text
stringlengths 1
51k
| label
int64 0
15
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
Could you expand on your definition of knowing? It seems a bit monolithic
here, but I'm not sure that you intend that. Don't we need, for example, to
distinguish between "knowing" 2 plus 2 equals 4 (or 2 apples plus 2 apples
equals 4 apples), the French "knowing" that Jerry Lewis is an auteur, and
what it means to say we "know" what Socrates said?
| 0 | alt.atheism |
A question for you - can you give me the name of an organization or a
philosophy or a political movement, etc., which has never had anything
evil done in its name? You're missing a central teaching of Christianity -
man is inherently sinful. We are saved through faith by grace. Knowing
that, believing that, does not make us without sin. Furthermore, not all
who consider themselves "christians" are (even those who manage to head
their own "churches"). "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will
enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who
is in heaven." - Matt. 7:21.
Again, what historical documents do you trust? Do you think Hannibal
crossed the Alps? How do you know? How do you know for sure? What
historical documents have stood the scrutiny and the attempts to dis-
credit it as well as the Bible has?
Well, it's really a shame you feel this way. No one can browbeat you
into believing, and those who try will probably only succeed in driving
you further away. You need to ask yourself some difficult questions:
1) is there an afterlife, and if so, does man require salvation to attain
it. If the answer is yes, the next question is 2) how does man attain this
salvation - can he do it on his own as the eastern religions and certain
modern offshoots like the "new age movement" teach or does he require God's
help? 3) If the latter, in what form does - indeed, in what form can such
help come? Needless to say, this discussion could take a lifetime, and for
some people it did comprise their life's writings, so I am hardly in a
position to offer the answers here - merely pointers to what to ask. Few,
of us manage to have an unshaken faith our entire lives (certainly not me).
The spritual life is a difficult journey (if you've never read "A Pilgrim's
Progress," I highly recommend this greatest allegory of the english language).
Now I see by your close that one possible source of trouble for you may be a
conflict between your politcal beliefs and your religious upbringing. You
wrote that "I (in my own faith) accept and live my life by many if not most
of the teachings of christ". Well, Christ referred to God as "My Father",
not "My Mother", and while the "maleness" of God is not the same as the
maleness of those of us humans who possess a Y chromosome, it does not
honor God to refer to Him as female purely to be trendy, non-discriminatory,
or politically correct. This in no way disparages women (nor is it my intent
to do so by my use of the male pronoun to refer to both men and women -
english just does not have a decent neuter set of pronouns). After all, God
chose a woman as his only human partner in bringing Christ into the human
population.
Well, I'm not about to launch into a detailed discussion of
the role of women in Christianity at 1am with only 6 hours of sleep in the
last 63, and for that reason I also apologize for any shortcomings in this
article. I just happened across yours and felt moved to reply. I hope I
may have given you, and anyone else who finds himself in a similar frame of
mind, something to contemplate. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
(Well, I'll email also, but this may apply to other people, so
I'll post also.)
Your boss should be the person bring these problems to. If he/she
does not seem to take any action, keep going up higher and higher.
Sexual harrassment does not need to be tolerated, and it can be an
enormous emotional support to discuss this with someone and know that
they are trying to do something about it. If you feel you can not
discuss this with your boss, perhaps your company has a personnel
department that can work for you while preserving your privacy. Most
companies will want to deal with this problem because constant anxiety
does seriously affect how effectively employees do their jobs.
It is unclear from your letter if you have done this or not. It is
not inconceivable that management remains ignorant of employee
problems/strife even after eight years (it's a miracle if they do
notice). Perhaps your manager did not bring to the attention of
higher ups? If the company indeed does seem to want to ignore the
entire problem, there may be a state agency willing to fight with
you. (check with a lawyer, a women's resource center, etc to find out)
You may also want to discuss this with your paster, priest, husband,
etc. That is, someone you know will not be judgemental and that is
supportive, comforting, etc. This will bring a lot of healing.
This happens to a lot of people. Honest. I believe it may seem
to be due to gross insensitivity because of the feelings you are
going through. People in offices tend to be more insensitive while
working than they normally are (maybe it's the hustle or stress or...)
