
important points.
Weren't you going to offer a scientific theory of Creationism?
Benedikt
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
sbishop@desire.wright.edu | Re: Albert Sabin | Wright State University | In article <1r7houINNop9@titan.ucs.umass.edu>, cma@titan.ucs.umass.edu (COLIN MA) writes:
> I just started reading this newsgroup and haven't been following the
> thread. I'm just curious: How did this thread get started with
> "Albert Sabin" and changed into something else? What was it about
> Sabin that initiated a religious discussion?
>
> Colin
>
>
Well, the thread started out as a discussion of Sabin, and EVOLVED into an
entirely different topic. Happens all the time. Just think of it as
evolution in action..... (grin)
Sue
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
riggs@descartes.etl.army.mil (Bill Riggs) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD | In article <erwin.735329812@trwacs> erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com (Harry Erwin) writes:
>A short comment:
>>As you may recall, the early Christians were pacifists preferring to
>avoid
>>physical confrontation rather than dealing with it in like manner.
>
>The mother church of Jerusalem disappeared when the Romans took the city.
>Despite some pious legends, the evidence seems to be that the members of
>the church died fighting the Romans during what they believed to be the
>last days. We know that certain Apostles had nicknames connecting them to
>Jewish terrorist groups. For the average inhabitant of the Roman Empire
>(especially after centuries of political instability and terror), the
>Roman policies in Palestine were heartily approved of. When studied with a
>knowledge of cult psychology, Acts is eerily familiar, especially today.
Huh ??
This kind of shotgun blast deserves either to be elaborated upon,
or retracted. Even if the readers have the slightest idea as to what the
writer is referring to, it should be incumbent on Mr. Erwin to back up what
he says with at least a concrete example of perhaps even a reference or two.
(For example, "Simon Zealotes" = the certain apostle having a nickname
connected to a Jewish terrorist group)
Even Josephus fails to make the kind of broad brush reference to
Christians made above - he is quite silent as to the fate of the Jewish
Christian Church in Jerusalem, even though he took the time to
record the death of St. James (brother of St. John). On the subject of the
fate of Jesus's family, including James (the brother of Jesus) we learn
nothing from Josephus.
Likewise, Tacitus condemns the Jews as being a particularly
vicious people, getting many of the facts about Jewish history wrong in
the process. But even though Tactitus undoubtedly had the opportunity
to learn much about the Christians during his tour in Asia Minor under
Domitian, we find little to enlighten ourselves about the Christians
in either the _Histories_ or the _Annals_
The writer's interpretation of _Acts_ is purely subjective as
stated, and so one might expect him to elaborate a bit on just what aspects
of "cult psychology" are to be found there. I can think of a thing or two
offhand, but I'd like to give Mr. Erwin the opportunity to demonstrate his own
knowledge satisfactorily before throwing out any more hints.
Bill R.
--
"The only proposals in the Senate that I "My opinions do not represent
have seen fit to mention are particularly those of my employer or
praiseworthy or particularly scandalous ones. any government agency."
It seems to me that the historian's foremost - Bill Riggs
duty is to ensure that virtue is remembered,
and to deter evil words and deeds with the
fear of posterity's damnation."
- Tacitus, _Annals_ III. 65
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | sgi | In article <1qjbn0$na4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> In article <kmr4.1571.734847050@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
|> # You have only pushed back the undefined meaning. You must now define
|> #what "objective values" are.
|>
|> 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?
jon.
| 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:
>}(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
>Excellent. Now under what conditions could such a conclusion be made, other
>than a direct assertion by his part.
Replace "Stephen" with "David Joslin," since you directed the same
accusation of hypocrisy at me. In e-mail to me you wrote:
In t.r.m. Robert Weiss writes [a promise from Psalm 9:10]
Gee, since you wouldn't be at all hypocritical, you must be really
busy arguing against these out-of-context extracted translations!
As you may recall, you mailed me six mail messages quoting articles by
Robert Weiss, all sent within a few minutes of each other. You added:
Naturally, I await your arguments against this out-of-context
translation. But I shall not await holding my breath...
and
Wonder when you get to sleep, disputing all these out-of-context
extracted translations!
and other similar comments.
Perhaps you could explain why you ever thought that I might have a
reason to read all of these articles you pulled off of t.r.m, much
less write responses to them?
