Datasets:

dojo

/

newsgroups7_balanced

like 0

This is too often true. Many people try to place this as a "higher" sin. However... A big part of the problem is that many of the homosexuals and people advocating acceptance of homosexuality in churches do not consider (active) homosexuality a sin. I don't often see the attitude of "forgive me and I will try to change". Instead I see "there's nothing wrong with my life and I can be a good Christian, so it must be you who have an illness because you don't accept me". Christians can and will accept homosexuals, just as they will accept *any* sinner. Sure, it may be natural to some people to be homosexual - but it is also perfectly natural for everyone to sin! I was born with a desire to sin, but I work to prevent myself from sinning. It's much less common now, but I *still* have urges to lash out in anger. There also may not be a sudden disappearance of sinful desires (or ever!), so it is sad to see people leave the church when they are discouraged that they are still homosexual after several years.

So when they took the time to *copy* *the* *text* correctly, that includes "obvious corruptions?" So when they took the time to *copy* *the* *text* correctly, that does not exclude "variant readings from the masoretic text" which are "of little theological import" Hey, you're the expert.

I believe that there's a 10 year period from time of death until a person can be on a commemorative stamp. It was broken once for Lyndon Johnson (I think) but other than that it has held for awhile. Of course, we can still start now -- the Elvis stamp was petitioned for ages and things really moved once it got past the 10 year anniversary of his death.

Yes, there are these two senses of interpretation, and certainly our decision to accept Scripture as inspired ultimately rests on our own private opinion. However, when reading Scripture, we have to remember that the Scriptures were given by God for our instruction, and that the interpretation that matters is the one God intended. For example, if I decide that the fact that John the Baptist is Elijah teaches the doctrine of reincarnation, I am wrong because that is not the intended interpretation. The prophets didn't make up this teaching; it came from God, and we must accept it as such. This necessarily means that our private interpretations must take a back seat to the meaning God intended to convey. Certainly we must rely on our best efforts to determine what this meaning is, but this very fact should make us recognize that our private interpretations cannot be automatically accepted as the infallible interpretation of God. We need to test the spirits to see if they are from God. When the Holy Spirit speaks, he says the same thing to all; he won't tell me that a passage means one thing and tell you it means another. If the two of us come to conflicting conclusions, we can't both be completely right. We know our interpretations are reliable only when the Church as a whole agrees on what Scripture means. This is how we know the doctrines of the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ, etc. infallibly. These matters are not up for private interpretation. This is the reason Peter goes on to talk about the deceptiveness of the false teachers. They preferred their own private interpretation to the God-given teaching of the apostles. It is through such private interpretation that the traditions of men, so soundly denounced in Scripture, are started.

I recall reading somewhere that a number of bishops spent a great deal of time debating the topic of "how many angels could fit on the tip of a needle". Does anybody have a reference to this? Thanks

Anton LaVey's interpretation of Satanism has always puzzled me. I read his "Satanic Bible" a few years ago for a social studies project, as well as a book by Arthur Lyons called "The Cult of Devil Worship in America." The latter included a very interesting interview with the Black Pope in which he did indeed say that Satan was merely an instrument for one to realize the self. When I refer to Satanism, I am referring to the mishmash of rural Satanic ritualism and witchcraft which existed before the Church of Satan. I don't consider LaVey's church to be at all "orthodox," nor do I consider its followers "satanists." LaVey combined the philosophies of Nietzsche, Crowley, and Reich, slapped in some religious doctrine, added a little touch of P.T. Barnum, and christened his creation the Church of Satan. No doubt the title was a calculated attempt to attract attention...I suppose he could have just as easily called it the Church of Free Sex. At any rate, it worked (for a while). In its heyday, the Church had a huge following, including such Hollywood celebrities as Sammy Davis, Jr. and Jayne Mansfield. (I have a picture of LaVey with Sammy, by the way.) I find the idea of a Satanist not believing in Satan about as credible as a Christian not believing in Christ. But if you include the Church of Satan, then I suppose I need to alter my definition. Webster's Dictionary and The American Heritage Dictionary will have to do the same.

I am writing a paper on religion and how it reflects and or affects modern music. This brief questionaire is summary of the questions I would like answered. A response is requested and can be mailed to me directly at: gtd259a@prism.gatech.edu *PLEASE MAIL - DO NOT POST* Thanks in advance, Matt Kressel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.) How do you feel about groups like Diecide, Slayer, and Dio who freely admit to practicing satanism and preach it in their songs? 2.) How do you feel about groups like Petra, old Stryper, Whitecross, and Holy Soldier who promote and sing about Cristianity? 3.) How do you feel about groups like Front 242, XTC, Revolting Cocks, Minor Threat, and Ministry who condone and sing about atheism? 4.) How do you feel about bands like Shelter who preach the Hare Krishna religion and other minority(but not unheard of) religions? 5.a) Do you feel there is any difference between promoting music that supports Cristianity and music that condones satanism? b) Why do you feel this way? 6.) What types of music do you listen to? 7.a) How often do you purchase music? b) How often does that music contain lyrics with undertones in religion? 8.a) Do you feel that music one listens to affects the way one views a particular religion? Religion in general? b) How does it affect the way you view your religion? All religions? 9.) FEEL FREE TO ADD ANY COMMENTS HERE

If the children are not being fed, whose fault is that? You and I have plenty of food on our tables while others starve. Why is that? God gave us this earth to manage. I don't think we're doing a very good job of it. The only consolation I have for those suffering children is that they will be received into the kingdom of Heaven where they will never thirst and never hunger again. Peace be with you, Malcolm Lee :)

I agree, with the exception that I don't preach ignoring our cultures. In Revelation 2-3, we see that in the first century church, there was one congregation in each major city. So there was one unified church. Now in each city, there were people of different cultures. Naturally, they formed something of a stew, with different members having different heritages. Nevertheless, they were ONE body. They met together, sometimes as smaller groups in their homes and sometimes in bigger groups in places such as the temple courts. Now in a particular city, then and now, you will find that there is a common language associated with that region. For instance, in Rome, Latin was spoken. In the United States today, English is spoken. So it would make sense that congregations in different cities would speak the common language and not necessarily Latin. Naturally, you would expect the lead evangelist to preach in the common language. In the first century church, there were probably many people in the congregation who could speak a given tongue to translate the message for people of foreign ethnic groups. Today, however, you don't see people speaking in tongues to translate sermons, even in so-called Pentacostal churches. We do have a modern day equivalent though -- bi-lingual speakers. Now in the unified church of which I am a member - sometimes called the International Churches of Christ, when we all meet together on Sundays, there are headphones on people who don't speak English from which they hear an ongoing translation of the sermon in their native tongue. Neat idea, huh? Now, we meet in different size groups in a random sort of way on Sundays, so sometimes there will be a meeting of only Haitians or of Spanish- speaking people, for example, who will hear an evangelist preach in their native language. In addition, we meet in small groups a couple of times during the week for Bible discussion groups and Devotionals. So someone who speaks a different language will almost always be with people who also speak his language (assuming the congregation is large enough) for those meetings. As for the people who speak the common language, they can keep in touch with their culture, if they want, but they will also have equally deep friendships among their church relationships with people of many various nationalities. The action of letting Catholics worship in a native language instead of Latin? Indeed not! See my second paragraph in response to the second clipping of your article. However, if you mean the action of forming denominations based on a culture, then the purpose of the church has been indeed thwarted. I'll assume the second possiblility when answering your next clipping. You have met some needs of people, certainly, by helping them to be proud of their cultural heritages when most denominations didn't. Yet you have largely isolated yourselves from having quality "Christian" friendships outside your nationality (and your denomination). We shall certainly give people a place to feel comfortable with their heritage. However, we will do this in a way that does not destroy church unity, but rather encourages friendships among all disciples. It sounds like these groups have wonderful intentions, but they are going about things in the wrong way. And names like the African Methodist Episcopal Church still make me cringe, although not as much as before. I understand that there was more racism in the past that caused such groups to be formed, but now we should try to unite. I know that it's hard for many people on this newsgroup to imagine there being only one body of people on earth, but it is quite possible, and I am working to make it happen. However, what might be a smaller step towards unity, would be taking the word "African" out of your denomination's name. Then perhaps someday a long time off, you can also remove the "Methodist Episcopal" part also, and simply be part of "the Church". There shall be one church, for the sake of unity, AND it shall be useful in helping students new to America make the transition in culture, language, and thought. We shouldn't make a new denomination to try to solve problems. The whole denominational mindset only causes more problems, sadly. Thank you for the invitation. That shows me that you indeed have the heart to spread the gospel of Jesus as well as take part in your cultural heritage. Thank you also for responding to my post. I know (all too well) how they can be very time-consuming. The whole idea of celebrating your culture is paved with good intentions, but I still feel that you must restore and preserve unity at the same time. My own church, the Boston church, has the acapella singing that you mentioned in your post, yet doesn't limit expression of my Mexican culture, even though I am in the MIT Campus ministry and not the Spanish (speaking) Zone. I have made a commitment to God that I will go to the Sunday services of my church, because I know that my brothers and sisters here are fully devoted in love for God as his disciples. I don't believe in tongues, as you may have already picked up on, because of my understanding of Biblical Christianity. However, I am certainly willing to visit your congregation provided that it doesn't interfere with my normal worship. Since you also live in Cambridge, I also extend an invitation to you to visit our services as often as you like. You can meet the MIT students at the Student Center (across from 77 Mass. Ave.) at 9AM on Sundays to leave for worship or simply call me after Wednesday night to find out where the service will be held on a particular day. My number is 225-7598, but will be 354-1357 in a few weeks from now and for the rest of the summer. Our service normally last from 10AM to noon, but occasionally are later or earlier (1-3 times per year). Definitely! Let's also strive to grow in obedience to the Lord through being men and women after God's own heart.

Regarding the consequences of the original sin: Catholics believe that what Adam primarily lost by his sin, for himself and the human race, was sanctifying grace. This is basically a share in the Divine life. Take a rock and make it able to talk: what God does to a human being through sanctifying grace is similar. It makes such a one able to live on a plane that is above the powers of any possible creature. This is the "everlasting life" that the New Testament speaks of. What Christ did when he came was to restore this life of sanctifying grace to the human race. He instituted the Sacraments as the means by which this life is given to people, and its increase fostered. The absence of sanctifying grace at death means automatic exclusion from Heaven. The nature of Heaven is such that it's impossible for a human being to have any part in it without the gift of sanctifying grace. To use my example, it would be like taking that rock and attempting to hold a conversation with it: rocks cannot talk. Neither can human beings live in Heaven without sanctifying grace. This all obviously applies equally well to infants or adults, since both have souls. Infants must be baptized, therefore, or they cannot enter into Heaven. They too need this form of life in them, or they cannot enter into Heaven. Turning it around, infant baptism is good supporting evidence for the Catholic belief in sanctifying grace. Unless Baptism causes some change in an infant's soul, there is no particular reason to insist on the practice. Yet infant Baptism was probably practiced by the Apostles themselves, and was *certainly* part of the Church shortly thereafter.

[text deleted] [text deleted] Thank you very much Paul. I have always been impressed by the very human-ness of Mary. That God chose a woman, like me, to bring into this world the incarnation of Himself proves to me that this God is MY God. He reaches down from His perfection to touch me. Ah, the wonder of it all :-)

So do other parts of the Bible when taken literally - i.e. the Psalms saying the Earth does not move, or the implication the Earth is flat with four corners, etc. The Bible was written to teach salvation, not history or science. What ones? Paryers for the dead or the intercession of saints? (Which are taught in 2 Maccabees, Sirach, and Tobit) By your own subjective judgement. This falling short is your judgement, and you are not infallible - rather the Church of Jesus Christ is (see 1 Timothy 3.15). More subjective feelings. This is not a proof of anything more than one persons feelings. As I have written time and again, the Hebrew canon was fixed in Jamnia, Palestine, in 90 AD. 60 years after the foundation of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Furthermore, the opinons of Jerome do not count. He was neither the Church, or the Pope, or an ecumenical council, or a council in general, or an insturment of the Magisterium of the Church. He was a private individual, learned admittedly, but subject to erro of opinion. And in exlcuding the deuterocanon, he erred, as Pope Damsus, and the Council of Carthage, and the tradition of the Fathers, clearly shows, as I pointed out in my previous post. I suggest you take heed of the last part of the statement, if you want to take it in the sense you are taking it, that taking away from the book will cause you to lose heaven. The order of the Canon is unimportant, it is the content that matters. None of Jesus' statments exlcude the deuterocanon, which were interspersed throughout the canon. And remeber, there are some completely undisputed books, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiatses, Song of Songs, Job, etc. that are not quoted in the New Testament, which is not taken as prejudicial to their being inspired.

