text
stringlengths 1
51k
| label
int64 0
15
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
If babies are not supposed to be baptised then why doesn't the Bible
ever say so. It never comes right and says "Only people that know
right from wrong or who are taught can be baptised."
What Christ did say was :
"I solemly assure you, NO ONE can enter God's kingdom without
being born of water and Spirit ... Do not be surprised that I
tell you you must ALL be begotten from above."
Could this be because everyone is born with original sin?
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Actually I don't think there is any conflict if we really understand
what these passages say. First, what is faith? If you study the
meaning of the Greek and Hebrew words so translated I think you will
come to the conclusion that the word means a *lot* more than mere
belief. Faith means both trust and action. If you do not put your
belief into action it simply cannot qualify as faith. I think this
is what James means when he says that "faith without works is dead"
and, "I will show you my faith by my works." Remember James was
writing to "the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad." This
probably means he was writing to those who would hear the gospel much
later and wouldn't understand the meaning of the original Greek.
(Indeed I suspect James was writing to us, today, among others he
intended to reach.) Paul, on the other hand wrote mostly to the
people of the Roman empire who generally understood the meaning of
the Greek.
Another key to why there is no conflict is to look at Paul's
statements in their context. I think you will find that when Paul
contrasts faith and works it is in the context of comparing the
gospel with the Law, meaning the Law of Moses. This was the great
burden of Paul's life. As the apostle to the Gentiles he would go
convert a bunch of people, then the "Judizers" would come along and
try to convince them that they also had to obey the Law of Moses (cf
Acts chapter 15). In this context Paul condemns the idea of being
saved by the works of the Law, saying that we are saved by the blood
of Jesus and our faith in him. I believe that a better translation
for today would be that we are saved by *faithfulness*. I think
"faithfulness" today has a meaning closer to what the original
writers intended.
I think you misunderstand Romans. What Paul is really saying is
that God prefers a faithful Gentile who does not "keep kosher" to a
kosher Jew who fails to stay faithful in the more important matters
of following the Lord and having charity toward his fellows.
In the sense of faith described above, you cannot have real faith and
be lukewarm. If you know God but are lukewarm (unfaithful), you are
worse off than the person who never heard of Him. Remember, Jesus in
the parable of the pearl of great price (Mat 13:45-46) and again in
the one on the treasure hidden in the field (Mat 13:44) indicates that
the price of the Kingdom of God is *all* we have.
[I agree with you in general, including the fact that "pistis" has
some of the force of "faithful". However if you take that too far,
you can end up with something that Paul definitely would not have
intended. Being faithful means following God in all things. To say
that we are saved by being faithful is very close to saying that we
are saved by commiting no sins. I assume that's not what you meant.
I have almost given up on finding a specific verbal formula that
completely captures this. However I think Paul is describing what I'd
call a basic orientation, including aspects such as trust and
commitment. Jesus speaks of it as rebirth, which implies a basic
change. We may still do things that are sinful, and may fail to show
the new life in Christ in many situations where we should. But in any
Christian there had better be the basic change in orientation that
Jesus calls being born again. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
This is to let you know that the fourth issue of the Copt-Net Newsletter
has been issued. The highlights of this issue include:
1. Easter Greating: Christ is risen; Truly he is risen!
2. The Holy Family in Egypt (part 1)
3. Anba Abraam, the Friend of the Poor (part 4)
4. A review of the Coptic Encyclopedia
5. A new Dictionary of the Coptic Language
This Newsletter has been prepared by members of Copt-Net, a forum
where news, activities, and services of the Coptic Orthodox Churches
and Coptic communities outside Egypt are coordinated and exchanged.
If you want your name to be included in the mailing list, or have any
questions please contact Nabil Ayoub at <[email protected]>. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Someone sent me this FAQ by E-mail and I post my response here.
[I'm not enforcing the inclusion limits on this FAQ because most
of our readers probably haven't seen it. --clh]
Christ warns that anyone who "breaks one of the least of these
commandments *and* teaches otheres to do the same will be called least in
the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:19. This FAQ is so full of error that I
must respond to it. I hope that whoever maintains will remove from it the
partisan theology.
1. The law was known to man before it was revealed on Mount Sinai. Rom
4:15 notes that "where no law is, there is no transgression." Not only
did sin exist before Sinai (Eden), but the Sabbath was kept before it
was revealed on Sinai (Ex 16).
2. The problem with the first covenant was not the law, but the promise
which undergirded it. God wanted to perform his will in the lives of the
people, but in their ignorance after 400 years of slavery, they promised
"what ever He says to do we will do." That is why the new covenant is
based on "better promises" (Heb. 8:6). Rather than do away with the law
God promised to "put my laws in their minds and write them on their
hearts" (Heb. 8:10).
3. Including the Sabbath in the Acts 15 is selective inclusion. The
Sabbath was more important to the Jews than circumcision. If any attempt
had been made to do away with the Sabbath the reaction would have been
even more strident than is recorded in Acts 15. Do not confuse the weekly
Sabbath of the Decalogue with the ceremonial sabbaths which could occur at
any time of the week and were part of the law (ceremonial) which was
*added* because of transgression (of the moral law) (Gal 3:19).
4. Israel stands for God's people of all time. That is why God *grafted*
the Gentiles in. Roma 9:4 says that the adoption, the glory, the
covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God and the promises
belong to Israelites. In explanation Paul makes it clear that being born
into Israel is not enough "For they are not all Israel, which are of
Israel" v 6. Then in Gal 3:19 he says "if ye be Christ's, then are ye
Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." All Christians are
Abraham's seed, Jews, Israelites. Not physically, for that is not the
criterion, but spiritually. We are joint heirs with Jesus based on the
promise God made to all his people the Israelites.
People would probably agree but they are wrong. How can the Sabbath
commandment be ceremonial when it is part of a law which predates the
ceremonial laws? You are not free to choose your time of worship. Even
if you were why do you follow a day of worship which has its origins in pagan
sun worship. Would you rather give up a day which God blessed,
sanctified, and hallowed in exchange for one which all church leaders
agree has not biblical foundation (see Sabbath Admissions in
soc.religion.christian.bible-study).
I do not care what Calvin or any theologian says. My guide is what God
says. If being not under the law means we do not have to keep the law,
why is it that the only section of the law we have trouble with is the
Sabbath commandment, which is the only one God thought was important
enough to say *REMEMBER*? If you study the word deeply you will note that
the message is that we are no longer under the condemnation of the law but
freed by the grace of God. If a cop pulls me over for speeding, then in
court I ask for mercy and the judge does not throw the book at me but gives me
grace, do I walk out of the court saying "I can now go on speeding, for I
am now under grace?" Being under grace I now drive within the speed
limit. Paul adds to it in Rom. 3:31 "Di we then make void the law through
faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." "Wherefore the law is
holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good" (Rom. 7:12).
Do you prefer implication to fact? A careful study of the Acts 20 shows
that the meeting was on Saturday night and that on Sunday morning Paul did
not go to a worship service, but set off on a long journey by foot to
Assos. In ICor 16 there is no way you can equate "lay by him in store"
with "go to a worship service."
Wrong. These are the sabbath days of the ceremonial law, not the Sabbath
day of the moral law.
Why would you prefer to twist and turn, relying on different arguments
which conflict with each other, rather than obey a simple request from a
God who loved you enough to die for you. Jesus died because the law could
not be changed. Why bother to die in order to meet the demands of a
broken law if all you need to do is change the law. Penalties for law
breaking means the law is immutable. That is why it is no sin not to
follow the demands of the ceremonial laws. It will always be a sin to
make false gods, to violate God's name, to break the Sabbath, to steal, to
kill, etc. Except it you disagree. But then your opinion has no weight
when placed next to the word of God.
Darius
[It's not clear how much more needs to be said other than the FAQ. I
think Paul's comments on esteeming one day over another (Rom 14) is
probably all that needs to be said. I accept that Darius is doing
what he does in honor of the Lord. I just wish he might equally
accept that those who "esteem all days alike" are similarly doing
their best to honor the Lord.
However I'd like to be clear that I do not think there's unambiguous
proof that regular Christian worship was on the first day. As I
indicated, there are responses on both of the passages cited.
The difficulty with both of these passages is that they are actually
about something else. They both look like they are talking about
nnregular Christian meetings, but neither explicitly says "and they
gathered every Sunday for worship". We get various pieces of
information, but nothing aimed at answering this question.
Act 2:26 describes Christians as participating both in Jewish temple
worship and in Christian communion services in homes. Obviously the
temple worship is on the Sabbath. Acts 13:44 is an example of
Christians participating in them. Unfortunately it doesn't tell us
what day Christians met in their houses. Acts 20:7, despite Darius'
confusion, is described by Acts as occuring on Sunday. (I see no
reason to impose modern definitions of when days start, when the
Biblical text is clear about what was meant.) The wording implies to
me that this was a normal meeting. It doesn't say they gathered to
see Paul off, but that when they were gathered for breaking bread,
Paul talked about his upcoming travel. But that's just not explicit
enough to be really convincing. Similarly with 1 Cor 16:2. It says
that on the first day they should set aside money for Paul's
collection. Now if you want to believe that they gathered specially
to do this, or that they did it in their homes, I can't disprove it,
but the obvious time for a congregation to take an offering would be
when they normally gather for worship, and if they were expected to do
it in their homes there would be no reason to mention a specific day.
So I think the most obvious reading of this is that "on the first day
of every week" simply means every time they gather for worship.
I think the reason we have only implications and not clear statements
is that the NT authors assumed that their readers knew when Christian
worship was. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
While religion certainly has some benefits in a combat situation, what are
the benefits of cocaine? | 0 | alt.atheism |
Peir-Yuan Yeh asks:
same >or part of them are the same? How about Torah? Are the first five
books >of OT as the same as Torah?????
Yes, yes, and yes. Jewish history as recorded in the Old Testament and
as shown by archaeology are the same. Kings, revivals, Temples, and all.
The Torah, as far as I know, is the five books of Moses. Then come the
Prophets (all the Prophets, plus Joshua, Judges, 1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings)
and the Writings (Psalms, Proverbs, Lamentations, Ruth, Esther, Ezra,
Nehemiah, Ecclesiates, Song of Songs, 1&2 Chronicles, Job).
And the veracity of Isaiah, which you quoted to your Moslem friend is
quite well known. A complete manuscript exists that dates back to past
200 BC, and is kept in a Museum in Israel. It was found among the Dead
Sea Scrolls, which greatly enhanced our knowledge of the veracity of the
Old Testament, as they date back to around the time of Christ, whereas
before, the oldest complete manuscript in Hebrew was from around 900 AD.
Your Moslem friend is sorely mistaken, but understandably so. If Jesus
was crucified, and atoned for our sins, he must have been God, for only
the death of God could atone for the sins of all humanity. And as
Isaiah predicts, the messiah will be called "the mighty God." And if he
was God, then he must have rose, for as St. Paul wrote, it was not
possible that death could hold him. And if Jesus rose from the dead,
your Moslem friend would have little reason to be a Moslem. Which is
why he denies the authenticity of the Old Testament. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Most of you will have probably seen the news by the time you read this,
but the Branch Davidian compound is no more. This morning about 6:00,
the feds punched holes in the compound walls by using a tank. They
then started using non-lethal tear gas. Shortly after noon, 2 cult
members were seen setting fire to the compound. So far, about 20-30
people have been seen outside the compound. The fate of the other 60 or
70 people is unknown, neither is the fate of the 17 children that were
inside. The compound did burn to the ground.
Koresh, who at times has claimed to be the Messiah, but then backed off
and only claimed to be a prophet, had promised several times to come
out peacefully if his demands were met. First, he demanded that his
message be broadcast on the radio, which it was, but he didn't come out.
He claimed to be waiting for a message from God. Finally, he said that
God told him that he needed to decipher the mystery of the 7 seals in
Revelation, and when he was finished, he'd come out. He finished the
first one, but didn't do any more work that anyone knows of since then.
The federal agents did warn him that if they didn't come out, they
would be subjected to tear gas.
I think it's really sad that so many people put their faith in a mere
man, even if he did claim to be the son of God, and/or a prophet. I
think it underscores the importance of putting you faith only in
things that are eternal and knowing for yourself what the Scriptures
say and what they mean, instead of relying on others to do it for you,
even if those others are learned and mean well. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Even if there was no independent proof that Luke's account was
valid, I find it strange that you would take the negation of it as
truth without any direct historical evidence (at least that you've
mentioned) to back it up. The assertion was made, unequivocally
that no Christian ever sufferred for their faith by believing in
the Resurrection. Luke's account suggests otherwise, and in the
absence of direct eyewitnesses who can claim that Luke is mistaken,
then I suggest that this unequivocal assertion is suspect.