I've had this happen to me a lot, often because they didn't realize
my car was broken, etc. Then they will come back and wonder why I
didn't want to go (this would tend to make me stop being angry at
being ignored and make me laugh). Once, we went off without our
boss, who was paying for the lunch :-)
Well, if you can't turn to the computer for support, what would
we do? (signs of the computer age :-)
In closing, please don't let the hateful actions of a single person
harm you. They are doing it because they are still the playground
bully and enjoy seeing the hurt they cause. And you should not
accept the opinions of an imbecile that you are worthless - much
wiser people hold you in great esteem. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Pardon me? *I* am trying to apply human terms to non-humans?
I think there must be some confusion here. I'm the guy who is
saying that if animal behaviour is instinctive then it does *not*
have any moral sugnificance. How does refusing to apply human
terms to animals get turned into applying human terms?
I'm sure you do think this, if you say so. How about trying to
convince me?
I've offered, four times, I think, to accept your definition if
you allow me to ascribe moral significence to the orbital motion
of the planets.
Ah, the law of "silly" and "less silly". what Mr Livesey finds
intuitive is "silly" but what Mr Schneider finds intuitive is "less
silly".
Now that's a devastating argument, isn't it. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Cool quote.
Better watch it. The theists will jump on you for that... :-)
Nanci | 0 | alt.atheism |
John,
While I will not take the time to rebut you point by point, I will suggest
three current works which I think will be helpful in your quest to answer
this question. John Dominic Crossan (Professor of Religion at De Paul Univ)-
_The Cross That Spoke_ Harper and Row Pub. 1988, Also his latest work
_The Historical Jesus - The Life of A Mediterranean Jewish Peasant_ Harper
and Row Pub. 1991, Also two works of Burton Mack (Professor of New Testament
at the Claremont Graduate School) _A Myth of Innocence_ Fortress Press 1988,
And his latest book _The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins_
Harper and Row, 1992. You might start with Mack's book on Q and then
examine the others afterward. However I think that once you do that you will
see that your "evidence" is not as sturdy as you'd like. Most of the tired
arguements you stated, assume eyewitness accounts, such is not the case. But
Anyway look at Mack and Crossan and then get back to us. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
This is a good point, but I think "average" people do not take up Christianity
so much out of fear or escapism, but, quite simply, as a way to improve their
social life, or to get more involved with American culture, if they are kids of
immigrants for example. Since it is the overwhelming major religion in the
Western World (in some form or other), it is simply the choice people take if
they are bored and want to do something new with their lives, but not somethong
TOO new, or TOO out of the ordinary. Seems a little weak, but as long as it
doesn't hurt anybody...
These are good quotes, and I agree with both of them, but let's make sure to
alter the scond one so that includes something like "...let him be, as long as
he is not preventing others from finding their peace." or something like that.
(Of course, I suppose, if someone were REALLY "at peace", there would be no
need for inflicting evangelism)
Well, it is a sure thing we will have to live with them all our lives. Their
popularity seems to come and go. I remember when I first entered High School,
I was an atheist (always had been) and so were about 7 of my friends. At this
time, 5 of those 7 have converted, always to Christianity (they were all also
immigrants from Taiwan, or sons of immigrants, hence my earlier gross
generalization). Christianity seems a lot more popular to people now than it
ever has before (since I've been noticing). Maybe it is just my perceptions
that are chagning. Who knows?
I for one am perfectly willing to live and let live with them, so long as we
have some set of abstract rights/agreements on how we should treat each other:
I have no desire to be hurt by them or their notions. For all the well-put
arguments on this usenet, it never does any good. Argumentation does not
really seem to apply to Christians (or even some atheists)- it must simply be a
step the person takes naturally, almost, "instinctively"...
best regards,
********************************************************************************
* Adam John Cooper "Verily, often have I laughed at the weaklings *
* who thought themselves good simply because *
* [email protected] they had no claws." *
******************************************************************************** | 0 | alt.atheism |
In many places, Christians were sucessful in their attempts
to get the films banned, or at least given a very restrictive
showing.
I have no problem with Christians burning their own pieces of
art (though I find it a tragic waste). I do however have a
problem with their attempts to censor what I may or may not
view.
P. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
> I realize I'm entering this discussion rather late, but I do
> have one question. Wasn't it a Reagan appointee, James Watt, a
> pentacostal christian (I think) who was the secretary of the
> interior who saw no problem with deforestation since we were
> "living in the last days" and ours would be the last generation
> to see the redwoods anyway?