: At the risk of beginning a cascade, I'll start with a possibly cheesy : good 'ol Uhmericun: : "Our shield is freedom" Or, considering what our government has been doing for the past 50 years, perhaps this would be more appropriate: "100% Debt" --

This morning on CNN (tues April 27), Texas Cops say Arson is suspected because of two falsh points. CNN also stated that _all_ surviors claim the fires are FBI set. Your argument are made-up, untrue and unverified at best. The day of the attack the FBI claimed to have seen two BD'ers setting the fire outside of the compound. Yesterday, the arson squad said two flash points at the or near the tank entry points Not good evidence for the FBI hit squad. is there a difference between thinking that you won't survive a confrontation with the FBI (parnoia?) and committing suicide? No, claimed by the escapees not contradicted What I'm finding interesting is the conflicting reports. FBI says that bodies have been found with bullet wounds and the Texas Cornuers (sp) says that they haven't yet found any bullet holes..

Hypostasis [I've explained it here before. If you want the full document, ask me by mail --Rex] "Questions arise as we begin to think about LOGOS and what His inner consciousness was composed of. We need to clarify the two natures of Christ briefly. The divine nature, which has existed eternally, did not undertake any essential changes during the incarnation which would cause a conflict with the attributes of God, the foremost of these being His immutability. This would mean that it remained impassable, that is, incapable of suffering and death, free from ignorance and insusceptible to weakness and temptation. In the realm of the divine nature it is better to say that the Son of God became that which was not absolute-and in Himself. The result of the incarnation was that the divine LOGOS could be ignorant and weak, could be tempted and suffer and die, not in His divine nature, but by the derivation of His possession of a human nature. This would mean that both the properties of the divine nature and the human nature are properties of the person, and therefore ascribed to the person. By this reason we can say that the person can be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, yet at the same time be also a man of limited power, knowledge, a man of sorrows, subject to human wants and miseries. There is, however, no penetration of one nature into the other. Deity can no more share the imperfections of humanity than humanity can share in the essential perfection of the Godhead. We are not to assume that there is a double personality due to the possession of the double natures. Christ's human nature is impersonal, in that it attains self-consciousness and self-determination in the personality of the God-man. We must now differentiate between the person and the nature of the Man. Nature is defined: "the distinguishing qualities or properties of something; the fundamental character, disposition or temperament of a living being, innate and unchangeable." Nature is then, in essence, the substance possessed in common, in as such the Trinity have one nature. There is also a common nature of mankind. Personality, on the other hand, is the separate subsistence of nature, with the power of consciousness and will. It is for this reason that the human nature of Christ has not, nor ever had, a separate subsistence, that it is impersonal. LOGOS, the God-man, represents the principle of personality. It is equally important to see that self-consciousness and self-determination do not, as such, belong to the nature. It is for this reason that we can justifiably say that Jesus did not have two consciousness or two wills, but rather one. It is theanthropic, an activity of the one personality which unites in itself the human and the divine natures, being that neither the consciousness nor the will are simply human or simply divine." [The quotation given above is not identified, and it's not entirely clear to me what position Loren is taking on it. Just for clarity, let me note that the view expressed in it is one of the classic Christological heresies -- monothelitism. That's the position that Christ's two natures were not complete, in that there was only one will. In most cases (which I think includes this example), it was the human will that was regarded as missing. Normally people who talk about Christ's human nature as being "impersonal" mean it in a somewhat more abstract sense. That is, they are using "person" as hypostatis, not in the usual English sense of personality. In this use, the doctrine is called "anhypostasia". Personally I think anhypostasia is just a more sophisticated way of denying that the Logos took on humanity fully. However it has never been formally ruled a heresy, and in fact has been held by influential theologians both ancient and modern (e.g. Athanasius). But the quotation above appears to be going farther than even Athanasius went, into the realm of the overtly heretical.

[....] Thanks Jon. I had forgotten about the 1912 and 1927 invasions (if I had ever learned of them. I mean I *really* forgot!) But I read the context as more recent, such as when the Sandinistas were expecting an "imminent" invasion from the U.S. which never happened. I stand corrected. Thanks. I remembered this one. This one and Bush's invasion were the two I mentioned above. Good ol' Teddy R.-- he knew how to get things done! Regards,

Ad hominem, sarcastic innuendo? Absolutely. Forgotten? Hardly. Bored? Not really. I try not to confuse "life on a.a." with life. I just can't overcome the urge to tease/taunt folks who bound FAQ-less onto a.a. with such a chip on their shoulder. To listen to you, one might think we belonged to some church! I appreciate the patience of others who questioned your posting on a line-by-line content basis, though it's hard to know what impact that might have had, as compared to, say, "shovelling". I think I only lamented that, whatever the initial satisfactions, past a certain point circular abuse-heaping was just that. Sincere questions: Why are you here? What are you looking for?

The problem with this view is that the topic under discussion in this passage *is* marriages that were performed on earth. Jesus' words seem to me to indicate that He regards His response as the answer to their question about which earthly marriage would be valid after the resurrection. This being the case, the most straightforward interpretation, in my opinion, is that marriage does not exist in the next life because those who are raised are of a different nature than what we are now. Other- wise, why would Jesus offer "but are like the angels in heaven" as a contrast to the idea of the resurrected marrying and being given in marriage? We do not have angel-like natures now, but someday we shall, and when we do, our earthly marriages will be irrelevant. Or at least, that's what I think Jesus is saying about the post-resurrection validity of marriages performed on earth. Your mileage may vary. :)

How can you tell for sure? Three days haven't passed yet. -- Steve Bittrolff

= In article <1993Apr21.231552.24869@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, = = Hmm, it seems that this is the core of Christianity then, you = have to feel guilty, and then there's this single personality = that will save you from this universal guilt feeling. = = Brian, I will tell you a secret, I don't feel guilty at all, = I do mistakes, and I regret them, however I've never had this = huge guilt feeling hanging over my shoulder. I will tell you another secret. I get this burning sensation in my hand every time I hold it over a candle. The pain does not fill my entire body, and I'm told the longer I hold it here, the less it'll hurt (it'll eventually burn up the nerves, or so I'm told). So I suppose I should just ignore the pain, because holding my hand over the candle is something I just want to do. I've got the right, don't I? Your body feels pain to let you know something is wrong. It's your body's alarm system informing you that something needs your attention. A fever tells you that you are sick, and need some sort of care. Guilt can be seen as that "emotional or spiritual" alarm, just informing you that there is something that you've done that "requires your attention". It doesn't require a "personality type" to become a believer. It requires someone who is willing to listen to themselves, their body & soul. = All I know is that I don't know everything. And frankly speaking = I don't care, life is fun anyway. I recognize that I'm not = perfect, but that does not hinder me from have a healthy = and inspiring life. For several years all I knew is I really liked dropping 'cid (LSD). Frankly speaking, I didn't really care. It was fun anyway. It didn't matter that every child my wife and I want to have are at a *tremendously* greater risk of serious birth defects. For several years all I knew is I really liked having sex with as many women as I could convice. Frankly speaking, I didn't care. I didn't care that I was putting each one of them at risk (as well as their future partners). It didn't matter that for the first decade of my marriage, my wife and I will have the worry that possibly that last sneeze meant something *much* worse than a cold. = = There are humans that subscribe to the same notion. The nice = thing is that when you finally shake off this huge burden, = the shoulders feel far more relaxed! The nice thing about pain killers, if you take enough, you won't care about the fever, shortness of breath or pain.

Maybe you should dig a little further Charles. Hislop's scholarship was accepted by the Bristish Oriental Institute which, at the time, was the premere Institute for Oriental studies. As I've stated over and over, I've checked out about 25% of his references (most are now out of print or in private libraries) and the likes of Wilkerson and Layard hold their own merit. THey too came to the same conclusions and if you will trouble yourself, you will find that their knowledge of the mysteries have yet to be surpassed. Both were highly honored by the British Oriental Museum. Wilkerson is known as one of the leading archeologist in the history of Egyptiology and Layard is still being refered two after 200 yrs of archeology in the Mesopotamian regions. He was recently refered to in a TIME article on Babylonian archeology. Phony scholarship is when you review their references and find that they have misquoted or misrepresented the conclusions. Hislop did not. His conclusions do not tickle the ears, that much is self evident. But to assert that his conclusions are "spurious" is without merit. He gave references to all his conclusions and as I have stated, for the last 25 years I have used his conclusions in debates at RC seminaries and brotherhoods, not to mention the individual priests and bishops that I have talked to one on one. No counter to Hislops scholarship was made. The only rebuttals were against his conclusions because they do totally undermined the claims of the RCC. He was showing that the intitution of the RCC was based on the mysteries (which others have shown even to this day in various articles and topics). THe tongues movement in Corinth was a direct result of the mysteries entering into the church. If it was so in Corinth, why could they not have an influence in Rome, the city of seven hills? Also, you do not have to listen to his conclusions, you can draw your own conclusions by looking at the customs, artifacts, the cerimonial dress, the docrine of purgatory, etc from the vantage of the mysteries. You don't even have to be a believer to see the parallels. Just one example. THe mitre. Where did it come from? Why is it shaped the way it is? What are the two tails that hang down the back represent? Was this an ancient head dress from an earlier culture and why was it in Rome at the time of the beginnings of the church of the State of Rome? Does it have pagan history behind it, and if so, why did the RCC chose regardless? Any lay person of middle eastern religion can answer these questions. Even the scriptures themselves refer to it. All Hislop did was collect the information from all the various sources and put them in one binding. There is no lack of scholorship in that. Please tell me why you discredit this man by your accusation, yet present no evidence supporting it.

This thread si starting to get really silly. Such nonsense do not belong in s.r.c and it really hurts me to read some of the posts on this issue. We chose to believe whetever we want, but we are not allowed to define our own Christianity. we see in parts. If you see something that I do not see, or vice versa, it does not give me the right to play jokes on your belief! There is no wonder that your "miracle" does not work. You designet it yourself, and even if you were able to collect a group of people like the one you describe, I see no reason why your "miracle" should really happen. God is the one who does miracles, not humans! After all we are all on the same way, or at least, we are all headed for the same goal, following different paths. Remember that we are going to spend eternity together. If I can not stand your view here on earth, how can I possibly stand spending eternity together with you? Tongues is a question of belief. Not wether you believe in Jesus, but if you believe that He is able to give you this gift. Just as any other of the gifts mentioned in the Bible. But there is no evidence in the Bible that people who do not accept these gifts are in any way better than others. Maybe some of the people who have received spiritual gifts are more interested in glorifying themselves than glorifying God, I don't know. But if this is the case, it still does not suggest that the gifts are faked. In the Bible you will find that Jesus did not always do miracles. He said that "I do nothing, except what my father tells me." Perhaps it woulkd be for the best of all if we where all able to live by that example! In Him, Bjorn

As St. Augustine said, "I did not invent original sin, which the Catholic faith holds from ancient time; but you, who deny it, without a doubt are a follower of a new heresy." (De nuptiis, lib. 11.c.12)]

The following was published in the May 15th Rocky Mountain News. I guess I have some REAL ethical problems with the practices at this church. I understand that Baptism is an overriding factor. I also understand that this is not an honest way to proceed. Unfortunately, this is becoming more typical of congregations as the Second Coming is perceived to approach. There is a real element of disparation in this 'make it happen at any cost' style of theology. I wonder where TRUST IN THE LORD fits into this equation? Baptisms draw parents' ire -- Children at church carnival in Springs told they'd be killed by bee stings if they didn't submit to religious rite. By Dick Foster -- Rocky Mountain News Southern Bureau Colorado Springs -- Outraged parents say their children were lured to a church carnival and then baptixed without their permission by a Baptist minister. Doxens of children, some as young as 8 years old and unaccompanied by their parents, thought they were going to a carnival at the Cornerstone Baptist Church, where there would be a big water fight, free balloons, squirt guns and candy. Before that May 1 carnival was over, however, children were whisked into a room for religious instruction and told they should be baptized. In many cases they consented, although they or their families are not of the Baptist faith. The baptisms by the church have angered many parents, including Paulette Lamontagne, a Methodist and mother of twin 8-year-old girls who were baptized without her knowledge or consent. 'My understnading was they were going to a carnival. I feel that's a false pretense,' said Lamontagne. Her daughters said the minister told them they would be killed by bee stings if they were not baptized. Cornerstone church officials defended their actions. 'We take our instructions from the word of God and God has commanded us to baptize converts. No one can show me one passage in the Bible where it says that parental permission is required before a child is baptized,' said Dan Irwin, associate pastor of the Cornerstone Baptist Church. Church officials did not tell parents their children would be baptized because 'they didn't ask,' Irwin said. Many other parents also felt they were simply sending their children to a carnival at the invitation of their children's friends who were members of the Cornerstone Church. Police said chhurch officials had broken on laws in baptizing the children, but indicated the parents could pursue civil action. ------------------------------------------- Aren't these the same behaviors we condemn in the Hari Krishnas and other cults? [I think the issues are more complex than the newspaper account mentions. First, I'm not entirely sure that parental consent is absolutely required. This would be extremely difficult, because of the clear commandment to obey parents. But if an older child insisted on being baptized without their parents' consent, I might be willing to do it. However this would be a serious step, and would warrant much careful discussion. The problem I find here is not so much parental consent as that there was nobody's consent. Whether you believe in infant baptism or not, baptism is supposed to be the sign of entry into a Christian community. If there isn't a commitment from *somebody*, whether parent or child, and no intent to become part of the Church, the baptism appears to be a lie. Furthermore, it is likely to raise serious practical problems. What if the child is from a baptist tradition? Normally when he reaches the age of decision, he would be expected to make a decision and be baptized. But he already has been, by a church claiming to be a Baptist church. So does he get rebaptized? Neither answer is really very good. If not, he's being robbed of an experience that should be very significant to his faith.

