Datasets:

dojo

/

newsgroups7_balanced

like 0

[much stuff deleted] excuse me, but what makes you think that just because he's atheist he doesn't know anything about christianity???? in my (albeit limited) experience atheists are often the ones who know _more_ about the bible, having searched it from end to end for answers. i myself am a christian, but that doesn't mean i consider myself more of an authority on my religion -- i just have a different perspective on it (more biased in favor, naturally :) ). it seems quite obvious why he is subscribed, if i may infer from what motives anyway -- at the very least (although i dislike this kind of logic), one could hope that he will "see the light". critcism will, i fear, not give him a very positive picture of christians.... with regard to this, i guess i don't really feel sentiments of this order can be proven -- faith has a lot to do with it. this is why those who search the bible from cover to cover for answers won't necessarily get what they're looking for. of course that doesn't help anyone who doesn't already have faith -- what a big catch 22. i discovered this quite recently when i ran into an agnostic looking for an explanation of my faith and i quickly discovered that i could give him nothing more than my life story and a description of my nature. faith is a very personal thing -- any attempt to "prove" the "facts" behind it must be questioned. likewise -- no matter what you believe.

-- Douglas C. Meier | You can't play Electro-magnetic Golf Northwestern University, ACNS | according to the rules of Centrifugal This University is too Commie- | Bumblepuppy. -Huxley, Brave New World Lib Pinko to have these views. | dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu

Another article that fell between the cracks: As evidence for the Resurrection, it is often claimed that the Disciples were tortured to death for their beliefs and still did not renounce their claim that Jesus had come back from the dead. Now, I skimmed Acts and such, and I found a reference to this happening to Stephen, but no others. Where does this apparently very widely held belief come from? Is there any evidence outside the Bible? Is there any evidence *in* the Bible? I sure haven't found any... Briefly, no. There is widespread folklore, but no good documentary evidence, or even solid rumor, concerning the deaths of the Apostles. Further, the usual context of such arguments, as you observe, is "No Martyrs for a Lie": i.e. the willingness of these people to die rather than recant is evidence for the truth of their belief. This adds the quite stronger twist that the proposed martyrs must have been offered the chance of life by recanting. Since we don't even know how or where they died, we certainly don't have this information. (By the way, even in the case of Stephen it is not at all clear that he could have saved himself by recanting). The willingness of true believers to die for their belief, be it in Jesus or Jim Jones, is well-documented, so martyrdom in and of itself says little. [See 1Kings18:20-40 for a Biblical account of the martyrdom of 450 priests of Baal].

The following is a juxtaposition of part of an ancient text known as "de Sacramentis", usually attributed to St. Ambrose of Milan, and the canon of the traditional Catholic Mass of the Roman rite. The conclusion from this comparison is that the central part of the traditional Roman canon was already fairly well in place by sometime in the late 4th century. Taken from "The Mass of the Western Rites", by the Right Reverend Dom Fernand Cabrol, Abbot of Farnborough, 1934, without permission. Excerpted from Chapter VI: THE MASS AT ROME, FROM THE FIFTH TO THE SEVENTH CENTURIES. The paragraph at the end is from the book, not me. Sorry about the long lines. Joe Buehler ----- TEXT OF DE SACRAMENTIS ROMAN CANON ROMAN CANON (about 400 AD) (1962 AD) (English translation) Te igitur ... (omitted here) Memento Domine ... Communicantes ... Hanc igitur oblationem ... Fac nobis (inquit sacerdos), Quam oblationem tu Deus, in Do thou, O God, deign to hanc oblationem ascriptam, omnibus, quaesumus, bless what we offer, and ratam, rationabilem, benedictam, adscriptam, make it approved, acceptabilem, quod figura ratam, rationabilem, effective, right, and est corporis et sanguinis acceptabilemque facere wholly pleasing in every Jesu Christi. digneris: ut nobis corpus et way, that it may become sanguis fiat dilectissimi for our good, the Body Filii tui Domini nostri Jesu and Blood of Thy dearly Christi. beloved Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. Qui pridie quam pateretur, Qui pridie quam pateretur, Who, the day before He in sanctis manibus suis accepit panem in sanctas ac suffered, took bread into accepit panem, respexit in venerabiles manus suas: et His holy and venerable caelum ad te, sancte Pater elevatis oculis in ccelum, hands, and having raised omnipotens, aeterne Deus, ad Te Deum Patrem suum His eyes to Heaven, unto Gratias agens, benedixit, omnipotentem, tibi gratias Thee, O God, His Almighty fregit, fractum quae agens, benedixit, fregit, Father, giving thanks to apostolis suis et discipulis deditque discipulis suis Thee, He blessed it, broke suis tradidit dicens: dicens: accipite et it, and gave it to His accipite et edite ex hoc manducate ex hoc omnes: hoc disciples, saying: Take ye omnes: hoc est enim corpus est enim corpus meum. all and eat of this: meum, quod pro multis For this is my Body. confringetur. Similiter etiam calicem Simili modo postquam In like manner, when the postquam caenatum est, caenatum est, accipiens et supper was done, taking pridie quam pateretur, hunc praeclarum calicem in also this goodly chalice accepit, respexit in sanctas ac venerabiles manus into His holy and caelum ad te, sancte pater suas item tibi gratias venerable hands, again omnipotens, aeterne Deus, agens, benedixit deditque giving thanks to Thee, gratias agens, benedixit, discipulis suis, dicens: He blessed it, and gave it apostolis suis et discipulis accipite et bibite ex eo to His disciples, saying: suis tradidit, dicens: omnes: Hic est enim calix Take ye all, and drink of accipite et bibite ex hoc sanguinis mei, novi et this: For this is the omnes: hic est enim sanguis aeterni testamenti: Chalice of my Blood of the meus. mysterium fidei; qui pro new and eternal covenant; vobis et pro multis the mystery of faith, effundetur in remissionem which shall be shed for peccatorum. you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins. Haec quotiescumque feceritis As often as you shall do in mei memoriam facietis. these things, in memory of Me shall you do them. Ergo memores gloriosissimae Unde et memores, Domine, nos Mindful, therefore, O ejus passionis et ab inferis servi tui, sed et plebs tua Lord, not only of the resurrectionis, in caelum sancta, ejusdem Christi blessed Passion of the ascensionis, offerimus tibi Filii tui Domini nostri, tam same Christ, Thy Son, our hanc immaculatam hostiam, beatae passionis necnon et Lord, but also of His hunc panem sanctum et ab inferis resurrectionis, resurrection from the calicem vitae aeternae; sed et in caelos gloriosae dead, and finally His ascensionis: offerimus glorious ascension into praeclarae majestati tuae de Heaven, we, Thy ministers, tuis donis ac datis, hostiam as also Thy holy people, puram, hostiam sanctam, offer unto Thy supreme hostiam immaculatam, Panem majesty, of the gifts sanctum vitae aeternae, et bestowed upon us, the Calicem salutis perpetuae. pure Victim, the holy Victim, the all-perfect Victim: the holy Bread of life eternal and the Chalice of unending salvation. et petimus et precamur, ut Supra quae propitio ac And this do Thou deign to hanc oblationem suscipias in sereno vultu respicere regard with gracious and sublimi altari tuo per manus digneris: et accepta habere, kindly attention and hold angelorum tuorum sicut sicuti accepta, habere acceptable, as Thou didst suscipere dignatus es munera dignatus es munera pueri tui deign to accept the pueri tui justi Abel et justi Abel, et sacrificium offerings of Abel, Thy sacrificium patriarchae patriarchae nostri Abrahae, just servant, and the nostri Abrahae et quod tibi et quod tibi obtulit summus sacrifice of Abraham our obtulit summus sacerdos sacerdos tuus Melchisedech patriarch, and that which Melchisedech. sanctum sacrificium, Thy chief priest immaculatam hostiam. Melchisedech offered unto Thee, a holy sacrifice and a spotless victim. Supplices te rogamus, Most humbly we implore omnipotens Deus: jube haec Thee, almighty God, bid perferri per manus sancti these offerings to be Angeli tui in sublime altare brought by the hands of tuum in conspectu divinae Thy holy angel unto Thy majestatis tuae: etc. altar above; before the face of Thy Divine Majesty; etc.

In <1qvh8tINNsg6@citation.ksu.ksu.edu> yohan@citation.ksu.ksu.edu (Jonathan W This doesn't seem right. If I want to kill you, I can because that is what I decide? Not really. If whatever a particular society mandates as ok is ok, there are always some in the "society" who disagree with the mandates, so which societal mandates make the standard for morality? >> So what should be the basis? Unfortunately I have to admit to being tied at least loosely to the "feeling", in that I think we intuitively know some things to be wrong. Awfully hard to defend, though. I might agree here. Just because certain actions are legal does not make them "moral". deficits. -- **************************************************************** Michael A. Cobb "...and I won't raise taxes on the middle University of Illinois class to pay for my programs." Champaign-Urbana -Bill Clinton 3rd Debate cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu

I don't think I've changed my stance at all. My original stance was that a painless execution was not a cruel one. I didn't say what would be considered cruel, only that a painless death wasn't. Now, cruelty must involve some sort of suffering, I believe. I don't think someone that gets shot in the head or electrocuted really suffers very much. Even a hanging probably produces one sharp instance of pain, but it's over so quickly... Pardon? No. Well, again I stated that a painless death isn't cruel, but I don't think I stated that all painful executions *are* cruel. I think that some are cruel, depending on the nature and duration of the pain. Anything more than an instant, I guess. Any death by suffocation asphyxiation, or blood loss would be cruel, I think (this includes the gas chamber, and drawing and quartering). I'd say that any pain that lasts, say, over twenty seconds or so would be too long (but this may be an arbitrary cutoff, I suppose).

This is a point that seems to have been overlooked by many. The ending of a 1600 year old schism seems to be in sight. The theologians said that the differences between them were fundamentally ones or terminology, and that the Christological faith of both groups was the same. Some parishes have concelebrated the Eucharist, and here in Southern Africa we are running a joint theological training course for Coptic and Byzantine Orthodox. There are still several things to be sorted out, however. As far as the Copts are concerned, there were three ecumenical councils, whily the Byzantine Orthodox acknowledge seven.

It should be noted that belief in God is in itself no more a behavoral imperative than lack of belief. It is religion which causes the harm, not the belief in God.

[Frank's solution deleted.] If you have access to telnet, contact nyx.cs.du.edu. It's a public access Unix system, completly free, and all you need to for access is a verifiable form of ID (I think he requires a notarized copy of a picture, or a check, or some such).

way.qub.ac.uk writes (single angle brackets): ng There is no question of similarity in Jesus indication about John. The passage in Matthew is very direct. Where Luke (1:17) reports the angel Gabriel prophesying that John will go before Christ "in the power and spirit of Elias", In Matthew 11: 14, Jesus himself says of John, "And if you care to accept it, he himself is Elijah, who was to come". It is interesting that Jesus prepended the words, "If you care to accept it", as if to say that the implications of this truth, namely of rein- carnation, I will not force on you, but for those who can accept it, here it is. A Jewish poster to other newsgroups on Jewish esotericism and other topics has outlined the esoteric, cabbalistic Jewish teaching of of reincarnation and Karma, a teaching that is little known among Jews today, but which is apparently widespread enough in Israel that Hannah Hurnard ("Hinds Feet on High Places") was told about it by a Rabbi she was trying to convert back in the 1940s as a missionary in Palestine. Thus there may well have been a small number of Jews who knew about this, whereas the large number of people did not. The statement of Jesus about John, the greatest human personality in the New Testament, is guarded but nevertheless quite direct. Again, the subject of reincarnation, one way or another, is not a subject of the New Testament, nor is the fate in general of the human being between death and the last judgement. But there are occasional indications that point to it. As for the "popular belief" that Elijah would come again, it was more than a popular belief, as Jesus confirms it in more than one place, and he never corrected those who were expecting Elijah -- for example, those who thought that Jesus himself be he.

CJF> agrino@enkidu.mic.cl (Andres Grino Brandt) asks about Mormons. CJF> Although I don't personally know about independent sudies, I do know CJF> a few things. CJF> One of the more amusing things in the BOM is a claim that a CJF> civilization existed in North America, aroun where the mystical plates CJF> were found. Not only did it use steel and other metals, but it had CJF> lots of wars (very OT). No one has ever found any metal swords or CJF> and traces of a civilization other than the Native Americans. I was talking to the head of the archeology dept. once in college and the topic of Mormon archeology came up. It seems that the Mormon church is (or was) big on giving grants to archeologists to prove that the native Americans are really the lost tribe of Israel and other such bunk. The archeologists would shake their head knowingly while listening to them, take the grant, and go off to do real archeology anyway.