>Have you, by chance, ever even heard of inductive logic? You are not
>demonstrating any familiarly with it (i.e. you are being insufficiently
>logical).
I am familiar with inductive logic. Go ahead and give me the details
of the "logic" that led you to conclude, incorrectly, that I would
condone Robert Weiss taking verses out of context. Your conclusion was
wrong, of course, since I agree that both you and Robert Weiss were
guity of taking verses out of context. Nothing hypocritical about
that, is there?
Since you reached a false conclusion, you made some mistake in your
"logic." The only question is where. Did you think that it would
be hypocritical for me not to post a reply to Robert Weiss' articles?
Did you make the common creationist error of confusing a lack of
evidence for X with evidence for the lack of X? Is your grasp of
inductive logic not quite as firm as you think? See if you can figure
out what your mistake was, and learn from it.
dj
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | Oklahoma State University | From article <1993Apr20.210651.5687@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, by mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas):
>>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.
>
> Excuse me? WHO destroyed the BD's? Last I knew, they burned themselves...
> Prove to me that the FBI, ATF, or the Government in general either burned
> the compound themselves, or that the BD's had no choice but to commit
> mass suicide rather than coming out peacefully (a promise that was made
> twice by Koresh himself, which he broke both times).
At this point in time we don't who destroyed the BDs. Maybe it was the
government; maybe it was Koresh. I wouldn't immediately rule out the
government just because the FBI said that a couple of cult members
torched Koresh's wood-frame house. I think that the credibility of the
FBI and the cigarette cops is questionable at best; at worst they are
bald-faced liers. I read in a newspaper today that one of the BDs that
survived the fire said that one of the tanks that crashed through their
wood-frame house knocked over a lantern which later on caused the
compound to errupt in flames. Also, I have heard that one of the cult
members who earlier said that he and another individual started the fire
is no longer claiming that he did it. Moreover, he and possibly the
other person may not have even really said that they did it in the
first place---we only have the FBI's WORD ON THIS. I'll believe it when
I hear from a cult member's own mouth and not before then.
The FBI claims that they saw two cult members starting the fire. They
claimed that the two were clad in black clothing and were wearing gas
masks. Hmmm... Sounds like they might have been describing an ATF
agent to me. Weren't the cigarette cops wearing black? Note: this
is just speculation on my part. Still, it is something to think about.
Here's something else to ponder upon: the two agents that were planted
in the compound might have done something to start that fire. I don't
know if they did it deliberately or not---if they did at all---but I
would like to see statements from these two agents on the events that
transpired during that day. I think that they would be rather
enlightening don't you think? They were inside the compound so they
ought to have a real good idea of what went on in there. Of course if
they did help burn down the house then I doubt that they would be
very forthcoming with any information.
The FBI also mentioned that fire errupted in multiple locations in the
compound. They *may* have said this so that people might be more
likely to be convinced that the BDs started the fire. However,
consider that if the FBI did light-up that house would they admit to
it? I think not. Imagine the public outrage that would ensue if
people discovered that the FBI killed 86 people. Obviously, the FBI
would do its best to suppress the truth and make people think the BDs
started the fire. Fire can spread in unusual ways in a wood house---
fires burning in more than one location in a house isn't inconsistent
with a house fire. The tear gas cannisters---which do produce heat
despite what you may have been told by the media---may have contributed
to starting the blaze. Also, it was very windy on the day of the
fire. Flames and burning debri might have floated over to parts of
the house that weren't already on fire. Like I said the verdict isn't
in yet. The FBI may very well be guilty of a holocaust.
> --
> John Mechalas "I'm not an actor, but
> mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu I play one on TV."
> Aero Engineering, Purdue University #include disclaimer.h
Scott Kennedy, Brewer and Patriot
Before: "David Koresh is a cheap thug who interprets
the Bible through the barrel of a gun..." --ATF spokesman
After: "[The ATF] is a cheap thug who interprets
[the Constitution] through the barrel of a gun..." --Me
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) | What is a Christian? was Re: Davidians and compassion | The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'. | In article <1993Apr21.211707.7828@ra.royalroads.ca>
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>In article <f2dutxH@quack.kfu.com>, pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>|> In article <1993Apr20.144825.756@ra.royalroads.ca>
>|> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>|> >If one does not follow the teachings of Christ, he is NOT Christian.
