text
stringlengths 1
51k
| label
int64 0
15
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
I know that "must" is a verb in some languages. I'm complaining
about the assertion containing the word must. | 0 | alt.atheism |
From: [email protected]
There are many indications that would have taken place had Saddam
been wanting or planning on going into Saudi Arabia. There were
none. This has been openly stated by ex-Pentagon analysts. Pull.
From: [email protected]
Actually, reports from other mid-east countries showed that Hussein
was ready to make concessions due to the sanctions. We just didn't want
him to - we wanted to crush him, as well as battle-test all these high
tech toys we've built over the years.
From: [email protected]
We're also hypocrites of the first magnitude. Obviously, we don't give
a shit about freedom and democracy. All we care about is our oil. Oh,
and the excuse, now that the Soviets are gone from the board, to keep
a sizable military presence in the gulf region. Care to make bets about
when ALL our troops will come home?
Basically, Saddam was OK with us. He was a killer, who tortured his
own people, used gas on them, and other horrors - he was a brutal
dictator, but he was OUR brutal dictator. Once he said "fuck you" to
the US, he became the next Hitler. The same for Noriega. He was a
bastard, but he was OUR bastard...until he changed his mind and went
his own way. Then we had to get rid of him.
David Hunt - Graduate Slave | My mind is my own. | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>> | Jewish homeland!
====T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=========T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=====
Email: [email protected] Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper" | 0 | alt.atheism |
"CHRISTIANITY IN CRISIS"
by: Hank Hanegraaff
"Controversy for the sake of controversy is a sin.
Controversy for the sake of truth is a divine command."
-Dr. Walter Martin
Dr. Walter Martin personally selected Hank Hanegraaff to succeed him
as President of the Christian Research Institute -- the largest
evangelical counter-cult organization in the world. In this skillful,
careful treatment of an explosive subject, Hanegraaff documents and
examines how the beliefs of the Word of Faith movement clearly
compromises and confuse the essentials of the historic Christian
faith. For the first time ever, this large and influential movement
is legitimately labeled as cultic.
In this book, Hanegraaff discusses such leaders of the Word of Faith
movement as E.W. Kenyon and the Twelve Apostles of "another gospel"
(Gal 1:6-9) (Kenneth E. Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Frederick
K.C. Price, John Avanzini, Robert Tilton, Marilyn Hickey, Paul (David)
Yonggi Cho, Charles Capps, Jerry Savelle, Morris Cerullo, and Paul and
Jan Crouch).
The book is now available through Harvest House Publishers and should
be in most Christian Book Stores soon. You can order a hard-back copy
through CRI for $14.99 by calling 1-800-443-9797 and avoid retail
mark-ups.
The Christian Research Journal, which is a quarterly publication by CRI
has an article in it's most recent issue just released called, "What's
Wrong With The Word Faith Movement?" This is a good article that will
inform you of each of the teachers above, and tide you over until your
book arrives. If you are interested in receiving the Journal yourself,
you can order it from CRI at the number above for $14 a year. It is the
best source of the most-accurate and well-researched info in Christiandom
today.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Though this will be addressed in the series of articles I'm posting now under
"ARESNOKOITIA", I can't wait. This just really blew my socks off. Read I Tim
1: 3-11. Verses 3-8 speaks against those who have perverted the teachings of
the Mosaic Law. In vv.9-10, we have, *IN ORDER*, the 5th thru the 9th
commandments and in the midst of this listing is "homosexuals." The decalogue,
above everything else, is seen as God's absolute. If you don't believe in
absolutes, then you have nothing do do with Jehovah of the OT, which Paul
reveals to be the Messiah of the NT. "Lord Christ Jesus" transliterates to read
"Jehovah's Anointed Savior."
In I Cor5, we see the same emphasis of moral separation from the pagan
gentiles as we do in Lev 18-20. In I Cor 6:9-10, only one notation (drunkards)
is not found in Lev 18-20. Paul was not naive in his use of the LXX. He knew
full well how he was using the Law of God that was given in the OT, for
application in the NT. As I've said, the Law was fulfilled, not done away
with.
This understanding is thoroughly rebutted in DeYoungs article that is being
posted. Please refer to it.
We can do better than "probably" which is not an adequate defense against the
statement that Paul's culture didn't have the same understanding of
homosexuality as ours.
Again read the article because it uses facts.
I think I do, because I have worked in the homosexual community by means of
working with AIDs patients. The pastoral is merely the practical application
of the theological truth however. Those who are working thru the issue of
homosexuality need to have our love and understanding just as with a friend who
is contiplating cheating on his wife or a friend who lives with his girlfriend,
yet you continue to witness to him. But, once the choice is made, and there is
no remorse, then I feel that Paul's "pastoral" care, as presented in the
Corinthian Church, come to bear significance. THe one in active rebellion
should be placed outside of the church if a believer, and if a non-believer,
then one wipes his sandels and leaves it in Gods hand. If there was a member
in your youth group who was constantly pawing at the little girls, you wouldn't
hesitate to deal with the matter quickly and decisivly. That, in part, betrays
the present "political correctness" of the issue. Pederasty is not accepted at
the present, but some how we are to accept homosexuality because the latter is
politically correct, while the former is not -at least not yet. THis is how
the morals decay.
I guess this would follow the liberal application in the political realm of
economics. The liberals want to tax the rich in the federal, yet in their own
states, when they try to get businesses to settle there, they give tax
incentives to these same richies. It comes down to a moral code of
relativeness, or to use the cultural thing, politically correct -at the moment.
--Rex | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I'm sure there are many people who work with neural networks and
read this newsgroup. Please tell Kevin what you've achieved, and
what you expect.
Indeed. I think dualism is a non-solution, or, as Dennett recently
put it, a dead horse.
Petri
| 0 | alt.atheism |
I'm sure you are not. After the "San Francisco" Earthquake
a couple of years ago, there was a flurry of traffic on
talk.religion.misc about how this was the result of the
notorious homo- this that and t'other in the City.
The fact that the Earthquake was actually down the road in
Santa Cruz/Watsonville didn't seem to phase them any. | 0 | alt.atheism |
: I heard about the arms sale to Saudi Arabia. Now, how is it such a grave
: mistake to sell Saudi Arabia weapons? Or are you claiming that we shouldn't
: sell any weapons to other countries? Straightforward answer please.
Saudi Arabia is an oppressive regime that has been recently interfering
in the politcs of newly renunified Yemen, including assasinations and
border incursions. It is entirely possible that they will soon invade.
Unluckily for Yemen it is not popular in the West as they managed to put
aside political differences during reunification and thus the West has
effectively lost one half (North?) as a client state. | 0 | alt.atheism |
"This is your god" (from John Carpenter's "They Live," natch)
| 0 | alt.atheism |
What is your reaction to people who claim they were abducted by space aliens?
Some of these people say, "I was abducted, experimented on, etc."
If we insist that these aliens don't exist is the burden of proof placed on
us. These people can give no hard facts but can give a lot of testimony to
back up their beliefs.
Replace <space aliens> with <elvis>, <big foot>, <blue unicorns>,
and we have a larger percentage of the population than I like to think
about. | 0 | alt.atheism |
(Peter > > Simple logic arguments are folly. If you read the Bible you
will see
I can't. It seems Jesus used logic to make people using logic
look like fools? No, that does not sound right, he maybe just
told they were fools, and that's it, and people believed that...
Hmm, does not sound reasonable either...
I find it always very intriguing to see people stating that
transcendental values can't be explained, and then in the
next sentence they try to explain these unexplained values.
Highly strange.
Cheers,
Kent | 0 | alt.atheism |
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.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
"Liberate" is the way an invader describes an invasion, including, if
I'm not mistaken, the Iraqi liberation of Kuwait. Never invaded
Nicaragua? Only with more word games: can you say "send in the
Marines?"
Oh, good: word games. If you let the aggressor pick the words,
there's scarcely ever been a reprehensible military action.
That's a convenient technique, much seen on alt.atheism: define those
who disagree with you according to a straw-man extreme that matches
virtually nobody.
Very noble and patriotic. I'm sure the fine young Americans who
carpet-bombed Iraqi infantry positions from over the horizon,
destroyed Iraq's sewer and water infrastructure from the safety of the
sky or further, or who bulldozed other Iraqi infantry into their
trenches [or more importantly the commanders who ordered them to] were
just thrilled to be risking death (if not risking it by much) in the
defense of the liberty of ... well, wealthy Kuwaitis. Can't have
those oil-fields under a tyrant's heel if that tyrant is antagonistic
to US interests...
Having pigeon-holed "peace-niks" (in this context, "people who
disagree with me about the conduct of the Gulf War") into
"peace-at-all-cost-hitler-supporting-genocide-abetting-wimps", you can
now express righteous indignation when "they" refuse to fit this mold
and question the conduct of the war on legitimate terms. HOW DARE
THEY!
Yes, hypocrisy indeed! Those violent peace-niks! (Care to list an
example here?)
Wow: instant '80's nostalgia! [Of course, "peace-nik" itself is a
'50's Cold War derogatory term equating those who promote pacifism
with Godless Pinko Communists]. Yes indeed, I felt my freedoms
mightily threatened by Iraq... | 0 | alt.atheism |
I've heard that in California they ask you to swear without any
mention of a god. What states actually include "god" in the
courtroom oath?
| 0 | alt.atheism |
no its not.
its due to the fact that there are two issues here: Religion and religion.
religion is personal belief system.
Religion is a memetic virus.
people loudly proclaiming their beliefs are crossing the border from
religion -> Religion. people that want to "save" others are firmly
entrenched in Religion ("memoids").
rule #1 of not practicing Religion is to shut the fuck up, unless
you discuss it politely. this means that the motive behind the conversation
is not only your self-gratifying wish to spread the word.
religion is something that ultimately comes from within a person, and
reflects their value judgements. Religion is something that is
contracted from others and does not reflect the persons value judgements
(other than perhaps "i think i'll be brainwashed today").
Religion is a drug...
i believe you can discuss religion. however, the post that started this
off was not intented as discussion, it was more a proclamation of
someones Religion. | 0 | alt.atheism |
My sentiments exactly... which is why I'm unsubbing from this group.
This is the 3rd 'christian' discussion list I have ever belonged to
and once again I'm being chased away by the strife, anger, discontent,
lies, et al .
As Paul (Saul) said, 'I come to preach Christ, and Him crucified'
Don't let the simple beauty of faith in God get overshadowed by heady
theological discussions or thousands of lines of post-incarnation
trappings of some church.
As for the atheists/agnostics who read this list: if you aren't
christian and if you have no intention of ever becoming one why on
earth do you waste your time and mine by participating on a christian
discussion list ?
I will continue to search for christian discussion (prayerful, spirit-filled,
kind, humble, patient, etc.) in other circles.
--
Sheila Patterson, CIT CR-Technical Support Group
315 CCC - Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
(607) 255-5388
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
(Peter White) writes
You've missed on very important passage.
2 Thess. 1:6-10
For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who
afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when
the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming
fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do
not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. And these will pay the penalty of
eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of
His power, when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be
marveled at among all who have believed-- for our testimony to you was
believed.
Things to note from this passage. Unbelievers are both those who openly reject
the gospel, and those who do not know God. The eternal destruction is the same
as the eternal hope in 2:16. This distructions primarily emphasize that it is
separation from the presence of God. THe context is speaking of the 2nd advent
while 2:1 is speaking of the rapture. Don't confuse the two.
Yet we have a far greater discription of hell that we do heaven.
For instance,
If this was like earthly fire that requires a gas producing substance to
ignite.
However, there seems to be a different type of fire as expressed in the burning
bush that was not consumed. Also, the Daniel acct. shows that the laws of
nature can be interupted even with earthly fire.
Maybe you don't understand. There will be those who are alive at the end of
the millenium, who will walk straight into the GWTJ. Even those who have died
in their sin will be resurrected, i.e. reunited with their physical body, to
receive condemnation.
This is contrary to the teaching of Scripture.
THis is conjecture at best if you are using it to support the "no physical
body" thesis.
The true awlfulness of hell, is that it is eternal separation from God, after
having seen the glory of His presence at the GWTJ. But whether it was open
rebellion against the revealed gospel of Christ or if it is not having known
GOd (not saught Him as He is), then as Paul says, they are without excuss and
that every mouth will be stopped. There will be no defense at the judgment
seat of God. THerefore we understand "it is appointed unto man once to die, and
then comes judgment" literally.
just because it is horrific, doesn't make it less of a reality.
it should compel those of us who have the riches of Christ to share it with
others | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
-= PASTORTALK =-
A weekly dialogue with a local pastor on the news of the day
by Carl (Gene) Wilkes
Startext: MC344578
CompuServe: 70423,600
Internet: [email protected]
-= THIS WEEK'S THOUGHTS =-
Last week the Supreme Court refused without comment to hear an
appeal by Rensselaer, IN, school officials desiring the
distribution of Bibles in their public schools (REL65, 5/21). A
lower court had banned the local Gideons, an international Bible-
distribution group, from passing out Bibles to fifth-graders. The
ACLU's Barry Lynn was quoted as saying that the court's action
protected the "religious neutrality of our public schools." He also
said that schools must serve students of "all faiths and none."
Schools were not to be a "bazaar where rival religious groups
compete for converts," according to Lynn.
Several Gideons, men who are responsible for putting Bibles in
hospitals and hotels, are members of our church. They tell of
similar stories where they are only allowed to distribute Bibles on
sidewalks around the schools, but cannot go inside the schools.
They tell of mild harassment by parents who do not want their
children receiving a Bible from a stranger. They are willing to
continue their work at a distance, but find the school's position
somewhat disheartening.
I understand rationally and logically the court's position. And, I
can see the sense of fairness for all groups. But, on the other
hand, when does "neutrality" become "nihilism?" When does plurality
turn into no position at all?
I see a couple of ironies here. One is that we can pass out condoms
but not Bibles in our schools. Think on that one for a moment.
The other is that while we are seeking "religious neutrality" in
our schools, countries like Russia--who, by the way, practiced
"religious neutrality" for the past seventy years--are making the
Bible part of their public school curriculum. When I was in St.
Petersburg in March, the church we worked with had trained over 100
public school teachers to teach the Bible, and the government had
requested hundreds more! I recently heard a medical doctor who is
president of the Gideon chapter in Moscow tell how they are eagerly
invited to the University of Moscow to distribute Bibles to the
students and are given class time to explain its contents. I
remember seeing a photograph of this doctor holding a Bible and
speaking to the university students standing under a statue of
Lenin. Now, that's ironic!
I admit two things: 1) We are a pluralistic society, and all faiths
have equal footing. This is what our country was founded on. 2) To
allow every group on school grounds could create a bazaar-like
atmosphere. Each city must work to be inclusive of all religions
and provide a hearing for them. 3)--I know I said two--The vitality
of religious faith is not dependent upon whether or not the public
arena acknowledges it as valid.
However--and you knew this was coming--I believe, disallowing the
distribution of the Bible by law-abiding, caring adults in our
schools only signals once again our culture's movement away from a
singular base from which we as individuals and as a nation can make
moral and ethical decisions.
What do you think?
-= MAIL BOX =-
(Let me know if you do not want me to print your letter or your
name.)
Good column [re: TIME coverstory about teen sexuality]; I agree
with moral education from home, but some homes don't have the kinds
of morals I want taught. One family I worked with smoked dope as
their primary family activity. Another acted like incest was OK.
Families, no matter where they are, are often a lot sicker than
we'd like to believe.
From: John Hightower, MC 407602
John,
I agree that the "home" ain't what it used to be, and some homes
are NOT the place to learn value-based sexuality. I still believe
that this is where the church can come into play. I know, those
families you speak of may not come to a church to seek information,
but the help does not need to be in a church building...I believe
that the youth from the families you mentioned will probably
disregard the value-free information at school, too. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Prove it. I am an atheist. It doesn't mean I am for or against abortion.