How about Acts 11: 15-18, 22-23 or, I John 4:1-8 which says to *try* the spirits to see if they be of God. How do you know? When have you tried to learn anything about me? --

David Hammerslag asked: How do you (Mormons) reconcile the idea of eternal marriage with Christ's statement that in the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage (Luke, chapt. 20)? Several explanations for this seeming contradiction have been proposed, but most LDS scholars whose opinions I have studied take more or less one of the following three positions: (1) Jesus was talking to a group of people (Sadducees) who were trying to trip Him up with what they felt was a silly hypothetical situa- tion that ridiculed the concept of a resurrection (something they didn't believe in). These people -- and those associated with them ("Now there were with us seven brethren", Matt. 22:25) -- would not be receptive to such higher blessings as eternal marriage. Hence, the people in the story would likely not be married in the eterni- ties; but that doesn't mean other, more faithful people could not have this blessing. (2) Jesus was making a distinction between the state or condition of =being= married, and the process of =becoming= married. The latter activity (marrying and giving in marriage) will not take place in the eternities, because all eternal marriages will be taken care of before then. (3) The account as we have it (in all three of the synoptic Gospels) is missing something that would make its real meaning clearer. Note that we (LDS) do not believe in Biblical inerrancy, so we do not in general feel obliged to reconcile each and every Bible text with modern revelation through Joseph Smith and other latter-day proph- ets. Nor are we particularly upset that the account in question was not significantly revised in the "Joseph Smith Translation" or "Inspired Version" of the Bible, since we do not believe this work was completed or that failure to revise a passage in the JST con- stitutes divine approval of that passage as it stands in the KJV.

Thanks for the etymology lesson, but I actually know what "orthodox" means. You're avoiding my question, however, which was: From what body of theology does your version of orthodoxy come? You seem to simply be saying that whatever *you* understand the Bible to say is "orthodox." You are obviously mistaken, since many, many people have read the Bible and many do not agree with you on this point. Once again, Robert, is your interpretation the only "correct" or "orthodox" one? This whole string began as a response to your attacks on Mormonism; no one is attacking your personal beliefs, only your tendency to present them as "orthodoxy." I don't much care *what* you believe about the Bible; just don't present you personal understanding as the only "orthodox" one. I have never attacked your specific beliefs -- that's *your* approach, remember? Stating that other people who depend solely on the Bible have other views is indeed proof that the Bible can be interpreted many ways, which has been my whole point all along. The specifics of your belief are your business; just don't pretend that they are anything more than your personal intepretation, and be careful about crying "heresy" based on your private belief system.

Well here's how I prepared. I got one of those big beach umbrellas, some of those gel-pack ice things, a big Coleman cooler which I've loaded up with Miller Draft (so I like Miller Draft, so sue me), a new pair of New Balance sneakers, a Sony Watchman, and a couple of cartons of BonTon Cheddar Cheese Popcorn. I haven't decided what to wear yet. What does one wear to an eternal damnation?

the prophets who were there when the foundation was laid for the house of the LORD Almighty, let your hands be strong so that the temple may be built.

Edgar Pearlstein asks (Fri 7 May 1993) whether the Supreme Court, or any other government authority, has attempted a legal definition of religion. The Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1958 exempted from the draft those whose "religious training and belief" was opposed to participation in war in any form. It defined "R T & B" as "an individual's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but [not including] essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code." In the 1965 case of UNITED STATES V. SEEGER, the Supreme Court broadened the definition so as not to restrict it to explicit We have concluded that Congress, in using the expression "Supreme Being" rather than the designation "God," .... the test of belief "in a relation to a Superme Being" is whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption. Where such beliefs have parallel positions in the lives of their respective holders we cannot say that one is "in a relation to a Supreme Being" and the other is not...." My immediate reference is THE FIRST FREEDOM, by Nat Hentoff, (Delacorte 1980, Dell 1981).

Absolutely not true. Without religion - either an established one or one you invent for yourself - the theist and atheist are equally (not) interested in God, because without religious revelation there is _no_ information about God available. Strip away the dogma and the theists/atheists are no different, simply holding a different opinion on a matter of little practical importance. Sorry, but that doesn't help. What test will you apply to decide whether it is God or Satan with whom you are speaking? How will you know that you have not simply gone insane, or having delusions? You are like a loaded gun. Ah, you not as stupid as I assumed. :-) Yes. We're all in this together - each human making up a small part of the definition of humanity.

If you check the news today, (AP) the "authorities also found a state-of-the-art automatic machine gun that investigators did not know was in the cult's arsenal." [Carl Stern, Justice Department] I imagine the authorities know the difference between semi and fully automatic and probably knew weather the guns were legal as they have access to any relative documentation (i.e. permits). In addition the .50 caliber guns (plural) were semi-automatic rifles.

From Bit.listserv.christia Zane writes... From: FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET (zane of dhahan) Subject: Christianity in Crisis Date: Wed May 12 14:43:19 1993 "Frank, first of all, thanks for all of the great Scripture verses. It was a pleasure to read them." MY REPLY... You are welcome, Zane. Zane... "I am sure nothing that I will say will change your mind about it... but I would like to ask you if the book in question really does anything for you. I mean, were you all caught up in the word/faith thing, but now that you have read the book you've been rescued from all of the error and pain that will result in your Christian life?" MY REPLY... (1) When I first became a Christian, I entered into the Word/Faith movement. It was easy. I wasn't grounded in the Word of God and sound doctrine. When I visited Christian book stores, the cheapest books I could find to buy were the .50 and $1.00 books by Hagin and others. Consequently, I began receiving Hagin's monthly magazine (and they still send it to me), and also Copeland's (also, still sent to me). It wasn't until I read a booklet by Jimmy Swaggart called _Hyper Faith: The New Gnosticism_ that I began to realize the teachings I were partaking of were error. I started reading the Bible more and studying more. Sure enough, Jimmy was right in many points. As part of my experience, I am alerting Christians, particularly new Christians, that these teachings are heretical and they need to do as the Bereans did in Acts 17:11 - check these teachings out with Scripture! (2) My brother in law was involved in a Word/Faith "cult" in my area - it's leader is real good friends with Benny Hinn. Rather then going into much detail about this, suffice it to say he was deceived, mistreated, and has now fallen into atheism. I'm still praying for him (Phil. 1:6). (3) The assistant pastor at the church I teach adult Sunday School in has been a `follower' of Copeland for 15 years. He has thousands of tapes by the Faith teachers. In the class recently, I quoted several of the teachers' heretical statements to his surprise. Since then, I've been able to talk to him at length about these issues. (4) The leader of the Women's Group at my church is a Benny Hinn `fan'. Recently, I found that she has been lending _Good Morning, Holy Spirit_ to women in the church. That prompted my quotes in Sunday School, as well as my lending CIC to people in the church. I'm well aware of the abuses and heresies perpetrated in this movement and have an urgency in my heart and life to warn people about the heresies. What heresies? A. Jesus became sin - took on the very nature of the devil, and became one with him. B. Jesus' death on the cross wasn't enough to atone. C. Jesus was dragged to hell after His death, was beat and abused by Satan and demons, thus finishing our atonement. Satan was ruling over Him there. D. Jesus was `born-again' in hell. E. Jesus died spiritually, lost His divinity, and reassumed it after the resurrection. F. We are gods. These are heresies. Documentation will be provided re: these teachings upon request. Zane... "Or what does it do for you? Is it preventing you from going out and joining up with the word/faith movement which you'd been contemplating joining for so long, but now that you've read the book, you've been saved from all of that?" MY REPLY... It wasn't _Christianity In Crisis_ that helped me; it was a booklet by Swaggart that I mentioned above. But CIC is MUCH, MUCH better - tremendous documentation and insights. Zane... "I don't have a nice Scriptural answer for why I believe it is at best un- profitable for Christians to engage in this type of activity - heresy hunting." MY REPLY... Why do you call it "heresy hunting"? "Hunting" implies it isn't readily accessible or available. This movement is the fastest growing movement in Christendom. Hagin has sold over 40 million books and booklets. Hinn has sold more books in the last couple of years than Swindoll and Dobson combined. Fred Price has the largest church in terms of seating capacity in the USA. Doesn't sound like much "hunting" is needed. It is Scriptural to expose doctrinal error. I gave some verses to you before. More can be given. Most of the epistles were written due to error (doctrinal, practical) in the churches. The early church had numerous councils to expose error and heresy. It's not a new thing. Remember Luther? Zane... "I would like to point out though, that historically those who hunt heretics often end up causing a bigger mess than the heretics... but this is my un- documented opinion." MY REPLY... (1) If you can provide documentation, it would be appreciated. (2) Read Ephesians 4:11-16, esp. vss. 13 and 14 and tell me what causes disunity and immaturity in the body. EPH 4:13-14 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting.... Disunity, contrary to popular opinion, isn't caused by exposing error; it's caused by error. Zane... "There are many who probably give no place for seeing the Scriptures as documenting a Spiritual development or growth in its writers - but I would suggest that the fiery Paul of the letter to the Galatians mellows and matures into the one who loses all for the sake of Love in the End." MY REPLY... Most scholars believe Paul wrote 2 Timothy last. Let's examine his admonitions to Tim to ascertain how mellow he had become... 2TI 1:13-15 Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us. This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me, among whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes. 2TI 2:15-18 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some. 2TI 2:24-26 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will. 2TI 3:6-9 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was. 2TI 3:12-17 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2TI 4:2-5 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. 2TI 4:14-15 Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm. May the Lord repay him according to his works. You also must beware of him, for he has greatly resisted our words. Zane... "The picture I have of Paul is not of one who goes out of his way to destroy the ministry of wolves... but of one who teaches the sheep, with many tears, the necessity of absolutely not allowing themselves to be transformed into wolves to protect themselves." MY REPLY... ACT 20:26-31 "Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. "For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. "Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. "For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. "Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. "Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears. Zane... "For all the warning Paul does, it is of note that he never once drops a name of a wolf.... - but I will admit he cries in his beard at the end over those who have abandoned him - everyone in Asia wasn't it ?" MY REPLY... Paul mentioned names... 1TI 1:18-20 This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, having faith and a good conscience, which some having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. 2TI 1:15 This you know, that all those in Asia have turned away from me, among whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes. 2TI 2:16-18 But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some. 2TI 4:10 for Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world, and has departed for Thessalonica--Crescens for Galatia, Titus for Dalmatia. 2TI 4:14-15 Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm. May the Lord repay him according to his works. You also must beware of him, for he has greatly resisted our words. So did John... 3JO 1:9-10 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us. Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church. Jesus also singled out teachings and doctrines... REV 2:14-16 "But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality. "Thus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. 'Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth. REV 2:20-23 "Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. "And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. "Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. "I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works. Zane... "I question too, the purposes of those who write books and build ministries on the faults - deliberate or otherwise - of others. Maybe if they would wander around in the desert eating locust and honey, or barely cakes...with no worldly goods at stake, money to be made, or no reputations to maintain... I would question their motives - conscious or otherwise - less." MY REPLY... I won't comment on this because it deals with the intangible motives of others. But even if they had bad motives, remember what Paul said... PHI 1:15-18 Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from good will: The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice. Zane... "If we want to be true to the admonitions of Scripture - many of which you list - about protecting ourselves and the flock from wolves and winds of doctrines, I suggest we start by allowing the wolf-program in our own noetic pasture to be nailed to the Cross." MY REPLY... Please explain. Zane... "Secondly, I suggest any heresy hunting be restricted to our own fellowships - which in the strict Scriptural sense is the local city-church." MY REPLY... If heresy was not being propagated over the mass media, then it may not be needed to go mass media with the exposure. Unfortunately, heresy is being taught not just in Copeland's church or Hagin's or Hinn's or Price's, but all over the radio, in print, etc. No pastor or church leader knows what materials the sheep are feeding on outside the church. It's imperative that leadership be made aware of this, and CIC does just that. Also, let's examine a passage of Scripture... * EPH 4:11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, * EPH 4:12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, These ministry gifts that the Lord installs in the church are not just for one individual church, but for "the body of Christ". Paul was an apostle - he traveled all over distilling his message. He was also a teacher - 1CO 4:17 For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church. 1CO 7:17 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches. Also - 1CO 12:28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. * EPH 4:13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; Notice that the "Five-Fold" ministries are going to be around "till" the church is in "unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God to a perfect man". This, I believe will not occur fully until the Lord Jesus returns (see 1Cor. 13:9-12). But God wants the body to continue on maturing. What hinders maturity and unity of the body? * EPH 4:14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, It's clear that false doctrine, integrated into the church "by the trickery of men" causes (1) disunity [the thing we are striving for] and (2) spiritual immaturity - the church continues in spiritual childhood when Christians are "tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine". The "Five -Fold" ministry, of which there does not appear to be clear Scriptural denominational boundaries ("pastors" appear responsible for their individual flock), is to deal with these doctrines (when necessary) in their struggle to equip the body. All believers are called to do this to a degree... JUD 1:3-4 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. Zane... "If you'll notice, in Scripture the heresy hunters that went from Church to Church and area to area, were the "bad guys" and they went after the "good guy" namely Paul - who they considered to be the arch heretic." MY REPLY... They were themselves heretics trying to discredit Paul who was preaching contrary to what they taught! Zane... "Let's face it, the wolves are here for a reason. And we are here for the Reason. And let's hope the wolves become sheep, and the sheep, lambs." MY REPLY... Yes! 2TI 2:24-26 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will. AMEN! Frank

[...] I think you are mistaken in thinking Tom Scharle to be a atheist. You will find both atheists and Christians among your opponents on t.o. Calling your opponents them "Branch Athiests zealots" does nothing for your credibility. Oh yes, do. Dear me. This is taken _so_ out of context that it's hard to know where to start... The quote starts with material from p 78, and ends with material from page 81! On page 78, there's the bit that says (the parts left out in John King's "quote" are marked by <>): "<...> the doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of evolutionary biology<'s last twenty years> has inflamed passions <and provoked some very interesting thought and research>." Eldridge goes on immediately following the butchered quote: "In short, evolutionary biology has entered a phase of creativity that is the hallmark of good, active science." The material that is on page 81 that is "quoted" by John King has been butchered even more severely: "<I mention this only to illustrate the> **There is**[these words not in the original text-prl] lack of agreement even within warring camps <: things are really in uproar these days, and each of the "basic" ways of looking at evolutionary biology has its minor variants.> Sometimes it seems as if there are as many variations on each evolutionary theme as there are individual biologists." Eldridge goes on: "But that's the way it should be; this is how science is supposed to operate." And just a few sentences down: "When they [creationists] misrepresent the exuberant, creative doubt and controversy permeating evolutionary biology these days, they are actively promoting scientific illiteracy." And that, John E. King, is precisely what you have done with Eldridge's article. Are you personally responsible for the butchery of the text or have you pulled it out of some creationist propaganda? You owe the people reading t.o an apology for posting such misrepresentation.