That's fascinating. I take it that you're expressing skepticism at the idea that those ignorant savages could have influenced the Constitution of the people who stole their continent. You could be right, but it sounds plausible to me. Is there any reason that you dismiss it out-of-hand? Here's some more: Recent scholarship has shown that in the mid-1700s Indians were not only invited to participate in the deliberations of our "founding fathers," but that the Great Binding Law of the Iroquois Confederacy arguably became the single most important model for the 1754 Albany Plan of Union, and later the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. That this would be absent from our school texts, and from history, and from media is not surprising given the devotion Americans feel to our founding myth: Great men gathered to express a new vision that has withstood the test of time. If it were revealed that Indians had a role in it, imagine the blow to the American psyche. ... By 1754, when most of these men and others gathered to creat the Albany Plan of Union, the first try at confederation, they invited forty-two members of the Iroquois Grand Council to serve as advisors on confederate structures. Benjamin Franklin freely acknowledged his interest in the Iroquois achievement in a famous speech at Albany Congress: "It would be a strange thing...if six nations of ignorant savages[sic] should be capable of forming such a union and be able to execute it in such a manner that it has subsisted for ages and appears indissoluble, and yet that a like union should be impractical for ten or a dozen English colonies." According to Grinde, Franklin convened meetings of Iroquois chiefs and congressional delegates in order to "hammer out a plan that he acknowedged to be similar to the Iroquois Confederacy." Grinde is Professor Donald Grinde,Jr., of the University of California at Riverside whose book _The Iroquois and the Founding Fathers of the American Nation_ addresses this issue.

Um, I think you and the Bible are the ones inside the wall. There's a really wonderful world out here. You really should peek out at it sometime. The silly things you keep saying only reinforce the fact that we *are* on opposite sides of a very high wall. I see how incredibly beautiful things are on my side, and I only keep telling you about it because I'd like to you come join me here. I never said that. I said that I would PREFER to cease to exist than to be tossed into any god's version of Hell. You say to me, "Brian, come up here and take a look from this vantage point." But you're in a valley, looking at a crayon drawing of a sun and a tree, and I can't for the life of me figure out why you're so immersed in it. *I*'m the one trying to get you to come up HERE, don't you see?

just a point, i suppose, if open mind means believing anything can be true or we can't for sure know what is definitely true, i'm happy to not be open minded. if, however, open mindedness means being respectful and tolerant towards other beliefs, respecting the rights and intelligence and wisdom of people of other beliefs and giving equal time to alternative ideas, i try my very best to be open minded. just a thot in passing.... :) not being married, i cannot say too much to you, but from my perspective having mutually exclusive faiths would be a big enough roadblock for me in considering marrying someone. making it much bigger than it is? i suppose that depends on how serious each of you is in your beliefs. lukewarm atheists and christians for whom religion is of nominal importance probly would feel the issue isn't very big. i suppose the more important your beliefs are to each of you, the more important the issue is.

.. ... It sounds like she has a problem. She has a problem opening up to her husband so she is lesbian. WHAT? In a marrige, a couple is supposed to open up to each other. Because she didn't feel comfortable opening up to her husband she gets a divorce and comes to the conclusion that she is lesbian. Before anyone gets maried they should make sure that they would feel comfortable "open up the deepest part of her soul to her husband". "Sex, in her mind, is only a part of the whole relationship." Did she think it was diffrent with a man. That might be her problem.

Ezek 22:26 God seems to be upset with the priests who have made no difference between the holy and the profane. This brought to my mind a sermon I heard recently in which the speaker said "God's second name does not begin with a D" referring, I believe, to use of God's holy name and titles as swear words. I was also reminded of the experience of Moses at the burning bush when God told him "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground." These and other texts seem to imply that God's people must treat holy things differently from other "common" things, or "make a difference" between holy and common things. The obvious questions are What makes something holy? and How are Christians (primarily) supposed to make this difference between holy and common things? (e.g. God's name, the Holy Spirit, the Holy Bible, etc.)

Welcome to the Peace Run You're invited to join in a Global Relay Run... and help light the Way. ---- Why the Peace Run ---- There's a new spirit in the Nineties: a spirit of oneness, a growing belief in the possibility of true global peace. The goal of the Sri Chinmoy Oneness-Home Peace Run is simple: to bring this spirit forward in a concrete way, to transform it into a reality in their own lives. Every other year, thousands of men, women and children from more than 70 nations - passing a flaming Peace Torch from hand to hand - join together in a relay run that virtually circles the globe. Transcending political and cultural boundaries, they go from nation to nation - across mountains, jungles and deserts - carrying the message of brotherhood to all humankind. Each person who holds or runs with the Peace Torch lights a path for those who follow. Each time the Peace Torch changes hands, the flame of oneness burns a little brighter - until one day it will shine in the hearts and minds of every individual on earth. ---- Making History ---- The three Peace Runs since 1987 have achieved some historic break- throughs: in the Middle East, a landmark run crossed the Egyptian- Israeli border; in Europe, a precedent-setting run linked Eastern and Western Europe with Russia; in the United States, Mexico and Canada, entire cities were dedicated to the cause of world peace; and in Poland, the Peace Torch was blessed by Pope John Paul II. ---- Speaking as One: World ---- ---- Leaders, Celebrities - and You ---- The Peace Run has won the support of leaders the world over - Presidents, Prime Ministers, religious leaders, sports figures and entertainment personalities. Its message has spread to a half billion people though newspaper reports, magazine articles and radio and TV broadcasts, including specials on PBS, MTV and NBC's Today Show. reconciliation. The world must know that God wants us to live amicably as brothers and sisters, members of one family, the human family, God's family." - Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Prize Winner ---- How It All Works ---- Peace Run 1993 started with a five-borrough relay in New York City on Saturday April 17, converging at various points to lead up to the opening ceremony outside the United Nations Dag Hammarskjold Building. There, runners from around the world were gathered for the fourth lighting of the Peace Torch. From there, Peace Torches are now being transported to over seventy countries for a series of concurrent international or cross-country relay runs including the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, Russia and Eastern and Western Europe. Smaller runs will take place in the Philippines, Mexico, Israel, South America, Egypt and elsewhere in Africa. Distance to be covered: 31,000 miles. the minds of those who support, participate in, witness, or hear about the event." - Carl Lewis, Six-Time Olympic Gold Medalist ---- Who's Behind It ---- The Peace Run is sponsored by the Sri Chinmoy Marathon Team, an international running organization that believes sports can be a powerful instrument for promoting world peace. Each year the Team puts on hundreds of athletic events, including several world-class ultramarathons, marathons and triathlons, in dozens of countries. The Peace Run itself is inspired by the global peace ambassador Sri Chinmoy, who has written and lectured extensively on peace, offered hundreds of free peace concerts and met with countless world figures to advance the cause of international harmony. The Run is managed by Peace Runs International, a non-profit organization based in the United States. ---- Take a Step For Peace ---- The Peace Runs in 1987, 1989 and 1991 attracted nearly half a million participants. We're expecting even more people to join Peace Run '93. You can also join the Run - carrying the Peace Torch a few steps, a few blocks or a few miles. Or you can come out and cheer the runners as they carry the Torch through your community. You can also join local celebrities and government officials in one of the thousands of welcoming ceremonies scheduled along the 70-nation route. Your inner support is important too. If you're a runner, each time you go out, you can dedicate your run to the cause of world peace. ---- The Next Step is Yours ---- ---- Make It One For Peace ---- For information contact: Peace Runs International 161-44 Normal Road Jamaica, NY 11432 USA tel. 718/291-6637 Fax: 718/291-6978 Peace Run Canada 2456 Agricola Street Halifax, Nova Scotia B3K 4C2 tel. 902/425-1174 Fax: 902/420-0773

This is no less logical than the assumption that if something is _not_ in the Bible, then it _must not_ be done. But I don't really think that's what he's saying anyway. See below. What about the letter to Philemon? In it Paul at least hints that a certain slave be released. Also, slavery in those times was not the same as the type of slavery we had in the U.S. I think a better comparison would be to indentured servitude. I don't really want to get into a discussion on slavery. Anyway, although it does demonstrate your point, I don't think it is relevent, because the original poster did not say that absence of specific condemenation proves something is not immoral. Back to the original poster's assertion. He is not in fact making the logical error of which you accuse him. He stated the fact that the Bible does not say that babies cannot be baptized. Also, we know that the Bible says that _everyone_ must be baptized to enter Heaven. _Everyone_ includes infants, unless there is other Scripture to the contrary, i.e. an exception. Since there is no exception listed in the Bible, we must assume (to be on the safe side) that the Bible means what it says, that _everyone_ must be baptized to enter Heaven. And so we baptize infants. To summarize, you accused the original poster of saying if something is not forbidden by the Bible, then that proves it is OK; i.e. if something cannot be disproven, it is true. He rather seemed to be asserting that since the Bible does not forbid, _you cannot prove_, using the Bible, that it is _not_ OK. There is a difference between proving whether or not something can be proven or disproven (there are theories on provability in the field of Logic, by the way) and actually proving or disproving it. The other logical error we must avoid falling into is the converse: that if something cannot be proven, then it is false. This seems to be the error of many _sola scriptura_ believers. I think the only thing that can be proven here is that one cannot use Scripture alone to prove something either way about infant Baptism, although the evidence seems to me to favor it.

What is the proper way to dispose of old blessed palms? I`ve have a bunch that I`ve been holding onto. In addition, my mom has been giving me her's. I used to give them to my uncle who would burn them (and leave the ashes to seep into the ground). Should I do the same? Could I just bury them? Could I add them to my compost bin? Thanks in advance.

>By the way, news.announce.newusers has an article (can't remember which >one) that recommends reading a newsgroup for 1 month before posting. >This makes sense because you get an idea who the players are and what >the current discussions are about. >Am I the only one who followed that advice? No, I spent a month just reading, too, mainly because I did not know much about the way atheists think. I even printed out the FAQs and discussed it with a friend before I started posting. Alt.atheism deals with religious issues (more appropriately, lack of religious beliefs), which are by their very nature very controversial. It makes sense to read what is being discussed and how just to make sure you are not repeating something others have said better. Petri

How come noone mentions Eric Hoffer when talking about fanatic behavior anymore?