--
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet: [email protected]
HFS, Inc. VA20 | UUCP: uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive MS:601 | Voice: (703) 827-6810
McLean, VA 22102 | FAX: (703) 827-3729
[I think the original claim may have been somewhat more limited than
this. It was an answer to the claim that the witnesses couldn't
be lying because they were willign to suffer for their beliefs.
Thus it's not necessary to show that no Christian ever suffered
for believing in the Resurrection. Rather the issue is whether
those who witnessed it did.
I do agree that the posting you're responding to shows that there
can be liberal as well as conservative dogmatism. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
This is one of my favorite fallacious points against atheism, i.e. the
belief that you can't deny anything that you can't prove doesn't exist.
This is easily nailed by showing that an infinite number of beings are
conceivable but not observed to exist, does this mean that we would have
to believe in all of them? According to the above poster, we must believe
in objects or beings that haven't been proved not to exist so why stop at
God? (there could be a huge number of beings identical to Ronald Reagan
except for trivial differences, say one is missing a finger, one has blond
hair,... and they all live on other planets so we can't see them) The
reason no one but atheists bring this up is that none of these christians
have a vested interest in these unknown beings with the exception of God.
How did they shoot themselves in the foot?
There is a big difference here, Stalin didn't say that he stood for a
particular moral position (i.e. against murder and terrorism, etc.) and
then did the opposite (like the religious movements), he was at least
an honest killer. (This is NOT a support of Stalin but an attack on this
viewpoint). Saying that atheism supports murder and violence just because
one man was a tyrant and an atheist is just bad logic, look at all the
russians that helped Stalin that weren't atheists - don't they contradict
your point? Besides your point assumes that his atheism was relevant
to his murdering people, this is just the common assumption that atheists
can't value life as much as theists (which you didn't support).
Ah, and here's another point you didn't get out of the FAQ. An atheist
doesn't have to hold the positive view that god doesn't exist, he/she may
just have the non-existence of the positive belief. Here's the example:
Strong atheism - "I believe god does not exist" a positive belief
Weak atheism - "I don't believe in a god" a negative belief
these are NOT the same, some one that has never thought of the idea of
god in their whole life is technically an atheist, but not the kind that
you are calling unreasonable. Or let's look at it this way (in sets)
suppose that a given person has a huge set of ideas that I will represent
as capital letters and these people then either believe that these ideas
exist as real objects or not. So if S = santa, then E(S)= no is the person
not believing in santa but still having the idea of santa. But notice that
even E(S) = no is itself another idea! This means you have lots of cases:
christian : (A,E(A)=yes,B,E(B)=no, . . . G,E(G)=yes......) where G = god
atheist (strong) : (A,E(A). . . . .G,E(G)=no)
atheist (weak) : (A,.....E) i.e. no G at all in the set
agnostic : (A,.......G, E(G) = indeterminate, E', ....)
Nietzsche once said that a man would rather will nonexistence than not
will at all but the darwinist way to put this is that humanity always
prefers no or yes to a maybe because indecision is not a useful survival
trait, evolution has drilled it in us to take positions, even false ones.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
I do recall Watt making a comment to this effect, though it was quite a few
years back and I can't cite the specifics. I also recall that Cecil Andrus, who
was Secretary of the Interior during the Carter Administration, responded
to Watt's comments by pointing out the stewardship role that God gave
to man, as recorded in Genesis. Which makes me wonder: who are the
true conservatives? It seems to me that a *conservative* should want to
*conserve* things of value for long-term societal benefit. This form of
*conservation* should logically extend to the physical environment in
which people live, as well as the moral environment in which they relate
to one another and to God.
IMHO, Watt's stewardship status is not enhanced by the fact that he served
on the board of directors for Jim Bakker's organization, during a time in
which Bakker committed criminal acts which eventually landed Bakker
in federal prison. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
This is an interesting notion -- and one I'm scared of. In my
case I'm a Finnish citizen, I live in USA, and I have to conform
to the US laws. However, the Finnish government is not actively
checking out what I'm doing in this country, in other words checking
out if I conform to the Finnish laws.
However, Islamic law seems to be a 'curse' that is following you
everywhere in the world. Shades of 1984, eh?
Cheers,
Kent | 0 | alt.atheism |
Just what do gay people do that straight people don't?
Absolutely nothing.
I'm a VERY straight(as an arrow), 17-year old male that is involved in the BSA.
I don't care what gay people do among each other, as long as they don't make
passes at me or anything. At my summer camp where I work, my boss is gay.
Not in a 'pansy' way of gay (I know a few), but just 'one of the guys'.
He doesn't push anything on me, and we give him the same respect back, due
to his position.
If anything, the BSA has taught me, I don't know, tolerance or something.
Before I met this guy, I thought all gays were 'faries'. So, the BSA HAS
taught me to be an antibigot. | 0 | alt.atheism |
(WEBSTER: myth: "a traditional or legendary story...
...a belief...whose truth is accepted uncritically.")
How does that qualify?
Indeed, it's almost oxymoronic...a rather amusing instance.
I've found that most atheists hold almost no atheist-views as
"accepted uncritically," especially the few that are legend.
Many are trying to explain basic truths, as myths do, but
they don't meet the other criterions.
Also...
You accuse him of referencing mythology, then you procede to
launch your own xtian mythology. (This time meeting all the
requirements of myth.)
Ah, but not everyone "knows" that god exists. So you have
a fallacy.
And that makes it true? Holding with the Bible rules out controversy?
Read the FAQ. If you've read it, you missed something, so re-read.
(Not a bad suggestion for anyone...I re-read it just before this.)
...should I repeat what I wrote above for the sake of getting
it across? You may trust the Bible, but your trusting it doesn't
make it any more credible to me.
If the Bible says that everyone knows, that's clearly reason
to doubt the Bible, because not everyone "knows" your alleged
god's alleged existance.
1) No, they don't have to ignore the Bible. The Bible is far
from universally accepted. The Bible is NOT a proof of god;
it is only a proof that some people have thought that there
was a god. (Or does it prove even that? They might have been
writing it as series of fiction short-stories. As in the
case of Dionetics.) Assuming the writers believed it, the
only thing it could possibly prove is that they believed it.
And that's ignoring the problem of whether or not all the
interpretations and Biblical-philosophers were correct.
2) There are people who have truly never heard of the Bible.
3) Again, read the FAQ.
Bzzt...wrong answer!
Gravity is directly THERE. It doesn't stop exerting a direct and
rationally undeniable influence if you ignore it. God, on the
other hand, doesn't generally show up in the supermarket, except
on the tabloids. God doesn't exert a rationally undeniable influence.
Gravity is obvious; gods aren't.
No, human reason hasn't always come back to the existance of
"God"; it has usually come back to the existance of "god".
In other words, it doesn't generally come back to the xtian
god, it comes back to whether there is any god. And, in much
of oriental philosophic history, it generally doesn't pop up as
the idea of a god so much as the question of what natural forces
are and which ones are out there. From a world-wide view,
human nature just makes us wonder how the universe came to
be and/or what force(s) are currently in control. A natural
tendancy to believe in "God" only exists in religious wishful
thinking.
Xtianity is no more reasonable than most other religions, and
it's reasonableness certainly doesn't merit eminence.
Divine justice...well, it only seems just to those who already
believe in the divinity.
First, not all atheists believe the same things about human
nature. Second, whether most atheists are correct or not,
YOU certainly are not correct on human nature. You are, at
the least, basing your views on a completely eurocentric
approach. Try looking at the outside world as well when
you attempt to sum up all of humanity. | 0 | alt.atheism |
(MODERATOR: THIS IS A REPLACEMENT FOR AN EARLIER, MORE CLUMSILY WORDED
SUBMISSION ON THE SAME TOPIC WHICH I SUBMITTED A FEW MINUTES AGO.)
I think we need to distinguish etymology from meaning. Regardless of
how the word 'Easter' *originated*, the fact is that it does not *now*
mean anything to Christians other than 'the feast day of the Resurrection
of Jesus Christ'.
The meaning of a word is _only_ what people understand it to mean.
And the same goes for other cultural practices. The festival of Easter
may possibly have some historical association with some pagan festival,
but *today* there are, as far as I know, no Christians who *intend* to
honor any kind of "pagan goddess" by celebrating Easter.
It is nonsense to say "this word (or this practice) 'really' means so-
and-so even though nobody realizes it." Words and practices don't mean
things, people do.
(This is basic semantics; I'm a linguist; they pay me to think about
things like this.)
--
:- Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist : *****
:- Artificial Intelligence Programs [email protected] : *********
:- The University of Georgia phone 706 542-0358 : * * *
:- Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A. amateur radio N4TMI : ** *** ** <>< | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Sorry, Bill, I had to clear this up. There may be good evolutionary
arguments against homosexuality, but these don't qualify.
[deletions]
[deletions]
Oh? I guess all those social insects (e.g. ants, bees, etc.) which
have one breeding queen and a whole passel of sterile workers are on
the way out, huh?
I refer you to the bonobos, a species of primate as closeley related to
humans as chimpanzees (that is, very closely). They have sex all the
time, homosexual as well as heterosexual. When the group finds food, they
have sex. Before the go to sleep at night, they have sex. After they
escape from or fight off prdators, they have sex. Sex serves a very important
social function above and beyond reproduction in this species. A species
closely related to humans. There is some indication that sex performs
a social function in humans, as well, but even if not, this shows that
such a function is not *impossible*.
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles [email protected] | 0 | alt.atheism |
My own personal and highly subjective opinion is that freedom
is a good thing.
However, when I here people assert that the only "true" freedom
is in following the words of this and that Messiah, I realise
that people don't even agree on the meaning of the word.
What does it mean to say that word X represents an objective
value when word X has no objective meaning? | 0 | alt.atheism |
> [A very nice article on the DSS, which I thought answered
> David Cruz-Uribe's original queries quite well]
Here are some books I have read recently that helped me not only
prepare for a 5 week series I taught in Sunday School, but greatly
increased my knowledge of the Qumran scrolls. [...]
One other recent book I would heartily recommend is Joseph Fitzmyer's
_Response to 101 Questions about the Dead Sea Scrolls_ (Paulist,
1992).
Fitzmyer is one of the preeminent modern NT scholars. He was also one
of the early workers on the DSS. His book is written in a
straightforward Q&A that allows it to serve as a source for a great
wealth of clearly presented basic, up-to-the-moment information about
the DSS.
(This book is something of a companion volume to Raymond Brown's
_Response to 101 Questions about the Dead Sea Scrolls_.)
Nichael | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
He doesn't contradict himself. The church is to last for all time.
However, there are those who use the church to bolster themselves. This
is evident in many letters. For instance, Paul talks about the
"super-apostles" to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 11-12), he mentions
how people will be led away by miracles, signs, and wonders (2
Thessalonians 2:9-12), he tells Timothy that it is clear that some will
abandon the faith and teach lies (1 Timothy 4:1-3) and that some will
search for teachers to suit what they want to hear (2 Timothy 4:3-4).
Such passages go throughout the letters and Jesus does warn about them
(Matthew 24:4-14). But look at the promise in this last part. Verse
14: "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world
as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." Even today,
there are false teachings. I can name two which I am well familiar
with: the non-need of baptism and the "praying of Jesus into your life
for salvation". Both are taught. Both are DEAD wrong. They have been
taken out of context from some verses, interpreted from others, and just
plain made up. The ONLY way Jesus taught is given in Luke 9:23-26 and
Luke 14:25-33. He then commands baptism in Matthew 28:18-20. The
church Jesus founded, though, is alive and well. It's not being
persecuted as much as back then (the laws won't allow it yet), but it is
being persecuted.
Joe Fisher | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Where do insparations/Miracles fit in? I was a new reader to the bible
and Qu'ran at the same time in my life and I can tell you that I would
have drifted in my faith if Those books were not exposed to me.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
(Attempting to define 'objective morality'):
So long as you keep that "almost" in there, freedom will be a
mostly valuable thing, to most people. That is, I think you're really
saying, "a real big lot of people agree freedom is subjectively valuable
to them". That's good, and a quite nice starting point for a moral
system, but it's NOT UNIVERSAL, and thus not "objective".
It isn't in Sahara.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
I would rather be at a higher risk of being killed than actually killed by
^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
mistake. Though I do agree with the concept that the type D and E murderers
are a massive waste of space and resources I don't agree with the concept:
killing is wrong
if you kill we will punish you
our punishment will be to kill you.
Seems to be lacking in consistency.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Hi there,
Does anyone know about any greek database/word processor that
can do things like count occurrences of a word, letter et al?
I'm posting this up for a friend who studies greek.
Thanks,
Nico.