Woo! So far, we've had the following interpretations of the figure of the `Whore of Babylon' in Rev 17 & 18: a) The United States of America b) MHO dB) which was as a figure of the fallen spiritual powers who corrupt and oppress human society c) Historical Jerusalem d) Historical Rome Dare I suggest that the passage might be many layered in meaning? How about * The prophecy reveals God's judgement on the corrupt & idolatrous state oppressing his chosen people (d) * That God's judgement extends _especially_ to his once chosen city (c) because, despite that City's special call, it still rejected God's grace at the decisive time (Rev 11:8? - also isn't Rev19:24 equally suggestive of Rome as Jerusalem?) * That the USofA is guilty of many of the crimes of Rome/Babylon (a) and is equally subject to God's judgement * That the Good Book(TM) actually encompasses _all_ these viewpoints by revealing the corrupting spiritual powers warring against mankind through the very society that we've created. (b) Clever, huh? (<-- Flame here!) No need to argue at all! I think Mary's view has a lot of sense because there seems to be a deliberate contrast between Rev 17/18 and Rev 21/22 - the mortal Jerusalem chosen by God but never (historically) fulfilling its vocation and the new Jerusalem perfected (outside of history) purely by God's grace. eg Details like Rev 17:1 `.. who sits on many waters' cf Rev 22 the single stream in the new Jersualem `the river of life flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb.'

The Catholic doctrine of predestination does not exclude free will in any way. Since God knows everything, He therefore knows everything that is going to happen to us. We have free will, and are able to change what happens to us. However, since God knows everything, He knows all the choices we will make "in advance" (God is not subject to time). Too often arguments pit predestination against free will. We believe in both.

Just taking a guess, perhaps it was that Koresh had peaceably been served with warrants before, and he did not shoot anyone but instead went with the police without fighting. -- "On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Leftover Turkey! On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Turkey Casserole that she made from Leftover Turkey. [days 3-4 deleted] ... Flaming Turkey Wings! ... -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

As I understand, that number is deceptive. The reason is that the money cost was in non-oil sales for the most part. Iraq still is not allowed to sell oil, or do many of the things under the initial sanctions, but is still surviving. Of the ~93% (I have heard figures closer to 80%, but I won't quibble your figures), most was dropped in carpet bombing of regions only occupied by enemy troops. A B-52 drops a lot of bombs in one sortie, and we used them around the clock. Not to mention other smaller aircraft using dumb munitions. 2. The Patriot uses a proximity fuse. The adjusted figures for number of Patriot kills of SS-1 derivitives is ~60-70%. That figure came not from some fluke in the Pentagon, but a someone working with such stuff in another part of DoD. 3. The statement precision bombing was the norm, is true around areas where civilians were close to the target. We dropped by tonnage very little bombs in populated regions, explaining the figures. This figure, is far below all the other figures I have seen. If it is indeed accurate, then how do you explain the discrepancy between that figure, and other figures from international organizations? Most figures I have seen place the hit ratio close to 70%, which is still far higher than your 35%. Or does your figure say a bomb missed if the plane took off with it, and the bomb never hit the target, regardless of whether or not the bomb was dropped? Such methods are used all the time to lie with statistics. I have _never_ seen any source that was claiming such a figure. Please post the source so its reliability can be judged.

What about the land mines which have already been mentioned? Oh, very neat. Dismiss everything I say unless I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt something which you yourself admit I can never prove to your satisfaction. Thanks, I'll stick to squaring circles.

+ 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 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.

Please excuse the length of this post, but for personal reasons, I must go on at some length. [...more deleted...] Perhaps it would be instructive to see what my original post had to say: [followed by my signature] I was extremely careful in this posting not to say anything which was not factual. I made no judgement about Hitching or the quality of the quotation attributed to him. I have not read any of the books listed (although I did glimpse briefly at "Earth Magic", I saw nothing that I would care to comment on). It was solely in response to an inquiry by Warren about Hitching, and your assertion that he is a paleontologist. I do not know whether he is or is not a paleontologist. I do not claim to know anything about him, except this listing of his publications. However, I get the decided impression that I am being included among the "Branch Atheists" on the basis of this post. If that impression is mistaken, please let me know. Otherwise, I should let you know that the implications are very offensive to me, and I would certainly appreciate a clarification of your posting.

This week, many of you have asked about my earlier postings on OT, NT and Intertestiment exegesis on the homosexual issue. I have refered you to the FAQ files, which I find out, no longer contains them. They are too long for me to mail to each of you, each article, but will try to get them back on the FAQ file. Because of the renewed interest on this subject, I will type, with permission, an article by James DeYoung. I think it is one of the best articles that I've read todate from the conservative position. I can't post it all at once, so it will come piece meal and not daily. After I'm done retyping the entire article, I will make it available for the FAQ file. Talk to clh. Also, for those who can't get through to me, you may try one of these: REXLEX@FNAL.FNAL.GOV LEXREX@ALMOND.FNAL.GOV Loren Senders@ADMAIL.FNAL.GOV THE SOURCE AND NT MEANING OF ARSENOKOITAI, WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR CHRISTIAN ETHICS AND MINISTRY James B. DeYoung Professor of New Testament Western Conservative Baptist Seminary Portland, Oregon Traditional interpretation of arsenokoitai ("homosexuals") in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 refers to sexual vice between people of the same sex, specifically homosexualitiy. Some restrict the term's meaning to "active male prostititute," but stronger evidence supports a more general translation, namely "homosexuals." More recently the definition "homosexual" has been opposed on clutural and linguistic grounds, the claim being that the term "homosexuals" is anachronistic. In addition, criticism of the traditional rendering says the term today includes celibate homophiles, excludes heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts, and includes female homosexuals. A concern for acts instead of the modern attention to desires was the only factor in the ancient world. The foregoing oppositition to the translation of arsenokoitai by "homosexuals" has a number of debilitating weaknesses. Finally, this study argues that Paul coined the term arsenokoitai, deriving it from the LXX of Lev 20:12 (cf. 18:22) and using it for homosexual orientation and behavior, the latter of which should be an occasion for church discipline (I Cor 5-6) and legislation in society (1 Tim 1:8-11). ************************************* INTRODUCTION Coincident with the rise of the gay rights movement in recent years has been an increasing focus on the biblical statements regarding homosexuality or sodomy. As part of this focus, the meaning of the term arsenokoitai, used twice by the apostle Paul (1 Cor 6:9, I Tim 1:10), has received vigorous scrutiny. This issue is particularly crucial to contemporary society since so much of modern ethics is shaped by biblical statements. More particularly, the concern over gay rights and the place of gays or homosexuals in the church and in society require the resolution of biblical interpretation. This study of historical, linguistic, and literary matters will survey and evalutate recent proposals for the meaning of arsenokoitai and present evidence to point to a resolution. Several writers and their positions represent the modern debate on this word. Three authors, Bailey, Boswell, and Scroggs, have provoked considerable discussion and significantly encouraged the wider acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle in society, in the church, and in the ministry.

I would like to see his reasoning behind this. You may have gotten "burned" by natural disaster prophecies down there, but that does not mean that every natural disaster/judgement prophecy is false. Take a quick look at the book of Jeremiah and it is obvious that judgement prophecies can be valid. here in the US, it seems like we might have more of a problem with positive prophecies, though I am sure there may be a few people who are too into judgement. Sometimes God does give words that are difficult to swallow. The relative positiveness of a prophecy is not necesarily grounds to dismiss it. Much of the OT is not happy stuff.

You will keep in perfect peace him whose mind is steadfast, because he trusts in you. Isaiah 26:3

This idea, that the Reformers somehow were the first to bring the Bible to the people in their own language, is a myth. Many vernacular translations of the Bible existed long before the Reformation. The Vulgate Bible, which is still the official version of the Bible for the Catholic Church, was itself a translation in the common (i.e. vulgar == vulgate) tongue of its day, Latin, and had existed for about a millenium before the Reformation. It might also be noted that the printing press was not even invented until the same century as that in which the Reformation occurred.

When I need a kick-butt God, or when I need assurance of the reality of truth, I pray to God the Father. When I need a friend, someone to put his arm around me and cry with me, I pray to Jesus. When I need strength or wisdom to get through a difficult situation, I pray for the Holy Spirit. I realize that the above will probably make some people cringe, but what can I say? I think the doctrine of the trinity is an attempt to reconcile Jesus being God and being distinct from God, as described in the Bible. I wonder if Jesus had been a Hindu how different the wording would be.

pmy> ...Anyway, I've often wondered what business followers of Christ pmy> would have with weapons. fc> Didn't Christ tell his disciples to arm them selves, shortly fc> before his crusifiction? (I believe the exact quote was along the fc> lines of, "If you have [something] sell it and buy a sword.") "If you have a purse" it was. fc> Certainly, Christ said, fc> "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to fc> send peace but the sword. For I am come to set a man at variance fc> against his father, and the daugher against her mother..." fc> [Matthew 10 34-35] Yes, He said this, but the sword that Jesus brought was the sword of the Word of God, which divides between those that believe, and those who do not, even right down a family. Mark -- Mark TOWFIQ | Business/Urgent: towfiq@Microdyne.COM +1 508 392 9953 (fax 9962) Other: towfiq@Justice.Medford.MA.US +1 617 488 2818

I hate to sound flippant, having shot off my mouth badly on the net before, but I'm afraid that much of this material only adds to my feeling that "the assumption of Mary" would be better phrased "our assumptions _about_ Mary." In all the time I've been reading about Mary on this group, I can not recall reading much about Mary that did not sound like wishful veneration with scant, if any, Scriptural foundation. I find in the New Testament a very real portrait of Christ's parents as compellingly human persons; to be honored and admired for their humility and submission to God's working, beyond doubt. But the almalga- mation of theories and dogma that has accreted around them gives me an image of alien and inhuman creatures, untouched by sin or human desire. Only Christ himself was so truly sanctified, and even He knew temptation, albeit without submitting to it. I also don't see the _necessity_ of saying the Holy Parents were some- how sanctified beyond normal humanity: it sounds like our own inability to grasp the immensity of God's grace in being incarnated through an or- dinary human being. I won't start yelling about how people are "worshipping" Mary, etc., since folks have told me otherwise about that, but I do think we lose part of the wonder of God's Incarnation in Christ when we make his parents out to be sinless, sexless, deathless, otherworldly beings.

IMHO this are going from bad to worse. 3-in-1, 1-in-3 was bad enough. I do not like a God who prays to Himself. I refuse to believe Jesus prayed to Himself -- let's get real, if the scriptures say He prayed to the Father, then the Father IS someone different than the Son. I have no problems with multiple Gods. To me, the whole context of the scriptures co-heirs with Christ; that we will be like Him. Co-heirs share all things equally--including knowledge, power, dominion etc. When I am like Him (Christ), I will be the same as HE is--and He is a God. If God cannot do this, the His is not all powerful--and He is NOT God. If He will not, He is a Liar--and He is NOT God. But if He does, He is the greatest of all the Gods.

I don't think Joe was saying any such thing. However, your question on "asking Jesus to come into your heart" seems to imply that infants are not allowed to have Christ in theirs. Why must Baptism always be viewed by some people as a sort of "prodigal son" type of thing; i.e. a sudden change of heart, going from not accepting Christ to suddenly accepting Christ? Why can't people start out with Christ from shortly after birth, and build their relationship from there? After all, does a man suddenly meet a woman, and then marry her that same day? From my experiences, I've learned that all relationships must be built, including one's relationship with God. Also Joe is speaking from the standpoint that Baptism is not just a ritual, but that through it God bestows sacramental grace upon the recipient. Certainly for those with the mental faculties to know Christ it is necessary to believe in Him. However, the Sacrament itself bestows grace on the recipient, and makes a permanent mark of adoption into God's family on the soul.