>|> >Too easy?
>|> That would exclude most self-proclaimed "Christians."
>|> Do you follow the Ten Commandments?
>As a matter of fact, yes I do or at least I strive to. I will not
>be so proud as to boast that my faith is 100%. I am still human
>and imperfect and therefore, liable to sin. Thankfully, there is
>opportunity for repentence and forgiveness.
>God be with you, Malcolm Lee :)
It sounds like you're modifying your definition of Christian to anyone
who *strives* to follow the teachings of Christ. Do I read you
correctly? And just what constitutes *strive*? Did Jesus say this and
define just what "striving" means? Can you give an example of striving
that is insufficient to qualify one as a Christian and thus condemns one
to eternal damnation in fiery torture? Do you self-proclaim yourself a
Christian and if so on what basis?
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) | Re: Christian meta-ethics | CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin | -*----
In article <C5Jzz7.9G7@panix.com> mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
> 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 two commandments *are* rules; they are merely rules that are
so vague that they are practically devoid of meaning. Michael
Siemon acknowledges this every time he writes that the resolution
of an argument over them turns on secular and cultural
assumptions that are independent of these rules.
> ... 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. ...
The commandment to love your neighbor as yourself can be viewed,
in part, as reminding man that he is not God and cannot act as if
he has "ultimate responsibility." Indeed, many traditions present
an interpretation where believers are supposed to interpret
loving one's neighbor as following various other rules, and
relying on their god to make things come out right, precisely
because it would be wrong for man to assume such "ultimate
responsibility." Once again, we are confronted with good sounding
goo that means whatever the reader wants it to mean.
> ... "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. ...
And who is to say that this interpretation is "twisted"? There
are many passages in the Bible that in their most straightforward
reading show the Christian god behaving in just this way.
Michael cannot refer to "base" claims or base commandments to
show that such readings are "twisted," because this divergence in
understanding occurs even in trying to interpret the "base"
claims and commandments. In addressing conservative Christians,
Michael will necessarily draw upon secular and cultural notions
that these conservative Christians will reject.
> 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.
But these base commandments are too vague to serve as "a
principle for the CRITIQUE of ethical systems." The meaning of
these base commandments for any believer derives from the secular
and cultural notions that the believer brings to them, from how
the believer mixes their demands with straightforward readings of
other Biblical passages, from a particular sectarian tradition,
or from some combination of these things. These commandments
lack sufficient substance in themself to serve as a basis for
criticizing ethical systems. What meaning they have comes from
the ethical system the believer brings to these commandments.
> 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 ... The one, single, thing in the gospels
> which Jesus specifically "gives" as "a commandment" to us is "love
> one another."
Jesus explicitly states that this summarizes Jewish law, which
would seem to bring in all of it if we properly understand what
it means to love God and love our neighbors. There are *many*
parables and teachings the gospels attribute to Jesus that are
straightforwardly read as ethical commandments. The Pauline
epistles are similarly full. If it is not clear that these all
come together in a sensible understanding of ethical behavior,
the problem is *not* a lack of raw material.
-*----
> I am a "radical" Christian *only* in that I take the gospel seriously.
No, Michael, the conservative Christians also take the gospel
seriously. What differentiates you is the way you interpret the
gospel.
> ... Why don't I and the (myriads of) other Christians like me
> tell you something about Christianity? ...
In a sense, the wide variety of interpretations does tell us
something about Christianity. It tells us that the New Testament
authors left a sufficiently vague hodge-podge that it can serve
as the source text for many, vastly different beliefs about the
nature of the Christian god and about what men should and
shouldn't do.
The irony here is that there is *nothing* in Christianity per
se that Michael can use to support the cause of lesbians and
gays. *Every* Christian principle he turns to this cause is
effective only through the extra-Christian principles through
which Michael interprets his religion, and the homophobes apply
the *same* Christian principles, with equal justification, to
their cause. In short, it is the extra-Christian principles that
make Michael's Christianity beneficial, and I suspect they would
be as beneficial, perhaps moreso, without being filtered by
Christian interpretation.