For the Record:
On February 5, 1981, at a House of Representatives
Interior Committee Meeting, Rep. James Weaver (D, Ore), asked Watt
whether "you agree that we should save some of our scenic resources
for our children, not just gobble them up all at once?" Watt's
answer was:
< Absolutely. That is the delicate balance the Secretary of the
< Interior must have -- to be steward for the natural resources
< for this generation as well as future generations. I do not
< know how many future generations we can count on before the
< Lord returns. Whatever it is, we have to manage with a skill
< to have the resources needed for future generations.
My source is a column by Rowland Evans and Robert Novak on the
op-ed page of the WASHINGTON POST for Friday 21 August 1981. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
: }Xenophobia, both *de facto* and *de jure* as implemented
: }in legal systems, is widespread, while the Bible,
: }although not 100% egalitarian, specifically preaches
: }kindness to the stranger, and emphasizes in the Book
: }of Ruth, that a foreigner can join the nation and
: }give rise to one of the great heroes of the nation.
:
: Clearly better than the alternative, but as an American what strikes
: me as strange about this story is that it should have even been
: considered an issue.
Jim,
There are a couple of things about your post and others in this thread
that are a little confusing. An atheist is one for whom all things can
be understood as processes of nature - exclusively. There is no need
for any recourse to Divnity to describe or explain anything. There is
no purpose or direction for any event beyond those required by
physics, chemistry, biology, etc.; everything is random, nothing is
determnined.
This would also have to include human intelligence of course and all
its products. There is nothing requiring that life evolve or that it
acquire intelligence, it's just a happy accident. For an atheist, no
event can be preferred to another or be said to have more or less
value than another in any naturalistic sense, and no thought -about-
an event can have value.
The products of our intelligence are acquired from our environment,
from teaching, training, observation and experience and are only
significant to the individual mind wherein they reside. These mental
processes and the images they produce for us are just electrical
activity and nothing more; content is of no consequence. The human
mind is as much a response to natural forces as water running down a
hill.
How then can an atheist judge value? What is the basis for criticizing
the values ennumerated in the Bible or the purposes imputed to God? On
what grounds can the the behavior of the reliogious be condemned? It
seems that, in judging the values that motivate others to action, you
have to have some standard against which conduct is measured, but what
in nature can serve that purpose? What law of nature can you invoke to
establish your values.
Since every event is entirely and exclusively a physical event, what
difference could it possibly make what -anyone- does, religious or
otherwise, there can be no -meaning- or gradation of value. The only
way an atheist can object to -any- behaviour is to admit that the
objection is entirely subjective and that he(she) just doesn't like it
- that's it. Any value judgement must be prefaced by the disclaimer
that it is nothing more than a matter of personal opinion and carries
no weight in any "absolute" sense.
That you don't like what God told people to do says nothing about God
or God's commands, it says only that there was an electrical event in your
nervous system that created an emotional state that your mind coupled
with a pre-existing thought-set to form that reaction. That your
objections -seem- well founded is due to the way you've been
conditioned; there is no "truth" content. The whole of your
intellectual landscape is an illusion, a virtual reality.
I didn't make these rules, it's inherent in naturalistic atheism and
to be consistent, you have to accept the non-significance of any human
thought, even your own. All of this being so, you have excluded
yourself from any discussion of values, right, wrong, goood, evil,
etc. and cannot participate. Your opinion about the Bible can have no
weight whatsoever. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Well, it's obvious that you *don't* attempt, otherwise you would be aware
that they *don't* all "loudly [claim] to be the One True Christian".
I've tried to avoid using the phrase "is/is not christian" because of these
ownership issues; instead, I've tried the phrase "Nicene christianity" in an
attempt to identify the vast majority of "christianity" which has roughly
similar viewpoints on the core theological issues. The JWs do not fall
within this group and in fact espouse a position known as Arianism, which is
rejected by all the nicene churches and virtually everyone else as well. | 0 | alt.atheism |
The first premise and the conclusion are not properly translated as identity
statements, since the "is" in those statements is the "is" of predication
rather than of identity. Instead, they should be translated using a
predicate letter. Using "g" to designate God and "j" to designate Jesus,
and the predicate letter "E" for the property of being eternal, the
first premise is Eg and the conclusion is Ej.
The second premise appears to contain an "is" of identity, in which
case it can be properly symbolized as j = g. But your remark that "Jesus
is a subset of God" suggests that strict identity is not desired here.
If, however, the first premise means that all members making up the set
God have the property of being eternal, the same conclusion follows. | 0 | alt.atheism |
So the only way you can tell a false hadith from a true one is
if it contradicts the Quran? What if it relates to something
that isn't explicitly spelled out in the Quran?