P.S. Can you email as I seldom look into usenet nowadays.
--
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+ | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I have no doubt that God hears everybody's prayers.
However, He does things His way, i.e. things will happen
only if it is His will.
Now if the question really is "Does God grant everybody's wishes ?"
then you'll get a brutal shot of reality similar to when you didn't
get that toy you wanted for Christmas. You just cannot expect
to get everything you want in this world.
-- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[Pitt vs. Penn State controversy deleted]
No. It wouldn't be sufficient cause to bitch to the system operator if this
was just some guy saying that atheists are going to hell. The point was
that recently many messages were posted from that address. Each of these
messages was posted to a different newsgroup, with the apparent intent of
provoking the readers of that particular group. This, along with the fact
that these posts were written in all-caps, makes these posts suspect.
Whoever is using this account is using it irresponsibly. If it is the
intended user, they should consider appropriate action. If it is someone
else-- which seems a possibility, then this is also reason to report it.
We get many posts in the flavor of the one that started this thread.
It is only because I have seen posts on other groups by this user that I
am considering action. | 0 | alt.atheism |
however, the word "pa^ques" in french _is_ the word for easter. ask
any francophone, whether from quebec or from paris. besides, haven't
you heard of the phrase "the paschal lamb" (meaning jesus)?
sorry to nitpick on the more trivial part of this thread.... | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The problems with Catholic liturgy are likely to continue for
some time. The problem is, in a nutshell, this: the Liturgy is a
symbolic action - in other words Catholics do [or should] believe that
the _signs_ during the mass - Water, Blessings, Vestments, Altar,
Relics, etc - are real. That is the sprinkling of water bestows real,
almost tangible, holiness, the Vestments are a real indication of real
sacred time. The point of a _symbol_ is that it is understood by all
to be connected to an underlying REAL referent. This kind of thinking
precludes analysis; holy water is not holy because of anything, it
simply IS holy.
But, modern westerners find it extremely difficult, especially if
well- educated, to think of the mass as a symbol. We are more likely
to see it as a _sign_, ie an action that represents grace, but which
could be replaced with other signs. In concrete terms, this means the
mass has become a commercial for God's grace rather than the real
thing. You can mess around with a commercial in a way you wouldn't
dare with the real thing [ask Coca-Cola Co.!]. These attitudes have
been encouraged by Liturgy workshops, etc. which instead of focusing
on _how_ to do do liturgy, have focused on how to create a meaning in
liturgy. You can only create signs, symbols have to come from God [or
the heart, or somewhere deeper than analysis. The most dramatic
example of this shift in understanding has been in the treatment of
the sacred species [the consecrated host and wine]. Now, with pita
bread etc, it is common to come away from the altar with hands covered
in particles. If the Host is a sign of Grace, this isnt and issue; but
Catholics in the past would have been distraught at this real
desacration of the real symbol of Jesus' body.
Modern Catholic liturgy is caught in this epistemological shift. We
try to perfrom the old rites, but then we have some liturgomaniac
priest get up and 'explain' what we are doing - so we stop doing it and
start pretending to do it. This is not a soul filling experience.
It doesn't help BTW that we have got stuck witha huge amount of two and
three chord ersatz-folk music [again a result of mis-analysis: complicated
tunes are in fact easier to remember than simple ones - this was the
genius of Wesley and the 19C Anglican hymn writers]. Taize' is only
slightly better.
What are we to do? Well I suggest rejecting the parish system if it
doesn't work for you. Search out a Church where the liturgy is well
prepared not well-explained. They exist in every city. This is not BTW
a matter of particular style: the music might be old or new. It is
the attitude of the church that counts. Also, note that a conservative
liturgy - harking back to pre-Vatican II days, does not necessarily mean
the Church will be socially conservative.
In NYC I can recommend:
Corpus Christi - W 12st St.
Corpus Christi - W 12st St. - very conservative liturgy,
St. Joseph's, Greenwich Village. - Modern, "clean", largely gay
Oratorian Church, Brooklyn - Very beautiful
Avoid, anywhere, anytime a church with electric candles.
Happy Easter: Christos Aneste', Christos Voskrezhne, Christ is Risen | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Well, I think that most Christians believe that your conciousness will
somehow continue on after your 'physical' death, which contradicts what
most atheists (myself included) believe, namely that your conciousness,
being contained in your brain, dies when your brain dies.
I fear the pain that often comes with the process of dying, but since I
won't be around to worry about it, I don't fear eternal death.
This is something I've always found confusing. If all your nerve endings
die with your physical body, why would flame hurt you? How can one "wail
and gnash teeth" with no lungs and no teeth?
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
They spent quite a bit of time on the wording of the Constitution. They
picked words whose meanings implied the intent. We have already looked
in the dictionary to define the word. Isn't this sufficient?
But we were discussing it in relation to the death penalty. And, the
Constitution need not define each of the words within. Anyone who doesn't
know what cruel is can look in the dictionary (and we did). | 0 | alt.atheism |
My argument is mainly a proposal of what I think is a plausible argument
against extra-marital sex -- one which I personally believe has some
truth. My main purpose for posting it here is to show that a
_plausible_ argument can be made against extra-marital sex. At this
stage I am not saying that this particular viewpoint is proven or
anything like that, just that it is plausible. To try to convince you
all of this particular point of view, I would probably have to do a lot
of work researching what has been done in this field, etc., in order to
gather further evidence, which I simply do not have time to do now.
Also note that I said that I think extra-marital sex is "a prime cause"
(in my opinion) of the generally greater levels of psychological
problems, especially depression, in Western societies. I am not saying
it is "the prime cause" or "the only cause", just "a prime cause" --
i.e. one of the significant contributions to this trend. I think when
you say you think my view is simplistic, you have forgotten this -- I
admit that there are probably other factors, but I do think that
extra-marital sex (and, IMO, subsequent destabilization of the family)
is a significant factor in the rise in psychological problems like
depression in Western society this century. | 0 | alt.atheism |
It can be painless, so it isn't cruel. And, it has occurred frequently
since the dawn of time, so it is hardly unusual.
But, innocents die due to many causes. Why have you singled out
accidental or false execution as the one to take issue with? | 0 | alt.atheism |
[...]
Wait a minute. I thought you said that Allah (I presume Allah == God) was unknowable,
and yet here you are claiming to know a very concrete fact about him.
You say that God does not have a "face". Doesn't the bible say that God has hindparts?
How do you suggest I decide which (if any) of you is right? Or are you both right?
God has hindparts but no face? Or does your use of quotation marks:
God does not have a "face".
allow you to interpret this to mean whatever you like?
| 0 | alt.atheism |
If I'm wrong, god is free at any time to correct my mistake. That
he continues not to do so, while supposedly proclaiming his
undying love for my eternal soul, speaks volumes.
As for the trap, you are not in a position to tell me that I don't
believe in god because I do not wish to. Unless you can know my
motivations better than I do myself, you should believe me when I
say that I earnestly searched for god for years and never found
him.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine [email protected]
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea. | 0 | alt.atheism |
James Sledd asks:
1. What is the nature of eternal life?
2. How can we as mortals locked into space-time conceive of it?
2a. If the best we can do is metaphor/analogy, then what is the
best metaphor?
C S Lewis's essay THE WEIGHT OF GLORY deals with this question. I
recommend it enthusiastically. You might also read the chapter on
"Heaven" in his book THE PROBLEM OF PAIN. He gives a fictional
treatment in his book THE GREAT DIVORCE. I have found all of these
very helpful.
You might also be helped by the treatment in Dante's DIVINE COMEDY.
Heaven occupies the last third of the poem, but I cannot imagine
reading it other than from the beginning. I urge you to use the
translation by Dorothy L Sayers, available from Penguin Paperbacks. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Thanks to whoever posted this wonderful parody of people who post without
reading the FAQ! I was laughing for a good 5 minutes. Were there any
parts of the FAQ that weren't mentioned? I think there might have been one
or two...
Please don't tell me this wasn't a joke. I'm not ready to hear that yet... | 0 | alt.atheism |
We also cannot fail to note the intense suffering a devastation which has been
wrecked on our world because of Christians -- who were certain they were
following Christ. From Captialist who have polluted the enviorment in strict
obedience to the Gensis command to subdue the earth, to Nazi's who have
"justly"
punished the Jews for the killing Christ (as well as the other progroms), the
innocent women who were burned alive in accordance with "you shall not allow a
witch to live", the Moslems who were killed in the Crusades, the god-fearing
men destroyed by the inquistion. The religious wars in Spain, France, England,
etc. Christianity has undoubtedly caused the most suffering and needless loss
of life by individuals whose certainity that they were following the
instructions therein, was unquestionable. There is much to grieve. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Humans have "gone somewhat beyond" what, exactly? In one thread
you're telling us that natural morality is what animals do to
survive, and in this thread you are claiming that an omniscient
being can "definitely" say what is right and what is wrong. So
what does this omniscient being use for a criterion? The long-
term survival of the human species, or what?
How does omniscient map into "definitely" being able to assign
"right" and "wrong" to actions?
Well, your "original premises" have a habit of changing over time,
so perhaps you'd like to review it for us, and tell us what the
difference is between an omniscient being be able to assign "right"
and "wrong" to actions, and telling us the result, is.
I'm talking about the morality introduced by you, which was going to
be implemented by this omniscient being that can "definitely" assign
"right" and "wrong" to actions.
You tell us what type of morality that is. | 0 | alt.atheism |
{I sent in something on this before but I believe it got lost in the
weekend accident the moderator described. This is an improved
version anyway so no loss the first time. HL}
The standard work on detecting forgeries of ancient documents
is probably the writing of Friedrich Blass, "Hermeneutrik und
Kritik," _Einleitende und Hilfsdisziplinen_, vol 1 of
_Handbuch der Klassischen Altertums- wissenshaft_ (Noerdlingen:
Beck, 1886). Portions of this are described in Nibley, _The
Prophetic Book op Mormon_, pp 219-242 (SLC: Deseret Book, 1989).
(If you want to attempt reading this be forewarned. Nibley
describes Blass as a typical German scholar who claims little
knowledge of his subject, then proceeds to exhaust both the subject
and the reader.) Nibley's extract from Blass's work is in the form
of "rules for forgers." It makes interesting reading.
I confess that I have not read Blass's work, only Nibley's extract
thereof. My German falls far short of what would be required and
as far as I know there is no English translation available. However,
I believe the techniques he describes are known widely enough that
any competent classical scholar could examine a purportedly ancient
document and at least determine if it is consistent with what one
would expect of a genuine document of that time frame. We will not
be able to prove who wrote it but at least we should be able to
determine with reasonable confidence if it is from that time and
culture or is a later forgery.
Actually there are 2 types of purportedly ancient documents:
1. Alleged actual holographs or early copies thereof. For example
the Dead Sea Scrolls. These can be tested by various scientific
means to determine the age of the paper, inks, and objects found
with them. This can provide a pretty clear dating of the actual
physical objects.
2. Documents claiming to be copies of ancient works although the
copy itself may be much more recent. For example we might find a
document which monks in a monastary claim is a copy of something
from centuries ago (perhaps even having been through several
generations of copists). This is more of a problem but can still
be tested (although the test is not likely to be simple). We cannot
expect a test of the age of the physical objects to tell us much so
we must confine our testing to the text itself.
It is important to remember that none of these tests can tell us if
the document is really what it claims to be. They can only date the
document and identify its culture of origin. For example I've heard
of a letter supposed to have been written by Jesus himself to a king
in what is now Iraq. If this document were to actually turn up
scholars could date the paper and ink (assuming they have the
holograph). They could check the language, content and writing
style to see if they are consistent with what would be expected of a
Palestinian Jew of that time. However even if all test results were
positive there is no way to determine if Jesus himself actually
wrote it. We would know what time and culture it came from but
(barring a known sample of Jesus handwriting or other clues for
comparison) scholarship must stop there. There is seldom any way to
determine who the actual author was.
As I say, I'm no expert on Blas's work. I do remember some of the
tests which can be applied to alleged copies of ancient works.
Specifically we might ask:
1. Is the document internally consistent? Does it contradict
itself? If the work it is short it would be relatively easy to
maintain internal consistency, even if it is a forgery. The
longer the forgery the more difficult it is to maintain consistency.
For this reason most successful forgers stick to short documents.
2. Is it consistent with the history and geography of the time?
Again a short, non-specific work might not be testable but if the
writing is of any significant length no latter-day forger would be
able to escape detection. Here we look for the minor, inconspicuous
things which someone from that culture would get right without even
thinking about it but which a later forger would find too numerous
and trivial to check. The devil is in the details.
3. What about the literary style of the work, figures of speech
etc. Any ancient writer would almost certainly speak in ways that
seem strange to us. Are there any such odd phrases in this book?