Michael paints a picture of "standard American atheism" as the
rejection of the evil in many conservative Christian
interpretations of the Bible. But I think it is even more
damaging to Christianity to note that the New Testament presents
such a vague hodge-podge of notions about the nature of God and
the nature of the good (except, of course, when it is ordered by
an interpretation that relies on extraneous principles). Here, I
think we should apply a Christian parable, where a cold drink can
have its value and a hot drink can have its value, but the
lukewarm we should spit out.
Russell
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | Project GLUE, University of Maryland, College Park | In article <C5uoC0.9I5@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tbrent@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:
>In article <C5uD1u.3oy@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:
>> Where did you get this information? The FBI stated they were not
>> aware of any mass suicide plans, ditto Koresh's attorneys who appeared
>> on Larry King's Live yesterday, and the survivors claim the fire was started
>> from the outside...
>
>Actually, ONE of the survivors say it was started by the FBI (tank knocked over lamp). Another said the Davidians set the fire themselves.
The FBI says that one survivor says they set the fire themselves.
Given that the claim is that the fire was started in 3 places at once,
and that the building was being rammed by a tank and filled with tear
gas, just how did the Davidians manage to co-ordinate such a thing?
--
Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures. Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is oxymoronic? | The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'. | In article <lsran6INN14a@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>In article <C5HqxJ.JDG@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
lis450bw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (lis450 Student) writes:
>>Hmmmm. Define objective morality. Well, depends upon who you talk to.
>>Some say it means you can't have your hair over your ears, and others say
>>it means Stryper is acceptable. _I_ would say that general principles
>>of objective morality would be listed in one or two places.
>>Ten Commandments
>>Sayings of Jesus
>>the first depends on whether you trust the Bible,
>>the second depends on both whether you think Jesus is God, and whether
>> you think we have accurate copies of the NT.
>Gong!
>Take a moment and look at what you just wrote. First you defined
>an "objective" morality and then you qualified this "objective" morality
>with subjective justifications. Do you see the error in this?
>Sorry, you have just disqualified yourself, but please play again.
I'm afraid it's much worse than this! Jesus said follow the Ten
Commandments AND the Torah And the Prophets. Christians on the other
hand are not only above the Ten Commandments AND the Torah AND the
Prophets, i.e. they believe that they do not have to follow it, they
don't even follow the subjective morality of Jesus! So, we see that
Christians can't follow the "objective morality" of their own Ten
Commandments, they can't follow the "subjective morality" of Jesus when
He said follow the Ten Commandments, yet they expect the rest of the
world to do; what? Is there any logic here? Is there any morality here,
objective or subjective? Is Christianity somebody's idea of a joke? Who
could be pulling the wool over the eyes of so many Christians? Who could
be such a great deceiver?
| 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 <1r66su$dm7@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>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?
If you were able to prove that morality is objective, then it would
be correct to do so. The problem is, by the very meaning of the
words in question, to do so is oxymoronic. Of course you could
redefine the words, but that would still not lend support to the
underlying concept.
>After all, I could hardly be wrong, without dragging in the o-word.
This does not parse. How could you 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?)
I have no problem with objectivity at all. It is my objectivity that
has led me to conclude that morality is subjective.
>--
>Frank O'Dwyer 'I'm not hatching That'
>odwyer@sse.ie from "Hens", by Evelyn Conlon
eric
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
susan_soric@upubs.uchicago.edu (Susan Soric) | Wanted: Moltmann's God in Creation | Not important | I'm greatly in need of Jurgen
Moltmann's book God in Creation:
An Ecological Doctrine of Creation.
If you have a copy you're willing to
part with, I'd love to hear from you
soon. You may call me at 312-702-
8367 or e-mail me.
Thanks.
==========================================================================================
Susan Soric
Independent agent
susan_soric@upubs.uchicago.edu
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
ins559n@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Andrew Bulhak) | Re: 666 - MARK OF THE BEAST - NEED INFO | Monash University | (U28698@uicvm.uic.edu) wrote:
: Marian CATHOLIC high school, outside of chicago:
:
: 666 south ASHLAND avenue.
:
Actually, Satanism is technically inverted Catholicism.