I am pleased to announce that a *revised version* of _The Easy-to-Read Book of Mormon_ (former title: _Mormon's Book_) by Lynn Matthews Anderson is now available through anonymous ftp (see information below). In addition to the change in title, the revised ETR BOM has been shortened by several pages (eliminating many extraneous "that's" and "of's"), and many (minor) errors have been corrected. This release includes a simplified Joseph Smith Story, testimonies of the three and eight witnesses, and a "Words-to-Know" glossary. As with the previous announcement, readers are reminded that this is a not-for-profit endeavor. This is a copyrighted work, but people are welcome to make *verbatim* copies for personal use. People can recuperate the actual costs of printing (paper, copy center charges), but may not charge anything for their time in making copies, or in any way realize a profit from the use of this book. See the permissions notice in the book itself for the precise terms. Negotiations are currently underway with a Mormon publisher vis-a-vis the printing and distribution of bound books. (Sorry, I'm out of the wire-bound "first editions.") I will make another announcement about the availability of printed copies once everything has been worked out. FTP information: connect via anonymous ftp to carnot.itc.cmu.edu, then "cd pub" (you won't see anything at all until you do). "The Easy-to-Read Book of Mormon" is currently available in postscript and RTF (rich text format). (ASCII, LaTeX, and other versions can be made available; contact dba@andrew.cmu.edu for details.) You should be able to print the postscript file on any postscript printer (such as an Apple Laserwriter); let dba know if you have any difficulties. (The postscript in the last release had problems on some printers; this time it should work better.) RTF is a standard document interchange format that can be read in by a number of word processors, including Microsoft Word for both the Macintosh and Windows. If you don't have a postscript printer, you may be able to use the RTF file to print out a copy of the book. -r--r--r-- 1 dba 1984742 Apr 27 13:12 etrbom.ps -r--r--r-- 1 dba 1209071 Apr 27 13:13 etrbom.rtf For more information about how this project came about, please refer to my article in the current issue of _Sunstone_, entitled "Delighting in Plainness: Issues Surrounding a Simple Modern English Book of Mormon." Send all inquiries and comments to: Lynn Matthews Anderson 5806 Hampton Street Pittsburgh, PA 15206

To the media, "religion" and "cult" have about the same relative connotations as "government" and "terrorist group".

Some years ago -- possibly as many as five -- there was a discussion on numerology. (That's where you assign numeric values to letters and then add up the letters in words, in an effort to prove something or another. I can never make any sense of how it's supposed to work or what it's supposed to prove.) Somebody posted a long article about numerology in the Bible, saying things like "this proves the intricate planning of the Scriptures, else these patterns would not appear". Then there was a brilliant followup, which was about numerology in all the other numerology posts. Stuff like "The word `numerology' adds up to 28, and the word appears 28 times in the posting! Such elegant planning! Further, the word `truth' ALSO adds up to 28; the writer is using these numerological clues to show us that we reach truth via numerology!" (These examples are made up by me just as examples.) I really liked that reply, because it did such an excellent job of showing that these patterns can be found in just about anything. However, I did not save a copy of it. I do not remember the author. I'm only 90% sure that it was posted to this newsgroup. BUT, on the off chance that somebody remembers it and saved it, or that the author is reading here, I wanted to know if anyone could send me a copy. (I think it should be made into an FAQ, if we can find it.)

Its just variation within a thread. The variation at times has been so great that speciation has occurred. So Albert Sabin is the common ancestor of several threads, some of which have themselves speciated. On a separate topic, I subscribed to t.o. just recently. Albert Sabin existed at that time, so I have no clue as to its origins. Maybe the abiogenesists have an answer. I might also point out that evolution is aimless. Thus why Albert Sabin evolved into a religious discussion is probably unexplainable.

I don't see how this logically follows. True enough, Mary received a blessing beyond any granted in all the history of humanity by being privileged to be the mother of the Savior. It says nothing about Mary needing to be a "blessed person" _first_ in order that she might thereby be worthy to bear the Son of God. Again, I think the problem is that as humans we can't comprehend how the sinless Incarnation could spring from sinful human flesh and God's Spirit. Rather than simply accept the gracious miracle of God, we must needs try to dope out a mechanism or rationale as to how this could be. Mary's own words, "...my spirit rejoices in God _my Savior_, for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden,..." sound like the words of a human aware of her own humanity, in need of a Savior, similar to what David proclaimed in his psalms...not the words of a holy being with no further need for God's grace. I really apologize for harping on this, I don't suppose it's important. It's just that I see Mary and Joseph and the Baby reduced to placid, serene figurines I feel we lose the wonder in the fact that God chose to come down to you and I, to be born of people like you and I, to share our existence and redeem us from it's fallenness by his holy Incarnation.

I've heard that in California they ask you to swear without any mention of a god. What states actually include "god" in the courtroom oath?

"We however, shall be innocent of this sin, and will pray with earnest entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the numbers of His elect." -St. Clement, Bishop of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, 59.2, (c. 90 AD) "Ignatius also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia, which is worthy of all felicitation, blessed as it is with greatness by the fullness of God the Father, predestined from all eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen in true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God..." -St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians, Address, (c 110 AD) "We say therefore, that in substance, in concept, in orgin and in eminece, the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, gathering as it does into the unity of the one faith which results from the familiar covenants .... those already chosen, those predestined by God who knew before the foundation of the world that they would be just." -St. Clement, Patriarch and Archbishop of Alexandria, Miscellanies, 7.17.107.3, (c 205 AD) Of course the doctrine was explained more fully later on by Sts. Augustine, Aquinas, etc., but the seeds were ther from the beginning. I think you are reading it wrong. I say those who are not saved are not saved on account of their own sins. It is not because God did not give them sufficient grace, for He does do so, in His desire that all men might be saved. However, as only some are saved - and those who are saved are saved by the grace of God, "not by works, lest any man should boast" - the others are damned because of their obstinacy in refusing to heed the call of God. They are damned by their own free will and chosing, a choice forseen by God in His causing them to be not predestined, but reprobated instead. Certainly God does not distribute grace evenly. If He did, no one could have their heart hardened (or rather, harden their heart, thus causing God to withdraw His grace). But, you are correct - the world is divided into those who God knows to be saved, and those God knows to be on the road to perdition. THe key is that God knows it and we do not. Thus, no one can boast in complete assurance that they are one of the elect and predestined. But no one who is a Christian in good standin should doubt their salvation either (that shows a lack of trust in God). You must admit it is possible. Anyway, why would you want something in the hear and know, when you can recieve 100 fold in heaven? Better to lay up your treasure in heaven is what Jesus said. This is not to condemn the rich, but simply to point out that those who are rich are frequently very evil or immoral, so God must give them their blessing know, as they have chosen. Remeber, Jesus promised tribulation in this world, and hatred of others because we are Christians. He did not promise heaven on earth. He promised heaven. Not really. Unless you do penance here on earth, you will have to do it in Purgatory, as Paul pointed out (1 Corinthians 3.15). Those with poorer works, though still done with good intentions, will only be saved through fire (the damned will of course go into fire immeadiately, for whatever good they did was not for God but for self (dead works)). Of course, the Church gives indulgences, has Confession, and Annointing of the Sick to remove sin and the the vestiges of sin, so there is really little excuse for ending up in Purgatory - it is a last hope for the somewhat lazy and careless as I said above in referring to Paul. And no comments were taken as flames. You are one of the more polite people I have talked to over the net. Andy Byler

Are you so ignorant that you have never heard of _Archaeopteryx_? The special creation "theory" is nothing but holes. Please show me a species poofed into existence by your god. I have never seen this.

Jeremiah: 25:27 Therefore thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Drink ye, and be drunken, and spue, and fall, and rise no more, because of the sword which I will send among you. 25:28 And it shall be, if they refuse to take the cup at thine hand to drink, then shalt thou say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ye shall certainly drink.

Wow, look at alllthe pretty puddles!!!! Jimmy crack koan, and I don't care, Jimmy crack koan and i don't care, Jimmy crack Koan and i don't care, Zen Master's gone away.....

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.

Andy Byler writes on the Biblical basis for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception: + I will put enmity between you [the Serpent] and the woman, and + between your seed and her seed, she [can also be read he] shall + crush your head and you shall bruise her [or his] heel. + -Genesis 3.15 + He who commits sin is of the devil ... -1 John 3.8 + Hail, full of grace [greek - kecharitomene], the Lord is with + thee ... -Luke 1.28 In the Hebrew of Genesis 3:15, the gender is clearly masculine. + HE shall crush your head, and you shall bruise HIS heel. The Latin has feminine forms, only by an accident of grammar. Andrew stated that KECHARITOMENE means not just "full of grace" but "having a plenitude or perfection of grace." The word is used elsewhere in the New Testament only in Ephesians 1:6 + Unto the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he hath + GRACED us in his beloved Son. (Rheims-Douay translation) I cannot find any indication in my dictionary that the verb implies anything as strong as Andrew suggests, nor does the Ephesians passage suggest that the verb means "to preserve from any taint of original or actual sin from the first moment of existence." I should like to see a comment on the meaning of the verb, preferably not from s writer who is discussing Luke 1:28 at the moment.

#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...!) ?? # #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? 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. # #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...? Dear Joakim, let me begin by saying that these are excellent questions, but that by asking, you will find as many different explanations as there are respondents. As a Latter-day Saint, I believe that all of us (you, me, etc.) lived once as spirit-children of God the Father (Hebrews 12:9) in the pre-mortal existance. In order to continue our eternal progression, an earthly probationary time was required. (To live by faith, not by sight, to choose good over evil, and to prepare ourselves in all things to become worthy of a higher order of existance.) We believe that all of God's spirit-offspring were once assembled to discuss the specifics of this earthly sojourn. One-third chose for Lucifer's plan, most followed the Firstborn (the pre-mortal Jesus Christ). Lucifer's aspirations ("I will exalt my throne above the stars of God . . ." Isaiah 14:12-17, etc.) resulted into the rebellion of his followers against the Firstborn and those who followed Him, resulting in the casting out of Lucifer (who became Satan, the father of lies) and one-third of the hosts of heaven ("And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth . . ." Revelation 12:4) as demons (evil spirits). To get back on OUR choice to be born on this earth, and to be subject to God and His plan (for good or bad, based upon our obedience and choices), we made that choice individually. (God speaking to Job: "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth, . . . when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38:4-7). We lost the knowledge of our pre-mortal existance (the "Veil of Forgetful- ness," somewhere in Psalms), in order to live by faith, not by sight. You may not accept this scenario, neither do quite a few who rely on the Bible alone, which offers only fragmentary insights into this particular aspect of our existence as individuals, as sons and daughters of God. #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? # #Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. (All Christians, by definition, ARE a flock of sheep, following the Shepherd as they understand Him ;-) --But in any event, not all Christians believe in the same theology, such as the one Latter-day Saints believe in. (They will cry "heresy" and other accusations of "perverting" the doctrines of the Bible, while they themselves believe in a myriad of interpretations, as found in their catechisms and various do-it-yourself Bible-study manuals...) As for me, I have a personal conviction that the pre-existance scenario as explained above, is most in harmony with Biblical doctrine, some Dead Sea Scroll books, the pseudographion, other (Jewish) sources, and last but not least, modern-day revelation on the subject. #I just want to point out that this is not sarcasm, I mean it. # # How should one deal with a man who is convinced that # he is acting according to God's will, and who there- # Jokke fore believes that he is doing you a favour by # stabbing you in the back? # # -Voltaire

bobbe@vice (Robert Beauchaine;6086;59-323;LP=A;YAyG) Pontificated: I would guess that you either mean that you don't have a problem swearing aligance to a non-existant being or that you are being deliberatily dense (considering what group this is). It doesn't come "quite naturally" to nonbelievers such as myself or even to followers of other religions. Would you say it would be quite natural if you were forced to swear by "Allah" or "Budda"?

But if He/She did you would probably consider it rape. Obviously there are many Christians who have tried and do believe. So .. ? No one asks you to swallow everything, in fact Jesus warns against it. But let me ask you a question. Do you beleive what you learn in history class, or for that matter anything in school. I mean it's just what other people have told you and you don't want to swallow what others say. right ... ? The life , death, and resurection of Christ is documented historical fact. As much as anything else you learn. How do you choose what to believe and what not to? I could argue that George Washington is a myth. He never lived because I don't have any proof except what I am told. However all the major events of the life of Jesus Christ were fortold hundreds of years before him. Neat trick uh?

I think that's an insightful comment. Especially when at the same time we have people like Bill "Projector" Conner complaining that we are posting parodies.

: |>You might visit some congregations of Christians, who happen to be homosexuals, : |>that are spirit-filled believers, not MCC'rs; before you go lumping us all : |>together with Troy Perry. : |> : Gee, I think there are some real criminals (robbers, muderers, drug : addicts) who appear to be fun loving caring people too. So what's : your point? Is it OK. just because the people are nice? The point is not about being "nice." "Nice" is not a christian virtue. The point is that the gifts and fruits of the spirit (by their fruits you shall know them- Mt 7:20) are manifested by and among prayerful, spirit-filled GAY christians. It was the manifestation of the spirit among the gentiles that convinced Peter (Acts 10) that his prejudice against them (based on scripture, I might add) was not in accordance with God's intentions. : I think the old saying " hate the sin and not the sinner" is : appropriate here. Many who belive homosexuality is wrong probably : don't hate the people. I don't. I don't hate my kids when they do : wrong either. But I tell them what is right, and if they lie or don't : admit they are wrong, or just don't make an effort to improve or : repent, they get punished. I think this is quite appropriate. You : may want to be careful about how you think satan is working here. : Maybe he is trying to destroy our sense of right and wrong through : feel goodism. Maybe he is trying to convince you that you know more : than God. Kind of like the Adam and Eve story. Read it and compare : it to today's mentality. You may be suprised. Of course the whole issue is one of discernment. It may be that Satan is trying to convince us that we know more than God. Or it may be that God is trying (as God did with Peter) to teach us something we don't know- that "God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him." (Acts 10:34-35).