[referring to Mary] I have quite a problem with the idea that Mary never committed a sin. Was Mary fully human? If it is possible for God to miraculously make a person free of original sin, and free of committing sin their whole life, then what is the purpose of the Incarnation of Jesus? Why can't God just repeat the miracle done for Mary to make all the rest of us sinless, without the need for repentance and salvation and all that? I don't particularly object to the idea of the assumption, or the perpetual virginity (both of which I regard as Catholic dogma about which I will agree to disagree with my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ), and I even believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, but this concept of Mary's sinlessness seems to me to be at odds with the rest of Christian doctrine as I understand it.

pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes... Never lived out in the country I see. 4 years ago I had a place where I had to carry in propane every month, hook the bottle up to copper line, to supply both the stove, and a type of water- heater called a flash-heater. A flash heater has a pilot lamp. Here's the point. If the Davidians had their propane tanks hooked up to copper (or some such) lines, run through the ceiling spaces -- when the FBI started wrecking the place, they could easily have ruptured the lines. Which then would start spreading out through the overhead. And since it was a country home, it wasn't necessarily built with non-flamable insulation. It's probably more plausible than anything else, that the fire started mainly as a result of accident -- or willful negligence on the part of the FBI, which should have known better (ie. manslaughter). It's certain that if the tanks hadn't been used that day -- the fire wouldn't have started.

If that's the ONLY reason, I'd be inclined to doubt whether or not what they profess is Christianity. The relationship of faith is based upon trust. Fear and trust are generally incompatible. If my only motivation is fear, is there room for trust? If so, there's room for faith. If fear precludes trust, then there can't be faith. Larry Overacker (llo@shell.com) --

Give him the $2, leave the house and call the police. That's what I would do. I will not kill to protect mere possessions. Peace be with you,

The belief that the churches of Egypt and Syria were (or are) monophysite is false, as is the belief that they often held that the Council of Chalcedon was Nestorian. These misunderstandings were exacerbated by political factors, and thus led to schism - a schism that is on its way to being healed.

So Rick, why not read the Bible for yourself? It is written in plain english. Decide for yourself.

What makes you say that the guns were illegal?? I understand that the BD's had a valid Class III Federal Firearms Permit, which would allow them to have pretty much anything short of a howitzer legally.

I'm about to revise my resume and was wondering if I should put on there the fact that I'm a Christian. Give me some input on what you think.

i guess i ought not conclude from this, then, that since you didn't ask to be created, you don't care if you go to hell. :) i don't consider myself an unthinking sheep. the bible says god created us to be in communion and obedience to him. the first and only rule was to not eat of a certain tree, or else the punishment is distance from him and physical death. god's intention in creating us is to have a relationship with us. the bible documents god's attempts to have that relationship culminating in the person of jesus to bear the consequences of all sin so that all who accept him can have a relationship with god again: the purpose of creation.

["it" is Big Bang] Since you asked... from the Big Bang to the formation of atoms is about 10E11 seconds. As for the "color": bright. Very very bright. I don't. I believe the current theory of cosmology because it is fairly well supported by observational evidence (not as well supported as, say evolution or relativity, but that's another matter). You're the one who proposes unquestioningly accepting religious dogma as fact (apologies if you're not actually a creationist). The line is broader than you think. Theories are supported by evidence. Miracles are supported by someone's say-so.

The Christian Reformed Church does not allow people to belong to lodges, the Reformed Church in America does. The conservatives in both churches are very similar, as are the "progressives". The RCA currently ordains women; the CRC is fighting over the issue.

[ deleted ] [ deleted ] Your information on this topic is very much out of date. Quantum Electro- dynamics (QED - which considers light to be particles) has been experimentally verified to about 14 decimal digits of precision under ALL tested conditions. I'm afraid that this case, at least in the physics community, has been decided. Laymen should consult "QED - The Strange Theory of Light and Matter" by Richard P. Feynman and for the more technically minded there's "The Feynman Lectures on Physics" by Feynman, Leighton and Sands (an excellent 3 volumes). Case closed.

[ in response to a question about why Jesus' parents would be sanctified beyond normal humanity] I would think that simply being pregnant with the incarnation of the Almighty God would be enough to make Mary blessed among all women, whether or not she had special spiritual attributes. I find that the more special Mary needs to be, the less human Jesus gets.

If what was being discussed could be established or disproven by experiment and observation, then I would agree with you, Chris. The burden of proof would belong to Bill. But the source document for Christianity, the Bible, simply assumes God exists and makes it clear (to us Calvinists, anyway :-)) that when a person is in fellowship with God, it is because God has taken the initiative in revealing Himself to that person. So from a Christian point of view, the burden of proof belongs to God. Bill is being consistent with what the Bible teaches in relating his own experience with God, but it would be an error on his part to assume that there is a direct, causal relationship between his testimony and someone else becoming convinced that God exists and that he needs to be reconciled to God. Please excuse me if I missed an earlier part of this thread in which Bill came across like an egotist. What I saw was simply obedience to the scriptural command to "always be ready to give a reason for the joy that is in you".

speaking of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin: Yes. For examples of this in the writings of the early fathers, consider: You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others; For there is no blemish in you, nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these? -- St. Ephrem the Syrian, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8, around A.D. 370 Lift me up not from Sara but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin. -- St. Ambrose, "Commentary on Psalm 118", 22:30, ca. A.D. 388 There are many others. No. We have, for instance: Was there ever anyone of any breeding who dared to speak the name of Holy Mary, and being questioned, did not immediately add, "the Virgin"? ... And to Holy Mary, Virgin is invariably added, for that Holy Woman remains undefiled. -- St. Epiphanus of Salamis, "Panacea against all heresies", between A.D. 374-377. We surely cannot deny that you were right in correcting the doctrine about children of Mary ... For the Lord Jesus would not have chosen to be born of a virgin if He had judged that she would be so incontinent as to taint the birthplace of the Body of the Lord, home of the Eternal King, with the seed of human intercourse. Anyone who proposes this is merely proposing ... that Christ could not be born of a virgin. -- Pope St. Siricius, Letter to Anysius, Bishop of Thessalonica, A.D. 392 Note that St. Augustine's conversion to Christianity was in A.D. 387. I don't know offhand when his election as bishop of Hippo was, but I'm quite sure it was after 392. The belief in Mary's perpetual virginity originated long before Augustine's time. We hold that it originated with the Apostles. Strictly speaking, however, Mary's perpetual virginity is independent of her Immaculate Conception. Mary could have been Immaculately Conceived and not remained a virgin; she could have remained a virgin and not been Immaculately Conceived. No. It has been held in the Church since ancient times that original sin was transmitted at conception, when a person's life begins. Biology had nothing to do with it. Prayerfully reflecting on the truth of Mary's sinlessness, and the means by which God could have achieved this, the Church arrived at the truth of the Immaculate Conception. Thus, the Immaculate Conception is not a new doctrine, but the logical result of our understanding of two old ones. The celebration of the Feast of the Immaculate Conception itself was given by Pope Sixtus IV (1471-84) and the Feast was made a precept feast of the Church by Pope Clement XI (1700-21). No. First of all, Lourdes is private revelation, and doctrine is not based on private revelation. The most that private revelation can do is enhance and deepen our understanding of existing public revelation, which ended with the death of St. John the Apostle. Second, the "case for the doctrine" was irreformably sealed in 1854 with the ex cathedra promulgation of the Bull "Ineffabilis Deus" by Pope Pius IX. This meant that the doctrine was formally recognized as a dogma; a dogma, by definition, cannot change and is required to be believed by the faithful. The apparition at Lourdes happened in 1858, four years later. The most that might be claimed is that Lourdes gave the infallible proclamation of 1854 a sort of heavenly stamp of approval, but the Church has never claimed that, nor shall she. In Christ's Peace, Brad Kaiser (bradk@isdgsm.eurpd.csg.mot.com)

Isn't that just a variation of the "Achilles & the turtle" paradox, which states that achilles could never possibly overtake a turtle? How should one deal with a man who is convinced that he is acting according to God's will, and who there- Jokke fore believes that he is doing you a favour by stabbing you in the back?

In <1993Apr24.214843.10940@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu If the ONLY people proposing a "moment of silence" are doing so as a sham to sneak in prayers, then it MUST be opposed. What the HELL have prayers to do with public schooling? [I ask this question as a devout Christian.] Their kids can bloody-well pray any God-damned time they WANT to. And nothing, on heaven or earth, in government or the principal's office, can prevent or in any other way deal with their doing so. *Especially* if the prayer is silent (as bursting out into the "Shema Yisrael" or some other prayer *might* be construed as disruptive if audible :-)) No one ever prevented ME from praying in public school! They hardly even prevented me from masturbating in study hall. I should have thought better of someone posting from a UChicago address. How can you manage to say such nonsense without shame? Muslim students might have a complaint, if they are prevented from setting out their rugs and doing the proper ablutions before prayer at the times specified in the Qu'ran. Jews would probably like the opportunity to daven with tefillim and whatever else *they* require, at *their* appropriate times. I do not see THEM complaining (though Muslims and Jews have a case that no Christian I have ever heard has been able to make.) The "Christian" insistence on a PUBLIC, UNIVERSAL, ENFORCED "moment of prayer^H^H^H^H^H^Hsilence" is nothing but the Inquisition "naturalized" into the American context. It is offensive to the Gospel of Christ.

Didn't expect to find you in the Devil's role, Stephen, but these are the times that try men's souls. Nine months, as I understand it. No doubt this accounts for a significant amount of the time as government efficiency in spending our tax dollars would certainly seek its absolute minimum in such an event. But my gut instinct says there is more at hand. It took some careful preplanning to demonize D.K. to such an extent. The attack meshes well with more restrictive gun control legislation that seems to be the agenda of the day. It also fits a pattern of increased government interference in personal religious beliefs. [Randy Weaver is now on trial]. No quarrel here. The BIG BANG theory is always apt at appropriation time. They just don't have to possess a single motive. I certainly think publication of the warrant undermines the government's case since it makes no claims of illegal action. Therefore the federal judge had reason to seal it. But I am reminded of Senator Frank Church's remark that "secrecy is the trademark of a totalitarian government." There is rarely sufficient motive to seal a warrant in a nation of free people. How can I argue with irrefutable logic? I have long suspected that the government has become a mindless machine and now you go and confirm my worst fears! Has it become a BEAST that is programmed simply to say "Kiss my toe and you get your piece of the pie?" I suspect bugs in the program arise when agents or those who love this critter have independent thoughts. And watching Terminator II. Yes, 186 seeds for a new Republic. And 86 for...? Rev. 11:10...And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth. Stephen, have you sensed that some have been rejoicing lately....?

This is a very good point. I have already made the clear claim that Khomeini advocates views which are in contradition with the Qur'an and have given my arguments for this. This is something that can be checked by anyone sufficiently interested. Khomeini, being dead, really can't respond, but another poster who supports Khomeini has responded with what is clearly obfuscationist sophistry. This should be quite clear to atheists as they are less susceptible to religionist modes of obfuscationism. So, to answer your question, the only way you can judge is by learning more about Islam, that is by reading the Qur'an and understanding it's basic principles. Once one has done this it is relatively easy to see who is following the principles of Islam and who is acting in a way at odds with Islam. Khomeini by attributing a superhuman status to twelve muslim historical leaders is at variance with one of basic principles of Islam, which is that no human being is metaphysically different than any other human being and in no sense any closer to God in metaphysical nature.

I don't think we should draw borders around newsgroups, christians are free to read and post entries on the atheist newsgroups, and muslims are free to so so in other groups as well. It's up to each individual to define their time schedule concerning postings. The problems we all have noticed on various newsgroups is the evangelistical method of telling that 'I am right, and you are wrong'. This is true of both theists and atheists. Hopefully a more constructive dialogue between the groups would help concerning assumptions and colorization of views. Cheers, Kent

This is the story of Kent, the archetype Finn, that lives in the Bay Area, and tried to purchase Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason". This man was driving around, to Staceys, to Books Inc, to "Well, Cleanlighted Place", to Daltons, to various other places. When he asked for this book, the well educated American book store assistants in most placed asked him to check out the thriller section, or then they said that his book has not been published yet, but they should receive the book soon. In some places the assistants bluntly said that they don't know of such an author, or that he is not a well known living author, so they don't keep copies of his books. Such is the life and times of America, 200+ years after the revolution. Cheers, Kent

Hi Frank: I've read it a couple of times and I think that it is excellent. Christiandom has needed this book for some time now. I suggest that *every* Christian read it. According to Hank, they printed 15 times more than Harvest House usually prints for the first printing, and it still sold out in the first week. It is in it's second printing, and most Christian book stores have waiting lists. You can order it directly from CRI at 1-800-443-9797.

Actually, I just think he's confused. *I'm* going to hell because I'm Gay, not becuase I don't believe in God. (I wonder if that means I can't come to Tammy & Deans picnic?)

It sure did! I have; and all the above teach me that accurately perceiving reality is a tricky business -- _not_ that there's no reality. -- Mark Pundurs

... I'm in Japan. (Michael, could you give me more info about where Akita is: nearest city would be good) If I find it, I'll get pictures and post a digitised version if enough people are interested.