If so do they fit in with the culture?
Of course there are complications if the document has been
translated, or possibly even if somebody just updated language
when he copied it. A few cases of language not from the culture
claimed may be allowed in recent copies. They cause problems and
reduce certainty to be sure but don't necessarily prove forgery.
These tests can be quite effective (given enough material to work
with) but they are not easy. They require the skills of the
historian, the linguist, the anthropologist etc. The questions to
ask are, "Is every aspect of this document consistent with what we
know about the culture of claimed origin?" If there are things
which don't fit how significant are they? Are problem areas due to
our lack of knowledge, later changes by copists or are they really
significant? There will often be some ambiguity since we never
know everything about the culture. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Or he was just convinced by religious fantasies of the time that he was the
Messiah, or he was just some rebel leader that an organisation of Jews built
into Godhood for the purpose off throwing of the yoke of Roman oppression,
or.......
Are the Moslem fanatics who strap bombs to their backs and driving into
Jewish embassies dying for the truth (hint: they think they are)? Were the
NAZI soldiers in WWII dying for the truth?
People die for lies all the time.
Was Hitler a liar? How about Napoleon, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan? We spend
millions of dollars a year trying to find techniques to detect lying? So the
answer is no, they wouldn't be able to tell if he was a liar if he only lied
about some things.
Why do you think he healed people, because the Bible says so? But if God
doesn't exist (the other possibility) then the Bible is not divinely
inspired and one can't use it as a piece of evidence, as it was written by
unbiased observers.
Were Hitler or Mussolini lunatics? How about Genghis Khan, Jim Jones...
there are thousands of examples through history of people being drawn to
lunatics.
So we obviously cannot rule out liar or lunatic not to mention all the other
possibilities not given in this triad.
Possibly self-fulfilling prophecy (ie he was aware what he should do in
order to fulfil these prophecies), possibly selective diting on behalf of
those keepers of the holy bible for a thousand years or so before the
general; public had access. possibly also that the text is written in such
riddles (like Nostradamus) that anything that happens can be twisted to fit
the words of raving fictional 'prophecy'.
[stuff about how hard it is to be a christian deleted]
I severely recommend you reconsider the reasons you are a christian, they
are very unconvincing to an unbiased observer. | 0 | alt.atheism |
: I
: |> Jim,
: |>
: |> I always thought that homophobe was only a word used at Act UP
: |> rallies, I didn't beleive real people used it. Let's see if we agree
: |> on the term's definition. A homophobe is one who actively and
: |> militantly attacks homosexuals because he is actually a latent
: |> homosexual who uses his hostility to conceal his true orientation.
: |> Since everyone who disapproves of or condemns homosexuality is a
: |> homophobe (your implication is clear), it must necessarily follow that
: |> all men are latent homosexuals or bisexual at the very least.
: |>
:
: Crap crap crap crap crap. A definition of any type of 'phobe comes from
: phobia = an irrational fear of. Hence a homophobe (not only in ACT UP meetings,
: the word is apparently in general use now. Or perhaps it isn't in the bible?
: Wouldst thou prefer if I were to communicate with thou in bilespeak?)
:
: Does an arachnophobe have an irrational fear of being a spider? Does an
: agoraphobe have an irrational fear of being a wide open space? Do you
: understand English?
:
: Obviously someone who has phobia will react to it. They will do their best
: to avoid it and if that is not possible they will either strike out or
: run away. Or do gaybashings occur because of natural processes? People
: who definately have homophobia will either run away from gay people or
: cause them (or themselves) violence.
:
Isn't that what I said ...
What are you taking issue with here, your remarks are merely
parenthetical to mine and add nothing useful.
: [...]
:
: |> It would seem odd if homosexuality had any evolutionary function
: |> (other than limiting population growth) since evolution only occurs
: |> when the members of one generation pass along their traits to
: |> subsequent generations. Homosexuality is an evolutionary deadend. If I
: |> take your usage of the term, homophobe, in the sense you seem to
: |> intend, then all men are really homosexual and evolution of our
: |> species at least, is going nowhere.
: |>
:
: So *every* time a man has sex with a woman they intend to produce children?
: Hmm...no wonder the world is overpopulated. Obviously you keep to the
: Monty Python song: "Every sperm is sacred". And if, as *you* say, it has
: a purpose as a means to limit population growth then it is, by your own
: arguement, natural.
Consider the context, I'm talking about an evolutionary function. One
of the most basic requirements of evolution is that members of a
species procreate, those who don't have no purpose in that context.
:
: |> Another point is that if the offspring of each generation is to
: |> survive, the participation of both parents is necessary - a family must
: |> exist, since homosexuals do not reproduce, they cannot constitute a
: |> family. Since the majority of humankind is part of a family,
: |> homosexuality is an evolutionary abberation, contrary to nature if you
: |> will.
: |>
:
: Well if that is true, by your own arguements homosexuals would have
: vanished *years* ago due to non-procreation. Also the parent from single
: parent families should put the babies out in the cold now, cos they must,
: by your arguement, die.
By your argument, homosexuality is genetically determined. As to your
second point, you prove again that you have no idea what context
means. I am talking about evolution, the preservation of the species,
the fundamental premise of the whole process.
:
: |> But it gets worse. Since the overwhelming majority of people actually
: |> -prefer- a heterosexual relationship, homosexuality is a social
: |> abberation as well. The homosexual eschews the biological imperative
: |> to reproduce and then the social imperative to form and participate in
: |> the most fundamental social element, the family. But wait, there's
: |> more.
: |>
:
: Read the above. I expect you to have at least ten children by now, with
: the family growing. These days sex is less to do with procreation (admittedly
: without it there would be no-one) but more to do with pleasure. In pre-pill
: and pre-condom days, if you had sex there was the chance of producing children.
: These days is just ain't true! People can decide whether or not to have
: children and when. Soon they will be able to choose it's sex &c (but that's
: another arguement...) so it's more of a "lifestyle" decision. Again by
: your arguement, since homosexuals can not (or choose not) to reproduce they must
: be akin to people who decide to have sex but not children. Both are
: as "unnatural" as each other.
Yet another non-sequitur. Sex is an evolutionary function that exists
for procreation, that it is also recreation is incidental. That
homosexuals don't procreate means that sex is -only- recreation and
nothing more; they serve no -evolutionary- purpose.
:
: |> Since homosexuals have come out the closet and have convinced some
: |> policy makers that they have civil rights, they are now claiming that
: |> their sexuality is a preference, a life-style, an orientation, a
: |> choice that should be protected by law. Now if homosexuality is a mere
: |> choice and if it is both contrary to nature and anti-social, then it
: |> is a perverse choice; they have even less credibility than before they
: |> became prominent.
: |>
:
: People are people are people. Who are you to tell anyone else how to live
: their life? Are you god(tm)? If so, fancy a date?
Here's pretty obvious dodge, do you really think you've said anything
or do you just feel obligated to respond to every statement? I am not
telling anyone anything, I am demonstrating that there are arguments
against the practice of homosexuality (providing it's a merely an
alternate lifestlye) that are not homophobic, that one can reasonably
call it perverse in a context even a atheist can understand. I realize
of course that this comes dangerously close to establishing a value,
and that atheists are compelled to object on that basis, but if you
are to be consistent, you have no case in this regard.
:
: |> To characterize any opposition to homosexuality as homophobic is to
: |> ignore some very compelling arguments against the legitimization of
: |> the homosexual "life-style". But since the charge is only intended to
: |> intimidate, it's really just demogoguery and not to be taken
: |> seriously. Fact is, Jim, there are far more persuasive arguments for
: |> suppressing homosexuality than those given, but consider this a start.
: |>
:
: Again crap. All your arguments are based on outdated ideals. Likewise the
: bible. Would any honest Christian condemn the ten generations spawned by
: a "bastard" to eternal damnation? Or someone who crushes his penis (either
: accidently or not..!). Both are in Deuteronomy.
I'm sure your comment pertains to something, but you've disguised it
so well I can't see what. Where did I mention ideals, out-dated or
otherwise? Your arguments are very reactionary; do you have anything
at all to contribute?
:
: |> As to why homosexuals should be excluded from participation in
: |> scouting, the reasons are the same as those used to restrict them from
: |> teaching; by their own logic, homosexuals are deviates, social and
: |> biological. Since any adult is a role model for a child, it is
: |> incumbent on the parent to ensure that the child be isolated from
: |> those who would do the child harm. In this case, harm means primarily
: |> social, though that could be extended easily enough.
: |>
: |>
:
: You show me *anyone* who has sex in a way that everyone would describe as
: normal, and will take of my hat (Puma baseball cap) to you. "One man's meat
: is another man's poison"!
:
What has this got to do with anything? Would you pick a single point
that you find offensive and explain your objections, I would really
like to believe that you can discuss this issue intelligibly. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Ok, this is the only thing I will comment on from Stan at this time...
part of this forum we call rec.scouting is for policy discussions and
related topics. This is a policy discussion, and involves related
topics. this is not a "fringe" group discussion. obviously, it
engenders strong feelings from all sides of the issues at hand.
Wether a particular view is anti-societal or not is your opinion,
and yours alone, don't try to make it seem otherwise.
If you do not wish to engage in this discussion, use a kill file.
If you wish to continue in this discussion, please do so, knowing
full well the implications that apply.
I know for myself that I plan on continuing with the discussion when
i have the wish to have input. I for one am tired of people trying to
say that this is not a matter significant for this group! It is, and
quite so. Especially for those of us who feel the impact more closely.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Yesterday, I got the chance to hear Kurt Vonnegut speak at the
University of New Hampshire. Vonnegut succeeded Isaac Asimov as the
(honorary?) head of the American Humanist Association. (Vonnegut is
an atheist, and so was Asimov) Before Asimov's funeral, Vonnegut stood up
and said about Asimov, "He's in heaven now," which ignited uproarious
laughter in the room. (from the people he was speaking to around the time
of the funeral)
"It's the funniest thing I could have possibly said
to a room full of humanists," Vonnegut said at yesterday's lecture.
If Vonnegut comes to speak at your university, I highly recommend
going to see him even if you've never read any of his novels. In my opinion,
he's the greatest living humorist. (greatest living humanist humorist as well)
Peace, | 0 | alt.atheism |
Let me carry that a step further. Most doctors would not claim to be
infallible. Indeed, they would generally admit that they could conceivably
be wrong, e.g. that in this case, a blood tranfusion might not turn out to
be necessary after all. However, the doctors would have enough confidence
and conviction to claim, out of genuine concern, that is IS necessary. As
fallible human beings, they must acknowledge the possibility that they are
wrong. However, they would also say that such doubts are not reasonable,
and stand by their convictions.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Hehehe, so you say, but this objective morality somehere tells you
that this is not the case, and you don't know all the rules of such
transcendental game systems...
Cheers,
Kent | 0 | alt.atheism |
Hi Damon, No matter what system or explanation of creation you wish
to accept, you always have to start with one of two premises, creation
from nothing, or creation from something. There are no other
alternatives. And if we accept one or the other of those two
premises, then again there are two alternatives, either creation was
random, or was according to some plan.
If it was random, I am unable to accept that the complex nature of
our world with interrelated interdependent organisms and creatures
could exist as they do. Therefore I am left with creation under the
control of an intelligence capable of devising such a scheme. I call
that intelligence God.
I also prefer the "Creatio ex nihilo" rather than from chaos, as it
is cleaner.
There is obviously no way to prove either or neither. We are and
we must have come from somewhere. Choose whatever explanation you
feel most comfortable with, Damon. You are the one who has to live
with your choice.
Shalom, Len Howard
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
While I agree with most of Jon says (I deleted those parts, of course), I
have serious reservations about this advice. Maintaining a `just
friends' level of relationship is much easier said than done. People
usually end up getting hurt. This is especially likely to happen when
they start off with feelings of attraction.
When people feel attracted those feelings can cloud their judgement.
I've had the experience of going quickly from believing that I shouldn't
date non-Christians to believing that dating this man would be okay to
believing that premarital sex is fine when people really love each
other. When the relationship ended my beliefs immediately returned to
their original state.
This is an especially extreme case because I was young and away from home
and fellowship. I don't think it would work exactly this way for most
people. However, it's important not to underestimate the power of
feelings of attraction. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I don't know which passage you are refering to, but the passage I have
often seen cited as an example of a mother image of God is Isaiah 49:15
"Can a woman forget her sucking child / that she should have no
compassion / on the son of her womb? / Even these may forget, /
yet I will not forget you."
This passage is *not* a mother image of God at all. The mother here
is the image of the best human constancy can show, and it is
contrasted with the constancy of God. The mother figure here represents
mankind, not God.