Yes, Mary is fully human. However, that does not imply that she was just as subject to sin as we are. Catholic doctrine says that man's nature is good (Gen 1:31), but is damaged by Original Sin (Rom 5:12-16). In that case, being undamaged by Original Sin, Mary is more fully human than any of the rest of us. You ask why God cannot "repeat the miracle" of Mary's preservation from Original Sin. A better way to phrase it would be "why _did_ He not" do it that way, but you misunderstand how Mary's salvation was obtained. Like ours, the Blessed Virgin Mary's salvation was obtained through the merits of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. However, as God is not bound by time, which is His creation, God is free to apply His Sacrifice to anyone at any time, even if that person lived before Christ came to Earth, from our time-bound perspective. Therefore, Christ's Death and Resurrection still served a necessary purpose, and were necessary even for Mary's salvation.

Why don't you tell us, Tony? I'm sure what you THINK you know adds up to a lot more than what Casper has. Doesn't it frustrate you to consider how many intelligent, thoughtful people you have prepared for the Mormon missionaries with your rant? The more you talk, the better we look. Nothing makes the truth look better than a background of falsehood. Sic 'em, Tony!

-- Kevin makes a good point here, and when that theists miss all-too-often. That is, the belief in a diety is not necessarily coupled with agreement/love of that diety, so really they have yet another bit of convincing to do just beyond belief. I guess the standard argumet goes something like: well, once you believe in God, you know God is love, and you will choose to love him-- if it wasnt so widely accepted and asserted it'd be laughable... best regards, --Adam

In the hands of a defender, a .357 _is_ a miracle from God. He helps those who help themselves. Or haven't you ever heard that one before?

Now where did I put my little red book? Or was that green? Jim

This is a RFD on a proposal for a newsgroup which would promote a sharing on the "Johannine hours" as proposed each month by the monks of the ecumenical community of Taize (pronounced te-zay) in France. NAME OF PROPOSED NEWSGROUP: ========================== soc.religion.taize (Unmoderated) PURPOSE OF THE GROUP: ==================== The Taize Community is an international ecumenical community of monks based in France. Many young adults come there to search for meaning in their life and to deepen their understanding of their faith through a sharing with others. This newsgroup will allow such a sharing through a monthly "Johannine Hour" which will be posted at the beginning of each month. A "Johannine hour" involves a short commentary on a given Bible passage, followed by some questions for reflection. Any thoughts that may arise in consequence and that you wish to share with others can be posted here. We are not interested in theological debate, and even less in polemics. No expertise is required! The idea is to help one another to deepen our understanding of Scripture as it is related to our own life-journey. The idea of "Johannine hours" was born in Taize as a simple response to all those who were trying to assimilate the Bible's message in the midst of their daily life. Because of work or studies, it is often impossible to spend long hours in silence and reflection, but everyone can take an hour from time to time to enter a church, sit quietly at home or go out for a walk in the woods. There, in silence, we can meditate on a passage of Scripture to listen to the voice of Christ. During the time of silence, it is important to concentrate on what we understand and not waste time worrying if, in some Biblical expressions, we find it difficult to hear the voice of Christ. The idea is to communicate to others what we have understood of Christ, not burdening them with our own hesitations but rather telling them what has brought us joy, what has led us to run the risk of trusting more deeply. Perhaps those who read and think about the "Johannine Hours" in this newsgroup could share their reflections and discoveries with others. The important thing is the complementarity between two aspects, the personal aspect of silent, personal reflection and the communal aspect of sharing, which through Usenet makes us a part of a worldwide network. BACKGROUND OF THE TAIZE COMMUNITY: ================================= The following provides some background information on the life and vocation of the Taize (pronounced te-zay) community. "A PARABLE OF COMMUNION": August 1940, with Europe in the grip of World War II, Brother Roger, aged 25, set up home in the almost abandoned village of Taize, in Eastern France. His dream: to bring together a monastic community which would live out "a parable of community", a sign of reconciliation in the midst of the distress of the time. Centering his life on prayer, he used his house to conceal refugees, especially Jews fleeing from the Nazi occupation. AN INTERNATIONAL AND ECUMENICAL COMMUNITY: Taize's founder spent the first two years alone. Others joined him later and at Easter 1949, seven brothers committed themselves together to common life and celibacy. Year by year, still others have entered the community, each one making a lifelong commitment after several years of preparation. Today, there are 90 brothers, Catholics and from various Protestant backgrounds, from over twenty different countries. Some of them are living in small groups in poor neighbourhoods in Asia, Africa, North and South America. The brothers accept no donations or gifts for themselves, not even family inheritances, and the community holds no capital. The brothers earn their living and share with others entirely through their own work. In 1966, Sisters of Saint Andrew, an international Catholic community founded 750 years ago, came to live in the neighbouring village, to share the responsibility of welcoming people in Taize. TAIZE AND THE YOUNG; THE INTERCONTINENTAL MEETINGS: Young adults, and less young, have been coming to Taize in ever greater numbers since 1957. Hundreds of thousands of people from Europe and far beyond have thus been brought together in a common search. Intercontinental meetings take place each week, Sunday to Sunday, throughout the year and they include youth from between 35 and 60 countries during any one week. The meetings give each person the opportunity to explore the roots of their faith and to reflect on how to unite the inner life and human solidarity. The meetings in summer can have up to 6,000 participants a week. Three times every day, the brothers and everybody on the hill come together for common prayer in the Church of Reconciliation, built in 1962 when the village church became too small. "A PILGRIMAGE OF TRUST ON EARTH" The community has never wanted to create a "movement" around itself. Instead, people are called to commit themselves in their church at home, in their neighbourhood, their city or village. To support them in this, Taize has created what it calls "a pilgrimage of trust on earth". At the end of each year, the pilgrimage has a "European meeting" which brings together tens of thousands of young adults from every part of Europe for several days in a major city. There have also been meetings in Asia and in the United States. Every year, Brother Roger writes an open letter to the young. Usually completed during a stay in one of the poor regions of the world, these are translated into thirty languages and provide themes for reflexion for the following year. NOTE: Discussion on the creation of this newsgroup will take place in news.groups. For any further information contact: Brother.Roy@almac.co.uk brother.roy@almac.co.uk

Not exactly correct, but nice try. The Catholic doctrine of infallibility refers to freedom from error in teaching of the universal Church in matters of faith or MORALS. It is this teaching which is taken as doctrine.

BR> From: wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) BR> Newsgroups: alt.atheism BR> Organization: DGSID, Atlanta, GA BR> Since you have referred to the Messiah, I assume you BR> are referring to the New Testament. Please detail BR> your complaints or e-mail if you don't want to post. BR> First-century Greek is well-known and BR> well-understood. Have you considered Josephus, the Jewish BR> Historian, who also wrote of Jesus? In addition, BR> the four gospel accounts are very much in harmony. It is also well known that the comments in Josephus relating to Jesus were inserted (badly) by later editors. As for the four gospels being in harmony on the issue of Jesus... You know not of what you speak. Here are a few contradictions starting with the trial and continuing through the assension. Acts 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." Matt. 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field." Before the cock crow - Matthew 26:34 Before the cock crow twice - Mark 14:30 MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept. MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly. LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew. LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice. JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew. (This is interesting because Matthew quotes a prophesy that was never made! Not the only time he does this either...) MAT 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; zechariah 11:11-13 (nothing in Jeremiah remotely like) What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial? scarlet - Matthew 27:28 purple John 19:2 Mark says the third hour, or 9 a.m., but John says the sixth hour (noon) was when the sentence was passed. Matthew -- This is Jesus the king of the Jews Mark -- The King of the Jews Luke -- This is the king of the Jews John -- Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews vinegar - Matthew 27:34 wine with myrrh - Mark 15:23 Matthew said many stood far off, including Mary Magdaline, Mary the mother of James, and the mother of Zebedee's children. Mark and Luke speak of many far off, and Mark includes Mary Magdeline and Mary the mother of James the less. John says that Jesus's mother stood at the cross, along with her sister and Mary Magdalene. Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded u the ghost." Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." Matthew says that the veil of the temple was rent, that there was an earthquake, and that it was dark from the sixth to the ninth hour, that graves opened and bodies of the saints arose and went into Jeruselem, appearing to many (beating Jesus to the resurection). Mark and Luke speak of darkness and the veil of the temple being rent but mention no earthquake or risen saints. John is the only one who mentions Jesus's side being peirced. Matthew says the Jews asked Pilate for a guard to prevent the body from being stolen by the disciples, and for the tomb to be sealed. All of this was supposedly done, but the other gospels do not mention these precautions. Depends where you look; Matthew 12:40 gives Jesus prophesying that he will spend "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth", and Mark 10:34 has "after three days (meta treis emeras) he will rise again". As far as I can see from a quick look, the prophecies have "after three days", but the post-resurrection narratives have "on the third day". Matthew says Sunday at dawn, Mark says the sun was rising, and John says it was dark. MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. MAT 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. MAT 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: MAT 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. MAT 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. MAR 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. LUK 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. Matthew says the guard was paid to tell this story, but no other gospel makes this claim. Matthew says an angel at the tomb told the two Marys and that Jesus also told them, to tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee. The disciples then went to a mountain previously agreed opon, and met Jesus there. This was his only appearance, except to the women at the tomb. Matthew only devotes five verses to the visit with the disciples. Mark says that Jesus walked with two of the disciples in the country, and that they told the rest of the disciples, who refused to believe. Later he appeared to the 11 disciples at mealtime. Luke says two followers went, the same day that Jesus rose from the dead, to Emmaus, a village eight miles from Jeruselem, and there Jesus jioned them but was unrecognised. While they ate a meal together that evening, they finally recognised Jesus, whereopon he dissapeared. Returning at once to Jeruselem, they told the disciples of their experience, and suddenly Jesus appeared among them, frightening them, as they thought he was a spirit. Jesus then ate some fish and honey and then preached to them. John says Jesus appeared to the disciples the evening of the day he arrose, in Jeruselem, where they were hiding. He breathed the Holy Ghost opon them, but Thomas was not present and refused to believe. Eight days later Jesus joined the disciples again at the same place and this time he convinced Thomas. Once more Jesus made an appearance to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias but again was not recognised. After telling them to cast their netson the other side of the boat, Jesus becomes known to them and prepares bread and fish for them. They all eat together and converse. The book of acts further adds to the confusion. It says that Jesus showed himself to the apostles for a period of 40 days after his resurection (thus contradicting Matthew, Mark, Luke AND John) and spoke to them of things pertaining to the kingdom of God: "And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud recieved him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, two men stood by them in white apparel: Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken from you into heaven, shall so comein like manneras ye have seen him go into heaven" Acts 1:3-11 Paul outdoes every other "authority" by saying that Jesus was seen by 500 persons between the time of the resurection and the assension, although he does not say where. He also claims that he himself "as one born out of due time" also saw Jesus. 1 Cor 15:6-8. Matthew says nothing about it. Mark casually says that Jesus was recieved into heaven after he was finished talking with the disciples in Jeruselem. Luke says Jesus led the desciples to Bethany and that while he blessed them, he was parted from them and carried up into heaven. John says nothing about it. Acts contradicts all of the above. (See previous section) MAT 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. MAR 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. LUK 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. 1 thessalonians 4:15-18 1 Corinthians 15:5 (12) Matthew 27:3-5 (minus one from 12) Acts 1:9-26 (Mathias not elected until after resurrection) MAT 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2 Kings 2:11) "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man." (John 3:13) As you can see, there are a number of contradictions in the account of the trial, crucifiction and resurection of Jesus. If these are good witnesses, you would think that they could get SOME of these important details right! (In fact, I cannot find very many points on where they AGREE. You would think that they could at least agree on some of the points they were supposedly observing!) Because of the fact that there is so much contradiction and error, the story of the resurection as presented cannot be taken as literal truth. (Due to the nature of the story, I doubt if it should be taken as ANY sort of truth.)