Yes, atheists tend to claim self control and self ownership. Are you saying that theists claim to not have self control? I don't think atheists are "dominantly arrogant." They don't claim some god that has supremacy over all of mankind. Now this claim would be arrogant, but atheists don't claim it. Most atheists do claim to own themselves. I think any disagreement with this claim of self ownership would be supremely arrogant.

| | > Mary at that time appeared to a girl named Bernadette at | > Lourdes. She referred to herself as the Immaculate Conception. | > Since a nine year old would have no way of knowing about the | > doctrine, the apparition was deemed to be true and it sealed | > the case for the doctrine. |Bernadette was 14 years old when she had her visions, in 1858, |four years after the dogma had been officially proclaimed by the |Pope. | | Yours, | James Kiefer I forgot exactly what her age was but I remember clearly that she was born in a family of poverty and she did not have any education, whatsoever, at the age of the apparitions. She suffered from asthma at that age and she and her family were living in an abandoned prison cell of some sort. She had to ask the 'Lady' several times in her apparitions about what her name was since her confessor priest asked her to do so. For several instances, the priest did not get an answer since Bernadette did not receive any. One time, after several apparitions passed, The Lady finally said, "I am the Immaculate Conception". So, Bernadette, was so happy and repeated these words over and over in her mind so as not to forget it before she told the priest who was asking. So, when she told the priest, the priest was shocked and asked Bernadette, "Do you know what you are talking about?". Bernadette did not know what exactly it meant but she was just too happy to have the answer for the priest. The priest continued with, "How did you remember this if you do not know?". Bernadette answered honestly that she had to repeat it over and over in her mind while on her way to the priest... The priest knew about the dogma being four years old then. But Bernadette did not know and yet she had the answer which the priest finally observed and took as proof of an authentic personal revelation of Our Lady to Bernadette. (Note: This Lady of Lourdes shrine has a spring of water which our lady requested Bernadette to dig up herself with her bare hands in front of pilgrims. At the start little water flowed but after several years there is more water flowing.)

Jesus did and so do I. Peace be with you,

IMO, the influence of Stalin, or for that matter, Ayn Rand, invalidates your assumption that theism is the factor to be considered. Gullibility, blind obedience to authority, lack of scepticism, and so on, are all more reliable indicators. And the really dangerous people - the sources of fanaticism - are often none of these things. They are cynical manipulators of the gullible, who know precisely what they are doing. Now, *some* brands of theism, and more precisely *some* theists, do tend to fanaticism, I grant you. To tar all theists with this brush is bigotry, not a reasoned argument - and it reads to me like a warm-up for censorship and restriction of religious freedom. Ever read Animal Farm? Well, there is a glaring paradox here: an argument that reason is useful based on reason would be circular, and argument not based on reason would be irrational. Which is it? The first part of the second statement contains no information, because you don't say what "the beliefs" are. If "the beliefs" are strong theism and/or strong atheism, then your statement is not in general true. The second part of your sentence is patently false - counterexample: an axiomatic datum does not lend itself to rational analysis, but is assumed to contain reliable information regardless of what process is used to obtain it. I can't agree with this until you are specific - *which* theism? To say that all theism is necessarily antirational requires a proof which I suspect you do not have. I don't understand this. Can you formalise your argument?

From article <May.14.02.11.36.1993.25219@athos.rutgers.edu>, by tas@pegasus.com (Len Howard):

I guess I would react rather strongly to this line of thinking carried out! When you think "your army" is stronger than "mine", you would "righteously" take my children and baptize them, doing what you know is really "best" for them. You cannot possibly put this kind of action, nor the crusades into the context of the teachings of Jesus/God. I think he advocated a different approach that was *by design* made to be appealing, to those called by him, not chosen by a church practice. It seems to me you have the cause and effect switched, the change comes and then you get baptized.

The idea of an apostacy did not originate with Lucy Smith or Joseph Smith or the Mormons. The idea of a restoration was quite common in the early 19th century USA. Alexander Campbell, founder of the group that now survives with the name "Disciples of Christ" preached that the primitive church had been lost and was attempting to restore it (although not be revelations). Many Cambellites subsequently became Mormons, including co-founder Sidney Rigdon. Actually, you can find such sentiments in many of the early protestants of the reformation, such as Martin Luther. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Banks N3JXP | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu | it is shameful to surrender it too soon."

Bill, I think you have a misunderstanding about atheism. Lack of belief in God does not directly imply lack of understanding transcendental values. I hope you would accept the fact that for instance Buddhists appreciate issues related to non-empirical reasoning without the need to automatically believe in theism. I think reading a couple of books related to Buddhism might revise and fine tune your understanding of non-Christian systems. Cheers, Kent

| | > Mary at that time appeared to a girl named Bernadette at | > Lourdes. She referred to herself as the Immaculate Conception. | > Since a nine year old would have no way of knowing about the | > doctrine, the apparition was deemed to be true and it sealed | > the case for the doctrine. |Bernadette was 14 years old when she had her visions, in 1858, |four years after the dogma had been officially proclaimed by the |Pope. | | Yours, | James Kiefer I forgot exactly what her age was but I remember clearly that she was born in a family of poverty and she did not have any education, whatsoever, at the age of the apparitions. She suffered from asthma at that age and she and her family were living in a prison cell of some sort. She had to ask the 'Lady' several times in her apparitions about what her name was since her confessor priest asked her to do so. For several instances, the priest did not get an answer since Bernadette did not receive any. One time, after several apparitions passed, The Lady finally said, "I am the Immaculate Conception". So, Bernadette, was so happy and repeated these words over and over in her mind so as not to forget it before she told the priest who was asking. So, when she told the priest, the priest was shocked and asked Bernadette, "Do you know what you are talking about?". Bernadette did not know what exactly it meant but she was just too happy to have the answer for the priest. The priest continued with, "How did you remember this if you do not know?". Bernadette answered honestly that she had to repeat it over and over in her mind while on her way to the priest... The priest knew about the dogma being four years old then. But Bernadette did not know and yet she had the answer which the priest finally observed and took as proof of an authentic personal revelation of Our Lady to Bernadette. (Note: This Lady of Lourdes shrine has a spring of water which our lady requested Bernadette to dig up herself with her bare hands in front of pilgrims. At the start little water flowed but after several years there is more water flowing.) -Marida "...spreading God's words through actions..." -Mother Teresa

Romans 10:16-17 "But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed our message?' Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ." So then we receive God's gift of faith to us as we hear the message of the gospel. Faith is a possible response to hearing God's word preached. Kids are not yet spiritually, intellectually, or emotionally mature enough to respond to God's word. Hence they cannot have faith and therefore cannot be raised in baptism to a new life. Catholics view the effects of Baptism slightly differently, and that's one primary reason why they baptize babies. They believe that Baptism produces a change in the soul of the baby, quite independently of any volitional act on the part of the baby. This change in the baby's soul gives the infant certain capabilities that he would not have without Baptism. Since the infant does not have the use of his intellect and will yet, these new faculties are dormant. But as the child gets older, the gifts of Baptism come more and more into play. Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul who sins will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him." If you read all of Ezekiel 18, you will see that God doesn't hold us guilty for anyone else's sins. So we can have no original guilt from Adam. Adam was given a number of gifts by God. The chief among them was what Catholics call "sanctifying grace". (In the New Testament, the word used for this is "charity".) By his sin, Adam lost this grace. He didn't lose it just for himself, however, he lost it for the whole human race. Because once he lost it, he couldn't pass it on to his descendents. That's why Catholics baptize babies. Through his Original Sin, Adam lost sanctifying grace for all his descendents. Christ instituted Baptism to give it back to everyone.

[reply to timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons] Which newsgroup have you been reading? The few anti-Christian posts are virtually all in response to some Christian posting some "YOU WILL ALL BURN IN HELL" kind of drivel. Bake, it is transparently obvious that you are a theist pretending to be an atheist. You probably think you are very clever, but we see this all the time. But of course *you* have dismissed them because you are an atheist, right? In other words, you *didn't* read the FAQ after all.

Well, suppose your mother was a crack addict and crack user/abuser while she was pregnant? Suppose your husband gave you some SDT (this recently happened to a close friend of my wife and mine)? OFTEN, the consequences of our sin are at least partially inflicted on innocent people. Several times in the OT, this is pointed out, even saying that descendants would suffer consequences for a person's sin for several generations. Even today, we see multi-generational (to coin a phrase) effects from alcoholism, child abuse, and spousal abuse just to name three. So, God's definition of fair and ours differ. Some points of perspective: Though the predisposition towards sinning is now inbred (see Webster's first definition of inbred) thanks to Adam, it is arrogant and foolish for any of us to think we would have done any different if we were in their shoes. I know myself pretty well, and I'm just not that good. Take God's word for it, neither are you. "There is no one righteous..." More important, when a person decides to be a disciple of Jesus, God promises supernatural help in overcoming our physical self's sinful tendency. We can, of course, choose to ignore this help. (Rom 7,8) "...God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes." -Eccl Mark

Darwin fish can be bought from: -- "JOIN THE DARWINNERS (TM) Send $6 to receive your official Evolving Fish.. wherever you want to spread the good news! Darwinners, 6671 Sunset Blvd., Ste. 1525, L.A.,CA 90028 THE GREATEST THEORY EVER TOLD!" Jenny

Would someone be kind enought to document the exact nature of the evidence against the BD's without reference to hearsay or newsreports. I would also like to know more about their past record etc. but again based on solid not media reports. My reason for asking for such evidence is that last night on Larry King Live a so-called "cult-expert" was interviewed from Australia who claimed that it was his evidence which led to the original raid. This admission, if true, raises the nasty possibility that the Government acted in good faith, which I believe they did, on faulty evidence. It also raises the possibility that other self proclaimed cult experts were advising them and giving ver poor advice.

I and many others on a.a have described how we have tried to find god. Are you saying our efforts have not been sincere? For all the effort I have put in, there has been no outward nor inward change that I can perceive. What's a sincerely searching Agnostic or Atheist supposed to do when even the search turns up nothing? How do you "accept that which you don't know"? Do you mean that I must believe in your god in order to believe in your god?

Hello Ceci: My name is Tony and I have a few comments on your "rosicrucian" adventure. I hereby state that I am not claiming or denying membership in any Order, fraternity etc. with or without the word "Rosicrucian" in the name of the organization. I only claim having done some "homework" :-) This is intended as a friendly article and if at times it seems different, it's my lack of writing skills showing, nothing else. Heck, English may be my second language! (And then again maybe not by now :-) I proceed: Let's start with the name "Rosicrucian". I took me a long time to come to the conclusion that there is a difference between a *member* of a "rosicrucian" body and BEING *a* ROSICRUCIAN. So when you say that you met some 'rosicrucians' you mean "members of a group that calls themselves rosicrucian". At least that is what your observation suggests :-) I'd prefer if you would have stated up front that it was the Lectorium Rosicrucianum, only because they may be confused, by some readers of this newsgroup, with the Rosicrucian Order AMORC based (the USA Jurisdiction) in San Jose, CA; this being the RC org with the most members (last time I looked). Of course, "most members" does not *necessarily* mean "best". Anyway, the Lectorium Rosicrucianum claims they descend (at least in part) from what was the "Gold-und-Rosenkreuz" (Golden and Rosy Cross), from the 18th century. There were two "Golden and Rosy Cross", the first (chronologically) more alchemical, the second with Masonic tinges, but their history is the subject of a complete chapter :-). "You'll have to trust me" when I tell you that if that lecture/class/whatever had been presented by AMORC, it is unlikely that you would have had the same impression, i.e., you'd probably have had a positive impression more likely than a negative one, IMHO. Again, instead of R:s, it should be "Lectorium Rosicrucianum" :-). It is curious to know that 3 other RC 'orders' (in the USA) claim to be *non- sectarian*. The Cathars were a 'heretic' christian sect that directly challenged the 'authority' of the medieval catholic church. They flourished during the 12th century, century which saw the religious zeal expressed in the crusades and also the growing disillusion with the catholic church and the worldly ways of its clerics. It was largely in response to the church's unseemly pomp and splendor that Catharism took root, first in northern Italy, then throughout the south of France. I don't see nothing *fundamentally* wrong with "us containing something divine"... And yes I don't like phrases like "eternal bliss" either! :-) For a moment I thought you were referring to Madison Ave :-) (Madison avenue in New York City is where the most influential (read $$$) *commercial* advertising is produced here in the USA :-) Peace, Tony

The Catholic doctrine of predestination does not exclude free will in any way. Since God knows everything, He therefore knows everything that is going to happen to us. We have free will, and are able to change what happens to us. However, since God knows everything, He knows all the choices we will make "in advance" (God is not subject to time). Too often arguments pit predestination against free will. We believe in both. That last sentence of Steve's is an important one to remember. There are certain things in the Catholic religion that cannot be completely comprehended by a human being. Were this not the case, it would be good evidence that the religion was man-made. In the case of predestination, you have to reconcile two things that would at first appear to be irreconcilable: the sovereignty of God's will over all things, and man's free will in deciding his own fate. Catholics believe in both! But that doesn't mean that anyone has come up with a pat reconciliation...