Also, the Quran wasn't written down during the life of Muhammed
either. It wasn't long after, but 20 years or so is still long
enough to shift a few verses around.
Karl
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 0 | alt.atheism |
[ ACT 5:40 - 41 ]
...
...
The basic problem with your argument is your total and complete reliance on
the biblical text. Luke's account is highly suspect (I would refer you to
the hermeneia commentary on Acts). Moreover Luke's account is written at
least 90 years after the fact. In the meantime everyone he mentions has died
and attempts to find actual written sources behind the text have come up
with only the we section of the later portion of acts as firmly established.
Moreover, Pauls account of some of the events in Acts (as recorded in
Galatians) fail to establish the acts accounts.
What we need, therefore, is a reliable text, critically appreciated, which
documents the death of Christians for belief in the Resurrection. I would
suggest you look at some greek and roman historians. I think you will be
disapointed. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I beg to disagree with the assertion that science is a collection of models.
Scientific models are a game to play, and are only as good as the
assumptions and measurements (if any) that go into them.
As an example, I remember when nuclear winter was the big hype in
atmospheric science. It wasn't long after Sagan's admonitions that
one of our boys was adding another level of reality into his model of
the nuclear winter scenario at ERL in Boulder. He decided to assume
that the atmosphere is more like a two-dimensional thing, than a one-
dimensional thing. He also assumed that it rained and that the winds
blow in the real atmosphere. On returning to Georgia Tech, he showed
a transparency of atmospheric cooling rates according to the year they
were generated by the models. There was an unmistakable correlation
between the age (meaning simplicity of assumptions; i.e., remoteness
from reality) of each model and the degree of cooling. Whereas Sagan's
model showed an approximate 40-degree cooling episode, the next model
in sophistication showed about half that, and so on until we got to
our boy's model, which showed a 1-2 degree drop if the war happened in
the winter and less than a 10 degree drop if it happened in the summer.
He predicted that when we would include the presence of oceans, chemistry,
the biosphere, and other indicators of reality in the models, we would
probably see even less cooling. Thus nuclear winter was reduced to even
less than a nuclear autumn, one might say, to a nuclear fizzle.
To quote from H.S. Yoder,
The postulated models have become accepted as the reality
instead of the lattice of assumptions they are.
Authoritarianism dominates the field, and a very critical
analysis of each argument is to be encouraged.... Skepticism
of the model approach to earth problems is warranted because
many key parameters have not been included.
This statement surely applies equally well to cosmogony. Only when
convincing observational evidence substantiates the modeled results
may one suggest that the model may describe the reality. Just thought
I'd clear that up before things really got out of hand.
--
boundary | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above
yourselves. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
On the one hand there are advantages to having the liturgy stay the
same. John has described some of these. On the other hand, some people
seem to start tuning out `the same old words' and pay attention better
when things get changed around. I think innovative priests and liturgy
committees are trying to get our attention and make things more
meaningful for us. It drives me crazy too.
Different people have differing preferences and needs in liturgy. My
local parish is innovative. I prefer to go to Mass at the next parish
over. Sometimes we don't have the option of attending a Mass in the
style which best suits us. John put a smiley on it but to "just offer
it up" probably is the solution.
A related issue, that it sounds like John does not have to deal with, is
that spouses may have different liturgical tastes. My husband does like
innovative litury. It is a challenge to meet both of our spiritual
needs without just going our separate ways. When you include the factor
of also trying to satisfy our children's needs, things get pretty
complicated.
One thing to remember is that even the most uncongenial Mass is still
Mass. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I find this argument very strange, though not unfamiliar.
An analogy someone used a while back can perhaps illustrate it.
Say, for example, there are people living on a volcanic island, and a group
of geologists determine that a volcano is imminent. They warn the people on
the island that they are in danger, and should leave. A group of people on
the island is given the task of warning others of the danger.
They believe the danger is real, but others may not.
Does that mean that the first group are NECESSARILY arrogant in warning
others of the danger? Does it mean that they are saying that their beliefs
are correct, and all others are false?
Some might indeed react to opposition with arrogance, and behave in an
arrogant manner, but that is a personal idiocyncracy. It does not
necessarily mean that they are all arrogant.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Ah and how...??? Amen to that one!!!!!! Thanks Chuck for sharing...
after all, no one can serve two masters...God and money......
after all, the preciousness of God as Lord and Savior is far more valuable than
being a millionaire will ever be...