--
==============================================================================
Mark Baker | "The task ... is not to cut down jungles, but
[email protected] | to irrigate deserts." -- C. S. Lewis
==============================================================================
[Luke 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those
who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together
as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I'll take a wild guess and say Freedom is objectively valuable. I base
this on the assumption that if everyone in the world were deprived utterly
of their freedom (so that their every act was contrary to their volition),
almost all would want to complain. Therefore I take it that to assert or
believe that "Freedom is not very valuable", when almost everyone can see
that it is, is every bit as absurd as to assert "it is not raining" on
a rainy day. I take this to be a candidate for an objective value, and it
it is a necessary condition for objective morality that objective values
such as this exist.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Many pagans are involved in environmentalism--this is only natural, since
respect for the earth is a fundamental tenet of all pagan denominations. This
doesn't mean that environmentalism is wrong, any more than supporting peace in
the Middle East is wrong because Jews and Muslims also work for it.
Nonetheless, paganism is certainly on the rise, and we as Christians should
address this and look at what draws people from paganism to Christianity. Like
it or not, pagan religions are addressing needs that Christianity should be,
and isn't.
I believe that paganism has hit upon some major truths that Christianity has
forgotten. This doesn't mean that paganism is right, but it does mean that we
have something to learn from the pagan movement.
First, paganism respects the feminine. Christianity has a long history of
oppressing women, and many (if not most) male Christians are still unable to
live in a non-sexist manner. The idea that God is sexless, or that Christ
could have been a women and still accomplished his mission, is met with a great
deal of resistance. This insistance on a male-dominated theology (and the
male-dominated society that goes with it) drives away many young women who have
had to put up with sexist attitudes in their churches.
Second, paganism respects the physical world. This is an idea with great
ramifications. One of these is environmentalism--respect for our surroundings
and our world. Another is integration of sexuality. Christianity has a long
tradition of calling ALL sexual feeelings sinful and urging people to suppress
and deny their sexuality. This is too much--sex is clearly a part of human
experience and attempting to remove it is simply not a feasible option.
Christianity has only begun to develop a workable sexual ethic, and paganism
is an attractive option.
I'm not advocating that Christian doctrines (no sex before marriage, etc.)
should be changed--just that Christians work toward a more moderate ethic of
sexuality. Denial of sexuality places as much emphasis on sex as unmoderated
sexuality, and neither one does much to bring us closer to God. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
04 Apr 93, David Cruz-Uribe writes to All:
DC> Also, what is Orthodox practice regarding communion? I read
DC> a throw-away remark someplace that the Orthodox receive less
DC> frequently than Catholics do, but was is their current practice?
DC> Have their been any variations historically?
I think Orthodox practice varies from place to place, from parish to parish and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some parishes here in South Africa the only ones who receive communion are infants (i.e. children under
7). In our parish it is expected that one will have been to Vespers and confessional prayers the evening before, and that one will have been fasting. As we have to travel 70km to the church, we don'
t receive communion every Sunday, but about every third Sunday.
Steve | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
: For all the problems technology has caused, your types have made
: things even worse. Must we be reminded of the Inquisition, Operation
: Rescue, the Ku Klux Klan, Posse Comitatus, the 700 Club, David Duke, Salem
: Witch Trials, the Crusades, gay bashings, etc.
: PLUS virtually each and every single war, regardless of the level of
: technology, has had theistic organizations cheering on the carnage
: (chaplains, etc.), and claiming that god was in favor of the whole ordeal.
: Don't forget to pray for our troops!
:
This is really tedious. Every bad thing that's ever happened is
because the malefactors were under the influence of religion - does
anyone -really- believe that. I've seen it so often it must be a
pretty general opinion in a.a, but I want to believe that atheists are
really not THAT dishonest. Please, stick to the facts and, having
accomplished that, interpret them correctly. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Andrew,
How I wish this were true, and how I long for the day in which it will
be true. But alas, it is not true of history. The Bible does not have a
message -- it has messages. And some of those are messages of repentance and
giving, to turn the other cheek, and do unto the least of these. But some
of the messages are the complete opposite. Like the isrealites order to
wipe out other tribes including women and children down to cattle, and
punished severely when they were less than complete about the job. Like
jews who are said to have cried out in Matthew, "His blood be upon our heads
and our childrens heads" A verse quoted in every pogrom from the crusades to
the holocaust. Have these been misunderstood? I think not. They have only
been understood too clearly. It is essential that christians grasp firmly
the good the bible teaches, the meek carpenter from Nazareth is a potent
symbol for how we should be, his teachings we must take to heart, but we
cannot ignore the other material in the bible which is not to our liking and
say those who live by that have misread it. To say that is only to chose a
point of interpretation and declare it normative. Such can be done with the
same legitmacy by anyone. Instead we must let the text critique the text.
Understanding that there is both good and bad in our sacred corpus, we test
all things and hold fast to that which is good.
At the risk of sounding heretical (well ok, more heretical) I don't think
that doubt is something which requires forgiveness, it is something which
requires introspection and reflection. If that is a sin, then there can
be no salvation, for doubt is an inescapble part of being human. Consider
Job. His friends had no doubt. Whereas Job had no doubt in himself but
doubted the wisdom and justice of God. When God finally did appear he
rebuked the friends and had job make sacrifices for them. To be a Christian
it to always have doubt, or not to have honesty. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Vera Shanti Noyes writes;
Of course I believe in Predestination. It's a very biblical doctrine as
Romans 8.28-30 shows (among other passages). Furthermore, the Church
has always taught predestination, from the very beginning. But to say
that I believe in Predestination does not mean I do not believe in free
will. Men freely choose the course of their life, which is also
affected by the grace of God. However, unlike the Calvinists and
Jansenists, I hold that grace is resistable, otherwise you end up with
the idiocy of denying the universal saving will of God (1 Timothy 2.4).
For God must give enough grace to all to be saved. But only the elect,
who he foreknew, are predestined and receive the grace of final
perserverance, which guarantees heaven. This does not mean that those
without that grace can't be saved, it just means that god foreknew their
obstinacy and chose not to give it to them, knowing they would not need
it, as they had freely chosen hell.
^^^^^^^^^^^
People who are saved are saved by the grace of God, and not by their own
effort, for it was God who disposed them to Himself, and predestined
them to become saints. But those who perish in everlasting fire perish
because they hardened their heart and chose to perish. Thus, they were
deserving of God;s punishment, as they had rejected their Creator, and
sinned against the working of the Holy Spirit.
Well, I would hold that as God most certainly gives everybody some
blessing for what good they have done (even if it was only a little),
for those He can't bless in the next life, He blesses in this one. And
those He will not punish in the next life, will be chastised in this one
or in Purgatory for their sins. Every sin incurs some temporal
punishment, thus, God will punish it unless satisfaction is made for it
(cf. 2 Samuel 12.13-14, David's sin of Adultery and Murder were
forgiven, but he was still punished with the death of his child.) And I
need not point out the idea of punishment because of God's judgement is
quite prevelant in the Bible. Sodom and Gommorrah, Moses barred from
the Holy Land, the slaughter of the Cannanites, Annias and Saphira,
Jerusalem in 70 AD, etc.
not a >good parallel, but i'm going to go with it anyway), why should we
not >stop the murder and violation of people who may (or may not) be more
We should stop the slaughter of the innocent (cf Proverbs 24.11-12), but
does that mean that Christians should support a war in Bosnia with the
U.S. or even the U.N. involved? I do not think so, but I am an
isolationist, and disagree with foreign adventures in general. But in
the case of Bosnia, I frankly see no excuse for us getting militarily
involved, it would not be a "just war." "Blessed" after all, "are the
peacemakers" was what Our Lord said, not the interventionists. Our
actions in Bosnia must be for peace, and not for a war which is
unrelated to anything to justify it for us. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
: Exodus 21:22-25:
: 22 And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with
: child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further
: injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may
: demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide.
: 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint
: as a penalty life for life,
: 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
: 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
: The most straightforward interpretation of these verses is that if
: men in a fight strike a woman and cause her to miscarry, the penalty
: is only a fine. If, however, the woman is injured or dies, the
: *lex talionis* doctrine of "an eye for an eye" applies. This is the
: Jewish interpretation, and is supported by Jewish commentaries on
: these verses.
: This is quite an embarrassment for pro-lifer Christians, so there is
: of course an alternate explanation. The alternative interprets the
: word "miscarriage" to mean "premature birth"--i.e., the child is born
: alive--and "further injury" to mean injury to either the woman or
: the fetus. This is not a straightforward interpretation, it is not
: (so far as I know) supported by any Jewish commentaries, and it does
: not appeared to be supported by any other part of the Bible.
What if any, historical reference do we have to abortion at this time? Did
the ancient Jew have appropriate reference to understand abortion? (I am
truly asking, not making a point veiled as a question). If there is
little understanding of the medical procedure we know as abortion, it is
not surprising the Bible makes little reference to it, as it makes little
reference to nuclear power and contamination. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Well, I've provided examples to show that the trend was general, and you
(or others) have provided some counterexamples, mostly ones surrounding
mating practices, etc. I don't think that these few cases are enough to
disprove the general trend of natural morality. And, again, the mating
practices need to be reexamined...
No, but mating practices are a special case. I'll have to think about it
some more.
Indeed. But, while the natural system is objective, all objective systems
are not the natural one. So, the terms can not be equated. The natural
system is a subset of the objective ones.
I don't claim that homosexuality is immoral. It isn't harmful, although
it isn't helpful either (to the mating process). And, when you say that
homosexuality is observed in the animal kingdom, don't you mean "bisexuality?"
This is standard jargon. Read any textbook. The "we" forms are used
throughout.
That's right. The goals themselves aren't inherent.
You could, but such would contradict observations.
But a postulate is something that is generally (or always) found to be
true. I don't think your postulate would be valid.
Yes, and I think the goals of survival and happiness *do* work. You think
they don't? Or are they not good goals? | 0 | alt.atheism |
Every time somone writes something and says it is merely describing the norm,
it is infact re-inforcing that norm upon those programmed not to think for
themselves. The motto is dangerous in itself, it tells the world that every
*true* American is god-fearing, and puts down those who do not fear gods. It
doesn't need anyone to make it dangerous, it does a good job itself by just
existing on your currency.
The Desert Brat | 0 | alt.atheism |
Define perfect then.
Take your foot out of your mouth, I wondered about that already when I
was a Catholic Christian. The fact that the contradiction is unresolvable
is one of the reasons why I am an atheist.
Believe me, I believed similar sentences for a long time. But that shows
the power of religion and not anything about its claims.
It follows from a definition of evil as ordinarily used. Letting evil
happen or allowing evil to take place, in this place even causing evil,
is another evil.
The omniscient attribute of god will know what the creatures will do even
before the omnipotent has created them. There is no choice left. All is known,
the course of events is fixed.
Not even for the omniscient itself, to extend an argument by James Tims.
And when I am not omnipotent, how can I have free will? You have said
something about choices and the scenario gives them. Therefore we have
what you define as free will.
Imagine the following. I can do good to other beings, but I cannot harm them.
Easily implemented by making everyone appreciate being the object of good
deeds, but don't make them long for them, so they can not feel the absence
of good as evil.
But whose case am I arguing? It is conceivable, so the omnipotent can do it.
Or it would not be omnipotent. If you want logically consistent as well, you
have to give up the pet idea of an omnipotent first.
(Deletion)
That the bible describes an omniscient and omnipotent god destroys
the credibility of the bible, nothing less. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Oh, Bobby. You're priceless. Did I ever tell you that?
My policy with Bobby's posts, should anyone give a damn, is to flick
through the thread at high speed, searching for posts of Bobby's which
have generated a whole pile of followups, then go in and extract the
hilarious quote inevitably present for .sig purposes. Works for me.
For the guy who said he's just arrived, and asked whether Bobby's for real,
you betcha. Welcome to alt.atheism, and rest assured that it gets worse.
I have a few pearls of wisdom from Bobby which I reproduce below. Is anyone
(Keith?) keeping a big file of such stuff?
"In Allah's infinite wisdom, the universe was created from nothing,
just by saying "Be", and it became. Therefore Allah exists."
--- Bobby Mozumder proving the existence of Allah, #1
"Wait. You just said that humans are rarely reasonable. Doesn't that
contradict atheism, where everything is explained through logic and
reason? This is THE contradiction in atheism that proves it false."
--- Bobby Mozumder proving the existence of Allah, #2
"Plus, to the believer, it would be contradictory
to the Quran for Allah not to exist."
--- Bobby Mozumder proving the existence of Allah, #3
and now
"One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that say "Mom",
because of the love of their mom. It makes for more virile men. Compare
that with how homos are raised. Do a study and you will get my point."