Convenient? It seems very appropriate that this is cross-posted to alt.conspiracy. Assuming the most favorable interpretation of your '1000 degree' measurement (that the temperature is in Centigrade, rather than the more common -in the US- Fahrenheit), you are still laboring under at least 2 misconceptions: 1. You seem to believe that steel melts somewhere around 1000 C. Actually, the melting point of most iron alloys (and steels are iron alloys) is in the neighborhood of 1400 C. Even if the gun were found in area which achieved the 1000 C temperature, the steel parts of the gun would not be deformed, and it would still be trivial to identify the nature of the weapon. 2. A fire is not an isothermal process. There are 'hot' spots and 'cold' spots, though 'cold' is purely a relative term. So the weapon was not necessarily situated in a hot spot, as you seem to imply. And, even if it was, so what? It would not have melted anyway.

Though you can certaily assert all this, I don't see why it necessarily has to be the case. Why can't hate just stay as it is, and not beget more? Who says we have to get disgusted and start hating the sinner. I admit this happens, but I donlt think you can say it is always necessaily so. Why can we not hate with a perfect hatred? Certainly we should love even our enemies. Amos 5:15 says to hate the evil and love the good. This can't contradict Christ's teaching. I think we tie up both hate and love with an emotional attitude, when it really should be considered more objectively. Surely I don't fly into a rage at every sin I see, but why can I not "hate" it?

hey folks, I'm fairly new to these groups, tho' some have heard from me before. I'd like to get your comments on a question that has been on my mind a lot: What morals/ethics apply to dreams and out-of-body incidents? In normal dreams, you can't control anything, so obviously you aren't morally responsible for your actions. But if you can contrive to control the action in dreams or do an OOBE, it seems like a morality applies. Now, there seem to be 3 alternatives: 1) Dreams and OOBEs are totally mental phenomena. In this case no morality applies beyond what might be called 'mental hygiene', that is, not trying to think about anything evil, or indulgining in overly sexy or violent thoughts. 2) Dreams and OOBEs have a reality of their own (i.e. are 'another plane') Evidence for this is that often dreams and OOBEs are sometimes done in common by more than one person. A mark of objective fact is that >1 people report the same objective experience. In this case, the same interpersonal morality/ethics applies in dreams and OOBEs as does in waking life. 3) Like (2), but here we assume that though the dreeam and OOBE environs have a real existence, a different moral/ethics apply there, and no (or maybe different) moral laws apply there. So... There it is. Is one of these cases the truth, or does anyone know of another alternative? respond by post or email. thanks very much *dt* ========================================================

When they're not important, yes. All scientists do. Otherwise science would never get anywhere. Hang about -- not atomic interactions in general. Just specific ones which are deemed unimportant. Like gravitational interactions between ions, which are so small they're drowned out by electrostatic effects, and so on. Oh, probably. They still make people memorize equations and IR spectra. Maybe in a few decades they'll discover the revolutionary "data book" technique.

A world creator god does, the moment it creates the world. And to sayi that you can't recall *anyone* is even below your usual standard of a"arguing". My argument is based on quite usual theistic assumptions, namely god is perfect, god is all-knowing god sets the rules. The rules don't work for whatever reason. Because of its omniscience, the god has known it. In advance. (Deletion) It is not a question of grammar, it is a question of modelling. Has been discussed in the wonderful time when you were not posting to this group. When A is contradictorily defined A does not point to an instance in reality. Unless there is more information in the definition of A that allows me to find it somehow. However, when the contradictory attribute is said to be essential, ie has not got that attribute => not the A I am looking for, I can conclude that A does not exist. That's quite like: I predict coins falling Predicted Happened 1. Heads Tails 2. Tails Tails 3. Heads Tails 4. Heads Tails I take 2. and dismiss the rest because of the unnecessary complexity the other evidence causes.

That's not "showing the signs of his innate sin", that's testing the limits of his newfound independence. A two-year-old will continually test you to see just how much he can get away with, just as a pet dog will. If a child always submitted to your will in a docile fashion, would you praise him and suspect that he's the Second Coming of Christ, or would you seek professional help about his emotional development?

: : . : It's my understanding that the U.S. Supreme Court has never : given a legal definition of religion. This despite the many : cases involving religion that have come before the Court. : Can anyone verify or falsify this? : Has any state or other government tried to give a legal : definition of religion? According to the legal practices of today's America, I imagine the legal definition of religion, if defined, may resemble the following: "Any system of belief or practice to which people are committed for the benefit of society which must, in the opinion of secular thought, be isolated from political and educational influence." "Should any system of belief or practice to which people are committed be harmful or void of any benefit to society in the opinion of religious thought as defined in the previous paragraph, isolation of such from political and educational influence would constitute unreasonable censorship and an unlawful violation of civil rights."

If I remember correctly Prometheus books have this one in stock, so just call them and ask for the book. Cheers, Kent

Did that FAQ ever got modified to re-define strong atheists as not those who assert the nonexistence of God, but as those who assert that they BELIEVE in the nonexistence of God? There was a thread on this earlier, but I didn't get the outcome... -- Adam "No Nickname" Cooper

Same old bullshit. Not being given to delusions and wishful thinking I do not have the option of either loving or obeying that which I have so reason to believe. More bullshit. I assure you in my misguided youth I made a sincere effort. It was very painful being a rational person raised in Christian home. Many others could tell the same story. You choose not to believe anyone's experience which contradicts your smug theories.

DN> I think I took on this 'liar, lunatic, or the real thing' DN> the last time. Or was it the time before? Anyway, let DN> somebody else have a turn. I can't debate it with a DN> straight face. Or perhaps for something completely DN> different we could just ridicule him or gather up all the DN> posts from the last two times we did this and email them to DN> him. As an aside, can you believe that somebody actually DN> got a book published about this? Must have been a vanity DN> press. I would recomend to anyone out there to visit your local Christian bookstore and become aware of the stuff they sell. Quite interesting. Most of the stuff is far from intelectual. (About the level of Chick pamphelets...) If it is a common fundie bookstore, it should have at least one section about how you should hate Wiccans, Pagans, Catholics, Mormons, rock musicians, and anyone else who is not as fanatical as them. (Hate for the "Love of God(tm)"!) It is even more interesting watching the people who frequent such places. Very scary people. They hear voices from "God" telling them whatever they want to hear. (If they were not Christians, most of them would be locked away. Maybe this is why Federal money was reduced to Mental institutions by the reagan administration... Had to get their religious leaders out...) "Where would Christianity be if Jesus got eight to fifteen years, with time off for good behavior?" New York State Senator James H. Donovan on Capitol Punishment Alan

You don't need any counterfeit athiest's myth to make religion appear absurd. You need only read any of friendly Christian Bill Conner's posts.

Conviction of Sin A meta-exegetical or methodological essay I look forward to reading it. When I got to the library last week, it was with the object in view to look at some articles that have appeared over the last few years, since my previous look at the literature. Un- fortunately, they had moved the journal back-issues, so I didn't get a look at the articles I was hoping to find. I will continue to reserve my own judgment on _arsenokoitai_ until I have seen the latest scholarly work, and I can hope that REXLEX's posting may give some meat to chew on. However, what I *can* do now, is to point out the methodological issues -- what needs to be shown for anything to be concluded in this matter. If the article REXLEX posts addresses these issues, so much the better; if not, you will perhaps understand why the problem is hard. writes, _in abstractu_: [it is only a minor point, but let me make it anyway; De Young has already contradicted his own prior assertion in this abstract that the ancient analysis of these issues was concerned with actions and NOT with orientation. I doubt this will have much bearing on the article as such, but thought I should point it out from the start.] The hypothesis De Young is advancing is that Paul a) coined the word and b) his intended meaning for it was in reference to the Levitical law. The questions I wish to raise are 1.) how would one go about confirming the truth of this hypothesis? and 2.) what follows if one accepts (or stipulates, for the sake of the discussion) that it is correct? Note that b) is independent of a); I consider b) far more plausible than a), which seems merely to be a counsel of despair over finding nothing in the literature contemporary with Paul to clarify this word. So far as I know, Paul does NOT in general invent words anywhere else in his letters. Unless you have an otherwise-established pattern of coinages, it is *not* sound methodology to assume it -- particularly if he gives no hint in the immedi- ate text to "fix" the coinage's meaning for his audience. As yet, the extract presents no evidence at all. What do we need to confirm or reject the hypothesis? (which, I should say at the outset, I find somewhat plausible; I certainly know of nothing which makes it an *impossible* way of construing this problem passage.) I'm going to set aside for the moment the question of whether Paul might have coined this usage, to look at the more tractable question of what it means. For this there are, in principle, two kinds of evidence that can be adduced, internal and external. That is, we can look at the text of Paul's letter for clarification or look outside that to prior or contemporary writings that Paul might have relied on, or to derivative writings that have some claim of access to Paul's meaning. The single WORST problem with this word in Corinthians is that there IS no internal evidence for Paul's meaning. He uses the word totally without an explanation or hint as to his meaning, save that its inclusion in a list of negatives implies that it has for him SOME negative meaning. We are left, as the only "internal" clue, with the etymology or formation of the word -- which is indeed the reason that De Young (and others before him) have associated it with the Leviticus prohibition of men VERBing with other men, where VERB is some standard euphemism for having sex ("lie" in Leviticus, "bed" in Greek). One problem is that "bedders" (_-koitai_) is not, as far as I know, USED that way in Greek. THEREFORE, I offer one serious test which de Young's hypothesis *must* pass or be rejected: o find a body of Greek texts contemporary with Paul (or not much prior to his day) such that the _X-koitai_ formation implies "men who have sex with X" [obviously, the "best case" is to find such usages of _arsenokoitai_ itself.] such texts would be confirmation that the word *can* be read that way. It is worth emphasizing that compound words are NOT in general under- standable by projecting what the READER may imagine by the juxtaposition of the roots. Existence of such parallels doesn't *prove* the hypothesis correct -- but it goes a long way towards making such a usage (whether or not original with Paul in the specific case of X == _arse:n_) possible of comprehension by his readers. My "test" moves in the direction of external evidence. If Paul does NOT in his text explain his word (and he does not), then he has to expect his readers to already know the word (which stands against its being a coinage) or to expect that it mimics word formations that they *do* know, such that they can guess his meaning without too much floundering. External evidence, that is, texts other than Paul's own and lexicographic or social/historical considerations that might be adduced, then come into the picture. *If* there are other uses of the word, not dependent on Paul, which *have* sufficient internal (contextual) evidence -- or some gloss by a contemporary scribe -- to show a derogatory reference to male homosexu- ality, or similar _-koitai_ formations used in similar ways, *then* one has grounds for o denying that Paul coined the word and o assuming that his readers might understand his meaning Do you see the problem? If Paul coined the word, then he REQUIRES his readers to share enough context with him to COMPREHEND his coinage and its intent -- in this case that they would (stipulating De Young's guess) understand him to be referring to the Levitical "universal" prohibition of male-male sex (this, mind you, in a context where Paul has emphasized at least to OTHER congregations (and so one assumes to the Corinthians -- how else to explain 1 Cor. 6:12, and the Corinthians having to be pulled back from overinterpreting their freedom?) the NON applicability of Torah law to his gentile converts!) Among the considerations that make it implausible for Paul to have coined the word, its first element is archaic -- _arse:n_ is an old Attic or Ionic form of what in even classical (let alone koine) times would be assimilated as _arre:n_. To me, this implies that we are even more than usually needful of external evidence to pin down meaning and usage. What is Paul doing inventing a word in obsolete Attic formation? And if he *didn't* coin the word, but picked it up like the others in his list as common terms of derogation, then his meaning will be -- for his readers -- constrained by that common meaning (since he gives no other.) I cannot emphasize enough that Paul DOES NOT TELL US what he means by this word. We (and his original readers) are guessing. They, at least, had a contemporary context -- and maybe Paul had used this very word and explained it in great detail to them in person. But we have no trace of evidence of that, and to *suppose* it is mere fantasy. So -- we are *desperately* in need of external evidence about this word. And it seems to be exceptionally meagre. That is precisely the problem. I can think of several more or less equally plausible hypotheses about the word: a) it was a standard gutter term of abuse for (some or all, maybe very specific, maybe very general) homosexual male activities b) it was a term of abuse used by Jews about the awful homosexual Greeks (which may or may not be consciously associated on their part with the Leviticus passage) c) Paul invented the term -- and again there may or may not be an association with Leviticus in his doing so. He may or may not intend the word to have an explicit and universal application with absolute and clear boundaries. [Since none of his OTHER words in that list have such character, this last seems to me about the *least* plausible of the hypotheses I'm advancing.] Of these, I'd say off the top of my head that a) is most plausible -- but I still have reservations about that, too. If the word NEVER appears before Paul, and in later uses has some evidence of depending on Paul, then one can opt for Paul's coining it. If it does appear before him, he might *still* have coined it being unaware of prior use (in which case, his coinage is inherently confusing!) but one should normally demote c) on the basis of any earlier uses (especially if they can be shown to have been at all common in the places Paul traveled.) In either of the a) or b) cases, one has to take into account Paul's relation to the community of usage he picked the word up from -- and whether it be from the Greek or Jewish communities, Paul's relations are hardly straight- forward! There is, so far as I have yet seen, little or no external evidence to aid us in selecting one of these (or some other) hypothesis. Your guess is as good as mine (or maybe worse or maybe better, depending on a lot of things). But it remains -- so far -- guesswork. And I don't know about you, but I for one WILL NOT equate human guesswork with the will of God. By all means be convinced in your own conscience about what Paul is getting at -- as he says elsewhere on what was in HIS day a major controversy of somewhat this same character (Romans 14:22-23) "Hold on to your own belief, as between yourself and God -- and consider the man fortunate who can make his decision without going against his conscience. But anybody who eats in a state of doubt is condemned, because he is not in good faith, and every act done in bad faith is a sin." For my part, I cannot see any way to resolve Paul's meaning in the use of _arsenokoitai_ without directly applicable external evidence -- and by the nature of such external evidence, it will never reach to certainty of constraining Paul's own intent. Paul, like Humpty Dumpty (and me, and all the rest of us) *will* use words in ways that are personal choices -- and sometimes leave his readers puzzled. If that puzzlement leads you to God, it may be blessed -- if it should lead away (as some of Paul's words HAVE led some people), then Paul's intense communicative effort to contrive his meaning in our souls may have some regretable consequences. I have always found Paul to be a fantastically reliable guide -- if I read him "in the large", if I can see him lay out his position in detail and hammer it home time and time again. I am much less certain about his meaning in his many brief and cryptic passages (such as this one.) In my usual discursive way, I have gone on at great length about the first of my intended meta-exegetical points -- what would be needed to confirm that Paul a) coined or b) in any case meant the word to mean the same as the Leviticus prohibition. My second point is to *stipulate* this hypo- thesis, and follow up what it implies for both his initial readers and for later Christians. Given my verbosity, this will be tomorrow night's meditation :-)