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Bobby:
Get this the hell out of your .sig until you 1) learn what it
stands for and 2) really mean it.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine [email protected]
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Pardon me if this is the wrong newsgroup. I would describe myself as
an agnostic, in so far as I'm sure there is no single, universal
supreme being, but if there is one and it is just, we will surely be
judged on whether we lived good lives, striving to achieve that
goodness that is within the power of each of us. Now, the
complication is that one of my best friends has become very
fundamentalist. That would normally be a non-issue with me, but he
feels it is his responsibility to proselytize me (which I guess it is,
according to his faith). This is a great strain to our friendship. I
would have no problem if the subject didn't come up, but when it does,
the discussion quickly begins to offend both of us: he is offended
because I call into question his bedrock beliefs; I am offended by
what I feel is a subscription to superstition, rationalized by such
circular arguments as 'the Bible is God's word because He tells us in
the Bible that it is so.' So my question is, how can I convince him
that this is a subject better left undiscussed, so we can preserve
what is (in all areas other than religious beliefs) a great
friendship? How do I convince him that I am 'beyond saving' so he
won't try? Thanks for any advice.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
YOU BLASHEPHEMERS!!! YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL FOR NOT BELIEVING IN GOD!!!! BE
PREPARED FOR YOUR ETERNAL DAMNATION!!!
| 0 | alt.atheism |
#In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Frank O'Dwyer)
#
#>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Mike
#
#Am I making a wrong assumption for the basis of morals? Where do they come
#from? The question came from the idea that I heard that morals come from
#whatever is societally mandated.
It's only one aspect of morality. Societal morality is necessarily
very crude and broad-brush stuff which attempts to deal with what
is necessary to keep that society going - and often it's a little
over-enthusiastic about doing so. Individual morality is a different
thing, it often includes societal mores (or society is in trouble),
but is stronger. For example, some people are vegetarian, though eating
meat may be perfectly legal.
#
#>#Merely a question for the basis of morality
#>#
#>#Moral/Ethical behavior = _Societally_ _acceptable_ _behavior_.
#>#
#>#1)Who is society
#
#>Depends on the society.
#
#Doesn't help. Is the point irrelevant?
No. Often the answer is "we are". But if society is those who make
the rules, that's a different question. If society is who should
make the rules, that's yet another. I don't claim to have the answers, either,
but I don't think we do it very well in Ireland, and I like some things
about the US system, at least in principle.
#
#>#2)How do "they" define what is acceptable?
#
#>Depends.
#On.... Again, this comes from a certain question (see above).
Well, ideally they don't, but if they must they should do it by consensus, IMO.
#
#>#3)How do we keep from a "whatever is legal is what is "moral" "position?
#
#>By adopting a default position that people's moral decisions
#>are none of society's business,
#
#So how can we put people in jail? How can we condemn other societies?
Because sometimes that's necessary. The hard trick is to recognise when
it is, and equally importantly, when it isn't.
# and only interfering when it's truly
#>necessary.
#
#Why would it be necessary? What right do we have to interfere?
IMO, it isn't often that interference (i.e. jail, and force of various
kinds and degrees) is both necessary and effective. Where you derive
the right to interfere is a difficult question - it's a sort of
liar's paradox: "force is necessary for freedom". One possible justification
is that people who wish to take away freedom shouldn't object if
their own freedom is taken away - the paradox doesn't arise if
we don't actively wish to take way anyone's freedom.
#
# The introduction of permissible interference causes the problem
#>that it can be either too much or too little - but most people seem
#>to agree that some level of interference is necessary.
#
#They see the need for a "justice" system. How can we even define that term?
Only by consensus, I guess.
# Thus you
#>get a situation where "The law often allows what honour forbids", which I've
#>come to believe is as it should be.
#
#I admit I don't understand that statement.
What I mean is that, while thus-and-such may be legal, thus-and-such may
also be seen as immoral. The law lets you do it, but you don't let yourself
do it. Eating meat, for example. | 0 | alt.atheism |
A "new Christian" wrote that he was new to the faith and
learning about it "by reading the Bible, of course". I am not
at all sure this is the best path to follow.
While the Bible is, for Christians, the word of God, the
revelation of God is Jesus Christ and the chief legacy of this
revalation is the Church. I am not recommending any one
denommination, but I do recommend finding a comfortable christian
congregation in which to develop your faith, rather than just
reading the Bible.