-- Bobby Mozumder being Islamically Rigorous on alt.atheism
Mmmmm. Quality *and* quantity from the New Voice of Islam (pbuh).
Cheers
Simon | 0 | alt.atheism |
I lived in Tokyo for a year and a half, and one of the many reasons why
I intend to go back indefinitely is the freedom one enjoys when one can
walk anywhere (and I mean *anywhere*) at any time of day or night and not
feel uneasy, even if one's from an ethnic minority as I was.
Clues for Bobby (why do I bother?): (i) Tokyo is a city, and inner Tokyo
is an inner city; (ii) there is a negligible level of violent crime, and
a street murder will be a lead item on *national* TV news; (iii) the
population is almost universally atheistic.
Next time I go for a stroll around Beirut at night, I'll let you know how
it compares.
Cheers
Simon | 0 | alt.atheism |
:> God is eternal. [A = B]
:> Jesus is God. [C = A]
:> Therefore, Jesus is eternal. [C = B]
:> This works both logically and mathematically. God is of the set of
:> things which are eternal. Jesus is a subset of God. Therefore
:> Jesus belongs to the set of things which are eternal.
Everything isn't always so logical....
Mercedes is a car.
That girl is Mercedes.
Therefore, that girl is a car? | 0 | alt.atheism |
... | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Anyone who dies for a "cause" runs the risk of dying for a lie. As for
people being able to tell if he was a liar, well, we've had grifters and
charlatans since the beginning of civilization. If David Copperfield had
been the Messiah, I bet he could have found plenty of believers.
Jesus was hardly the first to claim to be a faith healer, and he wasn't the
first to be "witnessed." What sets him apart?
Rubbish. Nations have followed crazies, liars, psychopaths, and
megalomaniacs throughout history. Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini, Khomeini,
Qadaffi, Stalin, Papa Doc, and Nixon come to mind...all from this century.
Koresh is a non-issue.
Take a discrete mathematics or formal logic course. There are flaws in your
logic everywhere. And as I'm sure others will tell you, read the FAQ!
Of course, you have to believe the Bible first. Just because something is
written in the Bible does not mean it is true, and the age of that tome plus
the lack of external supporting evidence makes it less credible. So if you
do quote from the Bible in the future, try to back up that quote with
supporting evidence. Otherwise, you will get flamed mercilessly.
Just like weight lifting or guitar playing, eh? I don't know how you
define the world "total," but I would imagine a "total sacrafice [sp]
of everything for God's sake" would involve more than a time commitment.
You are correct about our tendency to "box everything into time units."
Would you explain HOW one should involove God in sports and (hehehe)
television? | 0 | alt.atheism |
I'd like this too... maybe you should post an answer key after a while?
Nanci | 0 | alt.atheism |
Yes, and what about Paul saying:
26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:
(Ephesians 4:26).
Obviously then, we can be angry w/o sinning.
Jon
------------------------------------------------
Jon Ogden - [email protected]
Motorola Cellular - Advanced Products Division
Voice: 708-632-2521 Data: 708-632-6086
------------------------------------------------ | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Pardon me, a humble atheist, but exactly what is the difference
between holding a revealed truth with blind faith as its basis (i.e.
regardless of any evidence that you may find to the contrary) as an
absolute truth, fully expecting people to believe you and arrogance?
They sound like one and the same to me.
And nearly every time I meet a christian (or for that matter, any
other theist) who tries to convert me, I find this proven over and over
again.
I see no wisdom whatsoever in your words
Unfaithfully yours,
Pixie
p.s. If you do sincerely believe that a god exists, why do you follow
it blindly?
Do the words "Question Authority" mean anything to you? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The answer to both questions is yes.
All Scripture is true, being inspired by God. The evidence for this
claim has been discussed ad nauseum in this group.
Similarly, all truth is absolute. Indeed, a non-absolute truth is a
contradiction in terms. When is something absolute? When it is always
true. Obviously, if a "truth" is not always "true" then we have a
contradiction in terms.
Many people claim that there are no absolutes in the world. Such a
statement is terribly self-contradictory. Let me put it to you this
way. If there are no absolutes, shouldn't we conclude that the statement,
"There are no absolutes" is not absolutely true? Obviously, we have a
contradiction here.
This is just one of the reasons why Christians defy the world by claiming
that there are indeed absolutes in the universe.
So? People sometimes disagree about what is true. This does not negate
the fact, however, that there are still absolutes in the universe. Moreover,
evangelical Christianity, at least, still professes to believe in certain
truths. Man is sinful, man needs salvation, and Jesus is the propitiation
for mankind's sins, to name a few. Any group that does not profess to
believe these statements cannot be accurately called evangelical.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The majority of those who can open their mouths in public perhaps.
There seems quite alot of incentive for the British to have control
of NI, like using the North Channel and Irish Sea as a waste dump (I was
appalled at the dumping I saw in the harbor in Belfast). It is my
understanding that quite alot of radioactivity enters the water --
it'd be quite a problem if NI got its independence from Britain and
then stopped accepting the waste. Are you suggesting that British
industry isn't making profit off the situation as well?
| 0 | alt.atheism |
I'd love to know how "Jesus only" proponents would answer questions like:
-Who is this "Father" Jesus keeps referring to? Why does He call Himself "the
Son"?
-Why does He pray to the Father, and not to himself?
-Why does He emphasize that he does his Father's will, and not his own? If He
was doing his own will, what kind of example is that? Should we follow it?
-When He says he has to return to the Father, who is He going to?
-When He says he does this in order that the Comforter, the Holy Spirit might
come, who might that be?
-If He claims that the coming of the Holy Spirit is such a blessing that it's
worth His leaving us and returning to the Father, what can that mean if there
is no Holy Spirit?
-Why doesn't the best known Christian prayer begin "Our Saviour, who art in
heaven," rather than "Our Father?"
Do they have answers to these questions that are even plausible?
(Further entertaining queries are left as an exercise to the reader.)
-drt
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
My impression is that *for advanced work* you will be much better off with
German reference works (lexicons, concordances especially). For a first-time
encounter, my *personal* preference would be to deal with a textbook written in
my native language. But if you know German and are in Germany, pick up all the
reference books you think you can handle. (I only know these works by
reputation, since my German is most rusty, but I'd look at the following books:
Koehler's lexicon, Mandeldern's concordance, the Jenni & Westermann theological
dictionary of the OT.)
The amount of language instruction available at US seminaries varies widely,
mostly depending on the denominational heritage of the school. Presbyterian
and Reformed seminaries probably place a lot more emphasis on the biblical
languages than others. (Of course, any divinity school that has a doctoral
program in biblical studies is going to have extensive language resources! But
there are quite a few masters-degree-granting seminaries here at which the
attitude seems to be more, "Well, if you're *really* interested we'll give you
a semester-long course, but we don't understand why . . .") | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
True to a point. If you were to ask a Buddhist atheist...
Actually, yes and no, Hell is eternal death. Actually, the way
I've had it related to me, it's more of an eternal damnation,
where sinners will feel the licking flames of Hell. If I
supposedly can feel these flames, I would assume I'm still
alive, but suffering and away from God.
I believe Jehovah's Witnesses have a similar view, where the body
sleeps for ever...
I don't have a problem with being condemned to Hell either. The
way I see it, if God wants to punish me for being honest in
my skepticism (that is, for saying he doesn't exist), He
certainly wouldn't be changing His nature. Besides, I would
rather spend an eternity in Hell than be beside God in Heaven
knowing even one man would spend his "eternal life" being
scorched for his wrongdoings...
Stephen
_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ * Atheist
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ * Libertarian
_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ * Pro-individuality
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ * Pro-responsibility
_/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Jr. * and all that jazz...
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Didn't you hear? His address has changed. He can be reached at the
following address:
[email protected]
I think he was last seen posting to alt.messianic.
Jim | 0 | alt.atheism |
That's the craziest thing I ever heard. Are you serious?
"it doesn't take much work to be moral?"
Really? And that's why people discuss morality on a daily basis?
Because it's a kind of evolutionary hangover, like your little toe?
This must be some novel use of the phrase "based on" with which I
am not sufficiently familiar. What do you mean by "based on" and
what is the significance of it for your argument?
Well, we can. What would you like to know about my particular moral
beliefs?
If you raise a topic I've never considered, I'll be quite happy to
invent a moral belief out of thin air. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Assuming you are presenting it accurately, I don't see how this argument
really leads to any firm conclusion. The material in John (I'm not sure
exactly what is referred to here, but I'll take for granted the similarity
to the Matt./Luke "Q" material) IS different; hence, one could have almost
any relationship between the two, right up to John getting it straight from
Jesus' mouth.
The version of the "usual theory" I have heard has Matthew and Luke
independently relying on Mark and "Q". One would think that if Luke relied
on Matthew, we wouldn't have the grating inconsistencies in the geneologies,
for one thing.
This is the part that is particularly new to me. If it were possible that
you could point me to a reference, I'd be grateful.
Because it closes up the gap between (supposed) writing and the existing
copy quit a bit. The further away from the original, the more copies can be
written, and therefore survival becomes more probable.
I'm not really impressed with the "theology" argument. But I'm really
pointing this out as an "if". And as I pointed out earlier, one cannot make
these arguments about I Peter; I see no reason not to accept it as an
authentic letter.
The best analogy would be reporters talking to the participants, which is
not so bad.
But the statement of divinity is not in that section, and in any case, it's
agreed that the most important epistles predate Mark. | 0 | alt.atheism |
The Bible does tell us that governments are ordained by God (Romans 13).
And furthermore, God foreknows everything that would happen. It is
just to difficult for humans to graps with our limited minds, the
inevitablity of the sucess of God's plan, and this is especially hard to
grasp when we see governemnts doing evil. However, though they are
doing evil (and we should not cooperate with them when they do such), it
must be understood that what happens is what God wanted so as to lead to
the final sucess of His plan to save as many souls from hell as is
possible. In short, the slaughter in Bosnia, though deplorable in the
eyes of God (maybe, then again, they might be getting their just deserts
now rather than later; there are plenty of examples of God killing
people for their sins - Onan in the Old Testmament for example, and
Annias and Spahira in the New) is what he willed to happen so that His
plan might be accomplished.
But don't forget, it is not unbiblical for God to use one nation to
execute His just judgement upon another. The Romans were used to
fulfill the chorus of "Let his blood be upon our hands" of the crowd in
Jersualem. And Chaldea was chastised by Babylon, which got Israel,
which was inturn gotten by Persia, etc. God does use nations to punish
other nations, as the Bible very clearly shows in the Old Testament.
Don't you remember the words of God recorded in Daniel, "Mene, mene,
tekel, peres?" Babylon had been weighed in the balance scales of God's
justice, found severly wanting, and was thus given over to the Persians
as their due punishment for their rebellion. Another exammple is the
extirmination of the Cannanites, ordered by God as the task of Israel.
The Cannanites had been given their chance, found severly wanting, and
the Great Judge, carried out His just sentence accrodingly. I could go
on with more examples, but I see little need to do so, as my point is
quite clear.
Two things need to be remembered at all times. 1) It is not up to us to
question why God has ordered the world as He has. In His divine Wisdom,
He made the world as was best in His eyes, and like Paul says in Romans
9, the clay is not one to tlak back to the potter. 2) The message of
Jesus Christ is as follows: "Repent now, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at
hand." Jesus Christ did not allow any time for dilly-dallying - "Let
the dead bury the dead, come, follow me." There is not an infinite
amount of time, rather Christ is passing by right now, calling people to
follow Him and become fishers of men. He does not say, "well, alright,
you can call me back in a week and see if my Kingdom fits in with your
plans." He said "Follow me." His message is NOT "I'm just a sweety-pie
who would never hurt a fly, you've got all the time in the world, and
Divine Judgement, that's only a fairy tale." "Our great God and Savior"
Jesus Christ (Titus 2.5) is also the just and righteous Judge of the
world. And it is not up to the defendants in the trial to be
questioning his entirely just sentences of either chastisement or mercy. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
This (frayed) thread has turned into a patented alt.atheism 5-on-1
ping-pong game, and I don't have any strong disagreement, so I'll try
to stick to the one thing I don't quite follow about the argument:
It seems to me that there is a contradiction in arguing that the Bible
was "enlightened for its times" (i.e. closer to what we would consider
morally good based on our standards and past experience) on the one
hand [I hope this summarizes this argument adequately], and on the
other hand:
}|> }Disclaimer: I'm speaking from the Jewish perspective,
}|> }where "the Bible" means what many call the Old Testament,
}|> }and where the interpretation is not necessarily the
}|> }raw text, but instead the court cases, commentaries
}|> }and traditions passed down through Jewish communities.