This has troubled me for a long time and needs to be dealt with. From a long article Available through an individual on this newsgroup. About scripture being against homosexuality: ------------------------------------------ When we are less homophobic we will see that what we know as gay and lesbian people, engaging in loving, voluntary erotic relations with each other, aren't even mentioned. [in the Bible, tk] ------------------------------------------ This frightens me (not in the homophobic sense, but intellectually), especially because it was written by someone from a homosexual church. So, if my interpretation is different than theirs, I am homophobic! This can't be right. Disagreement in interpretation of the Bible and/or rejection of homosexual acts is not tantamount of homophobia.

: After reading the posts on this newsgroup for the pasts 4 months, it : has become apparent to me that this group is primarily active with : Liberals, Catholics, New Agers', and Athiests. Someone might think : to change the name to: soc.religion.any - or - perhaps even : soc.religion.new. It might seem to be more appropriate. : Heck, don't flame me, I'm Catholic, gay, and I voted : for Bill Clinton. I'm on your side! Since when did conservative, protestant, old-time religion believers get an exclusive francise to christianity? Christianity is, and always has been, a diverse and contentious tradition, and this group reflects that diversity. I, fo one, am not ready to concede to _any_ group- be they "liberal" or "conservative", catholic, protestant, or orthodox, charismatic or not- the right to claim that they have _the truth_, and everyone else is not "christian."

Gerry Palo wrote that there is nothing in Christianity that excludes the theory of a succession of lives. I wrote that the Apostle Paul, in Romans 9, speaks of God as choosing Jacob over Esau, and adds that this is not as a result of anything that either child had done, since they had not been born yet. Clearly, Paul does not believe that they had had previous lives, nor does he suppose that his readers will believe it. For if they had had previous lives, it would not make sense to say, "Neither of them has done anything good or bad as yet, since they are not yet born." Daniel Cossack writes to ask whether it is fair for God to hate Easau when Esau has done nothing bad? I reply that in Hebrew it is standard usage to speak of hating when what is meant is simply putting in second place. As an example, consider the saying in Matthew 6:24 + No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one + and love the other, or.... Now, it is obviously false that a man with two masters must hate one of them. But it is obviously true that he must put one of them in second place. A dog that always comes when either Billy or Bobby calls will have a problem if they stand in different places and call simultaneously. It cannot give first priority to both. One must take second place. In our original example, second place means that Jacob, not Esau, is chosen to bear the covenant blessing and obligation, and to be the ancestor of Christ. ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** Eugene Bigelow mentions Matthew 11:14 which says of John the Baptist: + And if ye will receive it, this is ELijah, who was to come. I take this to mean that John was an Elijah-like figure, dressing and living like Elijah, preaching like Elijah, and fulfilling the prediction that Elijah would prepare the way for the Messiah. I do not think that he was Elijah in a literal sense, and, appareently, neither did he (John 1:21).

I read an article about a poll done of students at the Ivy League schools in which it was reported that a third of the students indentified themselves as atheists. This is a lot higher than among the general population. I wonder what the reasons for this discrepancy are? Is it because they are more intelligent? Younger? Is this the wave of the future?

This is the most unmitigated bilge I've seen in a while. Jim Brown obviously has possession of the right-wing token. "In December, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told a Senate committee that sanctions were costing Iraq $100 million per day, and that the multinational coalition could take all the time in the world. Iraq, he suggested, was losing badly every day it defied the UN demands, while the community of nations won every day -- with no taking of life or loss of life." -- FCNL Washington Newsletter. Wrongful actions of murderers like leaders of the US government, perhaps? Regrettable, of course; The-Way-It-Is - certainly not. Good heavens! An escapee from Rush Limbot Land! "Conservative", my ass. BULLSHIT!!! In the Gulf Massacre, 7% of all ordnance used was "smart." The rest - that's 93% - was just regular, dumb ol' iron bombs and stuff. Have you forgotten that the Pentagon definition of a successful Patriot launch was when the missile cleared the launching tube with no damage? Or that a successful interception of a Scud was defined as "the Patriot and Scud passed each other in the same area of the sky"? And of the 7% that was the "smart" stuff, 35% hit. Again - try to follow me here - that means 65% of this "smart" arsenal missed. Prove it. I have a source that says that to date, the civilian death count (er, excuse me, I mean "collateral damage") is about 200,000. -s -- "No one has attempted to calculate the costs of an execution in Washington state, but studies elsewhere suggest it costs far more than incarceration. "California is spending more than $90 million annually on capital cases, and until this year hadn't executed anyone since 1972. Texas, the national leader in the number of executions, spends an estimated $2.3 million per execution. That compares to an average cost of incarceration in Washington state of $25,000 per maximum-security prisoner per year."

Alan> 2. We can also analyze to whom the Lord is addressing: "Marvel Alan> not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again" (John 3:7). Alan> Here Jesus is clearly directing his remarks to Nicodemus -- a Alan> ruler of the Jews (not a child). Yes, but Jesus also made a very general and doctrinal statement in the same conversation: "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." (John 3:6) Clearly infants are not born of the spirit. Thus, without baptism they are unspiritual. They are not born with the image of God, but in Adam's fallen image (cf. Gen 5:3). They have no righteousness of their own, just as adults have no righteousness of their own. There is only the imputed righteousness of Christ, which believers receive through faith. Alan> 3. We can ask ourselves why the Lord would even introduce the Alan> concept of spiritual re-birth through baptism if newborn babies Alan> weren't free from sin? Your point is a little obscure here, but I think you are saying that Christ used the "innocence" of newborn babes as a metaphor for spiritual re-birth. But this is not what he did. If you look at the text, he did not speak of spiritual re-birth but of spiritual birth. We are born of the Spirit once, not twice or several times. We are also born of the flesh once. The Lord makes it clear that these are separate and different events. It is true that other Scriptures refer to spiritual birth as re-birth because it is a second birth (for example, Titus 3:5). But it is not a second *spiritual* birth. The only thing the two births have in common is the concept of birth, which is used as a symbol of `new life' -- not of innocence. When an infant is born (or conceived) a new life is begun--but it is neither innocent nor righteous. Similarly when that same individual is baptized, or perhaps when they believe prior to baptism, they begin a new life in Christ (Romans 6:3, Colossians 2:12, Titus 3:5, Ephesians 2:5). Then the believer has God's assurance of the forgiveness of their sins, and of Christ's imputed righteousness. For references, see The Augsburg Confession Article II, Original Sin, The Apology to the Augsburg Confession, Article II, Original Sin, the Formula of Concord, Article I, Original Sin, and Luther's Large Catechism, Part 4, Baptism. For something more recent, see "Baptized into God's Family: The Doctrine of Infant Baptism" by Andrew Das, available from Northwestern Publishing House. Andrew is a graduate of Concordia Lutheran Seminary, St. Louis, and is now pursuing doctoral studies at Yale Divinity School.

Perhaps you have a different understanding of what "physics" is. If we can't measure anything objectively, then the answers we get from physics aren't objective either. That's what I mean when I say there's no objective physics. Sure, we can all agree that (say) F = GMm/r^2, but that's maths. It's only physics when you relate it to the real world, and if we can't do that objectively, we're stuck. (Of course, this displays my blatant bias towards applied science; but even theoretical physics gets applied to models of real world situations, based on real world observations.) It's an axiom that it's invariant. But if the two of us measure it, we'll get different answers. Yes, we call that experimental error, but it's not really "error" in the conventional sense; in fact, if you don't get any, that's an error :-) You could argue that the value of c is "objective, to within +/- <some value>". But I'd call that a rather odd usage of the word "objective", and it opens the way for statements like "Murder is objectively wrong for all people, to within 1% of the total population."

What is "aluminium siding"? I keep seeing references to it. Something to do with railway lines, perhaps? E-mail reply please, I'll never find it otherwise.

I have never said that only humans are the only beings which are sufficiently sentient to have intentions. In fact, I have explicitly said that I am perfectly happy to consider that some animals *are* capable of forming intentions. What I am objecting to is considering programmed or instinctive behaviour to have moral significance, since, it seems to me, such behaviour does *not* involve intention. That's not the point. The point is whether the implementor thinks *at all*. The issue is not whether thinking produces opinion A or opinion B, but whether thinking takes place, period. Since humans are part of nature, are not all human actions "natural". Or perhaps you're going to throw in a definition of "natural" that will allow us to describe some actions as "natural" and some as "not natural". If so, what is the definition? Sure they do, as multiple posters have show you. Sharks, for example, eat wounded sharks. I've personally seen cats eat their newborn. Are you in some kind of denial? People give you example after example, and you go off the air for a week, and then pop up claiming that it never happened. It's very strange. See what I mean. Here we go again. What do we have to do: write up a tailor-made FAQ just for Mr Schneider?

I'm sure all the religious types would get in a snit due to Asimov's atheism. Do we have any atheists on stamps now?

I think this should be illuminating to all. Let me make a first suggestion. When Arabic words, especially technical ones, become of use let us define them for those, especially atheists, to whom they may not be terribly familiar. Please also note that though I did initially refer to Khomeini as a heretic for what I understood to be a claim -- rejected by you since -- of personal infallibility, I withdraw this as a basis for such a statement. I conditionally retain this reference in regard to Khomeini's advocacy of the thesis of the infallibility of the so-called "Twelve Imams," which is in clear conflict with the Qur'an in that it places the Twelve Imams in a category of behavior and example higher than that of the Muhammad, in that the Qur'an shows that the Prophet was clearly fallible, as well as (it appears, given your abstruse theological statment regarding the "natures" of the Twelve Imams) placing them in a different metaphysical category than the remainder of humanity, with the possible exception of Muhammad, something which verges on the sin of association. Alaikum Wassalam,

There are exactly ZERO verses that "clearly" address the issues. The kind of interpretation I see as "incredibly perverse" is that applied to the story of Sodom as if it were a blanket equation of homosexual behavior and rape. Since Christians citing the Bible in such a context should be presumed to have at least READ the story, it amounts to slander -- a charge that homosexuality == rape -- to use that against us. The moderator adequately discusses the circularity of your use of _porneia_ in this. I think we can all agree (with Paul) that there are SOME kinds of activity that could be named by "fornication" or "theft" or "coveting" or "reviling" or "drunkenness" which would well deserve condemnation. We may or may not agree to the bounds of those categories, however; and the very fact that they are argued over suggests that not only is the matter not at all "clear" but that Paul -- an excellent rhetorician -- had no interest in MAKING them clear, leaving matters rather to our Spirit-led decisions, with all the uncomfortable living-with-other-readings that has dominated Christian discussion of ALL these areas. Homosexual behavior is no different. I (and the other gay Christians I know) are adamant in condemning rape -- heterosexual or homosexual -- and child molestation -- heterosexual or homosexual -- and even the possibly "harmless" but obsessive kinds of sex -- heterosexual or homosexual -- that would stand condemned by Paul in the very continuation of the chapter you cite [may I mildly suggest that what *Paul* does in his letter that you want to use is perhaps a good guide to his meaning?] "'I am free to do anything,' you say. Yes, but not everything is for my good. No doubt I am free to do anything, but I for one will not let anything make free with me." [1 Cor. 6:12] Which is a restatement that we must have no other "god" before God. A commandment neither I nor any other gay Christian wishes to break. Some people are indeed involved in obsessively driven modes of sexual behavior. It is just as wrong (though slightly less incendiary, so it's a secondary argument from the 'phobic contingent) to equate homosexuality with such behavior as to equate it with the rape of God's messengers. I won't deal with the exegesis of Leviticus, except very tangentially. Fundamentally, you are exhibiting the same circularity here as in your assumption that you know what _porneia_ means. There are plenty of laws prohibiting sexual behavior to be found in Leviticus, most of which Christians ignore completely. They never even BOTHER to examine them. They just *assume* that they know which ones are "moral" and which ones are "ritual." Well, I have news for you. Any anthropology course should sensitize you to ritual and clean vs. unlcean as categories in an awful lot of societies (we have them too, but buried pretty deep). And I cannot see any ground for distinguishing these bits of Leviticus from the "ritual law" which NO Christian I know feels applies to us. I'm dead serious here. When people start going on (as they do in this matter) about how "repulsive" and "unnatural" our acts are -- and what do they know about it, huh? -- it is a solid clue to the same sort of arbitrary cultural inculcations as the American prejudice against eating insects. On what basis, other than assuming your conclusion, can you say that the law against male-male intercourse in Leviticus is NOT a part of the ritual law? For those Christians who *do* think that *some* parts of Leviticus can be "law" for Christians (while others are not even to be thought about) it is incumbent on you *in every case, handled on its own merits* to determine why you "pick" one and ignore another. I frankly think the whole effort misguided. Reread Paul: "No doubt I am free to do anything." But Christians have a criterion to use for making our judgments on this, the Great Commandment of love for God and neighbor. If you cannot go through Leviticus and decide each "command" there on that basis, then your own arbitrary selection from it is simply idiosyncracy. In this context, it is remarkably offensive to say: Well, la-ti-da. So what? This is almost as slimey an argument as the one that homosexuality == rape. I know of no one who argues seriously (though one can always find jokers) in "defense" of bestiality. It is absolutely irrelevant and incomparable to the issues gay Christians *do* raise (which concern sexual activity within committed, consensual human adult realtionships), so that your bringing it up is no more relevant than the laws of kashrut. If you cannot address the actual issues, you are being bloody dishonest in trailing this red herring in front of the world. If *you* want to address bestiality, that is YOUR business, not mine. And attempting to torpedo a serious issue by using what is in our culture a ridiculous joke shows that you have no interest in hearing us as human beings. You want to dismiss us, and use the sleaziest means you can think of to do so. Jesus and Paul both expound, very explictly and in considerable length, the central linch-pin of Christian moral thought: we are required to love one another, and ALL else depends on that. Gay and lesbian Christ- ians challenge you to address the issue on those terms -- and all we get in return are cheap debate tricks attempting to side-track the issues. Christians, no doubt very sincere ones, keep showing up here and in every corner of USENET and the world, and ALL they ever do is spout these same old verses (which they obviously have never thought about, maybe never even read), in TOTAL ignorance of the issues raised, slandering us with the vilest charges of child abuse or whatever their perfervid minds can manage to conjure up, tossing out red herrings with (they suppose) great emotional force to cause readers to dismiss our witness without even taking the trouble to find out what it is. Such behavior should shame anyone who claims to have seen Truth in Christ. WHY, for God's precious sake, do you people quote irrelevant verses to condemn people you don't know and won't even take the trouble to LISTEN to BEFORE you start your condemnations? Is that loving your neighbor? God forbid! Is THAT how you obey the repeated commands to NOT judge or condemn others? Christ and Paul spend ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more time in insisting on this than the half-dozen obscure words in Paul that you are SO bloody ready to take as license to do what God tells you NOT to do. Why, for God's sake? "For God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned for refusing to believe in the name of God's only Son. Now the judgment is this: the light has come into the world, but men have preferred darkness to light because their deeds were evil. For everyone who practices wickedness hates the light, and does not come near the light for fear his deeds will be exposed. But he who acts in truth comes into the light, so that it may be sh0own that his deeds are done in God." John 3:17-21 For long ages, we (many of us) have been confused by evil counsel from evil men and told that if we came to the light we would be shamed and rejected. Some of us despaired and took to courses that probably *do* show a sinful shunning of God's light. Blessed are those whose spirits have been crushed by the self-righteous; they shall be justified. However, we have seen the Truth, and the Truth is the light of humanity; and we now know that it is not WE who fear the light, but our enemies who fear the light of our witness and will do everything they can to shadow it with the darkness of false witness against us.