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Andrew Bulhak | :plonk: n. The sound of Richard Depew |
| acb@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | hitting the ground after being |
| Monash Uni, Clayton, | defenestrated by a posse of angry Usenet |
| Victoria, Australia | posters. |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
porta@wam.umd.edu (David Palmer) | Re: 14 Apr 93 God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7 | University of Maryland, College Park | In article <1qknu0INNbhv@shelley.u.washington.edu> sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>In article <f1VMPxk@quack.kfu.com> pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>In article <bskendigC5H4o3.D5p@netcom.com>
>>
>>Human blood sacrifice! Martyrdom of an innocent virgin! "Nailed" to a
>>wooden pole! What is this obsession with male menstruation?
>
>Christian: washed in the blood of the lamb.
>Mithraist: washed in the blood of the bull.
>
>If anyone in .netland is in the process of devising a new religion,
>do not use the lamb or the bull, because they have already been
>reserved. Please choose another animal, preferably one not
>on the Endangered Species List.
>
>
How about Cockroaches?
--
***************************** porta@wam.umd.edu ****************************
What for you say you monkey when you have little fluffy tail
like rabbit, rabbit!
Tazmanian Devil
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U | In article <1qkjvc$4jv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>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?
Ahhhh. I see what you mean now.
But in this example it is not the values that are objective, but
the *existence* of those values. At least, they are as objectively real
as anything is.
>I don't think I'm way off beam in saying that "something is
>better than nothing" is a rational and objective valuation.
The term 'rational' does not apply to a simple statement like that.
You would have to include the statement within a syllogism and
assert the rationility of the syllogism.
A statement is just a statement.
As to its objectivity - well it depends what you mean.
Values tend to be regarded as good or bad, valid or invalid, true or false,
and so on. Objective values are those which must fall into one or other of
those options for all people - or, if you are prepared for dissent, then
they are those values which should be accepted by everyone.
If someone rejects an objective value they are regarded as 'wrong'.
Objective values require a fundamental notion of good versus bad, or at
least right versus wrong (or even just correct versus incorrect) and
a way of relating that to specific aspects of human behaviour.
In my opinion that requires a belief in a deity of some sort.
Suppose you could predict with almost 100% accuracy that Americans
believed that something is better than nothing.
You could usefully say that the existence of that value was an
objective fact. You could not say that the value itself was
objective. You could not do that unless you could prove that the
value was 'right'. Showing that everyone happens to accept the value
as right doesn't show that it is right.
>Do you agree with me then that the assertion "no values are objective"
>is false?
Well I am a believer in a God. So I do believe that some values are
objective. But I usually suspend that belief when posting to t.a
because it immediately invalidates subsequent arguments in the mind
of many t.a readers.
So, ignoring the idea of a God, I disagree with you.
I believe, in this limited context, that 'no values are objective'.
But I think that this thread is showing some cross-purpose debate.
I think I understand your use of the word 'objective' when
relating it to values. I think it is an unusual usage, but I
believe you are consistent given that usage.
tommy
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) | Re: Spreading Christianity (Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor) | AT&T | In article <C51puA.K2u@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
> "David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> > 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.
>
> Some Christians take a 10% discount off the Ten Commandments. Sunday
> cannot be substituted for the Sabbath.
Make that 20%. Where did I see that poll recently about the
very religious and adultery? Was it this newsgroup or alt.atheism
or some other place?
Dean Kaflowitz
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | University of Illinois at Urbana | In <1qlapk$d7v@morrow.stanford.edu> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
writes:
>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!
Huh? Imaginative thinking? What did that have to do with what I said? Would it
have been better if I said the world has existed forever and never was created
and has an endless supply of energy and there was spontaneous generation of
life from non-life? WOuld that make me all-wise, and knowing, and imaginative?
MAC
--
****************************************************************
Michael A. Cobb
"...and I won't raise taxes on the middle University of Illinois
class to pay for my programs." Champaign-Urbana
-Bill Clinton 3rd Debate cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
With new taxes and spending cuts we'll still have 310 billion dollar deficits.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) | Re: What part of "No" don't you understand? | EIT | In article <1993Apr24.214843.10940@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>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 see it as the camel's nose.
>>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.
I'm willing to take my chances on winning the whole thing, personally.
-Ekr
--
Eric Rescorla ekr@eitech.com
"What we've got here is failure to communicate."