An obvious effect of homosexuality is non-procreation. That, unlike your
statement, is a fact. Please prove that (a) homosexuality is defended as
means of population control, (b) being atheist causes you to hold these
beliefs. I defend homosexuality because (a) what people do with their
bodies is none of my business (b) I defend the equal rights of
all humans. Do you?
Define values. Prove your statement.
Prove your statement. Electrons are waves. Electrons are particles. I
believe in both. I have physical proof of both. I have no proof of god(tm)
only an ancient book. That is not indicative of the existence of a being
with omnipotence or omnipresence. And, by your own argument, christians
don't exist.
First of all, your earlier statements have absolutely nothing to do
with your question. Why did you post them? To show that athiests,
besides not existing (your view), are more humane than christians/other
religions?
Secondly I am very much for the control of population growth.
The logic that you cannot grasp indicates ignorance of contraception.
But of course, this is 'outlawed' (sometimes literally) by religion
since if it can't create more followers, it will die.
I
| 0 | alt.atheism |
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
([email protected]) | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
jsn104 is jeremy scott noonan
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Now where did I put my little red book? Or was that green?
Jim | 0 | alt.atheism |
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.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
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. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
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 ([email protected])
-- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
CALL FOR VOTES
This is the official 2nd Call For Votes for this newsgroup.
NAME OF PROPOSED NEWSGROUP:
==========================
soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya
CHARTER:
=======
A religious newsgroup, which would mainly be devoted to
fostering an understanding and appraisal of the Ahmadiyya Muslim
Community, its beliefs, ideology and philosophy. It will also
discuss the distinction between Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and
other branches of Islam.
In addition this newsgroup will also discuss the beliefs,
teachings, and philosophy of all the other major religions to pro-
mote universal religious appreciation, awareness, and tolerance.
The newsgroup may also be used to post important religious
events within the world wide Ahmadiyya Islamic Community.
VOTING INSTRUCTIONS:
====================
Voting is being held since the first call for votes appeared (May 4, 1993),
and will continue untill May 25, 1993 (23:59:59 GMT)
All votes should be received within this period. It gives a total
of 21 days for all to vote.
All votes in _favor_ of creation of the proposed newsgroup should
be sent in a form of a e-mail message to:
[email protected]
with a clear statement in the body of the message like:
I vote YES for soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya
I vote in favor of s.r.i.a.
etc.
Similarly all votes _against_ the proposed newsgroup should be
sent in a form of a e-mail message to:
[email protected]
with a clear statement in the body of the message like:
I vote NO for soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya
I vote against the creation of s.r.i.a.
etc.
* You may also include your vote in the SUBJECT header of your mail.
* Please make sure to include your FULL NAME, if your mailer does
not do that for you.
* One person may only vote ONCE. No matter how many e-mail accounts
s/he has. Only one vote per person shall be considered valid.
* Any ambiguous votes like "I vote YES for S.R.I.A., if ...." shall
only be considered comments and would NOT be counted as votes.
* Votes received _after_ 23:59:59 GMT, on May 25, 1993, will not
be valid and not counted.
* In the event of multiple votes being received from the same
person, only the last one will be counted. If you change your
mind regarding the way you have voted, send your new vote again,
your previous vote shall be discarded.
* Posting to USENET will NOT be counted a vote.
* Please DO NOT send any votes to the e-mail address of the per-
son who has posted this CVF. Those votes shall not be counted
either.
NOTE: An acknowledgement shall be sent to everyone who votes.Two
additional CFV's will be posted during the course of the vote.
Number(s) of "YES" or "NO" votes will not be disclosed during the
the voting period, at the end of which all votes shall be made
public.
PURPOSE OF THE NEWSGROUP:
========================
The following are the main purposes this group shall achieve:
i) To highlight the common beliefs of all major religions
and philosophical traditions as they relate to Ahmadiyya
Muslim Community.
ii) To discuss the doctrines, origin and teachings the Ahmad-
iyya Muslim Community, a dynamic world-wide movement.
iii) To expound Islamic teachings and beliefs in the Holy
Quran and Islamic traditions from the Ahmadiyya Islamic
perspective.
iv) To emphasize and discuss the similarities between Ahmadi
Muslims and followers of other religions of the world and
to explore how understanding and respect for each other's
faith can be brought about to eliminate religious intol-
erance and malice among people of all religious and phil-
osophical traditions.
v) To look into the origin and teachings of all religions in
general and of Islam and Ahmadiyya Muslim Movement in par-
ticular, and to use the commonality of origin to foster
better understanding among Ahmadi Muslims and other people
and to promote an acceptance of universality of fundamental
rights to the freedom of conscience.
vi) To point out current world problems and suggest solutions
to these problems, as offered by different religions and
systems of ethical philosophies.
vii) To investigate the implications of science on religion
with particular emphasis on the Ahmadi Muslim perspective,
but with openness to dialogue with people of all religions
and philosophical traditions with reasoned positions as to
the relationship between religion and empirical science,
logic, and scientific ethics.
viii) To exchange important news and views about the Ahmadiyya
Muslim Community and of other religions.
ix) To add diversity to the existing religious newsgroups pre-
sent on Usenet in the interest of promoting a forum for
decorous dialogue.
x) To inquire why religious persecution is on the rise in the
world and suggest solutions to remedy the ever deterior-
ating situation in the world in general and in the Islamic
world in particular.
xi) To commemorate the contributions to humanity, society and
world peace made by the founders and followers of all
religions in general and by the International Ahmadiyya
Muslim community in particular.
TYPE:
====
The group will be MODERATED for orderly and free religious dialo-
gue. The moderation will NOT prevent disagreement, dissent, or
controversy based on a difference of beliefs or doctrine; rather,
the moderators will seek mainly to discourage gratuitously deroga-
tory, abusive, or squalid language, and the introduction of issues
which are irrelevant based on the provisions of this charter.
The moderators have been chosen through personal e-mail and through
a general consensus among the proponents by discussion in news.groups.
The following moderators have been proposed and agreed upon:
Moderator: Nabeel A. Rana <[email protected]>
Co-Moderator: Dr. Tahir Ijaz <[email protected]>
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION ABOUT AHMADIYYA ISLAM:
===============================================
The Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam, an international organi-
sation, was found in 1889 in Qadian, India. The founder of this
movement, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908), was proclaimed to
be the Promised Reformer of this age as foretold in the Scriptures
of almost all major religions of the world. He claimed to be the
fulfillment of the long awaited second comming of Jesus Christ
(metaphorically), the Muslim Mahdi, and the Promised Messiah.
The claims of Hazrat Ahmad raised storms of hostility and
extreme opposition, which are often witnessed in the history of
divine reformers. Even today this sect is being persecuted especial-
ly in some of the Muslim regimes. The right of Ahmadi Muslims to
openly practice their religion and to define themselves as Muslims
has been severely restricted in many Muslim Countries. The United
Nations, human rights organizations such as Amnesty International
and top leaderships of some countries have voiced their concerns
against this denial of basic human and civil liberaties to the
members of this movement, but so far to no avail.
Despite the opposition and persecution, the movement cont-
inues to grow with a current membership of millions from around the
world in over 130 countries, who come from diverse ethnic and cul-
tural backgrounds.
The movement is devoted to world peace and strives towards
developing a better understanding of all religions. Ahmadi Muslims
have always been opposed to all forms of violence, bigotry, reli-
gious intolerance and fundamentalism.
Among its many philanthropic activities, the sect has es-
tablished a network of hundreds of schools, hospitals, and clinics
in many third world countries. These institutions are staffed by
volunteer professionals and are fully financed by the movement's
internal resources. The movement stresses the importance of educa-
tion and leadership. Its members have included a high number of
professionals as well as world class individuals.
The Ahmadiyya mission is to bring about a universal moral
reform, establish peace and justice, and to unite mankind under
one universal brotherhood.
NEWSGROUP CREATION:
==================
The discussion for this proposed newsgroup has now offi-
cially ended. Voting will be held for three weeks. If the news-
group gets 2/3rd majority AND 100 more "YES/Create" votes than
"NO/don't create" votes; the newsgroup shall be created.
ABOUT THE VOTE-TAKER:
====================
Mr. Anthony Lest has been asked by the proponents of
this newsgroup to act as an official impartial vote-taker for the
proposed newsgroup. He has no objection to use his workstation
for the purpose of vote-taking. Neither the University of Colora-
do, nor Anthony Lest has anything to do with the proposal of the
newsgroup. They are just collecting the votes as a neutral third
party.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS:
=====================
Any questions or comments about the proposed newsgroup
may be sent to:
Nabeel A. Rana <[email protected]> | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Of course not. I would think that would be great _fun_, not having ever
felt the joy and peace the Christians speak of with a longing gaze.
This is not what I got when I believed - I just tried to hide my fear
of getting punished for something I never was sure of. The Bible is
hopelessly confusing for someone who wants to know for sure. God did
not answer. In the end, I found I had been following a mass delusion,
a lie. I can't believe in a being who refuses to give a slightest hint
of her existence.
I suggest they should honestly reconsider the reasons why they believe
and analyse their position. In fact, it is amusing to note in this
context that many fundamentalist publications tell us exactly the
opposite - one should not examine one's belief critically.
I'll tell you something I left out of my 'testimony' I posted to this
group two months ago. A day after I finally found out my faith is over,
I decided to try just one more time. The same cycle of emotional
responses fired once again, but this time the delusion lasted only
a couple of hours. I told my friend in a phone that it really works,
thank god, just to think about it again when I hung up. I had to admit
that I had lied, and fallen prey to the same illusion.
I used to believe what I read in books when I was younger, or what
other people told me, but I grew more and more skeptical the more I
read. I learned what it means to use _reason_.
As a student of chemistry, I had to perform a qualitative analysis
of a mixture of two organic compounds in the lab. I _hated_ experiments
like this - they are old-fashioned and increase the student's workload
considerably. Besides, I had to do it twice, since I failed in my first
attempt. However, I think I'll never forget the lesson:
No matter how strongly you believe the structure of the unknown is X,
it may still be Y. It is _very_ tempting to jump into conclusions, take
a leap of faith, assure oneself, ignore the data which is inconsistent.
But it can still be wrong.
I found out that I was, after all, using exactly the same mechanism
to believe in god - mental self-assurance, suspension of fear,
filtering of information. In other words, it was only me, no god
playing any part.
Oh? And I had better believe this? Dan, many UFO stories are much better
documented than the resurrection of Jesus. The resurrection is documented
quite haphazardly in the Bible - it seems the authors did not pay too
much attention to which wild rumour to leave out. Besides, the ends of
the gospels probably contain later additions and insertions; for instance,
the end of Mark (16:9-20) is missing from many early texts, says my Bible.
Jesus may have lived and died, but he was probably misunderstood.
This is easy. I believe that the world exists independent of my mind,
and that logic and reason can be used to interpret and analyse what I
observe. Nothing else need to be taken on faith, I will go by the
evidence.
It makes no difference whether I believe George Washington existed or not.
I assume that he did, considering the vast amount of evidence presented.
A liar, how do you know what my attitude was? Try reading your Bible
again.
I was willing to die for my faith. Those who do are usually remembered
as heroes, at least among those who believe. Dan, do you think I'm
lying when I say I believed firmly for 15 years? It seems it is
very difficult to admit that someone who has really believed does not
do so anymore. But I can't go on lying to myself.
Blind trust is dangerous, and I was just another blind led by the blind.
But if god really wants me, she'll know what to do. I'm willing. I just
don't know whether she exists - looking at the available evidence,
it looks like she doesn't.
Petri | 0 | alt.atheism |
So when they took the time to *copy* *the* *text* correctly, that includes
"obvious corruptions?"
So when they took the time to *copy* *the* *text* correctly, that does not
exclude "variant readings from the masoretic text" which are "of little
theological import"
Hey, you're the expert. | 0 | alt.atheism |
[text deleted]
[text deleted]
Thank you very much Paul. I have always been impressed by the very human-ness of
Mary. That God chose a woman, like me, to bring into this world the incarnation
of Himself proves to me that this God is MY God. He reaches down from His
perfection to touch me. Ah, the wonder of it all :-)
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I recently came across this article which I found interesting. I have
posted it to hear what other people feel about the issue.
I realise it is rather long (12 pages in Wordperfect) by may well be worth
the read.
Except for the first page (which I typed) the rest was scanned inusing
Omnipage. Some of the f's have come out as t's and visa-versa. I have tried
to correct as much as possible.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Peter Hammond is the founder of Frontline Fellowship, a
missionary organisation witnessing to the communist countries in
Southern Africa. He has also made several visits to many East
European countries.
FRONTLINE FELLOWSHIP NEWS ISSN 1018-144X
PRAYING FOR JUSTICE
(by Peter Hammond)
To those involved in ministering to Christians suffering
persecution the imprecatory Psalms are a tremendous source of
comfort. And those of us who are fighting for the right to life
of the preborn, or battling social evils such as pornography or
crime, are beginning to appreciate what an important weapon God
has entrusted to us in the imprecatory Psalms.
THE IMPRECATORY PSALMS
Early in my Christian walk I encountered the prayers for
judgement in the Psalms and was quite at loss to know how to
respond to them. Prayers such as:
"Break the arm of the wicked and evil men; call him to account for
his wickedness ..." Psalm 10:15 did not seem consistent with the
gospel of love which I had accepted. Yet Psalm 10:15 was clearly
motivated by love for God ("The Lord is King for ever and ever;
the nation will perish from His land" 10:16, and "Why does the
wicked man revile God? 10:13), and by love for the innocent who
suffer ("You hear, O Lord, the desire of the afflicted; You
encourage them, and You listen to their cry, defending the
fatherless and oppressed, in order that man, who is of the earth,
may terrify no more." 10:17-18)
Nevertheless, I grew increasingly uncomfortable reading such
graphic prayers for God to judge the wicked as: "Pour out your
wrath on them; let Your fierce anger overtake them" 64:24; "O
Lord, the God avenges, O God who avenges, shine forth. Rise up, O
Judge of the earth, pay back to the proud what they deserve."
95:1-2; "Break the teeth in their mouths, O God; ...let them
vanish like water .. let their arrows be blunted ... The
righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they bathe
their feet in the blood of the wicked. Then men will way, "Surely
the righteous still are rewarded; surely there is a God who
judges the earth.'" 58:6-11
Certainly I wanted God to be honoured and yes I was deeply
destressed by the prevalence of evil - but could I actually pray
for God to "pour out His wrath" on the wicked?
The scripture make it clear that these prayers are not to be
prayed for own selfish motives, nor against our personal enemies.
Rather they are to be prayed in Christ, for His glory and against
His enemies. The psalmist describes the targets of these
imprecation as: those who devise injustice in their heart and
whose hands mete out violence (58:2) those who "boast of evil"
and "are a disgrace in the eyes of God. Your tongue plots
destruction, it is like a sharpened razor, and you who practise
deceit. You love evil rather than good, falsehood rather than
speaking the truth." 52:1-3; "They crush your people ... They
slay the widow and the alien; they murder the fatherless." 94:5-
6; "With cunning they conspire against Your people; they plot
against those You cherish." 83:3; "You hate all who do wrong. You
destroy those who tell lies; bloodthirsty and deceitful men the
Lord abhors." 5:5-6.
To those unrepentant enemies of God the psalmist declares:
"Surely God will bring you down to everlasting ruin" 52:5;
"Surely God will crush the heads of His enemies ... of those who
go on in their sins" 68:21.
And the purpose of these prayers for justice is declared: "Then
it will be known to the ends of the earth that God rules ..."
59:13; "to proclaim the powers of God" 68:34; "All kings will bow
down to Him and all nations will serve Him " 72:11; "Who knows
the power of Your anger? For Your wrath is as great as the fear
that is due You. " 90:11
Yet despite the fact that 90 of the 150 Psalms include
imprecations (prayers invoking God's righteous judgement upon the
wicked) such prayers are rare in the average Western church.
However, amongst the persecuted churches these prayers are much
more common.