-*---- Far from being "tossed out," the gospels are taken, almost universally, as the primary source of information about Jesus. I am curious as to whom Mike Cobb is referring. Who "tosses out" the New Testament? Undoubtedly a few *naive* atheists do this, but the phrasing of the question above seems to suggest that Cobb ascribes this more broadly. Perhaps the question that gets more to the heart of the matter is why, except for some *naive* believers (who, unfortunately, far outnumber nonbelievers, both naive and critical), are the gospels *not* taken as "gospel truth" that faithfully records just what happened two thousand years ago? This has an easy answer, and the answer has *nothing* to do with miracles: no text is taken this way by a critical reader. There is a myth among some naive believers that one takes a text, measures it by some set of criteria, and then either confirms the text as "historically valid" or "tosses out" the text. I suspect this myth comes from the way history is presented in primary and secondary school, where certain texts are vested with authority, and from writers such as Josh McDowell who pretend to present historical arguments along these lines for their religious program. In fact, most texts used in primary and secondary school history classes ought to be tossed out, even the better such texts should not be treated as authoritatively as descibed above, and Josh McDowell would not know a historical argument if it bit him on the keister twice. Let me present the barest outlines of a different view of texts and their use in studying history. First, all texts are historically valid. ALL texts. Or to put this another way, I have never seen a notion of "historical validity" that makes any sense when applied to a text. Second, no text should be read as telling the "gospel truth" about historical events, in the way that many students are wont to read history texts in primary and secondary school. NO text. (This includes your favorite author's history of whatever.) Every text is a historical fact. Every text was written by some person (or some group of people) for some purpose. Hence, every text can serve as historical evidence. The question is: what can we learn from a text? Of what interesting things (if any) does the text provide evidence? The diaries of the followers of the Maharishi, formerly of Oregon, are historical evidence. The gospels are historical evidence. The letters of the officers who participated in the vampire inquests in Eastern Europe are historical evidence. The modern American history textbooks that whitewash "great American figures" are historical evidence. These are all historical evidence of various things. They are *not* much evidence at all that the Maharishi, formerly of Oregon, could levitate; that Jesus was resurrected; that vampires exist; or that "great American figures" are as squeaky clean as we learned in school. They are better evidence that some people "saw" the Maharishi, late of Oregon, levitate; that some of the early Christians thought Jesus was resurrected; that many people in Eastern Europe "saw" vampires return from the grave; and that we still have an educational system that largely prefers to spread myth rather than teach history. How does one draw causal connections and infer what a piece of historical evidence -- text or otherwise -- evinces? This is a very complex question that has no easily summarized answer. There are many books on the subject or various parts of the subject. I enjoy David Hackett Fischer's "Historian's Fallacies" as a good antidote to the uncritical way in which it is so easy to read texts present history. It's relatively cheap. It's easy to read. Give it a try.

I get the feeling that we are debating at cross-purposes--that we do not see the same fundamental assumptions, and this perhaps makes my answers orthogonal to your questions. I will try again. Perhaps you believe that nothing exists aside from objectively observable and provable things. In that case, I cannot show you that there is such thing as a spirit or a spiritual need--these things do not exist in the realm of the objective, but in the realm of the subjective. (By a.a., I assume you mean Alcoholics Anonymous, and not alt.atheism ;) I would not say that AA "handles" spiritual needs. Rather I would say that AA (and other 12-step programs) help people come to terms with their needs--ie that AA is facilitating the recovery, and that as part of the recovery, they recognize their spiritual needs, and begin to rely on a "higher power" (12-step's term) to fill them instead of whatever substance abuse they had been accustomed to. (Sorry, there is no objective proof here either--no way to take 2 identical alcoholics and try to have one recover by fulfilling spiritual needs, and one without and externally compare the difference--we are talking about the virtually infinite complexity of *people* here.) Spiritual needs could be defined as things that people need in addition to physical requirements like air, food, sleep, etc. These are things like the need for love and acceptance, and the need for meaning in life. If one denies the existence of spiritual things, one would presumably call these "emotional needs". The reason Christians call them spiritual needs is that they have aspects that are not fulfillable except by spiritual means--ie a person could be loved and accepted by many people, and do many meaningful things, but still have a need for love, which can only be satisfied by the love of God. Now the problem is that there are people who accept the existence of these needs, and people who reject them. Since I believe in absolute truth, some of these people are right, and the others are wrong. So here are the 2 possibilities: 1) If Christians are right, then we all have spiritual needs--ie we all need God. Those who do not realize that they need God are deluded--they just haven't recognized it yet. 2) If Christians are wrong, spiritual needs are an artefact of our brain chemicals. Well-adjusted and properly-integrated personalities do not have such things. Christians are simply using the concept of God and spiritual needs to mask their own inadequacies. I hate to belabour the point, but the existence of spirits and spiritual needs cannot be objectively demonstrated or proven, just like the existence of God cannot. And yes, this means that there is a risk that all my subjective evidence is manufactured by my brain chemicals. But on the other hand, I could venture into solipsism and say that there is a risk that everything that I appear to objectively know is really manufactured by my brain chemicals. I suspect this is an unsatisfactory answer to a request for evidence and demonstration of the existence of spirits and spiritual needs, but my assertion is that such things are not objectively demonstrable. As I have said before, I myself am on the Christian side of agnosticism, having been pushed off the fence by subjective evidence. (And no, I was not raised a Christian, so it is not a case of simply accepting what I was indoctrinated with.)