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
"David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu> | Re: ABORTION and private health coverage -- letters regarding | Misc. student, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA | On 21-Apr-93 in Re: ABORTION and private he..
user Not a Boomer@desire.wrig writes:
> And while courts have found it ok to charge women less for auto
>insurance, it's illegal to charge them more for health insurance (because they
>live longer) or make them pay more into retirement funds so the legal arena
>isn't being 100% consistent on the gender issue.
Not so in PA. Recently the gender inequity in auto insurance was
removed. Just a point.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | Case Western Reserve University | In article <1qkfte$3mh@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <kmr4.1576.734879396@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M.
Ryan) writes:>#In article <1qj9gq$mg7@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.
uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:>#
>#>Is good logic *better* than bad? Is good science better than bad?
>#
># By definition.
>
>True enough. O.K., in the universe we have today, which is better, a science
>that predicts the motion of the planets, and it happens so, or a science
>which predicts that sonic the hedgehog will record an album with Elvis on
>a certain date, and it doesn't happen? Can the answer to this question
>be called objective, or is it a matter of opinion?
Yes:
If one's particular goal is to land a man on the moon, or to
put a communication sattelite into a orbit within which it will operate;
then orbital astronomy will be more important.
However, if one is a particular fan Sonic's singing, or a competator
of Sonic, say Mario and the Toadstools; knowing when he will record an ablum
would be more important.
I fail to see how this is connected in any way, nor where you are
driving too.
---
Only when the Sun starts to orbit the Earth will I accept the Bible.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA | In article <1993Apr21.230622.6138@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas) writes:
>> That is what the survivors claim. I'd like to see some evidence
>> that people that everyone agrees were not going to commit suecide
>> actually did it.
>
>I'm not sure I understand that last sentance...can you re-state it?
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.
BD's were not contemplating suecide, and there is no reason
to believe they committed one.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
patb@bnr.co.uk (Patrick Brosnan) | Re: "Imaginary" Friends - Info and Experiences | BNR Europe, New Southgate, London. | In article <1993Apr2.041929.24320@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kditto@nyx.cs.du.edu (Kimborly Ditto) writes:
>
>Concerniong this thread...
>
>Has anyone ever seen "Drop Dead Fred" ?? THis movie seems to tipify the
>"imaginary friend" theme rather well. I LOVED the movie, as i had an
>imaginary friend when i was a kid and it borught back great memories.
>
>Seriously, if you have a chance, see "Drop Dead Fred". It'll make ya
>think. especially the end.
>
>Blessings!
>--Kim
>
--
Patrick Brosnan. <patb@bnr.co.uk> || ...!mcsun!ukc!stc!patb
Northern Telecomm, Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB.
Phone : +44 81 945 2135 or +44 81 945 4000 x2135
"Oh, Flash, I love you - but we've only got 14 hours to save the universe."
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
brian@leo.irv.icl.com (Brian Davis) | Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews? | ICL Advanced Development Group, Irvine CA | In article <GERRY.93Apr21132149@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
> 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.
>
>No, a no-knock warrant is in clear violation of the 4th amendment.
I guess my news reader deleted the lines of the 4th amendment which deal
with no-knock warrants. How do you deduce that they are in clear violation?
Now maybe no-knock warrants SHOULD be illegal. But until the Supreme Court
says so, your own pronouncements on the warrant's constitutionality are just
wishful thinking.
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis Kriz) | Re: ABORTION and private health coverage -- letters regarding | U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility | In article <ha80hh6@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@sgi.com writes:
>
>In article <1qk73q$3fj@agate.berkeley.edu>, dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu writes:
>| If you are paying for a phone, and you don't want call-waiting, YOU DON'T
>| NEED TO PAY FOR CALl-WAITING.
>[...]
>| 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).
>
>Why the hell would somebody named "Dennis" be paying for
>abortion coverage at all? Why aren't you also complaining that
>you want your insurance premiums reduced because you won't be
>needing that pap smear coverage?
>
>C J Silverio cj@sgi.com ceej@well.sf.ca.us
How would someone named "Dennis" be stuck paying for "abortion
coverage" ... if abortion is put under a catagory of a "general
medical procedure." You have to ask the insurer: "Would my policy
cover an abortion?" to find out. If it does, you should have a
right to decline that "coverage" if YOU DON'T WANT IT.