}|>
}|> This seems the crux to me: if you judge the Bible according to a long
}|> line of traditions and interpretations coming down to the current day,
}|> rather than on its own merits as a cultural artifact, then of course
}|> it will correspond more closely with more contemporary values.
}
}But if that's how the Bible is actually being used today,
}shouldn't that be how we should judge it? If most people
}use scissors to cut paper, shouldn't Consumer's Reports
}test scissors for paper-cutting ability, even though
}scissors may have been designed originally to cut cloth?
That's possibly a good way to judge the use of the Bible in teaching
Jewish morality today, but it hardly seems fair to claim that this
highly-interpreted version is what was "enlightened for its times".
To (attempt to) extend the analogy, this is like saying that the
original scissor-makers were unusually advanced at paper-cutting for
their times, even though they only ever cut cloth, and had never even
heard of paper.
I'm not arguing that the Bible is "disgusting", though some of the
history depicted in it is, by modern standards. However, history is
full of similar abuses, and I don't think the Biblical accounts are
worse than their contemporaries--or possibly ours. On the other hand,
I don't know of any reason to think the history described in the Bible
shows *less* abuse than their contemporaries, or ours. That complex
and benign moral traditions have evolved based on particular mythic
interpretations of that history is interesting, but I still don't
think it fair to take that long tradition of interpretation and use it
to attack condemnation of the original history. | 0 | alt.atheism |
This is, as far as I know, complete nonsense. The codification of the bible
as we have it now came very much later. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Your posting provoked me into checking my save file for memorable
posts. The first I captured was by Ken Arromdee on 19 Feb 1990, on the
subject "Re: atheist too?". That was article #473 here; your question
was article #53766, which is an average of about 48 articles a day for
the last three years. As others have noted, the current posting rate is
such that my kill file is depressing large...... Among the posting I
saved in the early days were articles from the following notables:
An interesting bunch.... I wonder where #2 is? | 0 | alt.atheism |
Hi,
I don't know much about Bible. Could you tell me the relations of
Christians with non-Christians in Bible? How should be The relations of
christian nations with each other and the relations of Christian nations
with other nations who are not Christians?
The other question is about the concept of religion in Bible. Does the
religion of God include and necessitate any law to be extracted from
Bible or is the religion only a belief and nothing to do with the
government sides? If for example, any government or a nation is one of
the wrongdoings according to Bible, how should they be treated?
Is there any statement in Bible saying that Bible is a guide for every
aspects of life?
Thank you. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The problem you see here is that some Christians claim things about
the Bible which they don't actually believe or practice. I've known
all sorts of Christians, ranging from the trendiest of liberals to
the fire-breathing fundamentalists, and although many on the
conservative side of the Christian faith do claim that the Bible is
a (perhaps *the*) source of absolute truth, I don't know of anyone
who treats it as anything other than a valuable part of a living tradition.
While I am not a Roman Catholic, I believe this is close to the official
position of the RC church (perhaps an RC would like to comment).
The particular practice you refer to will usually be explained in
terms of the social context of the time. You would think the fact
that the conservatives seem to have to break out the tophat-and-cane
and give you some big song-and-dance routine about why this
(other passages as well) aren't directly applicable today would
show them that what they claim about the Bible and what they
actually practice are two different things, but mostly it doens't.
While this thread is supposed to be about the arrogance of Christians,
I would suggest that some of the problem is really hypocrasy, in this
case, making claims about the Bible which the claimants don't actually
put into practice. But if we step back from the name-calling and
look at what people are attempting to say, we see that they are trying
to express very concisely the unique place the Bible holds within the
Christian faith. So when people use such words or phrases as "Word of
God", "inerrant", "infallibale", "The Manufacturer's Handbook", "The
only rule of faith and practice in the church today" to describe the
Bible, we should try to hear what they are saying and not just look at
the mere words they use. Some of the above descriptions are demostratably
false and others are self-contradictory, but in my experience people are
generally pretty good at picking out the intention of the speaker even
when the speaker's words are at variance with their intentions. A Biblical
example is from the garden of Eden where God asks "Where are you?" and Adam
explains that he was naked and afraid and hid himself. If Adam had
answered God's words he would have said something like "I'm here in this
tree." The problem seems to arise when Christians insist that these
words are indeed accurate reflections of their beleif. Most people
have not made a determined effort to work out their own understanding of
the place of the Bible within their own faith and so rely on the phrases
and explanations that others use.
I hope this helps.
--
___
Bill Rea (o o)
-------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w--- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
(Deletion)
Yes, sorry. I have got that wrong. My apology.
(Deletion)
So? No fun, but I must have met the minority then.
And "given by god" refers to any action whereby a god
god causes or better effects something.
Rob, I am not intimate with Jewish theology, but I understand
that you are a Messianic Jew. Correct me if I am wrong, but
it appears that the views of Messianic Jews on metaphysics
is different to that of the majority of Jews. While Jewish
theology overall is quite distinct from the Christianic god
views, I have heard that it is possible for Jews to attribute
evil to their god, an no-no for Christians, the Bible is
still seen as effect of the interaction of some god with man.
(Deletion)
The context was metaphysics, even when the process of adapting
the commandments is not transcendent, the justification of the
process lie in metaphysic specualtion. I wonder how you break
out of the shackles of having metaphysics in your system.
(Deletion)
Is is in a book that commands to commit genocide among other
reprehensible deeds. The context is repulsive, and it is
foul play, IMO, to invoke some relatively enlightened passages
as an example for the content of the whole book.
(Big deletion)
No, not the interpretation of some laws, but the interpretation of
the bible. As in the example that Sodom and Gomorrha mean argue
with god. The whole idea that it is metaphorically and yet allows
you to argue with a god (whatever that means, that alone is a theo-
logic question) is proof of a theology used.
It is an important question in the light of what for instance the
passage witrh Sodom and Gomorrha means. Either there is some connection
between the text, the fact that it exists, and your interpretation of
it, or it is purely arbitrary.. Further, the question is why is has
one to carry the burden of Biblical texts when one could simply write
other books that convey the message better. You might answer that one
can't becuase some peculiar Biblical information might be lost, but
that holds true of every other book, and the question remains why has
the Bible still a special place? Can't it be replaced somehow? Is it
ok to bargain the dangerous content of the Bible against some other
message that is included as well?
(Deletion)
Sorry, but there are worse systems does not say anything about if
one could not have a better system.
(Deletion)
If we read two stories in the Bible, one that god commands people
to kill children for being idolaters and another where god kills
children directly, what is more important to resolve, the message that
children are to be killed or if it has to be done by god?
And the argument you have given is a fallacy, while it may not be important
in the context you have given to find out if god is corporeal or not, it
can be crucial in other questions. Religious believers resolve contradictions
with that they choose one of the possibilities given in an arbitrary way,
and have the advantage of being able to attribute their decision to some
god. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Some thoughts:
[A. On the non-pacifist side:]
(1) Killing to defend the innocent may be, if anything, _more_ justifiable
than killing in self-defense. I can turn my _own_ other cheek, but I have
no right to turn someone else's.
(2) It seems to me that if Jesus had meant to teach pacifism, He would have
made His position more explicit. He didn't tell the centurion to leave the
army, for instance; and the NT is full of military metaphors.
[B. On the pacifist side:]
(1) Apparently many early Christians refused to fight in the Roman army,
or stated that one should refuse if given a choice. But it's not clear
whether they were objecting to war _per se_, or objecting to Roman policies.
(2) In modern warfare, it seems to be impossible to direct attacks only at
combatants. Bombing, both conventional and nuclear, kills lots of civilians.
(3) It's hard to tell whether any _particular_ war is justified at the time.
Often it takes decades for the requisite information to become available
to the general public.
Please, NO EMAIL REPLIES -- this is meant as a contribution to a public
discussion, and anyone wanting to reply should also reply publicly. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[bits deleted]
I'd be fascinated to see such evidence, please send me your article!
On the negative side however, I suspect that any such simplistic link
abstinence-education => decreased pregnancy,
contraceptive-education => increased pregnancy
is false. The US, which I'd guess has one of the largest proportion of
"non-liberal" sex education in the western world also has one of the highest
teenage pregnancy rates. (Please correct me if my guess is wrong.)
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I responded to a post last week and it carried somewhat of a hostile
tone for which I am apologizing for. It is not my intent to create
contriversy or to piss people off. To those who I offend, I'm sorry
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
In the "sex ed" portion of the high school "health" course I took
in 1984, it was impressed that the only 100% positive way to *not*
get pregnant was to *not* have sex.
Other methods of contraception were discussed, in the framework of
a chart which showed both the _expected_ failure rate (theoretical,
assumes no mistakes) and the _actual_ failure rate (based on research).
Top of the chart was something like this:
Method Expected Actual
------ Failure Rate Failure Rate
Abstinence 0% 0%
And NFP (Natural Family Planning) was on the bottom. The teacher even
said, "I've had some students tell me that they can't use anything for
birth control because they're Catholic. Well, if you're not married and
you're a practicing Catholic, the *top* of the list is your slot, not
the *bottom*. Even if you're not religious, the top of the list is
safest."
Yes, this was a public school and after Dr Koop's "failing abstinence,
use a condom" statement on the prevention of AIDS.
-jen
-- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
First of all, I'm not your buddy! Second, read what I wrote. I'm not
talking about what muslims are ALLOWED to do, merely what *SOME*
practice. They consider themselves as muslim as you, so don't retort
with the old and tired "they MUST NOT BE TRUE MUSLIMS" bullshit. If I
gave you the names what will you do with this information? Is a fatwa
going to be leashed out against the perpetrators? Do you honestly think
that someone who did it would voluntarily come forward and confess?
With the kind of extremism shown by your co-religionaries? Fat chance.
At any rate, there can be no conclusive "proof" by the very nature of
the act. Perhaps people that indulge in this practice agree with you in
theory, but hope that Allah will forgive them in the end.
I think it's rather arrogant of you to pretend to speak for all muslims
in this regard. Also, kind of silly. Are you insinuating that because
the Koranic law forbids it, there are no criminals in muslim countries?
This is as far as I care to go on this subject. The weakness of your
arguments are for all netters to see. Over and out...
-- | 0 | alt.atheism |
My family has never been particularly religious - singing Christmas
carols is about the limit for them. Thus I've never really believed in God and
heaven, although I don't actually believe that they don't exist either -
I'm sort of undecided, probably like a lot of people I guess.
Lately I've been thinking about it all a lot more, and I wondered how
religious people can be so convinced that there is a God. I feel as though
I want to believe, but I'm not used to believing things without proof -
just as I can't believe that there definitely isn't a God, so I can't
definitely believe that there is. I wondered if most of you were brought up by
religious families and never believed any different. Can anyone help me to
understand how your belief and faith in God can be so strong.
Another question that frequently crosses my mind is which religion is
correct?? How do you choose a religion, and how do you know that the Christian
God exists and the Gods of other religions don't?? How do you feel about
people who follow other religions?? How about atheists?? And people like me -
agnostics I suppose. Do you respect their religion, and accept their
beliefs as just as valid as your own?? Isn't there contradiction between
the religions?? How can your religion be more valid than any others?? Do
you have less respect for someone if they're not religious, or if they follow
a different religion than you would if they were Christian??
Also, how much of the scriptures are correct?? Are all events in
the bible really supposed to have happened, or are they just supposed to be
stories with morals showing a true Christian how to behave??
I generally follow most of the Christian ideas, which I suppose are
fairly universal throughout all religions - not killing, stealing, etc, and
'Loving my neighbour' for want of a better expression. The only part I find
hard is the actual belief in God.
Finally, what is God's attitude to people like me, who don't quite
believe in Him, but are generally fairly 'good' people. Surely not
believing doesn't make me a worse person?? If not, I find myself wondering why
I so strongly want to really believe, and to find a religion.
Sorry if I waffled on a bit - I was just writing ideas as they came
into my head. I'm sure I probably repeated myself a bit too.
Thanks for the help,
Paul Simmons | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I have an addition to the FAQ regarding "why are there no atheist
hospitals."
If I recall correctly, Johns Hopkins was built to provide medical
services without the "backing" of a religious group...thus making it a
hospital "dedicated to the glory of [weak] atheism."
Might someone check up on this?
| 0 | alt.atheism |
I am curious if anyone in net-land has spent any time at any of the L'Abri
houses throughout the world and what the experience was like, how it affected
you, etc. Especially interesting would be experiences at the original L'Abri
in Switzerland and personal interactions with Francis and/or Edith Schaeffer. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Hi everyone,
I'm a commited Christian that is battling with a problem. I know
that romans talks about how we are saved by our faith not our deeds, yet
hebrews and james say that faith without deeds is useless, saying' You fools,
do you still think that just believing is enough?'