Someone referred to my FAQ essay on homosexuality. Since it hasn't been posted for some time (and I've modified it somewhat since the last time), I'm taking this opportunity to post it. There is another entry in the FAQ containing comments by some other contributors. They can be retrieved from ftp.rutgers.edu as pub/soc.religion.christian/others/homosexuality. It contains far more detail on the exegetical issues than I give here, though primarily from a conservative point of view. ---------------------------- This posting summarizes several issues involving homosexuality and Christians. This is a frequently asked question, so I do not post the question each time it occurs. Rather this is an attempt to summarize the postings we get when we have a discussion. It summarizes arguments for allowing Christian homosexuality, since most people asking the question already know the arguments against it. The most common -- but not the only -- question dealt with herein is "how can a Christian justify being a homosexual, given what the Bible says about it?" First, on the definition of 'homosexual'. Many groups believe that there is a homosexual "orientation", i.e. a sexual attraction to members of the same sex. This is distinguished from actual homosexual sexual activity. Homosexuals who abstain from sex are considered by most groups to be acceptable. However in a lot of discussion, the term 'homosexual' means someone actually engaging in homosexual sex. This is generally not accepted outside the most 'liberal' groups. In this paper I'm going to use 'homosexual' as meaning a person engaging in sexual acts with another of the same sex. I haven't heard of any Biblical argument against a person with homosexual orientation who remains celebate. I think most people now admit that there is a predisposition to be homosexual. This is often called a 'homosexual orientation'. It is not known whether it is genetic or environmental. There is evidence suggesting each. The best evidence I've seen is that homosexuality is not a single phenomenon, but has a number of different causes. One of them is probably genetic. There are several groups that try to help people move from being homosexual to heterosexual. The best-known is Exodus International". The reports I've seen (and I haven't read the detailed literature, just the summary in the minority opinion to the Presbyterian Church's infamous report on human sexuality) suggest that these programs have very low success rates, and that there are questions about how real even the successes are. But there certainly are people who say they have converted. However this issue is not as important as it sounds. Those who believe homosexuality is wrong believe it is intrinsically wrong, defined as such by God. The fact that it's hard to get out of being a homosexual is no more relevant than the fact that it's hard to escape from being a drug addict. If it's wrong, it's wrong. It may affect how we deal with people though. If it's very difficult to change, this may tend to make us more willing to forgive it. One more general background issue: It's common to quote a figure that 10% of the population is homosexual. I asked one of our experts where this came from. Here's his response: Kinsey (see below) is the source of the figure 10 percent. He defines sexuality by behavior, not by orientation, and ranked all persons on a scale from Zero (completely heterosexual) to 6 (completely heterosexual). According to Kinsey, one-third of all male adults have had at least one experience of orgasm homosexually post puberty. Ten percent of all adult males have most of their experiences of homosexually. That was in 1948. The percentages held true in a followup study done by the Kinsey Institute, based on data in the early seventies but not published until the early 80s or so, by Bell and Weinberg, I believe. I can't put my hand on this latter reference, but here is the online information for Kinsey's own study as it appears in IRIS, the catalog at Rutgers: AUTHOR Kinsey, Alfred Charles, 1894-1956. TITLE Sexual behavior in the human male [by] Alfred C. Kinsey. Wardell B. Pomeroy [and] Clyde E. Martin. PUBLISHER Philadelphia, W. B. Saunders Co., 1948. DESCRIP xv, 804 p. diagrs. 24 cm. NOTES "Based on surveys made by members of the staff of Indiana University, and supported by the National Research Council's Committee for Research on Problems of Sex by means of funds contributed by the Medical Division of the Rockefeller Foundation." * Bibliography: p. 766-787. OTHER AUT Pomeroy, Wardell Baxter, joint author. * Martin, Clyde Eugene, joint author. SUBJECTS Sex. * U. S. -- Moral Conditions. LC CARD 48005195 This figure is widely used in all scholarly discussions and has even been found to hold true in several other cultures, as noted in the recent NEWSWEEK coverstory "Is this child gay?" (Feb. 24, 1992). A journalist is running the rounds of talk shows this season promoting her book that allegedly refutes Kinsey's study, but the scholarly world seems to take her for a kook...... I've seen some objections to the Kinsey's study, but not in enough detail to include here. (If someone would like to contribute another view, I'd be willing to include it.) Most Christians believe homosexuality (at least genital sex) is wrong. Not all, however. A few denominations accept it. The Metropolitan Community Churches is the best-known -- it was formed specifically to accept homosexuals. However the United Church of Christ also allows it, and I think a couple of other groups may as well. The Episcopal Church seems to accept it some areas but not others. In churches that have congregational government, you'll find a few congregations that accept it (even among Southern Baptists, though the number is probably only one or two congregations). But these are unusual -- few churches permit homosexual church leaders. How carefully they enforce this is another issue. I don't have any doubt that there are homosexual pastors of just about every denomination, some more open than others. As to the arguments over the Biblical and other issues, here's an attempt to summarize the issues: The most commonly cited reference by those favoring acceptance of homosexuality in previous discussions has been John Boswell: "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality", U Chicago Press, 1980. The argument against is pretty clear. There are several explicit laws in the OT, e.g. Leviticus 20:13, and in Rom 1 Paul seems pretty negative on homosexuality. Beyond these references, there are some debates. Some passages often cited on the subject probably are not relevant. E.g. the sin which the inhabitants of Sodom proposed to carry out was homosexual *rape*, not homosexual activity between consenting adults. (There's even some question whether it was homosexual, since the entities involved were angels.) It was particularly horrifying because it involved guests, and the responsibility towards guests in that culture was very strong. (This is probably the reason Lot offered his daughter -- it was better to give up his daughter than to allow his guests to be attacked.) If you look through a concordance for references to Sodom elsewhere in the Bible, you'll see that few seem to imply that homosexuality was their sin. There's a Jewish interpretive tradition that the major sin was abuse of guests. At any rate, there's no debate that homosexual *rape* is wrong. I do not discuss Leviticus because the law there is part of a set of laws that most Christians do not consider binding. So unless NT justification can be found, Lev. alone would not settle the issue. The NT references are all in Paul's letters. A number of the references from Paul are lists of sins in which the words are fairly vague. Boswell argues that the words occuring in these lists do not in the lists (i.e. I Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1:10) are /malakos/ and /arsenokoitai/. Unfortunately it is not entirely clear what the words actually mean. /malakos/, with a basic meaning of soft, has a variety of metaphorical meanings in ethical writing. Boswell suggests "wanton" as a likely equivalent. He also reports that the unanimous interpretation of the Church, including Greek-speaking Christians, was that in this passage it referred to masturbation, a meaning that has vanished only in the 20th Cent., as that practice has come to be less frowned-upon. (He cites references as late as the 1967 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia that identify it as masturbation.) He translates /arsenokotai/ as male prostitute, giving evidence that none of the church fathers understood the term as referring to homosexuality in general. A more technical meaning, suggested by the early Latin translations, would be "active mode homosexual male prostitute", but in his view Paul did not intend it so technically. For a more conservative view, I consulted Gordon Fee's commentary on I Cor. He cites evidence that /malakos/ often meant effeminate. However Boswell warns us that in Greek culture effeminate is not necessarily synonymous with homosexual, though it may be associated with some kinds of homosexual behavior. Given what Boswell and Fee say taken together, I suspect that the term is simply not very definite, and that while it applies to homosexuals in some cases, it isn't a general term for homosexuality. While Fee argues against Boswell with /arsenokotai/ as well, he ends up suggesting a translation that seems essentially the same. The big problem with it is that the word is almost never used. Paul's writing is the first occurence. The fact that the word is clearly composed of "male" and "f**k" unfortunately doesn't quite tell us the meaning, since it doesn't tell us whether the male is the subject or object of the action. Examples of compound words formed either way can be given. In theory it could refer to rapists, etc. It's dangerous to base meaning purely on etymology, or you'll conclude that "goodbye" is a religious expression because it's based on "God by with ye". However since Boswell, Fee, and NIV seem to agree on "homosexual male prostitute", that seems as good a guess as any. Note that this translation misses the strong vulgarity of the term however (something which Fee and Boswell agree on, but do not attempt to reproduce in their translation). In my opinion, the strongest NT reference to homosexuality is Romans 1. Boswell points out that Rom 1 speaks of homosexuality as something that happened to people who were naturally heterosexual, as a result of their corruption due to worshipping false gods. One could argue that this is simply an example: that if a homosexual worshipped false gods, he would also fall into degradation and perhaps become heterosexual. However I find this argument somewhat forced, and in fact our homosexual readers have not seriously proposed that this is what Paul meant. However I am not convinced that Rom 1 is sufficient to create a law against homosexuality for Christians. What Paul is describing in Rom 1 is not homosexuality among Christians -- it's homosexuality that appeared among idolaters as one part of a whole package of wickedness. Despite the impression left by his impassioned rhetoric, I'm sure Paul does not believe that pagans completely abandoned heterosexual sex. Given his description of their situation, I rather assume that their heterosexual sex would also be debased and shameless. So yes, I do believe that this passage indicates a negative view of homosexuality. But in all fairness, the "shameless" nature of their acts is a reflection of the general spiritual state of the people, and not a specific feature of homosexuality. My overall view of the situation is the following: I think we have enough evidence to be confident that Paul disapproved of homosexuality. Rom 1 seems clear. While I Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1:10 are not unambiguous and general condemnations of homosexuality, they do not seem like wording that would come from someone who approved of homosexuality or even considered it acceptable in some cases. On the other hand, none of these passages contains explicit teachings on the subject. Rom 1 is really about idolatry. It refers to homosexuality in passing. The result of this situation is that people interpret these passages in light of their general approach to Scripture. For those who look to Scripture for laws about issues such as this, it not surprising that they would consider these passages to be NT endorsement of the OT prohibition. For those whose approach to the Bible is more liberal, it is not surprising that they regard Paul's negative view of homosexuality as something that he took from his Jewish upbringing without any serious reexamination in the light of the Gospel. As readers of this group know by now, the assumptions behind these approaches are so radically different that people tend to foam at the mouth when they see the opposing view described. There's not a lot I can do as moderator about such a situation. A number of discussions in the past centered around the sort of detailed exegesis of texts that is described above. However in fact I'm not convinced that defenders of homosexuality actually base their own beliefs on such analyses. The real issue seems to rest on the question of whether Paul's judgement should apply to modern homosexuality. One commonly made claim is that Paul had simply never faced the kinds of questions we are trying to deal with. He encountered homosexuality only in contexts where most people would probably agree that it was wrong. He had never faced the experience of Christians who try to act "straight" and fail, and he had never faced Christians who are trying to define a Christian homosexuality, which fits with general Christian ideals of fidelity and of seeing sexuality as a mirror of the relationship between God and man. It is unfair to take Paul's judgement on homosexuality among idolaters and use it to make judgements on these questions. Another is the following: In Paul's time homosexuality was associated with a number of things that Christians would not find acceptable. It was part of temple prostitution. Among private citizens, it often occured between adults and children or free people and slaves. I'm not in a position to say that it always did, but there are some reasons to think so. The ancients distinguished between the active and passive partner. It was considered disgraceful for a free adult to act as the passive partner. (This is the reason that an active mode homosexual prostitute would be considered disgraceful. His customers would all be people who enjoyed the passive role.) This supports the idea that it would tend not to be engaged in between two free adult males, at least not without some degree of scandal. Clearly Christian homosexuals would not condone sex with children, slaves, or others who are not in a position to be fully responsible partners. (However Fee's commentary on I Cor cites some examples from ancient literature of homosexual relationships that do seem to involve free adults in a reasonably symmetrical way. Thus the considerations in this paragraph shouldn't be pushed too far. Homosexuality may have been discredited for Jews by some of these associations, but there surely must be been cases that were not prostitutes and did not involve slaves or children.) Some people have argued that AIDS is a judgement against homosexuality. I'd like to point out that AIDS is transmitted by promiscuous sex, both homosexual and heterosexual. Someone who has a homosexual relationship that meets Christian criteria for marriage is not at risk for AIDS. Note that there is good reason from Paul's general approach to doubt that he would concede homosexuality as a fully equal alternative, apart from any specific statements on homosexuality. I believe his use of the Genesis story would lead him to regard heterosexual marriage as what God ordained. However the way Paul deals with pastoral questions provides a warning against being too quick to deal with this issue legally. I claim that the question of how to counsel homosexual Christians is not entirely a theological issue, but also a pastoral one. Paul's tendency, as we can see in issues such as eating meat and celebrating holidays, is to be uncompromising on principle but in pastoral issues to look very carefully at the good of the people involved, and to avoid insisting on perfection when it would be personally damaging. For example, while Paul clearly believed that it was acceptable to eat meat, he wanted us to avoid pushing people into doing an action about which they had personal qualms. For another example, Paul obviously would have preferred to see people (at least in some circumstances) remain unmarried. Yet if they were unable to do so, he certainly would rather see them married than in a state where they might be tempted to fornication. I believe one could take a view like this even while accepting the views Paul expressed in Rom 1. One may believe that homosexuality is not what God intended, that it occured as a result of sin, but still conclude that at times we have to live with it. Note that in the creation story work enters human life as a result of sin. This doesn't mean that Christians can stop working when we are saved. The question is whether you believe that homosexuality is in itself sinful or whether you believe that it's a misfortune that is in a broad sense due to human sinfulness. If you're willing to consider the latter approach, then it becomes a pastoral judgement whether there is more damage caused by finding a way to live with it or trying to cure it. The dangers of trying to cure it are that the attempt most often fails, and when it does, you end up with damage ranging from psychological damage to suicide, as well as broken marriages when attempts at living as a heterosexual fail. This is going to depend upon one's assessment of the inherent nature of homosexuality. If you believe it is a very serious wrong, then you may be willing to run high risks of serious damage to get rid of it. Clearly we do not generally suggest that people live with a tendency to steal or with drug addiction, even though attempts to cure these conditions are also very difficult. However these conditions are intrinsically damaging in a way that is not so obvious for homosexuality. (Many problems associated with homosexuality are actually problems of promiscuity, not homosexuality. This includes AIDS. I take for granted that the only sort of homosexual relationships a Christian would consider allowing would be equivalent to Christian heterosexual relationships.) In the course of discussing this over the last decade or so, we've heard a lot of personal testimony from fellow Christians who are in this situation. I've also seen summaries of various research and the results of various efforts for "conversion". (Aside from the Presbyterian report mentioned above, there's an FAQ that summarizes our readers' reports on this question.) The evidence is that long-term success in changing orientation is rare enough to be on a par with healing miracles. The danger in advising Christians to depend upon such a change is clear: When "conversion" doesn't happen, which is almost always, the people are often left in despair, feeling excluded from a Church that has nothing more to say but a requirement of life-long celibacy. Paul recognized (though in a different context) that such a demand is not practical for most people, and I think the history of clerical celibacy has strongly reinforced that judgement. The practical result is that homosexuals end up in the gay sex clubs and the rest of the sordid side of homosexuality. Maybe homosexuality isn't God's original ideal, but I can well imagine Paul preferring to see people in long-term, committed Christian relationships than promiscuity. As with work -- which Genesis suggests wasn't part of God's original ideal either -- I think such relationships can still be a vehicle for people sharing God's love with each other. There's an issue of Biblical interpretation underlying this discussion. The issue is that of "cultural relativism". That is, when Paul says that something is wrong, should this be taken as an eternal statement, or are things wrong because of specific situations in the culture of the time? Conservative Christians generally insist on taking prohibitions as absolute, since otherwise the Bible becomes subjective -- what is to stop us from considering everything in it as relative? When looking at this issue, it's worth noting that no one completely rejects the concept of cultural relativism. There are a number of judgements in the New Testament that even conservative Christians consider to be relative. The following judgements are at least as clear in the Bible as anything said on homosexuality: - prohibition against charging interest (this occurs 18 times in the OT -- it's not in the NT, but I mention it here because until relatively recently the Church did consider it binding on Christians) - prohibition against swearing oaths - endorsement of slavery as an institution - judgement of tax collectors as sinner We do not regard these items as binding. In most cases, I believe the argument is essentially one of cultural relativism. Briefly: - prohibition of interest is appropriate to a specific agrarian society that the Bible was trying to build, but not to our market economy. - few people believe that American judicial oaths have the same characteristics as the kind of oaths Jesus was concerned about - most people believe that Paul was simply telling people how to live within slavery, but not endorsing it as an institution - for people believe that the IRS is morally equivalent to Roman tax farming The point I'm trying to make is that before applying Biblical prohibitions to the 20th Cent., we need to look at whether the 20th Cent. actions are the same. When Christian homosexuals say that their relationships are different than the Greek homosexuality that Paul would have been familiar with, this is exactly the same kind of argument that is being made about judicial oaths and tax collectors. Until fairly recently Christians prohibited taking of interest, and many Christians regarded slavery as divinely endorsed. (Indeed, slavery is one of the more common metaphors for the relationship between God and human beings -- Christians are often called servants or slaves of God.) I am not trying to say that everything in the Bible is culturally relative. Rather, I'm trying to say that *some* things are, and therefore it is not enough to say that because something appears in the Bible, that ends the discussion. We need to look at whether the action we're talking about now has the same moral implications as the one that the Bible was talking about. If Christians want to argue that there are reasons to think that the prohibitions against homosexuality are still binding, I'm willing to listen. Those who claim that the question doesn't need to be looked at are kidding themselves (unless they are part of the small minority who really obey all the rules listed above). One thing that worries me is the great emotions that this issue creates. When you consider the weakness of the Biblical evidence -- some laws in Leviticus, a passage in Rom whose subject matter is really idolatry rather than homosexuality, and a couple of lists whose words are ambiguous -- the amount of concern this is raising among Christians seems rather out of proportion. This should suggest to people that there are reasons other than simply Biblical involved. This is true on both sides -- clearly homosexual Christians are as strongly motivated to find ways of discrediting the Biblical arguments as conservative Christians are to find Biblical arguments. But I can't help feeling that the Bible is being used by both sides as a way of justifying attitudes which come from other sources. This is a dangerous situation for Christians. On the other side of the issue, I would like to note some problems I have with the pro-homosexual position as it is commonly presented. One of the most common arguments is that homosexuality is biologically determined. I.e. "God made me homosexual", and I have no choice. I think "God made me homosexual" is a fine view for people who already believe on other grounds that homosexuality is acceptable. But I don't see it as an argument for acceptability.

I've just spent two solid months arguing that no such thing as an objective moral system exists.

This seems appropriate, somehow...>:-)> [....] Hah! I have it on the very *best* authority (mine) that Koresh is whooping it up in a time-share condo in Dallas with Elvis, JFK, and (of course) J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, who also owns the place and everything else in Texas. Look for "koresh" sightings in the Weekly World News and National Enquirer in the coming months. ************************************************************ * The_Doge of South St. Louis * * Dobbs-Approved Media Conspirator(tm) * * "One Step Beyond" -- Sundays, 3 to 5 pm * * 88.1 FM St. Louis Community Radio * * "You'll pay to know what you *really* think!" * * -- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs" * ************************************************************