PRAYING AGAINST THE PERSECUTORS
Amidst the burnt out churches and devastation of Marxist Angola I
found the survivors of communist persecution including the
crippled and maimed, and widows and orphans praying for God to
strike down the wicked and remove the persecutors of the Church.
I was shocked - yet it was Biblical (Even the martyrs in heaven
pray "How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge
the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?" Revelation
6:10).
The initiator of the communist persecution in Angola was Agestino
Neto. Described as a "drunken, psychotic, marxist poet", Neto had
been installed by Cuban troops as the first dictator of Angola.
He boasted that: "Within 20 years there won't be a Bible or a
church left in Angola. I will have eradicated Christianity." Yet
despite the vicious wave of church burning and massacres it is
not Christianity that was eradicated in Angola but Agestino Neto.
Neto died in mysterious circumstances on an operating table in
Moscow.
In Romania I learnt of a series of remarkable incidents recorded
of God judging the persecutors of the Church in answer to prayer:
* A communist official ordered a certain pastor to be
arrested. the next day the official died of a heart attack.
* Another communist party official ordered that all the Bibles
in his district were to be collected and pulped, to be
turned into toilet paper. This blasphemous project was in
fact carried out. But the next day when the official was
medically examined, he was informed that he had terminal
cancer. He died shortly afterwards.
* On another occasion, a communist official who had ordered a
Baptist church to be demolished by bulldozers died in a car
crash the very next day.
* When an order was given to dismantle a place of worship on
the mountainside in a forest, the workmen flatly refused to
carry out the order. At gunpoint a group of conscripted
gypsies also refused to touch the church. In desperation,
the communist police forced prisoners at bayonet-point to
dismantle the structure. Yet the officer in charge pleaded
with the local Christians to pray for him, that God would
not judge him. He emphasised that he had nothing against
Christians and was only obeying strict orders. The building
was in fact reconstructed later, and again used for worship.
"They were all seized with Sear and the Name of the Lord
Jesus was held in high honour... in this way the Word of the
Lord spread widely and grew in power. " Acts 19:17,20
Nicolae Ceaucescu the dictator who ordered much of the
persecution in Romania was overthrown by his own army and
executed on Christmas day, 1989, to joyous shouts of "the
antiChrist is dead" in the streets. Many testified that this was
in answer to the fervent prayers of the long suffering people of
Romania.
Another persecutor of the Church who challenged God was Samora
Machel, the first dictator of Marxist Mozambique. Samora Machel
was a cannibal who ate human flesh in witchcraft ceremonies in
the 1960's. He pledged his soul to Satan and vowed that he would
destroy the Church and turn Mozambique into the first truly
Marxist-Leninist state in Africa. Thousands of churches in
Mozambique were closed confiscated, "nationalised" chained and
padlocked, burnt down or boarded up. Missionaries were expelled,
some being imprisoned first. Evangelism was forbidden. Bibles
were ceremonially burnt and tens of thousands of Christians,
including many pastors and elders, were shipped off to
concentration camps - most were never seen again.
A month before his sudden death Samora Machel cursed God publicly
and challenged Him to prove His existence by striking him
(Machel) dead. On 19 October 1986, while several churches were
specifically praying for God to stop the persecution in
Mozambique, Machel's Soviet Tupelov aircraft crashed in a violent
thunderstorm. The plane crashed 200 metres within South Africa's
boundary with Mozambique. Amidst the wreckage the marxist plans
for overthrowing the government of Malawi were discovered and
published. Not only had God judged a blasphemer and a persecutor,
but He had also saved a country from persecution.
In the months leading up to the first multi-party elections in
Zambia many churches fasted and prayed tor God to remove the 27
year socialist dictatorship of Kenneth Kaunda. This was done on
31st October 1991 when Fredrick Chiluba (a man converted to
Christ whilst imprisoned for opposing Kaunda) was elected
president of Zambia and covenanted to make Zambia a Christian
country.
It is recorded in history that the wicked Mary, Queen of Scots,
declared trembling and in tears: "I am more afraid of John Knox's
prayers than of an army of ten thousand".
On 3 April 1993 the Secretary General of the South African
Communist Party Chris Hani was shot dead. From the unprecedented
international wave of condolences and adulation reported one
could be forgiven for assuming that this man was a saint and a
martyr. Certainly it was not the death and resurrection of Christ
Jesus which dominated the thoughts and headlines of South Africa
this Easter, but the assassination of Chris Hani.
The stunning hypocrisy of the situation is that 20 135 people
were murdered in South Africa in 1992, yet more collective
concern and anguish were reported over the death of the head of
the SA Communist Party than for all the thousands of other
victims. Indeed the SA government, the international community
and the mass media have apparently had greater sorrow reported
over this one death than for all the 50 000 South Africans
murdered since 2nd February 1990 when the ANC, SACP and PAC were
unbanned!
Yet as a member of the ANC Revolutionary Council since 1973,
Deputy Commander of Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) the ANC's "military
wing" - from 1982, and Chief of Staff of MK from 1987, Chris Hani
had approved and ordered bombings and assassinations of many
unarmed civilians. As Jesus warned: "all who live by the sword
will die by the sword " Matt 26:52.
After personally confronting Hani about his terrorist activities
at a press conference in Washington DC (where he publicly
declared his support for Fidel Castro, Col. Gaddafi, Yasser
Arafat and Saddam Hussein and defended the placing of car bombs
and limpet mines in public places during "the struggle") I told
him that I was a Christian and, while I didn't hate him, I did
hate communism and I was praying for him - that God would either
bring him to repentance and salvation in Christ, or that God
would remove him. He responded by swearing and declaring that he
was an atheist.
Several other people also prayed that God would either bring Hani
to repentance or remove him. Similarly several churches in
America have begun to pray the imprecatory Psalms against
unrepentant abortionists. In one town 8 abortionists were struck
down, with heart attacks, strokes, car accidents and cancer,
within months of these public prayers for God to stop these
killers of preborn babies.
Some praised God for His righteous acts of judgement and quoted:
"When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous and terror
to evildoers " Proverbs 21:15. Others were shocked that any
Christian could express satisfaction at the misfortune of any -
even of the blatantly wicked. Yet the Apostles prayed imprecatory
prayers (Acts 13:8-12; Galatians 1:8-9; 2 Tim 4:14-15) and so did
our Lord (Matt 11:20-24).
What then should our attitude towards the imprecatory Psalms be?
Should we be praying the Psalms? To tackle these thorny issues I
would like to present a short summary of an excellent book, "War
Psalms of the Prince of Peace - Lessons From The Imprecatory
Psalms" by James E Adams, (published by the Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Company):
Our Lord Jesus Christ & His apostles used the Psalms constantly
in teaching men to know God. The New Testament (NT) quotes the
Old Testament (OT) over 283 times. 41% of all OT quotes in the NT
are from the Psalms. Christ Himself alluded to the Psalms over 50
times. The Psalms are the Prayer Book of the Bible.
1. Are the imprecatory Psalms the oracles of God?
Some Christian commentators & theologians reject these Psalms as
"devilish", "diabolical ", "unsuited to the church", and "Not God
's pronouncements of His wrath on the wicked; but the prayers of
a man for vengeance on his enemies, just the opposite of Jesus'
teaching that we should love our enemies. "
Yet 2 Tim 3:16-17 declares:
"All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching,
rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the
man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. "
(see also 2 Peter 3:15-16).
The fact that something in the Word of God is beyond our
comprehension is not grounds to denying or even questioning its
inspiration. To make ourselves the judge of what is good or evil
is to impudently take the place of God.
Do we imagine ourselves to be holier than God? Wrong ideas of God
have led many to become "evangelic plastic surgeons who have made
it their job to "clean up" God's Word according to their own
ideas of what is proper. They have forgotten that it is God alone
who must determine what Christianity is and what is suitable for
His Church. The essence of what many have done is to question the
authority of God's Word (like Eve's original sin of listening to
Satan's question "Yes, hath God said... ?").
The Psalms are part of God's revelation of Himself and His
attributes, and they are reaffirmed by the NT as the
authoritative Word of God. Those imprecatory Psalms which these
evangelical plastic surgeons reject as "unsuited" and "unworthy"
for the Church are the very Psalms Christ used to testify about
Himself (eg: Mark 12:36; Matt 22:43-44) and which the Apostles
used as authoritative Scripture (eg: Acts 1:16-20; Acts 4:25; Heb
4:7). See also: 2 Samuel 23:1-2.
CH Spurgeon said concerning the imprecatory Psalms, (especially
Ps 109):
"Truly this is one of the hard places of Scripture, a passage
which the soul trembles to read, yet it is not ours to sit in
judgement upon it, but to bow our ear to what the Lord would
speak to us therein. "
The rejection of any part of God's Word is a rejection of the
giver of that Word, God Himself.
2. Who is praying these Psalms?
Christ quoted the Psalms not merely as prophesy; He actually
spoke the Psalms as His own words. The Psalms occupied an
enormous place in the life of our Lord. He used it as His prayer
book and song book - from the Synagogue to the festivals and at
the Last Supper.
On the cross Christ quoted from the Psalms - not as some ancient
authority that He adapted for His own use, but as His very own
words - the words of the Lord's Anointed - which as David's Son
He truly was.
"Father, into your hands I commit my Spirit" Ps 31:5
"My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Ps 22:1
In His ministry Christ foretells what He will say as the Judge on
the day of judgement, and He quotes the Psalms in doing so!
Matt 7:23 "Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away
from me, you evildoers'. " Ps 6:8
In Heb 10:5 the apostle attributes Ps 40:6-8 directly to Christ
although nowhere in the Gospels is Christ recorded as having said
these words. Similarly Hebrews 2 : 12 attributes Ps 22:22
directly to Christ despite there being no record of His having
spoken these words while on earth. Clearly the apostles believed
Christ is speaking in the Psalms.
Christ came to establish His kingdom and to extend His mercy in
all the earth. But let us never forget that Jesus will come again
to execute Judgement on the wicked.
David as the anointed king of the chosen people of God was a
prototype of Jesus Christ. Acts 2:30:
"being therefore a prophet, ... he foresaw and spoke of the
resurrection of Christ. "
David was a witness to Christ in his office, in his lite, and in
his words. The same words which David spoke, the future Messiah
spoke through him. The prayers of David were prayed also by
Christ. Or better Christ Himself prayed these Psalms through His
forerunner David.
The imprecatory Psalms are expressions of the infinite justice of
God, of His indignation against wrong doing, and His compassion
for the wronged.
3. But what about the Psalms of repentance?
Christ is also the Lamb of God, the substitutionary sacrifice for
our sins. Christ in the day of His crucifixion was charged with
the sin of His people. He appropriated to Himself those debts for
which He had made Himself responsible. Our Lord was the
substitution for the sinner. He took the sinners place (Isaiah
53).
"God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we
might become the righteousness of God. " 2 Cor 5:21
In history the Psalms, especially the imprecatory Psalms, have
been understood to have been the prayers of Christ by: St
Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, Tertullian, Luther and many others.
All the Psalms are the voice of Christ. Christ is praying the
imprecatory Psalms! All the Psalms are messianic. It is the Lord
Jesus Christ who is praying these prayers of vengeance. It is
only right for the righteous King of Peace to ask God to destroy
His enemies.
These prayers signal an alarm to all who are still enemies of
King Jesus. His prayers will be answered! God's Word is revealed
upon all who oppose Christ. Anyone who rejects God's way of
forgiveness in the cross of Christ will bear the dreadful curses
of God.
He who prays Psalm 69:23-28 will one day make this prayer a
reality when He declares to those on His left:
"Depart from me you who are cursed into the eternal fire prepared
for the devil and his angels. " Matt 25:41
All the enemies of the Lord need to hear these Psalms. *God's
Kingdom is at War.* The powers of evil will tall and God alone
will reign forever!
"With justice He judges and makes war...out of His mouth comes a
sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. He will rule
them with an iron sceptre; He treads the winepress of the fury of
the wrath of God Almighty...King of Kings and Lord of Lords. "
Rev 19 : 15
4. Are Jesus' prayers contradictory?
What about Jesus' command to love our enemies and to bless those
who curse us (Matt 5:44)?
Christ is of course the loving and merciful Saviour who forgives
sin; but He is also the awesome Judge who is coming in Judgement
on those who disobey His Gospel.
"God is just. He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you
and give relief to you who are troubled...This will happen when
the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with His
powerful angels. He will punish those who do not obey the Gospel
of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting
destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from
the majesty of His power on the day He comes to be glorified in
His holy people and to be marvelled at among au those who have
believed. " 2 Thess 1:6-10
Jesus has power on earth to forgive sins, and He has power on
earth to execute judgement upon His enemies. In the Psalms we see
both the vengeance and the love ot God.
Even in the N.T. & in the Gospels we see imprecations.
"Woe to you,...hypocrites...blind guides...blind fools...full of
greed and self indulgence...whitewashed tombs...you snakes! You
brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to Hell ? "
Matt 23
In Matt 26:23-24 Christ quotes from Ps 69 and 109 to refer to His
betrayal by Judas.
We also need to acknowledge that Christ's prayers of blessing are
not for all. In John 17:6-9 it is clear that Christ is only
praying to the elect of God - those who have:
"obeyed your Word"... "accepted" God's Word ... and have
"believed ". (see Luke 10:8-16 - Those who reject the
message of God's kingdom will be judged.)
5. May we pray the imprecatory Psalms?
Martin Luther pointed out that when one prays: "Hallowed be Thy
Name, Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done " then "he must put all
the opposition to this in one pile and say: 'Curses, maledictions
and disgrace upon every other name and every other kingdom. May
they be ruined and torn apart and may all their schemes and
wisdom and plans run aground' . "
To pray tor the extension of God's kingdom is to solicit the
destruction of all other kingdoms, eg: Dan 2:44: "The God of
heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed ... it
will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it
will itself endure forever. "
* Advance and victory for the Church means defeat and retreat for
the kingdom of darkness. *
There is a life & death struggle between two kingdoms. The Church
cannot exclude hatred tor satan's kingdom from its love for God's
kingdom. God's kingdom cannot come without satan's kingdom being
destroyed. God's will cannot be done on earth without the
destruction of evil. The glory of God demands the destruction of
evil. Instead of being influenced by a sickly sentimentalism
which insists upon the assumed, but really non-existent, rights
of man - we should focus instead upon the rights of God.
Note Psalm 83 where the Psalmist prays against those who "plot
together" against God and His people:
"Cover their faces with shame so that men will seek your Name O
Lord... Do to them as You did to Midian, as you did to Sisera and
Jabin at the river Kishon, who perished at Endor and became like
refuse on the ground. "
The story of Sisera in the book of Judges (Chapter 4 and 5)
provides a vivid example of God's judgement on the wicked. Sisera
"cruelly oppressed the Israelites for twenty years" and they
"cried to the Lord for help" Judges 4:3. In response to those
prayers: "The Lord routed Sisera and all his chariots and army by
the sword, and Sisera abandoned his chariot and fled on foot...
All the troops of Sisera fell by the sword; not a man was left. "
Judges 4:15-16
The account then goes on to describe how Sisera escaped to the
tent of Jael where she lulled him into a false sense of safety
and then drove a tent peg through his temple with a hammer. The
song of victory by Deborah and Barak celebrated the crushing of
the head of Sisera in graphic detail (Judges 5:25-27). And it is
this that Psalm 83 implores God to again do to His enemies.. "As
you did to Sisera ..."
6. The blessings of obedience and the curse of disobedience
The imprecatory Psalms are fully consistent with the Law of God:
"If you do not carefully follow all the words of this Law,
which are written in this book, and do not revere this
glorious and awesome Name - the Lord your God - the Lord
will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants. He
will bring upon you all the diseases of Egypt that you
dreaded, and they will cling to you. The Lord will also
bring on you every kind of sickness and disaster not
recorded in this Book of the Law until you are
destroyed...because you did not obey the Lord your God ...
so it will please Him to ruin and destroy you. You will be
uprooted from the land you are entering to possess. "
Deuteronomy 28:58-63
The covenant God made with His people included curses for
disobedience as well as blessings for obedience. Deuteronomy 27
records the formal giving and receiving of the covenant terms in
an awesome account:
"The Levites shall recite to all the people of Israel in a loud
voice:
"Cursed is the man who carves an image or casts an idol - a thing
detestable to the Lord, the work of the craftsman's hands - and
sets it up in secret. "
Then all the people shall say, "Amen!" "
"Cursed is the man who dishonours his father or his mother...