The basic premise in private insurance is that you pay for the
coverage YOU WANT. If basically you want "catastrophic coverage"
you get a policy with a high deductible (with a correspondingly
LOWER premium). Similarly, you don't have to be COMPELLED to
take on a policy covering things like liposuction or hair
transplantation, if you DON'T WANT THAT KIND OF COVERAGE, again,
at a corresponding savings to you.
If you don't want to be "covered" for abortion, you should not be
COMPELLED to. To millions of Christians, abortion is not a
"gynocological examination" or a "pap smear." To them abortion
is murder. To them, being "covered for abortion" means that they
are paying for a "service," which THEY THINK IS EVIL, CLEARLY
DON'T WANT, and will NEVER USE. In such a case, all that is
happening is that they are being COMPELLED to help pay for OTHER
PEOPLE'S abortions.
When you are being forced to BUY something you DON'T WANT and
will NEVER USE, this is called extortion.
When the mafia tells a restaurant owner to "buy" a "juke-box" for
the owner's "protection" this is called racketeering.
And if one's access to health care is held hostage to signing a
defacto "loyalty oath" in support of abortion, by promising to
help pay for other people's abortions (when one is clearly
opposed to this procedure) this is tantamount to the same thing.
dennis
dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu
| 19talk.religion.misc
|
ekr@squick.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) | Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is | EIT | In article <1r9oa9$42g@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <1qvtk4$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.
SO?
What's your point?
>In your example, science is necessarily
>worthless,
MAYBE TO ME! (In this example, and as I argue below, that's not even
true.)
>and so are its results,
Not necessarily.
>because truth is worthless, assuming that's
>all science is good for.
But science is also good for technology, which may or may not
have anything to do with truth. I may value technology and
not truth, after all.
>And it's no accident that phrases such as "good
>for" fit so naturally in this context.
Spare me. This is nonsense, Frank. Pregnancy is sometimes referred
to as having a "bun in the oven." Does this mean that the uterus
is at 450 F? Argument by idiom is weak indeed, and it's what
you're engaging in here.
>#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.
Of course it's different. $3!=ma. What is at issue is accuracy,
not difference.
>I'm making a decision as to the importance of F=ma
>over other expressions I can compute.
This is the result of a chain of deduction about the value
of understanding the universe. One can make the observation
that IF one wanted to understand the universe, F=ma would be
valuable without believing F=ma to be valuable, Frank.
>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.
Things which have a basis in reality are different from things
which have a basis in reality. Quantum mechanics is very different
from biochemistry, yet they both (allegedly) have basises in reality.
Look, Frank, noone said that people didn't do science because they
value it(in the sense of think it is good), but that is not necessary
to make the observation that it's results have value (in the sense
that they are accurate.) Allow me to give you an example: I think
that knowing the byte order on IBM 3090s is pretty much worthless
(I don't care to know it) but I would be quite prepared to
note as valuable (i.e. accurate) the claim that it was Big-endian
if it was shown to be so (like, by showing me the manual.)
> 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.
No, it's fleeking not. Scientific judgement is SOLELY the sense
of evaluating an expression (accuracy). It has nothing to do with
importance, worthiness, or usefulness. Choice of problems DOES
have to do with those factors, but they are orthogonal to
evaluating (for accuracy) solutions to chosen problems.
>#>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.
No, I was saying that it works independently of whether I measure
it, which is something quite different.
> It
>begs the question rather obviously.
It would if they were the same thing, which they are not.
> 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, you are attempting to inject "goodness" judgements where there
are only "accuracy" judgements, by essentially punning on the word
'value' which has both meanings. "useful" is a goodness judgement.
"Reasonable" is an accuracy judgement. They are not the same
thing at all. ("Useful in making some conclusion" is an accuracy
judgement again, I'm afraid.) Sorry, Frank, but all you're doing is
using the ambiguity of English to obfuscate the issue. IF you
mean to say that science is based on value (accuracy) judgements,
I have no problem with that. If you mean to say that it's based
on value (goodness) judgements, that's nonsense. By contrast,
morality is clearly based on goodness judgements.
-Ekr
--
Eric Rescorla ekr@eitech.com
"What we've got here is failure to communicate."
| 19talk.religion.misc
|