Now if someone is fully believing but there life is totally lead by themselves
and not by God, according to Romans that person is still saved by there faith.
But then there is the bit which says that God preferes someone who is cold to
him (i.e. doesn't know him - condemned) so a lukewarm Christian someone who
knows and believes in God but doesn't make any attempt to live by the bible.
Now I am of the opinion that you a saved through faith alone (not what you do)
as taught in Romans, but how can I square up in my mind the teachings of James
in conjunction with the lukewarm Christian being 'spat-out'
Can anyone help me, this really bothers me.
In Christ,
Will
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Seconded. I cycle to work each day, and if we could just get
those damned cars and their cretinous drivers off the road, it
would be a lot more fun. | 0 | alt.atheism |
I would like a list of Bible contadictions from those of you who dispite
being free from Christianity are well versed in the Bible.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
If you agree that good works have a role somewhere, you will
generally find yourself in one of two camps:
(1) Faith + Works --> Salvation
or (2) Faith --> Salvation + Works
Either (1) works are required for salvation, or (2) faith will
inevitably result in good works.
I am also of the opinion that salvation is by faith alone, based on
Ephesians 2 and Romans 3:21-31. I also conclude that James 2, when
read in context, is teaching bullet (2) above. When James speaks of
justification, I would claim that he is not speaking of God declaring
the believing sinner innocent in His sight (Paul's use of the word).
Instead he is speaking of the sinner's profession of faith being
"justified" or "proven" by the display of good works. Also according
to James 2, the abscence of such works is evidence for a "dead" or
"useless" faith which fails to save.
James 2 is not a problem for the doctrine of salvation by faith if it
is teaching (2). Works would have their place, not as merit toward
salvation, but as evidence of true faith.
Regards,
---
Dave Weaver | "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to
[email protected]| gain what he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot (1949)
[There are of course a number of other possibilities. The Reformers
believed
salvation --> faith --> works
Some of us suspect that the three things are tied up together in such a way
that no diagram of this form can do it justice. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I am a good Catholic boy. A convert no less, attracted by the
rational tradition [Aquinas et al] and the emotional authenticity
[in comp. with the faddishness of Anglicanism] to Roman Catholicism. I
never had much time for the pope - or any other heirarchs - but I did, and
do, believe in the sacremental system. I always felt quite happy to
look down my nose at those such as John Emery [a few posts back] who
had to engage in circuitous textual arguments to prove their faith, entirely
oblivious to the fact that a dozen other faiths can do the same [with
miracles too], and that since their arguments depend on the belief in the
Bible as God's sole revelation, it was not very good logic to argue
that the Bible proved God. No, I was happy to accept the CHURCH as God's
revelation. It was the Church after all that existed before the Bible, the
Church that choose [under grace of course] the canon of scripture. Protestant
ludicrosity, I thought, was shown by Protestants breathtaking acceptance
of Luther's right to reject a dozen or so books he disliked.
But recently I read Peter Brown's _Body and Society_. It is very
well researched, and well written. But is raises some very upsetting
questions. The early Christians were weird - even more so than today's
carzy fundies. They had odd views on sex, odder views on the body,
totally ludicrous views about demons, and distinctly uncharitable
views about other human beings.
now the question is this: were the first Christians just as
weird, but we've got used to them, or did the pristine "Fall of the
Church" happen within one generation. It certainly did'nt have to
wait until the Triumph of the Church under Constantine. If so,
wha does this say about God's promise to always support the Church.
It's no use throwing the usual Protestant pieties about the Church
not being an organization at me. It's a community or it is nothing,
and it was the early communities that were weird. The institional
church was a model of sanity by comparison.
I would be interested in serious Catholic and Orthodox responses to
this entirely serious issue. I'm not sure it is an issue for Protestants
with their "soul alone with Jesus" approach, but for we who see the
"ecclesia" as a "koinoia" over time and space, the weird early
Christians are a problem.
[This is an exaggeration of the Protestant view. Many Protestants
have a strong appreciation for the role of the Church. "The soul
alone with God" is certainly important for Protestants, but it's by no
means the whole story.
I have read the sort of history you talk about. As you point out,
Protestants don't have quite the same problem you do, because we
believe that the church had a Fall at some point. However Protestant
mythology typically places the Fall around the time of Constantine (or
more likely, regard it as happening in a sort of cumulative fashion,
starting from Constantine but getting worse as the Pope accumulated
power during the medieval period.) The consequences of having it
earlier are somewhat worrisome even to us. Most Protestants accept
the theological results of the early ecumenical councils, including
such items as the Trinity and Incarnation. Indeed in the works of
Reformers such as Luther and Calvin, you'll find Church Fathers such
as Augustine quoted all the time. I think you'll find many
Protestants resistant to the idea that the Early Church as a whole was
"wierd". (There is an additional problem for Protestants that I don't
much want to talk about in this context, since it's been looked at
recently -- that's the question of whether one can really think of
Augustine and other Fathers as being proto-Protestants. Their views
on Mary, the authority of the Pope, etc, are not entirely congenial to
Protestant thought.)
One thing that somewhat worries me is a question of methodology.
There are certainly plenty of wierd people in the early church. What
concerns me is that they may be overrepresented in what we see. We
see every Christian who courted martyrdom. But I think there's good
reason to believe that most ordinary Christians were more prudent than
that. We see the heroic virgins. But I think there's good reason to
think that many Christians were happily married. I can't help
suspecting that the early church had the same range of wierdos and
sane people that we do now. I think there's also a certain level of
"revisionism" active in history at the moment. I don't mean that
they're manufacturing things out of whole cloth. But don't you think
there might be a tendency to emphasize the novel? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
15 | soc.religion.christian |
|
Probably we would have much the same problems with only a slight shift in
emphasis. Weekends might not be so inviolate (more common to work 7 days
a week in a business), and instead of American Atheists, we would have
similar, religious organizations. A persons religious belief seems more
as a crutch and justification for actions than a guide to determine actions.
Of course, people would have to come up with more fascinating
rationalizations for their actions, but that could be fun to watch...
It seems to me, that for most people, religion in America doesn't matter
that much. You have extreemists on both ends, but a large majority don't
make too much of an issue about it as long as you don't. Now, admittedly,
I have never had to suffer the "Bible Belt", but I am just north of it
and see the fringes, and the reasonable people in most things tend to be
reasonable in religion as well.
I don't bother according a higher value to my thinking, or just about
anybodys thinking. I don't want to fall in that trap. Because if you
do start that, then you are then to decide which is better, says whom,
why, is there a best, and also what to do about those who have inferior
modes of thinking. IDIC (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.)
I'll argue it over a soda, but not over much more.
Just my $.12 (What inflation has done...) | 0 | alt.atheism |
Here again, the problem with most of the individuals posting here, you take the
biblical account as though it were some sort of historical recounting in the
modern sense. I would refer you to John Dominic Crossans Book _The Cross That
Spoke_ (Pub. Harper and Row, 1988). The earliest texts which we have make no
reference to an empty tomb. Nor is an empty tomb necessary for a claim of
resurrection. Modern Evangelicals/Fundamentalists have completely missed what
the point of resurrection is -- Here the work of George Nickelsburg's work
_Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism_ (Publ
Cambridge, Havard Univ. Press, 1972) is most helpful. Look At Rom 1:1-3. Paul
here has no need of an empty tomb. Additionally in 1 Cor 15, Here again there
is no mention of an empty tomb. He was raised (note the passive), he appeared,
no ascension either.
Resurrection could be accomplished without ever disturbing the bones in the
grave. The whole idea of an empty tomb isn't broached in any of our texts
until well after the fall of Jerusalem. By that time, the idea of coming up
with a body would have been ludicrious. Moreover Mack has argued (convicingly,
I think) that the empty tomb story first appears in Mark (we have no texts
before this which mention the tomb).
You are quite right here. Even the Idea of a subjective mystical event as the
foundation of the resurrection narratives is currently becoming more untenable.
See B. Mack _A Myth of Innocence_. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[insert deletion of Paul's and Aaron's discourse on anger, ref Galatians
5:19-20]
Oh, but they definitely can be. Please look at Colossians 3:5-10 and
Ephesians 4:25-27. Emotions can be controlled and God puts very strong
emphasis on self-control, otherwise, why would he have Paul write to
Timothy so much about making sure to teach self-control?
[insert deletion of remainder of paragraph]
Please, re-think and re-read for yourself, Joe. Again, the issue is
self-control especially over feelings and actions, for our actions stem
from our feelings in many instances. As for God giving in to his anger,
that comes very soon.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Always existing and being the source of the existence of all other beings
is not problematic.
But, as you put, Being the source of "all" existence, including one's own,
would mean that God came from nothing, a concept alien to Christianity and
Theism. It is better to understand the classical concepts of Necessary and
Contingent existence. God exists necessarily, always. God created
contingent beings. This is a coherent solution to existence, so long as
the concept of God is coherent.
Not a very good answer. If reason cannot by any means understand something
then it is likely that "it" is a null concept, something not in reality. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
A reply to a post by [email protected] (aka Nancy's Sweetheart):
?Human brains are infested with sin, and they can only be trusted
?in very limited circumstances.
I would beg to differ with you here. The properly-formed conscience can
be trusted virtually ALL the time. I am not so sure, though, about something
so materialistic as the human brain. Does that mass of tissue possess
anything trustworthy? Your observation would probably be valid if we were
discussing the "mind" of an animal, but the human being is only half animal,
as it were; and half spiritual.
?At the moment he stops speaking, and people start interpreting, the
?possibility of error appears. Did he mean that literally or not? We do
?not have any record that he elaborated on the words. Was he thinking of
?Tran- or Con- substatiation? He didn't say. We interpret this passage
?using our brains; we think and reason and draw conclusions. But we know
?that our brains are not perfect: our thinking often leads us wrong. (This
?is something that most of us have direct experience of. 8-)
Now you have hit on the purpose of the Church. It is by necessity the
infallible interpreter of divine revelation. Without the Church,
Christianity would be nothing more than a bunch of little divisive sects.
?Unless you are infallible, there are very few things you can be certain
?of. To the extent that doctrines rely on fallible human thinking, they
?cannot be certain.
This argument of yours regarding the certainty of an observation or a
conclusion is not necessarily substantiated by experience. It reminds me
of the theoretical physicist who said that you can never be certain of
a measurment because the sensor interferes with the field you are trying
to measure. Now, the experimental physicist will reply that although the
measurement can never be made with absolute certainty, he is able to
determine the certainty with which the measurement can be made, and this
knowledge is often sufficient to render the measurement useful enough
to allow evidence of the true condition of the field under observation.
Therefore, although our minds are finite and susceptible to error, our
competence in arriving at inductive insights gives confidence in our
ability to distinguish what is true from what is not true, even in areas
not subject to the experimental method.
?Darren F Provine / [email protected]
?"If any substantial number of [ talk.religion.misc ] readers read some
? Wittgenstein, 60% of the postings would disappear. (If they *understood*
? some Wittgenstein, 98% would disappear. :-))" -- Michael L Siemon
This quote seems a little arrogant, don't you think?
--
boundary | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I have personally know quite of few of the Wycliffe Bible Translators.
As an organization their fundamental purpose is to translate the scriptures
into the native languages which in terms usual means learning it and
developing a written language (along with teaching the natives to read).
It is not associated with the U.S. govt. at all. Many governments
want the help of the translators. To the best of my knowledge the
Mexican government now encourages them to come. Their idea is not
cultural interference but the presentation of the Good News.
To understand more about what they do, I suggest you read some of the books
(autobiographical and biographical) about some of the translators. One
that stands out in my mind as an excellent is called "Peace Child."
This would give a true picture of what their mission is.
I agree with this statement, but we cannot also accept what others
say without looking into the issues. That would be the same as taking
Suddan's discussion about the CIA, etc. as being true. We must look
at both sides. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Sorry for taking this off of Sharon's resp, but I'd also like to add
some more verses to that and perhaps answer the second Q.
Verses:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Colossians 3:5-10
As for knowing when, that's a bit tricky. People normally have
consciences which warn them about it. However, as in my case, a
conscience can be hardened by sin's deceitfulness (Hebrews 3:12:13) so
that the person has no idea (or doesn't care about it) that they are
sinning. Of course, there are those sins which we do when we don't know
that they're sinful to begin with. Those take searching and examining
of Scripture to find out that they are sinful and then repent and
change. The best question to ask in every circumstance to judge sinful
possibilities is: "Would Jesus wholeheartedly do this at this point in
time?" I know, it sounds like a cop-out, but it truly is a stifling
question.
Joe Fisher | 15 | soc.religion.christian |