"Cursed is the man who moves his neighbour's boundary stone...
"Cursed is the man who leads the blind astray on the roads...
"Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the alien, the
fatherless or the widow...
"Cursed is the man who kills his neighbour secretly...
"Cursed is the man who accepts a bribe to kill an innocent
person.
"Cursed is the man who does not uphold the words of the Law by
carrying them out.
Then all the people shall say, "Amen!" " Deut 27:14-26
The New Testament confirms that the inevitable consequence of
rejecting Christ is the curse. "If anyone does not love the
Lord - a curse be on him. " 1 Corinthians 16:22
(See also: Romans 12:19-21; Hebrews 1:1-3; 3:7-12; 3:1519; 10:26-
31; 12:14-29.)
7. How can we preach these prayers?
The Church of Jesus Christ is an army under orders.
Scripture constitutes the official dispatch from the Commander-
in-Chief. But we have a problem: those who are called to pass on
those orders to others are refusing to do so. How then can we
expect to be a united, effective army? Is it any wonder that the
troops have lost sight of their commission to demolish the
strongholds of the kingdom of darkness? If the Church does not
hear the battle cries of her Captain, how will she follow Him
onto the battlefield?
Pastors are commissioned to pass on the orders of the Church's
Commander, never withholding or changing His words. One whose job
is to carry dispatches to troops in wartime would face certain
and severe punishment if he dared to amend the general's orders.
The pastor's charge is of greater importance than that of a
courier in any earthly army. There's no place tor the dispatcher
to decide he doesn't agree with his Commander's strategy.
When Jesus Christ sent seventy-two disciples on a preaching
mission, He told them to proclaim the coming of God's Kingdom (Lk
10:9) - that is, to announce that people must submit to God's
rule in their lives. Jesus instructed them to pray for peace on
any house they approach, assuring them that if anyone rejected
it, the peace would return on the disciples (verse 5). But we
must consider what He said they should do if their message were
rejected - that is, if the hearers persisted in rebellion against
God's rule - "But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go
into its 'streets and say, 'Even the dust of your town that
sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this:
The kingdom of God is near"' Luke 10:11.
What would be the result of that denunciation? I tell you, it
will be more bearable on that day for Sodom [on which God sent
fire from Heaven in judgement for its wickedness] than for that
town (verse 12). Immediately Jesus added curses on Korazin,
Bethsaida, and Capernaum tor their rejection of His message
(verses 13-15). He then explained to the disciples the great
authority He had given them: "He who listens to you listens to
Me; he who rejects you rejects Me; but he who rejects Me rejects
him who sent Me " (verse 16). This is the fundamental basis tor
calling down God's curses on anyone: his persistent rebellion
against God's authority expressed in His Law and the ministry of
His servants.
We need to clearly and forcefully proclaim the war cries of the
Prince of Peace. Only then will the Church awake from its
lethargy and once again enter the battle. If we tail to pass on
the battle cry then a lack of urgency and confusion in the ranks
will be inevitable.
Like Psalm 1 our preaching needs to clearly show the blessings of
obedience and the curse of disobedience. The eternal truth is
that God cannot be mocked. Whatever a man sows - that shall he
reap (Galatians 6:7). The curses pronounced on disobedience in
Deut 28:47-53 were fulfilled in detail in Samaria (2 Kings
6:2&29) and in Judea (AD 70). The wrath of God upon covenant
breakers is real.
The "I" of the Psalms is Jesus Christ. The "we" of the Psalms
includes those of us in the Lord Jesus. The enemies are not our
own, individually, but those of the Lord and of His Church. The
Psalms are ot Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King. They record
Christ's march in victory against the kingdom of darkness. As
Christ is the author of the Psalms, so, too, is He the final
fulfilment of the covenant on which they are based. God will
answer the psalmist's prayers completely in Jesus Christ on the
final day of judgment. While on earth Jesus foretold the day when
He will say: "But those enemies of Mine who did not want Me to be
King over them - bring them here and kill them in front of Me"
Luke 19:27.
A fatal end awaits everyone who refuses to acknowledge and to
obey Jesus as King and Lord. Hearing expositions of these war
psalms of the Prince of Peace will remind His people that God's
kingdom is at war! The kingdom of darkness is being overcome by
the kingdom of Jesus Christ, a war in which each local
congregation of believers plays a vital part. You must rally your
battalion to put on the whole armour of God, including "the sword
of the Spirit, which is the Word of God " Eph 6:17. That battle-
readiness also involves "pray(ing) in the Spirit on all occasions
with all kinds of prayers and requests n Eph 6:18.
Christ teaches His army to pray for the utter destruction of the
enemies of God as the psalmist did: "Pour out Your wrath on the
nations that do not acknowledge You, on the kingdoms that do not
call on Your Name" Ps 79:6.
To deal with the very real hurts and injustices in this world it
is necessary for us to pray for God's justice. Those who are
persecuted need the comfort of these prayers.
"Let the saints rejoice in His honour and sing for joy...May the
praise of God be in their mouths and a double-edged sword in
their hands, to inflict vengeance on the nations and punishment
on the peoples, to bind their kings with fetters, their nobles
with shackles of iron, to carry out the sentences written against
them. This is the glory of all His saints. Praise the Lord. " Ps
149:5-9
Prayer is, in fact, spiritual warfare. One weapon is prayer for
conversion of spiritual enemies; another is prayer for judgement
on those who finally refuse to be converted. We handicap the army
of God when we refuse to use both of these great weapons that He
has given us. It is at all times a part of the task of the people
nf God to destroy evil.
If you have been guilty of dulling your sword, by neglecting or
undermining these psalms, repent of that sin, sharpen your sword
anew, and go forth to do battle in the Name and for the Glory of
Jesus - until "the knowledge of the Lord will cover the earth as
the waters cover the sea" Hab 2:14.
The full book "War Psalms of the Prince of Peace " is available,
at R25, from Frontline Fellowship, PO Box 74 Newlands, 7725 RSA.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The Catholic church has an entirely different view of Mary than do
"most" other Christian churches (those with parallel beliefs
notwithstanding). Christ, by most accounts, is the only sinless
person to ever live. I too, have trouble with a sinless Mary
concept just.
As for the related issue of the "original" sin - only Adam and
Eve will answer for that one. My children do not answer for my sins,
certainly I only answer for mine. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I think C.S. Lewis has argued that medieval people did not all think the
world is flat.
However, this argument goes both ways. Pretend someone telling Plato that
it is highly probable that people do not really have souls; their minds
and their consciousness are just something their brains make up, and
their brains (their body) is actually ahead of their mind even in
voluntarly actions. I don't think Plato would have been happy with this,
and neither would Paul, although Paul's ideas were quite different.
However, if you would _read_ what we discuss in this group, and not
just preach, you would see that there currently is much evidence in
favour of these statements.
The same applies to the theory of natural selection, or other sacred
cows of Christianity on our origins and human nature. I don't believe
in spirits, devils or immortal souls any more than in gods.
Ah, you said it. You believe what you want to. This is what I had assumed
all along.
You might be as well planting Satan's seeds, ever thought of this?
Besides, you haven't yet explained why we must believe so blindly,
without any guiding light at all (at least I haven't noticed it).
I don't think this is at all fair play on god's part.
Your argument sounds like a version of Pascal's Wager. Please read the
FAQ, this fallacy is discussed there.
And I failed to get help from the HS because I had a wrong attitude?
Sorry, Dan, but I do not think this spirit exists. People who claim to have
access to it just look badly deluded, not gifted.
Petri
| 0 | alt.atheism |
[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). | 0 | alt.atheism |
You will keep in perfect peace him whose mind is steadfast, because he trusts
in you.
Isaiah 26:3
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Damn. And I did so have my hopes up.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine [email protected]
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea. | 0 | alt.atheism |
The above article is a good short summary of traditional Christian
teaching concerning the death of Mary.
Also very good is "Re: Question about the Virgin Mary" by Micheal D.
Walker. He tells the story very well.
I would like to add that in the Eastern Orthodox Church we celebrate "The
Dormition (or falling asleep) of the Theotokos (the mother of God)". The
Icon for this day shows Mary lying on a bed surrounded by the Apostles
who are weeping. Christ, in his resurrected glory, is there holding what
seems to be a small child. This is, in fact, Mary's soul already with
Christ in Heaven. The Assumption of Mary is one more confirmation for us
as Christians that Christ did indeed conquer death. It forshadows the
general resurrection on the last day. The disciples were not surprised
to find Mary's body missing from the grave. She was the Mother of the
Savior. She was the first of all Christians. She gave birth to the Word
of God. If it were not for her we would not be saved. This is why we
pray in the Orthodox Church, "Through the prayers of the Theotokos,
Savior save us." | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
existance.
***************************************************************************
I just thought it necessary to help defend the point that Jesus
existed. Guys: Jesus existed. If he didnt, then you have to say that
Socrates didnt exist cuz he, like Jesus, has nothing from his hands that
have survived. Only Plato and others record his existance. Many others
record Jesus' existance, including the Babylonian Talmud. Sorry guys, the
argument that Jesus may not have existed is a dead point now. He did.
Whether he was God or whether there is a God is a completely different
story, however.
*****************************************************************************
| 0 | alt.atheism |
They must be theists in disguise.
In any event, we don't _need_ to create religious parodies: just
look at some actual religions which are absurd.
[34mAnd now . . . [35mDeep Thoughts[0m
[32mby Jack Handey.[0m | 0 | alt.atheism |
I can (and do) take religious writings as a metaphor for life.
I do this with all sorts of fiction, from Beowolf to Deep Space Nine.
The idea is to not limit yourself to one book, screen out the good
stuff from what you read, and to remember that it is all just a story.
You sound Buddist to me :^) | 0 | alt.atheism |
My first and most important point is that regardless of how your recovery
happened, I'm glad it did!
On 10-May-93 in Re: How I got saved...
NOW! The point that I'll try to make is that coincidences like this occur
with a very high frequency. How many of us have been thinking of someone
and had that person call? Much of the whole psychic phenomenon is easily
explicable by this - one forgets the misses. Consider your astrological
forcast in the newspaper. How many times have you said "That's me" vs
"That's not me"? You'll remember the hits, but the misses will be much more
frequent.
On 10-May-93 in Re: How I got saved...
And what if, instead if being healed, your affliction got much worse and
you ended up paralyzed? Would you have attributed that to god as well?
Or would that have been the work of satan? If you believe that would have
been so, why ONLY good from god, and ONLY evil from satan? Couldn't the
agony have come from god? Think about what he did to poor Job!
David Hunt - Graduate Slave | My mind is my own. | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>> | Jewish homeland!
====T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=========T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=====
Email: [email protected] Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper" | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
In the part of the posting you have so helpfully deleted, I
pointed out that they used the wording from the English Bill of
Rights apparently *changing* what they understood by it, and I
asked why then should we, two hundred years later, be bound by
what Keith Allan Schneider *thinks* they understood by it.
So one cannot say "a cruel fate"?
Your prevarications are getting increasingly unconvincing, I think. | 0 | alt.atheism |
In a post of 29 April (?), considering disasters as instances of the
judgements of God in history, Andy Byler spoke of
> the desire of the Jerusalem mob who crucified the Lord that
> "His blood be upon us."
Vera Noyes replied (02 May),
> I will not comment here for fear of being heavily flamed.
I invite them both (and other interested parties as well) to read my
comments on this verse of Scripture. To obtain them, send the
message GET CHOOSING BARABBAS to [email protected] or to
[email protected]. Putting it briefly, I think that the
significance of the demands of the Jerusalem crowd has usually been
greatly misunderstood, both by Christian and by anti-Christian
readers.
Yours,
James Kiefer | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[....]
Thanks Jon. I had forgotten about the 1912 and 1927 invasions (if I had
ever learned of them. I mean I *really* forgot!) But I read the context
as more recent, such as when the Sandinistas were expecting an "imminent"
invasion from the U.S. which never happened.
I stand corrected. Thanks.
I remembered this one. This one and Bush's invasion were the two I
mentioned above. Good ol' Teddy R.-- he knew how to get things done!
Regards, | 0 | alt.atheism |
I would not be too quick to say that they are almost certainly untrue.
Even strong minded people may fall back on childhood indoctrination,
grasp at straws, or do other strange things when faced with extreme
suffering, not to mention physiological problems which may lead to
diminished mental capacity.
At the risk of restarting an old argument and accusations of appeal to
authority I remind readers of what I posted a while back as a kind of
obituary for the late atheist Dr. Albert Sabin. In an old interview
rebroadcast on public radio just after his death he told about a time
a few years before when he was stricken with a very serious illness.
He admitted to having cried out to God while critically ill and on a
respirator. As it turned out he recovered and lived several more years.
After his recovery he attributed this to early indoctrination. Don't say
it couldn't happen to you, or that it hasn't happened to others, even if
you are one of the few people who have experienced things like this.
People are different. I admire Dr. Sabin for admitting his human weakness
in that instance. I would not think less of Asimov for similar weakness.
Nevertheless I agree that these reports are unsubstantiated and may
well be untrue. In any case they are not evidence for anything besides
the power of early indoctrination and human frailty. | 0 | alt.atheism |
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. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Well, you were going well until you hit this one.
Hawaii was an independent country. A coup by Americans led to a request to
annex it. The US refused, but eventually did annex it several years later
during the Spanish-American War.
--
"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) | 0 | alt.atheism |
Once the Rushdie situation exploded into the media, the Muslim voice on
the matter of the book was effectively restricted to short video bytes
showing
the dramatic highlights of Muslim demonstrations. For every twenty or so
newspaper, magazine articles, interviews etc. supporting Rushdie, there
would
appear one Muslim voice. This person was usually selected based on how
dramatic and incoherent he was, not on his knowledge of Islam or the
situation at the time. This approx. twenty to one ratio continued
throughout the escalation of the crisis, with Rushdie in the central
spotlight as the man of the moment, the valiant defender of everyman's
right to free speech decoupled from responsibility. (As an aside, it's
interesting that while the hue and cry about freedom of speech went up,
some books (defaming certain ethnic and religious groups) continued
to be banned here. It was felt that they injured the sensibilities of these
groups and presented a false image which could promote feelings of
hate towards these groups. For Muslims this kind of double standard
was annoying.)
Rushdie saw this spotlight as a golden opportunity to lash out at
"organized"
Islam, and he did so with admirable verbal skill. The only kind of Islam
which Rushdie finds palatable is what he calls a "secular" Islam - an Islam
separated from it's Qur'an, it's Prophet, God, its legislation, and most
importantly from any intrusion into any political arena. Fine - Rushdie
made
his views known - the Muslim's made their anger at his book known. The
scale of the whole affair erupted into global proportions - it was, by this
time,
already a political situation - affecting governments as well as
individuals.
The situation was a serious one, with far-reaching political implications.
At the centre of this turmoil was Rushdie, throwing fuel on the fire -
engaged
in a personal crusade that made him oblivious to any sense of caution.
Now you may feel that the person in the centre of a worldwide storm such as
this has no responsibility, has no reason to exercise restraint of any
kind, has no
obligation to perhaps step back momentarily out of the spotlight till
matters calm down. Perhaps you even feel that he is justified in "boldly"
defying the anger of all those who dare to take umbrage at his literary
work, no matter what insult they find within it. Perhaps you see him as
a kind of secular "heroic Knight",mounted on the his media steed,
doing battle with the "dragon" of Islamic "fundamentalism".