This does not mean that the Bible should not be read, although
I would stick to the Gospels, epistles, and Psalms and avoid the
Book of Revelation altogether [until you are with friends you are
comfortable with]. I am sure that mistakenly fervent projects to
read the entire Bible have frequently bogged down with a remarkable
lack of fervour somewhere in the middle of Leviticus, or for the really
sturdy, somewhere in Chronicles.
The point is that the Bible is their to illustrate the Faith
of Christians, but does not provide the totality of that faith. Vital
beliefs of virtually all Christians are simply not mentioned -
the Trinity, the duality of natures in Christ, types of Church
organization. All these beliefs and practices have developed from the
lived experience of the Christian people, an experience lived one
hopes in the Spirit. As such the Bible, I think, is better studies
in the context of a congregation, and the context of other reading.
Following up on a suggestion of an old confessor of mine, I
would even suggest that a good novel is a good way to reflect on the
christian life. [Most novels of any profundity are actually discussing
the nature of good and evil in the human heart]. My own induction into
the christian faith was brought about [after grace] through reading
Graham Greene: _The Power and the Glory_ and the poetry of Gerard
Manley Hopkins. I would also recommend Graham Greene's _Monsignor
Quixote_ and any novel by Iris Murdoch. The last is not even a Christian,
but such is her insistence on the need for the good life, that, frankly,
I often am more uplifted and God directed after reading her than after
reading many parts of the Bible. And that after all is what being
a Christian is all about: letting your soul and your life be, in
some way, directed towards the infinite, represented to us by
the person of Jesus Christ. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
John,
The problem here is that you have taken one peice of my response, without
bothering to connect it with the other parts. I have repeatedly noted that
one needs to take the problematic historcity of acts and then examine the
work of John Dominic Crossan and Burton Mack. Once you have taken the time
to examine recent developments in biblical scholarship, I think you will
grasp more clearly what I am saying.
Certainly this is an issue as I think the situation in Waco shows most
clearly. If all that is required is that people are willing to die for a
belief for it to be true, then surely David Koresh is the son of God. No,
the spurrious arguement that the resurrection had to be true for people to be
willing to die must be put to rest. The other problem is that it is so
monologocentric. Even if the resurrection was a big deal (which it doesn't
seem to have been for either Q, Thomas, or even John to a certain degree)
there are a lot of other things which the Early Christians could have been
doing together that would have been worth dying for. It is my belief that
even the idea of a mixed race community, which brought down regional/national
boundaries in the name of koinonia could have been enough for people to be
willing to die. Radical communties do that (e.g. Jonestown, Waco, Warsaw, etc)
But my original point was that roman persecution (which is the only persecution
we have documented proof of) was not about whether a carpenter came back from
the dead. Such a claim was not unique nor particularly abhorent to the roman
or greek mind. My point is that avoidance of military and civic duty (i.e.
emperor worship) would have been much more problematic -- which has nothing
to do with the resurrection at all. When nero used christians as human
torches to light up his dinner party it wasn't because the believe in a
risen savior, it was because they were supposedly involved in incest and
cannablism. The argument that christians were martyred for the resurrection
just cannot stand up to critical examination. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Most likely the tragic situation in Bosnia is a combination of ethnical
and religious motives, where religion is just one attribute that separates
the groups from each other.
But I must agree that the sad saga in Bosnia is a terrible example
of a case where religion is not helping, instead it is used as a weapon
against other humans. And my sympathies are mostly on the Bosnian side,
it looks like the Serbs are the oppressors, willing to use even
Christianity as a weapon against their former friends.
Cheers,
Kent | 0 | alt.atheism |
And doubtless, when an atheist does an act of charity
they temporarily become a Baptist. | 0 | alt.atheism |
You write as if no-one ever became a Christian except people from
Christian families. This is not true, as quite a few people on this
group can attest (including me).
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Didn't Paul write that if the Resurrection is not true, we are the
biggest fools of all? However, whether you believe in Christ or not,
His teachings (e.g. love your brotherman as yourself), even if only
followed at a secular level, could do a great deal to alleviate some of
the problems we see today in the world. Even when I was a rabid atheist
I couldn't deny that. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Can a theist be truly objective? Can he be impartial
when questioning the truth of his scriptures, or
will he assume the superstition of his parents
when questioning?
I've often found it to be the case that the theist
will stick to some kind of superstition when
wondering about God and his scriptures. I've
seen it in the Christian, the Jew, the Muslim,
and the other theists alike. All assume that
their mothers and fathers were right in the
aspect that a god exists, and with that belief
search for their god.