[...stuff deleted...] As many posters have said in as many posts lately, this is just not true. For to show no interest in the existence of god takes no faith at all. You make the presumption that the _knowledge_ of the _possibility_ of something is enough to require faith to render that possibilty of no interest. It is a very different thing to say that you don't believe something than it is to say that you don't have sufficent reason to believe something is even interesting to think about. It's not either or. Sometimes is just something else more interesting that occupies your mind. I agree that faith and dogma are inevitable, but not necessarily applied to god and religion. It takes both faith and dogma to expect the sun to come up every morning, but there is overwhelming reason every single day, day in and day out, for _everyone_ to put his faith and dogma there. Not so with the christian religion.

Sorry, I put my foot in my mouth, concerning the church's history. It is correct to say that the Council of Hippo 393 listed the deuterocanonical books among those accepted for use in the church, and that this was ratified by the Council of Carthage, and by Pope Innoent I and Gelasius I (414 AD). "At the end of the fourth century views still differed in regard to the extent of the canon, or the number of the books which should be acknowledged as divine and authoritative. The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and the cannot be therefore regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the aposteles." "In the Western church the canon of both Testaments was closed at the end of the fourth century through the authority of Jerome (who wavered, however, between critical doubts and the principle of tradition), and more especially of Augustine, who firmly followed the Alexandrian canon of the Septuagint, and the preponderant tradition in reference to the Catholic Epistles and the Revelation; though he himself, in some places, inclines to consider the Old Testament Apocrypha as *deutero* canonical, bearing a subordinate authority." This history goes on to say that Augustine attended both the Council of Hippo and of Carthage. It is interesting to note, however, the following footnote to the fourth session of the Council of Trent. The footnote lists various Synods which endorsed lists of canonical books, but then says "The Tridentine list or decree was the first *infallible* and effectually promulgated declaration on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures." Which leads one to think that the RC canon was not official until Trent. Thus my previous erroneous statement was not entirely groundless. It is also interesting to note that the Council of Trent went on to uphold "the old Latin Vulgate Edition" of the Scriptures as authentic. Which, I would suppose, today's Catholic scholars wish the Council had never said. Also the council made no distinction between deutero-canonical and canonical books--in contrast to (Eerdman's statement of) the fourth century views.

The Apocryphal books that are in the Septuagint were part of the canon used by the Greek-speaking churches from the inception of the church. They were not added later (or much later). This is a common misconception. The preference of the Hebrew canon over the Greek canon is a later innovation. The church did not need to be guided to "add" the books since they were part of the faith once received by the apostles and passed to the Church. Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com) --

Hello, Brycen ?! I'm a Norwegian journalist student - and also a Christian. Thanks for your testimony! But I want to ask you one question: What do you think of Heavy Metal music after you became a Christian? You know there are Christian bands like Barren Cross, Whitecross, Bloodgood and Stryper, that play that kind of music. I like some of it, I feel like it sometimes. Of course I listen to the lyrics too. I don't listen to any Christian band, but it's better than listening to secular music anyway. Hope you're still going strong - with Christ!!

Not by any standard of history I've seen. Care to back this up, sans the lies apologists are so fond of? Not really. Most of the prophesies aren't even prophesies. They're prayers and comments taken from the Torah quite out of context. Seems Xians started lying right from the beginning. My we're an arrogant ass, aren't we? You're wrong to think we haven't. The trust was in something that doesn't exist. I'm still willing to die for what I believe and don't believe. So were the loonies in Waco. So what? Besides, the point's not to die for what one believes in. The point's to make that other sorry son-of-a-bitch to die for what *he* believes in! :) Doesn't anyone else here get tired of these cretins' tirades? Peter the Damed, and damned proud of it!

Gee, since you ignored the entire substance of my substantial post, you got a lot of nerve claiming that I don't understand what's being talked about. Respond to the previous post or shut the fuck up. You're really annoying. -- Maddi Hausmann madhaus@netcom.com Centigram Communications Corp San Jose California 408/428-3553

[bible verses ag./ used ag. homosexuality deleted] also check out the episcopal church -- although by no means all episcopalians are sympathetic to homosexual men and women, there certainly is a fairly large percentage (in my experience) who are. i am good friends with an episcopalian minister who is ordained and living in a monogamous homosexual relationship. this in no way diminishes his ability to minister -- in fact he has a very significant ministry with the gay and lesbian association of his community, as well as a very significant aids ministry. my uncle is gay and when i found this out i had a good long think about what the bible has to say about this and what i feel God thinks about this. obviously my conclusions may be wrong; nonetheless they are my own and they feel right to me. i believe that the one important thing that those who wrote the old and new testament passages cited above did NOT know was that there is scientific evidence to support that homosexuality is at least partly _inherent_ rather than completely learned. this means that to a certain extent -- or to a great extent -- homosexuals cannot choose how to feel about other people -- which is why reports of "curing" homosexuals always chill me and make me feel ill. please not that, although i can't cite sources where you can find this information, there is homosexual behavior recorded among monkeys and other animals, which is in itself suggestive that it is inherent rather than learned, or at least that the word "unnatural" shouldn't really apply.... please remember that whatever you believe, gays and lesbians shoul not be excluded from your love and acceptance. christ loved us all, and we ALL sin. and he himself never said anything against homosexuals -- rather it is paul (who also came out with such wonderful wisdom as "women shouldn't speak in church" and "women should keep their heads covered in church" -- not exact quotations as i don't have my bible handy) who says these things. i have a tendency to take some of the things paul says with a grain of salt.... well, that's all i'll say for now. vera noyes

Quotes from Our Daily Bread Our Daily Bread is a devotional help for spiritual growth. One can spend some ten to fifteen minutes at most reading the daily portion of scriptures and a related short article that brings the scriptures alive in applying in today's society. It ends with a saying at the bottom. This article is a collection of these sayings. Our Daily Bread is one of the many ministries/services provided by Resources for Biblical Communication. It is FREE. To receive the literature, just write and ask for it. The contact addresses are listed below. Write to Radio Bible Class. Copyright 1989 Radio Bible Class, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49555-0001 Canada: Box 1622, Windsor, Ontario N9A 6Z7 Australia: Box 365, Ryde, 2112 NSW Europe: Box 1, Carnforth, Lancs., England LA5 9ES Africa: Box 1652, Manzini, Swaziland Africa: PMB 2010, Jos, Nigeria Philippines: Box 288, Greenhills, 1502 Metro Manila Sayings with related scriptures in December/January/February 89-90 issue of Our Daily Bread When God saves us, all our sins are forgiven, forgotten, forever! Romans 5:1-11 Life with Christ is difficult; without Him it's hopeless. Ecclesiastes 4:1-6 It's the sin we cover up that eventually brings us down. Psalm 19:7-14 You're not ready to live until you're ready to die. Acts 21:1-14 Trusting in God's power prevents panic. Isaiah 40:6-17 The Bible is a record of man's compete ruin in sin and God's compte remedy in Christ. - Barnhouse 2 Timothy 3:10-17 Jesus can change the foulest sinners into the finest saints. Ephesians 2:1-10 They witness best who witness with their lives. Acts 4:23-33 God came to dwell with man that man might dwell with God. Philippians 2:5-11 A hurting person needs a helping hand, not an accusing finger. Psalm 109:1,2, 14-31 What you decide about Jesus determines your destiny. John 20:24-29 We must go to sinners if we expect sinners to come to the Savior. Romans 1:8-15 Knowing that God sees us brings both conviction and cofidence. Job 34:21-28 God's chastening is not cruel but corrective. Hebrews 12:4-17 When you think of all that's good, give thanks to God. Psalm 44:1-8 Man's greatest goal: give glory to God. 1 Peter 5:5-7 God loves every one of us as if there were but one of us to love. Romans 8:31-39 Only the bread of life can satisfy man's spiritual hunger. John 6:28-41 Conscience can be our compass if the word of God is our chart. 1 Timothy 4:1-5 Salvation is free, but you must receive it. Isaiah 55:1-5 If we're not as spiritual as we could be, we're not as spiritual as we should be. 2 Timonty 1:1-7 Circumstances do not make a man, they reveal what he's made of. Matthew 1:18-25 Make room for Jesus in your heart, and he will make room for you in heaven. Matthew 2:1-18 Heaven's choir came down to sing when heaven's king came down to save. Luke 2:1-20 God's highest gift awakens man's deepest gratitude. Luke 2:21-38 Serving the Lord is an investment that pays eternal dividends. 1 Peter 4:12-19 Time misspent is not lived but lost. Psalm 39:4-13 The measure of our love is the measure of our sacrifice. 1 Peter 4:7-11 God requires faithfulness; God rewards with fruitfulness. Luke 19:11-27 How you spend time determines how you spend eternity. Psalm 90:1-12 If you aim for nothing, you're sure to hit it. Daniel 1:1-8 The Christian's future is as bright as the promises of God. Psalm 23 Christ as Savior brings us peace with God; Christ as Lord brings the peace of God. Colossians 1:13-20 They who only sample the word of God never acquire much of a tast for it. Psalm 119:97-104 Unless one drinks now of the "water of life", he will thirst forever! Revelation 22:12-17 A hyprocrite is a person who is not himself on Sunday. Daniel 6:1-10 Be life long or short, its completeness depends on what it is lived for. Ecclesiates 9:1-12 God loves you and me - let's love each other. 2 Corinthians 13 It's always too soon to quit. Genesis 37:12-28 The character we build in this world we carry into the next. Matthew 7:24-29 God sends trials not to impair us but to improves us. 2 Corinthians 4:8-18 Marriage is either a holy wedlock or an unholy deadlock. 2 Corinthians 5:11-18 We are adopted through God's grace to be adapted to God's use. Galatians 6:1-10 Our children are watching: what we are speak louder than what we say. Proverbs 31:10-31 Union with Christ is the basis for unity among believers. Psalm 133 Keep out of your life all that would crowd Christ out of your heart. Romans 6:1-14 Don't try to bear tomorrow's burdens with today's grace. Matthew 6:25-34 Pray as if everything depends on God; work as if everything depends on you. 2 Kings 20:1-7 Some convictions are nothing more than prejudices. Galatians 3:26-29 Unless you velieve, you will not understand. - Augustine Hebrews 11:1-6 Christ is the only way to heaven; all other paths are detours to doom. 2 Corinthians 4:1-7 Many Christians are doing nothing, but no Christians have nothing to do! John 4:31-38 We bury the seed; God brings the harvest. Isaiah 55:8-13 The texture of eternity is woven on the looms of time. Ecclesiastes 7:1-6 It's not just what we know about God but how we use what we know. 1 Corinthians 8 The best way to avoid lying is to do nothing that needs to be concealed. Acts 5:1-11 God transforms trials into blessing by surrounding them with His love and grace. 2 Chronicles 20:1-4, 20-30 Confessing your sins is no substitute for forsaking them. Psalm 51:1-10 If you shoot arrows of envy at others, you would yourself. Philippians 1:12-18 He who has no vision of eternity doesn't know the value of time. Ephesians 5:8-17 He who abandons himself to God will never be abandoned by God. Psalm 123 No danger can come so near the Christian that God is not nearer. Psalm 121 Many a man lays down his life trying to lay up a fortune. Matthew 6:19-24 God's grace is infinite love expressing itself through infinite goodness. Philippians 1:1-11 One way to do great things for Christ is to do little things for others. Romans 16:1-16 You rob yourself of being you when you try to do what others are meant to do. Romans 12:1-8 Don't pretend to be what you don't intend to be. Matthew 23:1-15 Meeting God in our trials is better than getting out of them. Psalm 42 If sinners are to escape God's judgement, God's people must point the way. Matthew 24:15-27 It's not a sin to get angry when you get angry at sin. John 2:13-22 We prepare for the darkness by learning to pray in the light. 1 Samuel 2:1-10 Christianity is not a way of doing certain things but a certain way of doing all things. Ephesians 5:1-7 Better to know the truth and beware than to believe a lie and not care. Jeremiah 28 A true servant does not live to himself, for himself, or by himself. Genesis 13 Those who do the most earthly good are those who are heavely mined. Philippians 1:19-26 A good marriage requires a determination to be married for good. Genesis 2:18-24 If you're looking for something to give your life to, look to the one who gave His life for you. 1 Corinthians 3:1-11 When we have nothing left but God, we discover that God is enough. Psalm 46 God is with us inthe darkness as surely as He is with us in the light. 1 Peter 1:1-9 Some people spend most of their life at the complaint counter. 1 Thessalonians 5:12-22 Of all creation, only man can say "yes" or "no" to God. Genesis 9:8-17 The most rewarding end in life is to know the life that never ends. Ecclesiates 8:10-15 One of the marks of a well-fed soul is a well read Bible. Joshua1:1-9 Because God gives us all we need, we should give to those in need. Proverbs 14:20-31 It's never too early to receive Christ, but at any moment it could be too late. Luke 16:19-31 God's grace keeps pace with whatever we face. 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success. 1 Corinthians 12:12-27 When we give God our burdens, He gives us a song. Psalm 57 Do the thing you fear, and the death of fear is certain. - Emerson 1 Corinthians 2:1-8