Well Khomeini saw him as a disingeneous author who
grew up in a Muslim atmosphere, knew well what Muslim's hold dear,
who wrote a book which mischievously uses certain literary conventions
to slander, insult, and attack Islam and its most notable personalities -
who, when
faced with a situation that became a worldwide crisis, continued with
his mischief in the world stage of the media - who, even after people were
injured and killed because of the magnitude and emotion of the situation,
continued his mischief, instead of having the good sense to desist.
Khomeini saw the crisis as mischief making on a grand scale, mischief
making that grew in scale as the scale of the crisis enlarged. The deaths
of Muslims around the world and Rushdie's continued media mischief
even after this, was the triggering factor that seemed to
decide Khomeini on putting a stop to the mischief. The person at the
centre of all these events was Rushdie - he was the source of the
continuing mischief - all media support, government support was
just that - support. The source was Rushdie (and his publishers, who
were nothing short of ecstatic at the publicity and were very happy
to see Rushdie constantly in the media). The Islamic rulings that
deal with people who engage in this kind of grand-scale mischief
making, was applied to Rushdie.
I have made no attempts at justification, only at explanation. "Image" is
the chief concern of Muslim 'apologists' for Islam and for Rushdie.
If Muslims willingly relegated themselves to becoming a sub-culture
within a larger secular culture, such that the secular principles and laws
had precedence over the laws of Islam - then I have no doubt that Islam
would then be thought to have a good "image" (Principally because it would
by and large reflect the secular image). A "good image" usually means " be
more
like me".
Your attempts at TOTALLY exonerating Rushdie reflect exactly the attitude
that
resulted in the polarization brought about by the crisis.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
[On secrecy in LDS ceremonies. --clh] | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
What I mean is what I said. "What I want" does not automatically
translate into "what I think is right." That is, it does not
translate that way for me.
If you reply that "I think it is ok to kill you because that is what
I decided" then what that means is that for you "What I want" does
translate into "what I think is right".
It just doesn't translate that way for me. | 0 | alt.atheism |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[underlining mine/Quean Lutibelle]
Yes, those who apply it hatefully would be better served if they if
they could alter the Bible to reflect their views:
Scene 1: A well in Samaria:
Woman: But I have no husband.
Jesus: Yo! Everybody! Listen up! Get your rocks ready! We'll have
some good biblical fun. Here she is whispering to me that
she doesn't have a husband, yet I know by my secret powers that
she has had five of them! (You know how these Samaritans are!
And worse, she's living with a guy now that she's not even married
to. Now I believe in loving her, and if you'll just raise up
those rocks like the bible allows and threaten her with a good
stoning, she'll understand how much we hate the sin but love
the sinner. We must keep our priorities strait, lest folks
2,000 years from now misunderstand me and believe I canceled
all sin!
Scene 2: Golgatha
2nd Thief: You got a raw deal, man. They didn't catch you doing anything
wrong like they caught me.
Bleeding Jesus: Now, son. Let me be real clear. You say you did something
wrong, but are you repenting? I need to be absolutely certain
cause if you repent, I have a nice room for you in heaven,
but if you think you might go thieving again, I have to
cancel your reservation. It is nice of you to have pity on
me while I'm hanging here, but you must understand, this is
all an act; I'm not really hurting. I'm God, you see. And
the point of all this is to teach you to be perfect like me.
If you think a simple kind remark to me in suffering is going
to get you any favors, you'd better think twice! But if you
will just REPENT, you will become a Fundelical in Good
Standing.
From all such Bad News, you have delivered us, Good God! Thank you!
Thank you! Thank you!
Quean Lutibelle/Louie
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
#In article <[email protected]>
#
#>#>|>#>#Theism is strongly correlated with irrational belief in absolutes. Irrational
#>#>|>#>#belief in absolutes is strongly correlated with fanatism.
#>#
#>#(deletion)
#>#
#>#>|Theism is correlated with fanaticism. I have neither said that all fanatism
#>#>|is caused by theism nor that all theism leads to fanatism. The point is,
#>#>|theism increases the chance of becoming a fanatic. One could of course
#>#>|argue that would be fanatics tend towards theism (for example), but I just
#>#>|have to loook at the times in history when theism was the dominant ideology
#>#>|to invalidate that conclusion that that is the basic mechanism behind it.
#>#>
#>#>IMO, the influence of Stalin, or for that matter, Ayn Rand, invalidates your
#>#>assumption that theism is the factor to be considered.
#>#
#>#Bogus. I just said that theism is not the only factor for fanatism.
#>#The point is that theism is *a* factor.
#>
#>That's your claim; now back it up. I consider your argument as useful
#>as the following: Belief is strongly correlated with fanaticism. Therefore
#>belief is *a* factor in fanaticism. True, and utterly useless. (Note, this
#>is *any* belief, not belief in Gods)
#>
#
#Tiring to say the least. I have backed it up, read the first statement.
I have read it. Conspicuous by its absence is any evidence or point.
#
#The latter is the fallacy of the wrong analogy. Saying someone believes
#something is hardly an information about the person at all. Saying someone
#is a theist holds much more information. Further, the correlation between
#theists and fanatism is higher than that between belief at all and fanatism
#because of the special features of theistic belief.
Truth by blatant assertion. Evidence?
#
#
#>#>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.
#>#
#>#That's a claim you have to support. Please note that especially in the
#>#field of theism, the leaders believe what they say.
#>
#>If you believe that, you're incredibly naive.
#>
#
#You, Frank O'Dwyer, are living in a dream world. I wonder if there is any
#base of discussion left after such a statement. As a matter of fact, I think
#you are ignorant of human nature. Even when one starts with something one does
#not believe, one gets easily fooled into actually believing what one says.
#
#To give you the benefit of the doubt, prove your statement.
The onus of proof is on you, sunshine. What makes you think that
theist leaders believe what they say? Especially when they say
one thing and do another, or say one thing closely followed by its
opposite? The practice is not restricted to theism, but it's there
for anyone to see. It's almost an epidemic in this country.
Just for instance, if it is harder for a camel to pass thru' the eye
of a needle, why is the Catholic church such a wealthy land-owner? Why
are there churches to the square inch in my country?
#
#>#>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?
#>#>
#>#That's a straw man. And as usually in discussions with you one has to
#>#repeat it: Read what I have written above: not every theism leads to
#>#fanatism, and not all fanatism is caused by theism. The point is,
#>#there is a correlation, and it comes from innate features of theism.
#>
#>No, some of it comes from features which *some* theism has in common
#>with *some* fanaticism. Your last statement simply isn't implied by
#>what you say before, because you're trying to sneak in "innate features
#>of [all] theism". The word you're groping for is "some".
#>
#
#Bogus again. Not all theism as is is fanatic. However, the rest already
#gives backup for the statement about the correlation about fanatism and
#theism. And further, the specialty of other theistic beliefs allows them
#to switch to fanatism easily. It takes just a nifty improvement in the
#theology.
Truth by blatant assertion.
#
#
#>#Gullibility, by the way, is one of them.
#>
#>No shit, Sherlock. So why not talk about gullibility instead of theism,
#>since it seems a whole lot more relevant to the case you have, as opposed
#>to the case you are trying to make?
#>
#
#Because there is more about theism that the attraction to gullible people
#causing the correlation. And the whole discussion started that way by the
#statement that theism is meaningfully correlated to fanatism, which you
#challenged.
Indeed I did. As I recall, I asked for evidence. What is the correlation
of which you speak?
#
#
#>#And to say that I am going to forbid religion is another of your straw
#>#men. Interesting that you have nothing better to offer.
#>
#>I said it reads like a warm up to that. That's because it's an irrational
#>and bogus tirade, and has no other use than creating a nice Them/Us
#>split in the minds of excitable people such as are to be found on either
#>side of church walls.
#>
#
#Blah blah blah. I am quite well aware that giving everyone their rights
#protects me better from fanatics than the other way round.
Of course, other people are always fanatics, never oneself. Your
wish to slur all theists seems pretty fanatical to me.
#
#It is quite nice to see that you are actually implying a connection between
#that argument and the rise of fanatism. So far, it is just another of your
#assertions.
So? You can do it.
#
#
#>#>|>(2) Define "irrational belief". e.g., is it rational to believe that
#>#>|> reason is always useful?
#>#>|>
#>#>|
#>#>|Irrational belief is belief that is not based upon reason. The latter has
#>#>|been discussed for a long time with Charley Wingate. One point is that
#>#>|the beliefs violate reason often, and another that a process that does
#>#>|not lend itself to rational analysis does not contain reliable information.
#>#>
#>#>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?
#>#>
#>#That's bogus. Self reference is not circular. And since the evaluation of
#>#usefulness is possible within rational systems, it is allowed.
#>
#>O.K., it's oval. It's still begging the question, however. And though
#>that certainly is allowed, it's not rational. And you claiming to be
#>rational and all.
#>
#
#Another of your assertions. No proof, no evidence, just claims.
Hey - I learned it from you. Did I do good?
#
#
#>At the risk of repeating myself, and hearing "we had that before" [we
#>didn't hear a _refutation_ before, so we're back. Deal with it] :
#>you can't use reason to demonstrate that reason is useful. Someone
#>who thinks reason is crap won't buy it, you see.
#>
#
#That is unusually weak even for you. The latter implies that my proof
#depends on their opinion. Somehow who does not accept that there are
#triangles won't accept Pythagoras. Wow, that's an incredible insight.
#I don't have to prove them wrong in their opinion. It is possible to
#show that their systems leave out useful information respectively claims
#unreliable or even absurd statements to be information.
Totally circular, and totally useless.
#
#Their wish to believe makes them believe. Things are judges by their appeal,
#and not by their information. It makes you feel good when you believe that
#may be good for them, but it contains zillions of possible pitfalls. From
#belief despite contrary evidence to the bogus proofs they attempt.
Truth by blatant assertion. I've seen as many bogus proofs of the
non-existence of gods as I have of their existence.
#
#Rational systems, by the way, does not mean that every data has to come from
#logical analysis, the point is that the evaluation of the data does not
#contradict logic. It easily follows that such a system does not allows to
#evaluate if its rational in itself. Yes, it is possible to evaluate that
#it is rational in a system that is not rational by the fallacies of that
#system, but since the validity of the axioms is agreed upon, that has as
#little impact as the possibility of a demon ala Descartes.
This just doesn't parse, sorry.
#
#So far it just a matter of consistency. I use ratiional arguments to show
#that my system is consistent or that theirs isn't. The evaluation of the
Nor this.
#predictions does not need rationality. It does not contradict, however.
#
#
#>#Your argument is as silly as proving mathematical statements needs mathematics
#>#and mathematics are therfore circular.
#>
#>Anybody else think Godel was silly?
#>
#
#Stream of consciousness typing? What is that supposed to mean?
#
#
#>#>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've been speaking of religious systems with contradictory definitions
#>#of god here.
#>#
#>#An axiomatic datum lends itself to rational analysis, what you say here
#>#is a an often refuted fallacy. Have a look at the discussion of the
#>#axiom of choice. And further, one can evaluate axioms in larger systems
#>#out of which they are usually derived. "I exist" is derived, if you want
#>#it that way.
#>#
#>#Further, one can test the consistency and so on of a set of axioms.
#>#
#>#what is it you are trying to say?
#>
#>That at some point, people always wind up saying "this datum is reliable"
#>for no particular reason at all. Example: "I am not dreaming".
#>
#
#Nope. There is evidence for it. The trick is that the choice of an axiomatic
#basis of a system is difficult, because the possibilities are interwoven.
#One therefore chooses that with the least assumptions or with assumptions
#that are necessary to get information out of the system anyway.
I'd like to see this alleged evidence.
#
#One does not need to define axioms in order to define an evaluation method
#for usefulness, the foundation is laid by how one feels at all (that's not
#how one feels about it).
I see. You have no irrational beliefs. But then, fanatics never do, do
they?
#
#>#>|Compared the evidence theists have for their claims to the strength of
#>#>|their demands makes the whole thing not only irrational but antirational.
#>#>
#>#>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.
#>#>
#>#
#>#Using the traditonal definition of gods. Personal, supernatural entities
#>#with objective effects on this world. Usually connected to morals and/or
#>#the way the world works.
#>
#>IMO, any belief about such gods is necessarily irrational. That does
#>not mean that people who hold them are in principle opposed to the exercise of
#>intelligence. Some atheists are also scientists, for example.
#>
#
#They don't use theism when doing science. Or it wouldn't be science. Please
#note that subjective data lend themselves to a scientific treatment as well.
#They just prohibit formulating them as objective statements.
Ergo, nothing is objective. Fair enough.
#
#
#>#>|The affinity to fanatism is easily seen. It has to be true because I believe
#>#>|it is nothing more than a work hypothesis. However, the beliefs say they are
#>#>|more than a work hypothesis.
#>#>
#>#>I don't understand this. Can you formalise your argument?
#>#
#>#Person A believes system B becuase it sounds so nice. That does not make
#>#B true, it is at best a work hypothesis. However, the content of B is that
#>#it is true AND that it is more than a work hypothesis. Testing or evaluating
#>#evidence for or against it therefore dismissed because B (already believed)
#>#says it is wronG/ a waste of time/ not possible. Depending on the further
#>#contents of B Amalekites/Idolaters/Protestants are to be killed, this can
#>#have interesting effects.
#>
#>Peculiar definition of interesting, but sure. Now show that a belief
#>in gods entails the further contents of which you speak. Why aren't my
#>catholic neighbours out killing the protestants, for example? Maybe they
#>don't believe in it. Maybe it's the conjunction of "B asserts B" and
#>"jail/kill dissenters" that is important, and the belief in gods is
#>entirely irrelevant. It certainly seems so to me, but then I have no
#>axe to grind here.
#>
#
#The example with your neighbours is a fallacy. That *your* neighbours don't
#says little about others. And there were times when exactly that happened.
Nope, it's not a fallacy. It just doesn't go to the correlation you
wish to see.
#
#And tell me, when it is not irrelevant, why are such statements about
#Amalekites and Idolaters in the Holy Books? Please note that one could
#edit them out when they are not relevant anymore. Because gods don't err?
#What does that say about that message?
Excuse me - THE Holy Books?
#
#And how come we had theists saying genocides ordered by god are ok. A god
#is the easiest way to excuse anything, and therefore highly attracting to
#fanatics. Not to mention the effect interpretation by these fanatics can
#have on the rest of the believers. Happens again and again and again.
A god is neither the easiest way to excuse anything, nor the only way.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Aside to the moderator:
I won't quote any of it, but there are several errors in the article.
Not things that are just differences of opinion, but the writer just
plain has his facts confused.
For example, Kip McKean was *asked* to come to the Lexington church
by the leaders there. He brought no team. He actually had been in
Charleston, IL up to that point. He had many friends, even leaders in
Gainesville, telling him not to go, because people in the Northeast
weren't "open" and he'd be wasting his time and talents. Really!!
(This fact was a kind of "inside joke" at one point after the church
in Boston took off so well... Not open, indeed!) ;-)
I could take it on point by point, but I am not in a position to know
one way or the other about some things in the article. I just wanted
to point out that it contains misinformation.
Mark | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[email protected] (Bruce Stephens) suggests different levels of acceptance of
homosexuality:
I would add 4': our churches should accept homosexual orientation but hold all
people to certain standards of sexual behavior. Promiscuity, abuse of power
relationships, harrassment, compulsivity are equally out of place in the lives
of homosexual as of heterosexual people.
Of course, this would bring up the dread shibboleth of homosexual marriage,
and we couldn't have that! :-) | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
What atheists are you talking about?
IMNSHO, Abortion is the womans choice. Homosexual sex is the choice of
the people involved. War is sometimes necessary.
This leaves capital punishment. I oppose capital punishemnt because
mistakes can happen (yes this thread went around with no resolution
recently).
As far as poplulation control, I think contraception and education are
the best courses of action.
That's because you are again making the assumption that all Atheists
have some specific mindset.