Occasionally, the theist may switch religions or
aspects of the same religion, but overall the
majority keep to the belief that some "Creator"
was behind the universe's existence. I've
known Muslims who were once Christians and vice
versa, I've known Christians who were once
Jewish and vice versa, and I've even known
Christians who become Hindu. Yet, throughout
their transition from one faith to another,
they've kept this belief in some form of higher
"being." Why?
It usually all has to do with how the child is
brought up. From the time he is born, the
theist is brought up with the notion of the
"truth" of some kind of scripture-- the Bible,
the Torah, the Qur'an, & etc. He is told
of this wondrous God who wrote (or inspired)
the scripture, of the prophets talked about in
the scripture, of the miracles performed, & etc.
He is also told that to question this (as
children are apt to do) is a sin, a crime
against God, and to lose belief in the scrip-
ture's truth is to damn one's soul to Hell.
Thus, by the time he is able to read the
scripture for himself, the belief in its "truth"
is so ingrained in his mind it all seems a
matter of course.
But it doesn't stop there. Once the child is able
to read for himself, there is an endeavor to
inculcate the child the "right" readings of
scripture, to concentrate more on the pleasant
readings, to gloss over the worse ones, and to
explain away the unexplainable with "mystery."
Circular arguments, "self-evdent" facts and
"truths," unreasoning belief, and fear of
hell is the meat of religion the child must eat
of every day. To doubt, of course, means wrath
of some sort, and the child must learn to put
away his brain when the matter concerns God.
All of this has some considerable effect on the
child, so that when he becomes an adult, the
superstitions he's been taught are nearly
impossible to remove.
All of this leads me to ask whether the theist can
truly be objective when questioning God, Hell,
Heaven, the angels, souls, and all of the rest.
Can he, for a moment, put aside this notion that
God *does* exist and look at everything from
a unbiased point of view? Obviously, most
theists can somewhat, especially when presented
with "mythical gods" (Homeric, Roman, Egyptian,
& etc.). But can they put aside the assumption
of God's existence and question it impartially?
Stephen
_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ * Atheist
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ * Libertarian
_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ * Pro-individuality
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ * Pro-responsibility
_/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Jr. * and all that jazz...
-- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I apologize to the moderator, but the first quote was deleted and I
would like to respond to both.
As for the "goal we can never achieve", the reward comes from the
trying. Paul makes a clear claim that we are to continue straining for
the prize over in Philippians 3:10-16. Only by not living out the
commands do we stagnate and become lukewarm, to be spit out by Jesus.
As it says in 1 John 5:3: "This is love for God: to obey his comands."
That obedience is our straining to achieve for God. Of course, this
requires work on our part.
As for the quote in James, Satan doesn't care what we believe. What
matters is the results of our belief (works). If one truly has faith in
what one believes, one will either act on that faith or be lying to
oneself about believing in the first place.
Stan, as for your first line, you have a very good point. Obedience by
obligation (grudgery) is not what God desires. Instead, look at how
many times the Bible talks about being joyous in all situations and when
doing God's work. Being begrudged by the work has no value. Also, we
should do the work necessary whenever we can, not just when we feel
Jesus' presence. Feelings can deceive us. However, as Paul states to
Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:2: "Preach the Word; be prepared in season and
out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and
careful instruction." Also, remember that Paul tells Timothy in 1
Timothy 4:16: "Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in
them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers."
So, in order to do the work necessary, we need to be sure that we are
correct first. Remember Jesus' warning in Matthew 7:3-5 not to be
hypocritical about what we do. The best way to accomplish this is to be
a disciple completely in both thought and deed. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Eric
Huh? Please explain. Is there a problem because I based my morality on
something that COULD be wrong? Gosh, there's a heck of a lot of stuff that I
believe that COULD be wrong, and that comes from sources that COULD be wrong.
What do you base your belief on atheism on? Your knowledge and reasoning?
COuldn't that be wrong?
MAC
--
****************************************************************
Michael A. Cobb
"...and I won't raise taxes on the middle University of Illinois
class to pay for my programs." Champaign-Urbana
-Bill Clinton 3rd Debate [email protected] | 0 | alt.atheism |
Again I find myself wanting to respond to a posting and having neither
the time nor the proper materials with me (you would think I would learn my
lesson by now--but I'm trying to finish writing my Thesis and don't have tons
of time. Anyway...)