First and foremost, I honestly do not believe that Jesus was anything more than a man who lived and died two thousand years ago. I know your Bible provides wonderful stories of the things he said and did, but I simply do not believe that he still exists as an entity that has any bearing on this universe or the lives in it, and I similarly do not believe that the god that you worship exists or has ever existed. Period. I view religion in general and Christianity in specific as a 'cultural virus' that has been passed down from generation to generation because people are often too afraid to think for themselves and claim responsibility for their own fate, so they brainwash themselves and their children into believing the popular myths, and it goes on from there. And eventually Christianity becomes a given -- if so many other people believe in it, it must be right, no? I don't believe in any "life after death". I believe that when I die, I die, so therefore it's up to me to try to bring meaning and purpose to my life in the meantime. I don't believe that it's a good thing to humble myself and view pride as a sin -- pride, in moderation, is a constructive thing. I see nothing at all wrong with homosexuality and nothing inferior about women, and my priests lost a lot of my trust when they patronizingly tried to explain the 'faults' of these opinions to me. I don't believe in 'loving everyone', especially people I've never met; while I try to show respect to everyone, my love and admiration is something not easily earned, and I do not feel guilty about denying my respect and consideration to someone who has abused it. If you want me to take your religion the least bit seriously, stop trying to show me how the Bible "makes sense". Start trying to show me that this Jesus person is somehow still influencing anyone's life here on Earth.

[...deletions...] An "Islamic Bank" is something which operates in a different fashion to your modern bank, as I have explained here (on another thread) before. For example, Islamic banks don't pay fixed interests on deposits, but a return on investments (which varies according to the market, and is not fixed like interest is). Islamic banks are a relatively new phenomenon in the Islamic world. There are no Islamic banks in "the West", including the USA, to my knowledge. I doubt if the market for them exists there -- at least not while "Islamic banks" are at a relatively early stage of their development as is the case now. BCCI is most certainly not an "Islamic bank" -- did BCCI ever pay a fixed interest rate on deposits? If the answer to this question is "yes", then BCCI was not an Islamic bank, as Islamic banks are specifically set up to _not_ pay or charge interest. Whether some Muslims partially owned the bank or whatever is completely irrelevant.

The dogma of the Assumption does not state whether or not Mary died a physical death before being taken into Heaven. Catholics are free to believe what they wish, whether it be that she was taken still alive, or after having died. I lean somewhat toward the latter myself.

I looked back at this, and asked some questions of various people and got the following information which I had claimed and you pooh-poohed. The US has not sold Iraq any arms. Their navy is entirely made of F-USSR vessels. Their airforce (not including stuff captured from Kuwait which I am not as sure about), doesn't include any US equipment. Their missiles are all non-US. Their tanks are almost all soviet, with about 100 French tanks (older ones). The only US stuff in the Iraqi arsenal is a few M113s. Those were not sold to Iraq. Iraq captured them from other countries (like Kuwait). Information is hard to prove. You are claiming that the US sold information? Prove it. Now, how did the US build up Iraq again? I just gave some fairly conclusive evidence that the US didn't sell arms to Iraq. Information is hard to prove, almost certainly if the US did sell information, then that fact is classified, and you can't prove it. If you can provide some useful evidence that the US sold arms or valuable intelligence to Iraq, I am very interested, but not if you just make claims based on what "everyone knows".

I think that _The_Transcedental_Temptation_, by Paul Kurtz, has a good section on the origins of Mormonism you might want to look at.

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.

Personal attacks? Deliberate misinterpretation of a persons statement? (By cutting out the part of the statement, he tries to blunt the thrust of the sentence. He never addresses the issue of extreemist peace people not holding true to their ideals.) Ignoring the challenge? (He ignores the challenge that extreemists for peace tend to be quite insistent that everyone accept their ideals for the world, and have even turned quite violent. (Witness, Chicago, summer 1968)). Paranoia? (He assumes that anyone who argues against his viewpoint must "masturbate over Guns'N'Ammo.") Fire up the Oven, it isn't hot enough!

(Peter > > Simple logic arguments are folly. If you read the Bible you will see I can't. It seems Jesus used logic to make people using logic look like fools? No, that does not sound right, he maybe just told they were fools, and that's it, and people believed that... Hmm, does not sound reasonable either... I find it always very intriguing to see people stating that transcendental values can't be explained, and then in the next sentence they try to explain these unexplained values. Highly strange. Cheers, Kent

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.

No. Zeno's paradox is resolved by showing that integration or an infinite series of decreasing terms can sum to a finite result. Well, suppose a probe emitting radiation at a constant frequency was sent towards a black hole. As it got closer to the event horizon, the red shift would keep increasing. The period would get longer and longer, but it would never stop. An observer would not observe the probe actually reaching the event horizon. The detected energy from the probe would keep decreasing, but it wouldn't vanish. Exp(-t) never quite reaches zero. I guess the above probably doesn't make things any more clear, but hopefully you will get the general idea maybe.

After insult, Gregg resorts to lies:

Ah! Excellent. So why doesn't she appear to me? I'm a little weak in the blind faith department. (Besides, she doesn't even really need to appear: how about, oh say, a little tip - something like "put your all on #3 in the 7:30 at the Dog Races" ... perhaps in a dream or vision.) I'm afraid I don't know arabic; I have only read translations. I wouldn't know it if it were well-written. (Consistent, though, is one thing the Quran is not.) And have *you* read it in arabic? Besides, some of my best writing has been done under the influence of, shall we say, consciousness altering substances. Yes, so? How do we know they *weren't* very good? (Again, assuming that the Quran is beautfully written.) Ok, I retract this point. (Although I might still say that once he knew, he should have done something about it.) I haven't interviewed all muslims about this; I would really like it if this were false. But I can't take it on your say-so - what are your sources? What other basis do we have to judge a system? Especially when we can't get a consistent picture of what Islam "really" is. Do I believe Khomeini? Do I go by the Imam of the mosque in Mecca? Or perhaps the guy in New Jersey? Or perhaps you say I should go only by the Quran. Ok, whose translation? And what about things like "And wherever you find idolators, kill them"? -s

Can anyone provide me a ftp site where I can obtain a online version of the Book of Mormon. Please email the internet address if possible.

I don't necessarily disagree with your assertion, but I disagree with your reasoning. (Faith = Bad. Dogma = Bad. Religion -> (Faith ^ Dogma). Religion -> (Bad ^ Bad). Religion -> Bad.) Unfortunately, you never state why faith and dogma are dangerous. If you believe faith and dogma are dangerous because of what happened in Waco, you are missing the point. The Branch Davidians made the mistake of confusing the message with the messenger. They believed Koresh was a prophet, and therefore believed everything he said. The problem wasn't the religion, it was the followers. They didn't die because of faith and dogma, they died because of their zealotry (or, in the case of the children, the zealotry of their parents). So Christians are totally irrational? Irrational with respect to their religion only? What are you saying? One's belief in a Christian God does not make one totally irrational. I think I know what you were getting at, but I'd rather hear you expand on the subject. Again, this statement is too general. A Christian is perfectly capable of being a philosopher, and absolutely capable of changing his/her mind. Faith in God is a belief, and all beliefs may change. Would you assert that atheists would make poor philosophers because they are predisposed to not believe in a God which, of course, may show unfair bias when studying, say, religion? So, Christianity is a prison, eh? Ever heard of parole? You have read far too much into this subject. A Christian is one who follows the religion based on the teachings of a man named Jesus Christ. Nowhere does this definition imply that one cannot change one's mind. In prison, however, you can't just decide to leave. One is voluntary, the other is not. The two are not compatible. I prefer to think of religion as a water pistol filled with urine. 8^) Seriously, though, some (but certainly not all) religions do condemn groups of people. The common target is the "infidel," a curious being who is alternately an atheist, a non-<insert specific religious affiliation here>, a person of a different race, or an Egyptian. 8^) Please explain how "just because" thinking kills people. (And please state more in your answer than "Waco.") I'll see your conscientious peacenik and raise you a religious zealot with bad acne. 8^) By the way, I wasn't aware mass suicide was a problem. Waco and Jonestown were isolated incidents. Mass suicides are far from common.

Heck, I remember reading a quote of Luther as something like: "Jews should be shot like deer." And of course much Catholic doctrine for centuries was extremely anti-Semitic.

Sorry, gotta disagree with you on this one Maddi (not the resemblence to Bill. The nickname). I prefer "Half" Bake'd Timmons /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away, and sank Manhattan out at sea.

Gee, I think there are some real criminals (robbers, muderers, drug addicts) who appear to be fun loving caring people too. So what's your point? Is it OK. just because the people are nice?

It is important if Christianity is being damaged by it. If people who "speak in tongues" make claims that they are miraculously speaking a foreign language through the power of the Holy Spirit, when it can easily be shown that they are simply making noises, it damages all Christians, since many who are not Christians do not distinguish between the various sects. The more modest claim for "tongues" that it is simply uncontrolled praise in which "words fail you" is surely the one that should be used by those who make use of this practice. I agree with the point that "Charismatic" practices like this can lead to forms of worship which are more about the worshipper showing off than genuine praise for God; one of the things Jesus warned us about.