Mistakes can happen Bill, and I could be the victim of such a mistake.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
#In article <[email protected]>
#
#(Deletion)
#># Point: Morals are, in essence, personal opinions. Usually
#>#(ideally) well-founded, motivated such, but nonetheless personal. The
#>#fact that a real large lot of people agree on some moral question,
#>#sometimes even for the same reason, does not make morals objective; it
#>#makes humans somewhat alike in their opinions on that moral question,
#>#which can be good for the evolution of a social species.
#>
#>And if a "real large lot" (nice phrase) of people agree that there is a
#>football on a desk, I'm supposed to see a logical difference between the two?
#>Perhaps you can explain the difference to me, since you seem to see it
#>so clearly.
#>
#(rest deleted)
#
#That's a fallacy, and it is not the first time it is pointed out.
It's not a fallacy - note the IF. IF a supermajority of disinterested people
agree on a fundamantal value (we're not doing ethics YET Benedikt), then what
is the difference between that and those people agreeing on a trivial
observation?
#For one, you have never given a set of morals people agree upon. Unlike
#a football. Further, you conveniently ignore here that there are
#many who would not agree on tghe morality of something. The analogy
#does not hold.
I have, however, given an example of a VALUE people agree on, and explained
why. People will agree that their freedom is valuable. I have also
stated that such a value is a necessary condition for doing objective
ethics - the IF assertion above. And that is what I'm talking about, there
isn't a point in talking about ethics if this can't be agreed.
#One can expect sufficiently many people to agree on its being a football,
#while YOU have to give the evidence that only vanishing number disagrees
#with a set of morals YOU have to give.
I'm not doing morals (ethics) if we can't get past values. As I say,
the only cogent objection to my 'freedom' example is that maybe people
aren't talking about the same thing when they answer that it is valuable.
Maybe not, and I want to think about this some, especially the implications
of its being true.
#Further, the above is evidence, not proof. Proof would evolve out of testing
#your theory of absolute morals against competing theories.
Garbage. That's not proof either.
#The above is one of the arguments you reiterate while you never answer
#the objections. Evidence that you are a preacher.
Name that fallacy. | 0 | alt.atheism |
: >
: Precisely my position.
: As a newbie, I tried the point-by-point approach to debate with
: these types. It wasted both my time and my lifespan. Ignoring
: them is not an option, since they don't go away, and doing so
: would leave one with large stretches of complete anonymity in this
: group.
Bob,
I've posted here long enough to see your name a few times, but I
can't recall any point by point approach to anything you've
contributed. But I'm old (probably senile) and I may have just
forgotten, if you could post an example of your invincible logic, it
might jog my memory. | 0 | alt.atheism |
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? | 0 | alt.atheism |
Why don't you cite the passages so that we can focus on some to discuss.
Then, following Jesus, you can make fools of us and our "logic".
Indeed, if you can justifiably make this assertion, you must be a
genius in logic and making fools of us should be that much easier. | 0 | alt.atheism |
: Ok, a few days back, the below-included message was posted stating:
:
: > I believe with everything in my heart that on May 3, 1993, the city of
: >Portland, Oregon in the country of the United States of America will be hit
: >with a catastrophic and disastrous earthquake...
:
: By now, we know that this did not come to pass....
:
: ...I don't think it's particularly
: glorifying to God to say things like "Well, I THINK the Lord is telling me...",
: ..Such statements seem to me to be an attempt to get a spiritual thrill should
: the guess happen to come true, without risking the guilt of false prophecy
: should it fail to come to pass. I do not believe genuine prophecy was ever
: like this. Comments?
:
I agree. People should not be misled to believe "thus sayeth the Lord" by
innuendo or opinion or speculation.
Speak directly. If the Lord has given you something to say, say it.
But, before I declare "thus sayeth the Lord", I'd better know for certain
without a shadow of a doubt that I am in the correct spiritual condition
and relationship with the Lord to receive such a prophecy and be absolutely
certain, again, without the tiniest shadow of a doubt that there is no
possibility of my being misled by my own imaginations or by my hope of gaining
recognition or of being misled by the wiles of the devil and his followers.
Mistakes in this area are costly and dangerous. For me, my greatest fears
in this area would be the following:
1--that the people would be misled
2--that people would lose respect for christianity
3--that true prophecy would be clouded by all the false prophecies
4--were God to call me to be a prophet and I were to misrepresent God's Word,
my calling would be lost forever. God's Word would command the people
never to listen to or fear my words as I would be a false prophet. My
bridges would be burnt forever. Perhaps I could repent and be saved, but
I could never again be a prophet of God.
In the light of this, it is critical that we speak when the Lord says speak
and that we be silent when the Lord says to be silent lest we deprive the
world of God's Word and hide it under a bushel either by our inappropriate,
cowardly silence or by our false statements. And because of this, it
is critically important that we remain close to the Lord, in His Word, and
in prayer, and filled with the Spirit of God so that we know the difference.
In this day and age, sinners spout off their mouths left and right judging
one another, claiming "rights" that are not theirs, denying rights that do
indeed belong to others, demanding equal respect for all the "gods" of this
world, and uttering every form of falseness that promises to make one feel
good.
It's time that we christians give an example of honesty that stands out in
contrast against this backdrop of falsehood. When we say, "thus sayeth the
Lord", it happens. When we pray, prayer is answered because we prayed right.
When we say we're christians, we really mean it.
Dan
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I deplore the horrible crime of child murder...
We want prevention, not merely punishment.
We must reach the root of the evil...
It is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt
from the dreadful deed...
No mater what the motive, love of ease,
or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent,
the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed...
but oh! thrice guilty is he who drove her
to the desperation which impelled her to the crime." | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Interesting idea.
Regular televeision seems to do this sort of thing too with politically correct
shows.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
> I would rather spend an eternity in Hell than be beside God in
> Heaven knowing that even one man would spend his "eternal life"
> being scorched for his wrongdoings....
Stephen, I suspect that when you and I use the word "Hell," we have
different concepts in mind. When you encounter references to Heaven
in terms of crowns and harps and golden streets, I trust that you do
not suppose (or suspect Christians of supposing) that the golden
streets are to be taken literally, still less that they are what the
concept of Heaven is all about. Why then should you suppose that
about the "fires" of Hell?
Have you read the novel ATLAS SHRUGGED? Do you remember the
last description of James Taggart, sitting on the floor beside the
Ferris Persuader? This comes close to a description of what is meant
by Hell in my circles. If the image of fire is often used in this
connection, there are two reasons that occur to me.
The first reason is that it conveys the idea of Hell as
something that any rational being would earnestly wish to avoid (as
any rational being would wish to avoid the fate of James Taggart --
but the latter image is meaningful only to those who have read ATLAS
SHRUGGED, a smaller audience than those who have played with
matches).
The second reason is the history of the Hebrew word "Gehenna,"
one of the words translated "Hell" in the New Testament. It refers
to the valley of Hinnon, outside Jerusalem. In early days, it was a
place where the Canaanites offered human sacrifices (burned alive)
to Molech. Later, it was made a garbage or refuse dump, where fires
burned continually, consuming the trash of the city of Jerusalem.
"To be cast into Gehenna" or "to burn in Gehenna" thus became a
metaphor for "to be rejected or discarded as worthless."
Lest you think that identifying Hell with the fate of James Taggart
is my own private fancy, I commend to you the book THE GREAT
DIVORCE, by C S Lewis. It discusses Heaven (no harps) and Hell (no
flames). It is shorter than ATLAS SHRUGGED, and available at most
bookstores and libraries. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Absolutely not. I went through a "journey" of lukewarm Christianity,
agnosticism, atheism, agnosticism, and now (although I know my faith
is less than what it should be) Christianity again. I think it's a path
many of us take. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
You should wear your nicest boxer shorts and bring plenty of SPF 45+
sunscreen. I'll grab my bathing suit, towerl and some veggie hotdogs and we
can have bonfire cookout!!
Does that sound good enough to you, Dean?
EVERY a.a poster is invited!!! | 0 | alt.atheism |
But in this case I said I hoped that BCCI was *not* an Islamic bank.
But in this case I said I hoped that BCCI was *not* an Islamic bank.
But in this case I said I hoped that BCCI was *not* an Islamic bank. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Proof positive that some people are beyond satire.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
I haven't read this entire thread, but, if someone hasn't tossed this out yet, then here it is:
2 Samuel 12:21-23 (RSV) :
"Then his servants said to him, `What is this thing that you have
done? You fasted and wept for the child while it was alive; but when
the child died, you arose and ate food.' He [David] said, 'While the
child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows
whether the LORD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?' But
now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall
go to him, but he will not return to me.'"
Anyhow, many interpret this to mean that the child has gone to Heaven
(where David will someday go). I don't claim to know for sure if this
applies to all babies or not. But even if it's just this one, what
would you say to this? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
For your information, I checked the Library of Congress catalog,
and they list the following books by Francis Hitching:
Earth Magic
The Neck of the Giraffe, or Where Darwin Went Wrong
Pendulum: the Psi Connection
The World Atlas of Mysteries
| 0 | alt.atheism |
BR> From: [email protected] (Bill Rawlins)
BR> Newsgroups: alt.atheism
BR> Organization: DGSID, Atlanta, GA
BR> Since you have referred to the Messiah, I assume you
BR> are referring to the New Testament. Please detail
BR> your complaints or e-mail if you don't want to post.
BR> First-century Greek is well-known and
BR> well-understood. Have you considered Josephus, the Jewish
BR> Historian, who also wrote of Jesus? In addition,
BR> the four gospel accounts are very much in harmony.
It is also well known that the comments in Josephus relating to Jesus were
inserted (badly) by later editors. As for the four gospels being in harmony
on the issue of Jesus... You know not of what you speak. Here are a few
contradictions starting with the trial and continuing through the assension.
Acts 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of
iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his
bowels gushed out."
Matt. 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple,
and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought
with them the potter's field."
Before the cock crow - Matthew 26:34
Before the cock crow twice - Mark 14:30
MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the
word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny
me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.
MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man.
And immediately the cock crew.
MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him,
Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept
bitterly.
LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately,
while he yet spake, the cock crew.
LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered
the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou
shalt deny me thrice.
JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake?
Verily,
verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me
thrice.
JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.
(This is interesting because Matthew quotes a prophesy that was never made!
Not the only time he does this either...)
MAT 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet,
saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was
valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;
zechariah 11:11-13
(nothing in Jeremiah remotely like)
What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?
scarlet - Matthew 27:28
purple John 19:2
Mark says the third hour, or 9 a.m., but John says the sixth hour (noon) was
when the sentence was passed.
Matthew -- This is Jesus the king of the Jews
Mark -- The King of the Jews
Luke -- This is the king of the Jews
John -- Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews
vinegar - Matthew 27:34
wine with myrrh - Mark 15:23
Matthew said many stood far off, including Mary Magdaline, Mary the mother of
James, and the mother of Zebedee's children. Mark and Luke speak of many far
off, and Mark includes Mary Magdeline and Mary the mother of James the less.
John says that Jesus's mother stood at the cross, along with her sister and
Mary Magdalene.
Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why
hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice,
yielded u the ghost."
Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto
thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is
finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
Matthew says that the veil of the temple was rent, that there was an
earthquake, and that it was dark from the sixth to the ninth hour, that graves
opened and bodies of the saints arose and went into Jeruselem, appearing to
many (beating Jesus to the resurection). Mark and Luke speak of darkness and
the veil of the temple being rent but mention no earthquake or risen saints.
John is the only one who mentions Jesus's side being peirced.
Matthew says the Jews asked Pilate for a guard to prevent the body from being
stolen by the disciples, and for the tomb to be sealed. All of this was
supposedly done, but the other gospels do not mention these precautions.
Depends where you look; Matthew 12:40 gives Jesus prophesying that he will
spend "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth", and Mark 10:34
has "after three days (meta treis emeras) he will rise again". As far as I can
see from a quick look, the prophecies have "after three days", but the
post-resurrection narratives have "on the third day".
Matthew says Sunday at dawn, Mark says the sun was rising, and John says it
was dark.
MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first
day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother
of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and
anoint him.
JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it
was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the
sepulchre.
MAT 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the
Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door,
and sat upon it.
MAT 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as
snow: MAT 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as
dead men. MAT 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear
not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
MAR 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on
the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
LUK 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout,
behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and
the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
Matthew says the guard was paid to tell this story, but no other gospel makes
this claim.
Matthew says an angel at the tomb told the two Marys and that Jesus also told
them, to tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee. The disciples then went
to a mountain previously agreed opon, and met Jesus there. This was his only
appearance, except to the women at the tomb. Matthew only devotes five verses
to the visit with the disciples.
Mark says that Jesus walked with two of the disciples in the country, and that
they told the rest of the disciples, who refused to believe. Later he
appeared to the 11 disciples at mealtime.
Luke says two followers went, the same day that Jesus rose from the dead, to
Emmaus, a village eight miles from Jeruselem, and there Jesus jioned them but
was unrecognised. While they ate a meal together that evening, they finally
recognised Jesus, whereopon he dissapeared. Returning at once to Jeruselem,
they told the
disciples of their experience, and suddenly Jesus appeared among them,
frightening them, as they thought he was a spirit. Jesus then ate some fish
and honey and then preached to them.
John says Jesus appeared to the disciples the evening of the day he arrose, in
Jeruselem, where they were hiding. He breathed the Holy Ghost opon them, but
Thomas was not present and refused to believe. Eight days later Jesus joined
the disciples again at the same place and this time he convinced Thomas. Once
more Jesus made an
appearance to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias but again was not
recognised.
After telling them to cast their netson the other side of the boat, Jesus
becomes known to them and prepares bread and fish for them. They all eat
together and converse.
The book of acts further adds to the confusion. It says that Jesus showed
himself to the apostles for a period of 40 days after his resurection (thus
contradicting Matthew, Mark, Luke AND John) and spoke to them of things
pertaining to the kingdom of God: "And when he had spoken these things, while
they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud recieved him out of their sight.
And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, two men stood
by them in white apparel: Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye
gazing into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken from you into heaven,
shall so comein like manneras ye have seen him go into heaven" Acts 1:3-11
Paul outdoes every other "authority" by saying that Jesus was seen by 500
persons between the time of the resurection and the
assension, although he does not say where. He also claims that he himself "as
one born out of due time" also saw Jesus. 1 Cor 15:6-8.
Matthew says nothing about it. Mark casually says that Jesus was recieved into
heaven after he was finished talking with the
disciples in Jeruselem. Luke says Jesus led the desciples to Bethany and that
while he blessed them, he was parted from them and carried up into heaven.
John says nothing about it. Acts
contradicts all of the above. (See previous section)
MAT 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all
these things be fulfilled.
MAR 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till
all these things be done.
LUK 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till
all be fulfilled.
1 thessalonians 4:15-18
1 Corinthians 15:5 (12)
Matthew 27:3-5 (minus one from 12)
Acts 1:9-26 (Mathias not elected until after resurrection)
MAT 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain
where Jesus had appointed them.
"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2 Kings 2:11)
"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ...
the Son of Man." (John 3:13)
As you can see, there are a number of contradictions in the account of the
trial, crucifiction and resurection of Jesus. If these are good witnesses,
you would think that they could get SOME of these important details right!
(In fact, I cannot find very many points on where they AGREE. You would think
that they could at least agree on some of the points they were supposedly
observing!) Because of the fact that there is so much contradiction and error,
the story of the resurection as presented cannot be taken as literal truth.
(Due to the nature of the story, I doubt if it should be taken as ANY sort of
truth.) | 0 | alt.atheism |
Surely it was intended as wit.
By the way, which "atheist cause" were you referring to, Bill?
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Cute characterization Bill; however, there is no inconsistency between
the two statements. Even if one believes that religion is "primitive,
simple-minded and unscientific, anti-intellectual and childish", one
can still hold the view that religion also adds an unnecessary level of
complexity to the explanation. The ideas themselves don't have to be
complex before being excised by Occam's Razor, they only have to add
unnecessarily to the overall complexity of the description.
I think the non-essential part of an explanatory system is one that
adds no predictive capability to the system.
Huh?
^^^^^
Watch it, your Freudian Slip is showing
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Fred Gilham asks whether it is true that Goedel wrote a version of
the ontological argument for the existence of God.
Yes, it is true. Someone has published a rebuttal pointing out
certain flaws in the argument, and recently Professor C Anthony
Anderson, of the Philosophy Department of the University of
Minnesota, has written a revised version of the argument, perhaps
free of flaws, and at any rate free of the flaws complained of in
the original version. He has sent me a copy, which I still have (I
saw it last week when I was looking for something else), and when it
surfaces again I can supply particulars. My guess is that it is
being published (or already has been) in the Journal of Symbolic
Logic. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
You are quite confident that essences do not exist. How do propose to
define beings? Can a thing can be *one* without definition? Can a being
have a definition and know essence?
What about properties? Do beings have properties? Does God have
properties?
Does numbers exist in reality as abstract entities or do we invent them?
See my post in alt.messianic about the possibilities of tri-theism from a
phiolosophical point of view. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
> 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. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
This neatly eliminates the need for a savior and "proves" that we can be
saved by works alone! If we have no original sin, then it is possible for
us to save ourselves by not sinning. I understand the reasoning behind your
argument, but it leads to sheer folly. Original sin is the reason we need
faith to be saved. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Just a quick comment. As a baptist clergyperson, I find the idea
of such a "baptism" (if the news report is in fact accurate, and
they seldom are regarding religion) offensive. The pastor here seems
to have a most unbaptist view of baptism- one that seems to demand the
ceremony even when comprehension and choice are absent.
We do baptize converts, but no one who has been deceived into hearing
the word is likely to be a convert. If in fact the grace of God might
work in such a situation, there is no harm done in waiting a day or
two.
Baptist believe in regenerate membership. Did this church include these
half-baked (at best) converts into their church fellowship? Or do they
somehow feel there is some validity in dunking them and turning them loose?
This kind of "evangelism" is certainly not baptist, and probably not
very christian, either. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Yes, but no more than he is worth. :-). Seriously: Jerome is merely
(and grandly) another Christian witness, to be taken for what he can
tell us. He is one in the community of saints. You seem to wish for
a greater polarization and dichotomy between Catholic and Protestant
thought than seems to me, from a historical perspective, to be valid.
To be sure, Rome rejects (some significant aspects of) Protestant
thought just as vehemently as Protestants reject (some significant
aspects of) Roman thought. Other than some peoplw who apparently try
to embody the greatest extreme of this rejection, on either side, there
is not quite so vast a gulf fixed as casual observers seem to assume.
Ecumenical consultations between Rome and the Lutherans, as well as
those between Rome and the Anglican communion (to which I belong) show
very nearly complete convergence on understanding the basic theological
issues -- the sticking points tend to be ecclesiology and church polity.
Thus, for example, as you go on to say:
Many of us do not regard a papal decretal as having any necessary (as
opposed to political) significance. Sometimes it will, sometimes it
won't. You misread me if you think that my communion, at least, "throws
out" the deuterocanonical books. Nor do I think you should overstress
the sense in which the more Reformed may do so.
I seriously suggest you rethink what you are saying here. It verges on,
and could be taken as, anti-Semitic in the worst sense. The "unbelieving"
Jews were, according to what I understand as a Christian, the chosen
people of God, and the recipients of His pre-Incarnational revelation.
I think they have some say in the matter. The Javneh meeting should not
be over-interpreted. A recent magisterial study titled _Mikra_ (I don't
have more citation information on hand, sorry) produced primarily from
the background of Christian (rather than specifically Jewish) scholarship
suggests strongly that the Javneh meeting mostly resolved a lingering
question, where in practice the canon had long been fixed on the basis
of the scrolls that were kept in the Temple, and thereby "made the hands
unclean" when used. The list of "sacred books" that may be drawn up from
Josephus and other pre-Yavneh sources correspond (plus or minus one book,
if I rememeber the chapter correctly) to the current Jewish canon of Tanakh.
All of this is not to "throw out" the deuterocanonicals (what, by the way,
is YOUR position about the books the Greeks accept and Rome does not? :-))
-- just to observe that the issue is complex and simply binary judgment
does not do it justice.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Note: I am breaking this reply into 2 parts due to length.
I agree that there are no verses that have gone unchallenged by gay rights
activists. But if there are zero verses that "'clearly' address the issues,"
doesn't that mean that there are also no verses that clearly *support* your
case? Are you sure you want to say that there are zero verses that clearly
address the issues?
The story in Genesis 19 tells of the citizens of Sodom demanding an opportunity
to "know" the two men who were Lot's guests; the fact that the Sodomites became
angry when Lot offered them his daughters could be seen as indicating that they
were interested only in homosexual intercourse. Yes, what they wanted was
rape, homosexual rape, and everybody agrees that that is wrong. Some
Christians believe that the homosexual aspect of their desire was just as
sinful as the rape aspect of their desire. The passage does not say what it
was that so offended God, whether it was the homosexuality, or the intended
rape, or both, but I believe that it is only fair to consider all the possible
alternatives in the light of related Scriptures. I do not believe that those
who believe God was offended by both the homosexuality and the rape are trying
to say that homosexuality is itself a form of rape.
You seems to take the view that the *only* sin described in Gen. 19 is in the
fact that the Sodomites wanted to commit rape, and that it is unfair to
"stigmatize" their homosexuality by associating it with the sin of rape. I can
see how you might reach such a conclusion if you started from the conclusion
that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, but then again we're not
supposed to start from our conclusions because that's circular reasoning. If
God is in fact opposed to homosexual intercourse in general, then the more
probably interpretation is that He was at least as offended by the Sodomites'
blatant homosexuality as He was by their intent to commit rape. Later on I
will document why I believe the Old Testament portrays God as One who despises
*any* homosexual intercourse, even if both partners are consenting adults.
The moderator found my proposal to be circular in that he regarded the church
as the proper authority for determining what *kinds* of marriages would be
legitimate, and thus the church's refusal to recognize "perverted" marriages
was circular reasoning. My questions, however, had nothing to do with the
church ordaining new kinds of marriages, and so his argument was something of a
straw man. In terms of my original question, the precise
definition/translation of "porneia" isn't really important, unless you are
trying to argue that the Bible doesn't really condemn extramarital sex. I'm
not sure the moderator was trying to do that.
In any case, I think both you and the moderator have missed the point here.
When Jesus was asked about divorce, He replied, "Have you not read, that He who
created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this
cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife; and
the two shall become one flesh'? Consequently they are no longer two, but one
flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." (Mt.
19:4-6). I read here that the sexual union of a man (male) and his wife
(female) is a divinely-ordained union. In other words, the institution of
heterosexual marriage is something ordained and established by God--not by men,
and not by the church, but by God. Men are not supposed to dissolve this
union, in Jesus' words, because it is not something created by men.
This is not circular reasoning, this is just reading God's word. I read in the
Bible that God ordained the union of male and female. I do not read of any
similar divinely-ordained union of two males or two females. Granted, there
have been uninspired men who have ordained "alternative" unions (isn't Caligula
reported to have "married" his horse?), but the only union that Jesus refers to
as "what God has joined together" is the heterosexual union of a man and his
wife.
(Pardon me for mentioning Caligula. I know that's probably inflammatory, and I
should save it for the discussion on bestiality, in part 2 of this post.
Please hold off on passing judgement on me until you have read that section of
my reply.)
Anyway, my original question was not whether we should translate "porneia" in a
way that condemns only a select few kinds of extramarital sex, my question was:
given that heterosexual marriage is the only union described by the Bible as
divinely-ordained, and given a Biblical prohibition against sex outside of
marriage, is homosexual intercourse sinful? Of course, I see now that first we
need to ask whether the Bible really condemns sex outside of marriage. You
seem to be trying to argue that only certain kinds of extramarital sex (and
other sins) are really wrong:
Alternatively, it may be that the definition of such terms as "porneia" and all
the rest was, in Paul's day, what we would call a FAQ; i.e. the Law, as the
"tutor" appointed by God to lead us to Christ, had just spent some sixteen
centuries drumming into the heads of God's people the idea that things like
homosexual intercourse were abominations that deserved punishment by death.
Perhaps Paul didn't go into detail on what "porneia" &c were because after 1600
years he considered the question to have been dealt with already. Perhaps the
reason God's apostles and prophets did not devote a great deal of time defining
a distinct, New Testament sexuality was because He did not intend any
significant changes in the sexuality He had already established by the Law.
I'll discuss the Law and homosexuality in greater detail below, but I just
wanted to point out that the New Testament's failure to develop a detailed new
standard of sexuality is not necessarily evidence that God does not care about
sexual conduct--especially after 1600 years of putting people to death for
practicing homosexuality!
And how do you define an "obsessively driven" mode of sexual behavior? How do
you determine the difference between obsessive sexual behavior and normal sex
drives? Is the desire to have "sinful" sex an obsessively driven mode of
behavior? I think you see that this is circular reasoning: Why is it defined
as sinful? Because it is obsessive. What makes it obsessive? The fact that
the person is driven to seek it even though it's sinful. Or is it obsessive
because it is a desire for that which society condemns? Once again, that's
circular: Why is it defined as obsessive? Because the person wants it even
though society condemns it. Why does society condemn it? Because it is
obsessive.
You seem to be trying to limit the Bible's condemnation of "porneia" to only
"perverted" sex acts, but I don't think you can really define "perverted"
without falling into exactly the same circularity you accuse me of. What,
then, is Paul condemning when he declares that "Fornicators...shall not enter
the kindgom of heaven"?
I think you misunderstood me: I was not trying to make an argument on some
technical definition of "porneia", I was raising the issues of the sinfulness
of extramarital sex and the lack of any Scriptural evidence of a homosexual
counterpart to the divinely-ordained union of heterosexual couples.
Please remember what you just said here for when we discuss bestiality, in part
2.
I am glad you asked. Would you agree that if God condemns homosexual
intercourse even among those who are not under the Law of Moses, then this
would show that God's condemnation of homosexual acts goes beyond the ritual
law? If I can show you from Scripture that God punished the homosexual
behavior of people who were *not* under the Law of Moses, would you agree that
God's definition of homosexual intercourse as an abomination is not limited to
just the ritual law and those who are under the Law?
I've been having a private Email discussion with a 7th Day Adventist on the
subject of the Sabbath, and my main point against a Christian sabbath-keeping
requirement has been that nowhere in Scripture does God command Gentiles to
rest on the sabbath, nor does He ever condemn Gentiles for failing to rest on
the Sabbath. This illustrates the difference between universal requirements
such as "Thou shalt not kill", and requirements that are merely part of the
(temporary, Jews-only) Law of Moses, such as the Sabbath.
The point you are trying to make is that you think the classification of
homosexual intercourse as "an abomination" is *just* a part of the temporary,
Jews-only Law of Moses. I on the other hand believe that it was labelled by
God as an abomination for Gentiles as well as Jews, and that He punished those
guilty of this behavior by death or exile. Here's why:
Back in Genesis 15, God promises to give Abraham all the land that was then in
the possession of "the Amorite"--kinda hard on the Amorite, don't you think?
But in verse 16 we have a clue that this might not be as unjust as it sounds:
it seems God is going to postpone this takeover for quite a while, because "the
iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete".
Remember, this is all long before there was a ritual law. What then was the
iniquity the Amorite was committing that, when complete, would justify his
being cast out of his own land and/or killed? Go back and look at Lev. 18
again. Verses 1-23 list a variety of sins, including child sacrifice, incest,
homosexuality, and bestiality. Beginning in verse 24, God starts saying, "Do
not defile yourselves by any of these things; for _by_all_these_ _things_ the
nations which I am casting out before you _have_ _become_defiled_. For the
land has become defiled, therefore I have visited its punishment upon it, so
the land has spewed out its inhabitants... For whoever does any of these
abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their
people."
Notice that God says the Gentile nations (who are *not* under the ritual Law of
Moses) are about to be punished because they have "defiled" themselves and
their land by committing "abominations" that include incest, bestiality, and
homosexuality. Flip ahead two chapters to Lev. 20, and you will find these
same "abominations" listed, and this time God decrees the death penalty on
anyone involved in any of these things, including, specifically, a man "lying
with another man as one lies with a woman" (Lv. 20:13). Their
"bloodguiltiness" was upon them, meaning that in God's eyes, they deserved to
die for having done such things. According to Lev. 18:26-29, even "the alien
[non-Jew] who sojourns among you" was to refrain from these practices, on
penalty of being "cut off [by God?] from among their people."
Under the circumstances, I believe it would be very difficult to support the
claim that in the Old Testament God objected only to the intended rape, and not
the homosexuality, in Sodom. Since God took the trouble to specifically list
sex between two consenting men as one of the reasons for wiping out the
Canaanite nations, (not homosexual rape, mind you, but plain, voluntary gay
sex), I'd say God was not neutral on the subject of homosexual behavior, even
by those who had nothing to do with the Mosaic Covenant.
According to II Tim. 3:16, all Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable
for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness; thus, I
believe that even though we Gentile Christians are not under the Law, we can
learn from studying it. If a certain action is defined as a sin because it is
a violation of the Law, then it is a sin only for those who are under the Law
(for example, in the case of Sabbath-keeping). Where God reveals that certain
actions are abominations even for those who are not under the Law, then I
conclude that God's objection to the practice is not based on whether or not a
person is under the Law, but on the sinfulness of the act itself. In the case
of homosexuality, homosexual intercourse is defined by God as a defiling
abomination for Gentiles as well as Jews, i.e. for those who are not under the
Law as well as for those who are. Thus, I am not at all trying to say that
Gentile Christians have any obligation to keep any part of the Law, I am simply
saying that God referred to homosexuality as a sin even for those who are not
obligated to keep the Law. If this is so, then I do not think we can appeal to
our exemption from the Law as valid grounds for legitimizing a practice God has
declared a bloodguilty abomination that defiles both Jew and Gentile.
(continued in Part 2) | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I agree, with the exception that I don't preach ignoring our cultures.
In Revelation 2-3, we see that in the first century church, there was one
congregation in each major city. So there was one unified church. Now in
each city, there were people of different cultures. Naturally, they
formed something of a stew, with different members having different
heritages. Nevertheless, they were ONE body. They met together,
sometimes as smaller groups in their homes and sometimes in bigger groups
in places such as the temple courts.
Now in a particular city, then and now, you will find that there is a
common language associated with that region. For instance, in Rome, Latin
was spoken. In the United States today, English is spoken. So it would
make sense that congregations in different cities would speak the common
language and not necessarily Latin.
Naturally, you would expect the lead evangelist to preach in the common
language. In the first century church, there were probably many people
in the congregation who could speak a given tongue to translate the
message for people of foreign ethnic groups. Today, however, you don't
see people speaking in tongues to translate sermons, even in so-called
Pentacostal churches. We do have a modern day equivalent though --
bi-lingual speakers. Now in the unified church of which I am a member -
sometimes called the International Churches of Christ, when we all meet
together on Sundays, there are headphones on people who don't speak
English from which they hear an ongoing translation of the sermon in their
native tongue. Neat idea, huh?
Now, we meet in different size groups in a random sort of way on Sundays,
so sometimes there will be a meeting of only Haitians or of Spanish-
speaking people, for example, who will hear an evangelist preach in their
native language. In addition, we meet in small groups a couple of times
during the week for Bible discussion groups and Devotionals. So someone
who speaks a different language will almost always be with people who also
speak his language (assuming the congregation is large enough) for those
meetings.
As for the people who speak the common language, they can keep in touch
with their culture, if they want, but they will also have equally deep
friendships among their church relationships with people of many various
nationalities.
The action of letting Catholics worship in a native language instead of
Latin? Indeed not! See my second paragraph in response to the second
clipping of your article.
However, if you mean the action of forming denominations based on a
culture, then the purpose of the church has been indeed thwarted.
I'll assume the second possiblility when answering your next clipping.
You have met some needs of people, certainly, by helping them to be proud
of their cultural heritages when most denominations didn't. Yet you have
largely isolated yourselves from having quality "Christian" friendships
outside your nationality (and your denomination).
We shall certainly give people a place to feel comfortable with their
heritage. However, we will do this in a way that does not destroy church
unity, but rather encourages friendships among all disciples.
It sounds like these groups have wonderful intentions, but they are going
about things in the wrong way. And names like the African Methodist
Episcopal Church still make me cringe, although not as much as before.
I understand that there was more racism in the past that caused such
groups to be formed, but now we should try to unite. I know that it's
hard for many people on this newsgroup to imagine there being only one
body of people on earth, but it is quite possible, and I am working to
make it happen. However, what might be a smaller step towards unity,
would be taking the word "African" out of your denomination's name. Then
perhaps someday a long time off, you can also remove the "Methodist
Episcopal" part also, and simply be part of "the Church".
There shall be one church, for the sake of unity, AND it shall be useful
in helping students new to America make the transition in culture,
language, and thought. We shouldn't make a new denomination to try to
solve problems. The whole denominational mindset only causes more
problems, sadly.
Thank you for the invitation. That shows me that you indeed have the
heart to spread the gospel of Jesus as well as take part in your cultural
heritage. Thank you also for responding to my post. I know (all too well)
how they can be very time-consuming.
The whole idea of celebrating your culture is paved with good intentions,
but I still feel that you must restore and preserve unity at the same
time. My own church, the Boston church, has the acapella singing that you
mentioned in your post, yet doesn't limit expression of my Mexican
culture, even though I am in the MIT Campus ministry and not the Spanish
(speaking) Zone. I have made a commitment to God that I will go to the
Sunday services of my church, because I know that my brothers and sisters
here are fully devoted in love for God as his disciples.
I don't believe in tongues, as you may have already picked up on, because
of my understanding of Biblical Christianity. However, I am certainly
willing to visit your congregation provided that it doesn't interfere with
my normal worship. Since you also live in Cambridge, I also extend an
invitation to you to visit our services as often as you like. You can
meet the MIT students at the Student Center (across from 77 Mass. Ave.) at
9AM on Sundays to leave for worship or simply call me after Wednesday
night to find out where the service will be held on a particular day.
My number is 225-7598, but will be 354-1357 in a few weeks from now and
for the rest of the summer. Our service normally last from 10AM to noon,
but occasionally are later or earlier (1-3 times per year).
Definitely!
Let's also strive to grow in obedience to the Lord through being men and
women after God's own heart. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Why don't you ask the approx. two million British Muslims who break
it five times a day and have never ever been prosecuted under it?
Then ask how easy it is to hold a Christian church service in Saudi
Arabia. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Without quoting at length from the preceeding post, I'd just like
to say that I find it a much more appropriate way of dealing with
issues like the Holocaust and Bosnia that asserting that "God is
punishing them."
The activity of God is always _redemptive_, which means "restoring
what has been lost, broken, or distorted." So, God does not _will_
the brokenness, lostness, distortion, genocide, poverty, etc, but
is nonetheless capable, willing, and active to restore, heal, mend,
and redeeem. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Do we attach some meaning of the Israelites entering "the promised land" to
Christianity?
I submit God did not hold the children responsible when the adults chose
to follow the bad report of the 10 spies over Joshua and Caleb. This is
recorded for us in Deuteronomy 1:39 "Moreover your little ones, which ye said
should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge
between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give
it, and they shall possess it."
At least to me it seems there was/is an age, or point in maturity where
they were/are held responsible, and could not enter the "Promised Land",
younger ones were not held to the same "rules", at least not by God.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Sounds like you were going to a different Penn State or something.
Kampus Krusade for Khrist is very vocal here, but they really have
little power to get anything done. Sometimes it seems like there
are a lot of them because they're generally more vocal than their
opposition, but there really aren't that many Krusaders.
The liberals tend to keep to themselves if they can help it, since
all they really want is to be allowed to go about their own lives
the way they want to. ...so you don't hear from or about most of
them. The bible-bangers stand out because they want everyone to
be forced to live according to bible-banger rules.
The Krusaders certainly don't run this place.
I'd say we've got a rather average mix. of people here....
much like the rest of the U.S. And just like everywhere else,
some factions are louder than others. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Well, yes. This is the real mystery of the matter, and why I am rather
dubious of a lot of the source theories.
There are a number of places where the Masoretic Text (MT) of the OT is
obscure and presumably corrupted. These are reproduced exactly from copy to
copy. The DSS tend to reflect the same "errors". This would appear to tell
us that, at least from some point, people began to copy the texts very
exactingly and mechanically. The problem is, we don't know what they did
before that. But it seems as though accurate transmission begins at the
point at which the texts are perceived as texts. They may be added to (and
in some situations, such as the end of Mark, material is lost), but for the
most part there are no substantial changes to the existing text.
You're basically trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Some people
like to use the game of "telephone" as a metaphor for the transmission of
the texts. This clearly wrong. The texts are transmitted accurately. | 0 | alt.atheism |
See, I told you there was an atheist mythology, thanks for proving my
point. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Sorry, I put my foot in my mouth, concerning the church's history.
It is correct to say that the Council of Hippo 393 listed the
deuterocanonical books among those accepted for use in the
church, and that this was ratified by the Council of Carthage,
and by Pope Innoent I and Gelasius I (414 AD).
"At the end of the fourth century views still differed in regard to
the extent of the canon, or the number of the books which should
be acknowledged as divine and authoritative.
The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew bible, was universally
received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version
of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books
suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between
canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings.
And justly; for those books, while they have great historical
value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New,
all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and the cannot
be therefore regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited
by Christ or the aposteles."
"In the Western church the canon of both Testaments was closed
at the end of the fourth century through the authority of
Jerome (who wavered, however, between critical doubts and the
principle of tradition), and more especially of Augustine,
who firmly followed the Alexandrian canon of the Septuagint,
and the preponderant tradition in reference to the Catholic
Epistles and the Revelation; though he himself, in some
places, inclines to consider the Old Testament Apocrypha
as *deutero* canonical, bearing a subordinate authority."
This history goes on to say that Augustine attended both the
Council of Hippo and of Carthage.
It is interesting to note, however, the following footnote to
the fourth session of the Council of Trent. The footnote
lists various Synods which endorsed lists of canonical
books, but then says "The Tridentine list or decree was the
first *infallible* and effectually promulgated declaration
on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures."
Which leads one to think that the RC canon was not official
until Trent. Thus my previous erroneous statement was
not entirely groundless.
It is also interesting to note that the Council of Trent
went on to uphold "the old Latin Vulgate Edition" of
the Scriptures as authentic. Which, I would suppose,
today's Catholic scholars wish the Council had never said.
Also the council made no distinction between deutero-canonical
and canonical books--in contrast to (Eerdman's statement of) the
fourth century views. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Oh no, not again.
There is a difference between believing that God exists, and loving him.
(For instance, Satan certainly believes God exists, but does not love him.)
What unbelievers request in situations like this is that God provide evidence
compelling enough to believe he exists, not to compel them to love him.
--
"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) | 0 | alt.atheism |
On one of the morning shows (I think is was the Today Show), David Koresh's
lawyer was interviewed. During that interview he flipped through some letters
that David Koresh wrote. On one of letters was written in Hebrew (near the
bottom of the page):
koresh adonai | 0 | alt.atheism |
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 :-) | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
You forgot one thing "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of
God".
Mark
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[This is SWF in another indirect post via Dan].
predicitions
if you
have some
many types of
happen again
may predict
reaction
There are several problems here. First, you are discussing only
experimental procedures. Observational procedures are also useful. The
main criterion is attempting to verify an idea by using it to make
prediction about as-yet unmade observations. The observations could be
the result of an experiment, or they could be obsevations of activity
occuring spontaneossly in nature, or they could even be observations of
the lasting results of events long past. All that matters is that the
observations be *new*. This is what prediction is about in science -
it is
*not* about predicting the future except in this very restricted
sense.
Secondly, repeatability can also take many forms. It is really just
the
requirement that independent observers be able to verify the results.
The
observation of a fossil is 'repeatable', since any qualified observer
may
look at it (this is why the specimens are reqtined in a museum). Also,
there is the implicit prediction that future fossil finds will
correspond
to the current one. New fossils are found often enough that this is
tested regularly. Many times a new fossil actually falsifies some
conclusion made on the basis of previous fossils.
Unfortunately for you, the models that were falsified have alway been
peripheral to the model of evolution we now have. (For instance, the
front legs of Tyrannosaurus rex turned out to have tremendous muscles,
rather than being weakly endowed as previously believed).
So, in fact, histoircal science findings *are* repeatable in the
necessary sense. Just becuase you cannot go out and repeat the
original
event does *not* make it impossible to make valid observations.
[This is not to say that biologists would not go coo-coo if extra-
terrestrial life were discovered - that could make the determination
of the process of abiogenesis relatively easy].
--
[email protected] (formerly tdatirv!sarima)
or
[email protected] | 0 | alt.atheism |
>Subject: hate the sin...
>Date: 12 May 93 08:27:08 GMT
>"Hate the sin but love the sinner"...I've heard that quite a bit recently,
>My question is whether that statement is consistent with Christianity. I
>would think not. Hate begets more hate, never love.
If you are questioning whether or not "hating sin" is consistent with
Christianity; I ask you to consider the following Scripture:
Romans 12:9 "Let Love be without hypocrisy. Hate what is evil, cling
to what is good."
What is it that Paul, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is
calling us to hate? Would God call us to do something that would
eventually lead to hating our fellow man; especially when he commands us to
do the opposite, to love your fellow man?
>Consider some sin. Now lets apply our "hate the sin..." philosophy and see
>what happens. If we truly hate the sin, then the more we see it, the
>stronger our hatred of it will become. Eventually this hate becomes so
>strong that we become disgusted with the sinner and eventually come to
>hate the sinner.
That has not been my experience. I've not found myself hating anybody
as a result of hating the sin that may be in their life. As a sinner
myself, I find myself having more compassion for the person. Jesus too,
since the Bible teaches that he was tempted in every way that we are, is
able to have compassion on us when we our tempted and fall. Jesus is our
very example of HOW to hate the sin but love the sinner. In the account of
the woman caught in adultery (John 8), Jesus had compassion on the woman;
BUT he also called her to leave her life of sin. This is what it means to
love sinners but hate their sin; it means loving them unconditionally,
while at the same time calling them to leave their sin.
>In addition, our hatred of the sin often causes us to say and do things
>which are taken personally by the sinner (who often does not even believe
>what they are doing is a sin).
The blame for this can not always be laid at the feet of the
Christian. I have seen and been guilty of taking offense by someone merely
pointing out my sin and calling me to repent of it. It was not unloving
for the Christian to call me out of sin; in fact, I believe it was the most
loving thing that that person could have done. He loved me enough to want
to spare me the consequence of remaining in my sin.
>After enough of this, the sinner begins to hate us (they certainly don't
>love us for our constant criticism of their behavior). Hate builds up and
>drives people away from God...this certainly cannot be a good way to build
>love.
Again, I don't think that you can lay the blame for this at the feet of
the Christian. If we have loved them as Jesus loved sinners (exemplified
in John 8) and the sinner hates us for it, then we have done the best we
can. We will have extended to them the most perfect expression of love and
they will have rejected it.
Now it we hate the sin but forget to love the sinner, then indeed, we
will, ourselves, be in sin.
>In the summary of the law, Christ commands us to love God and to love our
>neighbors. He doesn't say anything about hate.
I would like to encourage you to do a word study on HATE in the New
Testament. I really think that you will be surprised.
>In fact, if anything, he commands us to save our criticisms for ourselves.
Criticism is very different from calling a sinner to repent.
Hope this helps,
In Christ,
Tony Balsamo
-- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Ever since I was a kid and learned to tell when I was in a
dream I have used my dreams for fantasies or working out problems.
In my dreams I have done everything from yell at my mom
to machine-gunning zombies, not to mention myriad sexual
fantasies. I have deliberately done things that I would never
do in real life. I understand the need to control ones
thoughts, but I always felt that dreams were format free,
no morals, no ethics, no physical laws, (though sometimes I would
have to wake myself up to go to the bathroom.)
Is this an incorrect attitude? Rather than weakening my inhibitions,
I could argue that I got certain things "out of my system" by
experiencing them in dreams. By analyzing a dream I can determine
if I have a problem with a certain situation, i.e. in a dream
something will be exagerated that I can then contemplate and
see if it really bothers me or not.
I can't believe that other people don't do the same. It seems
silly to attach moral significance to dreams.
I think that this is entirely different from out of body
experiences, which I have never had.
Contradictions welcome. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
: When Elizabeth greeted Mary, Elizabeth said something to the effect that
: Mary, out of all women, was blessed. If so, it appears that this
: exactly places Mary beyond the sanctification of normal humanity.
The phrase is "eulogemene su en gunaixin"- "blessed are you among women."
There is nothing to indicate that this is an exceptional or unique status,
only that _as a woman_ Mary was blessed. Adding the word "all" is not
a fair reading of the text. There are some good reasons for the church's
veneration of Mary, but they cannot depend on this verse. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I didn't say to visit some "nice" homosexuals. I said "visit some congregations
of Christians..spirit-filled believers.."
Praise the Lord that we are all members of the same body. Let us agree to
disagree. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
...execellent examples of Luther's insane rantings deleted...
Gee, I'm *sooooo* surprised that they don't teach this part of his
ideology in high schools today.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Not true. Only an observer at rest at infinite distance from the black hole
will see the particle take infinite time to reach the horizon. In the
particle's own reference frame, it takes a very finite time to reach the
horizon and the singularity. The math does indeed predict this. Take a look
at Mitchner, Thorne, and Wheeler's _Gravitation_.
Peter Walker | 0 | alt.atheism |
Gaining entry into heaven cannot be done without first being cleansed by
the blood of Jesus.
Sin cannot dwell in heaven. It is against the natural laws of God.
Being converted to christianity means being baptized by the Holy Spirit.
You cannot get to heaven by good works only.
Because of the union with the holy spirit, the man's behavior will change.
If there is true union he will not desire to be homosexual. Fornication
and homosexuality will leave your life if you are truly baptized by the
holy spirit. It's not to say that we don't stumble now and then.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
: >Atoms are not objective. They aren't even real. What scientists call
: >an atom is nothing more than a mathematical model that describes
: >certain physical, observable properties of our surroundings. All
: >of which is subjective.
: >
: >-jim halat
: This deserves framing. It really does. "[Atoms] aren't even real."
: Tell me then, those atoms we have seen with electron microscopes are
: atoms now, so what are they? Figments of our imaginations? The
: evidence that atoms are real is overwhelming, but I won't bother with
: most evidence at the moment.
You would have us believe that what the eye perceives as images are
actaully there - as perceived? This may be interesting. I thought
that an electron microscope was used because no wavelength of "light"
can illuminate any "object" of atomic scale. If this image is to have
useful resolution, wouldn't the illuminating sources wavelength have
to be several orders of magnitude less than size of thing observed?
If an atom is a "probablity cloud", lower resolutions would give the
appearance of solidity, but it seems fairly certain that an atom is
not an object is any conventional sense. Obviously I am not a
physicist, but the question does have ramification of a philosophic
nature. Anyway, just a stray thought, carry on ... | 0 | alt.atheism |
[reply to [email protected] (Keith M. Ryan)]
Jeez, can't he get anything straight. I told him to wait for three
days.
GOD | 0 | alt.atheism |
I bought a copy of The Satanic Verses when there was talk of the British
Government banning it. There's nothing interests me in a book more than
making it illegal.
However, it's still sitting on my shelf unread. Perhaps I'll get round to it
soon. I've still got a pile of Lem, Bulgakov and Zamyatin to go through; I
don't find nearly enough time to read. In fact, there are far more
interesting things to do than I can ever find time for; how anyone ever
manages to be bored is beyond me. If I didn't have to sleep, maybe I could
manage it.
mathew | 0 | alt.atheism |
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. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.