The basis for our (the catholic church's) belief in the assumption of
Mary, body and soul, into heaven is that, to put it simply, the apostles
and all the early generation Christians believed it. In fact, throughout their
ministry the apostles kept in close contact with Mary, and 11 of the 12 were
present when she died. Only Thomas was missing--when he arrived several days
later, he asked to be shown her body, and moved with pity, Peter and several of
the other apostles brought him to her tomb. When they arrived the seal was
still unbroken. They broke the seal, entered, and the body was missing. There
was no sign that anyone had entered, forcibly or otherwise, and everything else
was laid out exactly as it had been left. The apostles present all believed
that Mary was assumed into heaven--and the apostles TAUGHT this in their
preaching (of course, this does not appear in any of the texts currently
considered part of the bible, but it does appear in other writings left behind
by several of them.) Basicaly, as an apostolic church (ie. founded by the
apostles), we believe that the teachings of the apostles, whether written down
in the bible or written down in other sources, is true, providing that the
authenticity of those other sources can be confirmed. At least in the case of
the assumption of Mary, the authenticity is quite clear. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Why are only those people in favor of the system to blame. If society
accepts such a system, then each member of society is to blame when
an innocent person gets executed. Those that are not in favor should
work to convince others.
And, most members of our society have accepted the blame--they've considered
the risk to be acceptable. Similarly, every person who drives must accept
the blame for fatal traffic accidents. This is something that is surely
going to happen when so many people are driving. It is all a question of
what risk is acceptable. It is much more likely that an innocent person
will be killed driving than it is that one will be executed. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Don't listen to this guy, he's just a crank. At first, this business
about being the "one true god" was tolerated by the rest of us,
but now it has gotten completely out of hand.
Besides, it really isn't so bad when people stop believing in you.
It's much more relaxing when mortals aren't always begging you for favors. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Are the Serbs doing the work of God? Hmm...
I've been wondering if anyone would ever ask the question,
Are the governments of the United States and Europe not moving
to end the ethnic cleansing by the Serbs because the targets are
muslims?
Can/Does God use those who are not following him to accomplish
tasks for him? Esp those tasks that are punative? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
As I was created in the image of Gaea, therefore I must
be the pinnacle of creation, She which Creates, She which
Births, She which Continues.
Or, to cut all the religious crap, I'm a woman, thanks.
And it's sexism that started me on the road to atheism.
--
Maddi Hausmann [email protected]
Centigram Communications Corp San Jose California 408/428-3553 | 0 | alt.atheism |
Hey! Glad to have some serious and constructive contributors in this
newsgroup. I agree 100% on the statement above, you might argue with
Bobby for eons, and he still does not get it, so the best thing is
to spare your mental resources to discuss more interesting issues.
Cheers,
Kent | 0 | alt.atheism |
This subject seems to be incredibly inflammatory. Those who subscribe to
_Biblical Archaeology Review_ will remember a spectacular letter battle set off when someone
complained about a Franklin Mint ad. (_BAR_ is a great magazine, but the
contrast between the rather scholarly articles and the incredibly sleazy ads
is extreme.) In this ad, they were hawking a doll with a head based on the
famous bust of Nefertiti, giving the face a typical doll-pink complexion.
The letter complained about this as a misrepresentation on the grounds that
Nefertiti was "a beautiful black queen." This set off an exchange of
hotheaded letters than ran for several issues, to the point where they had
an article from an Egyptologist titled "Was Cleopatra Black?" (The answer
to the title is "no"-- she was greek.)
I have to say that I hear a hysterical note in much of the complaining. I
personally have seen only one blond-haired Jesus (in the National Shrine in
Wash. DC), and I found it very jarring. Western representations vary
enourmously, but in general the image of is of a youngish male with dark
hair and beard, of a sort that can be found (modulo the nose) all up and
down the Mediterranean.
(Also, if what I remember is correct, the "Black Madonna" doesn't represent
a person with negroid features. It is black because of an accident. Joe
Buehler....?)
In the presence of all those marble statues, one is prone to forget that
greeks are rather likely to have black hair. When one crosses the bosporus,
the situation breaks down completely. Are Turks white? How about Persians,
or various groups in the indian subcontinent? Was Gandhi white? How about
the Arabs? Or picture Nassar and Sadat standing side by side. And then
there are the Ethiopians....
Those of a white racist bent are not likely to say that *any* of these
people are "white" (i.e., of the racist's "race"). If I may risk a
potentially inflammatory remark, one undercurrent of this seems to be the
identification of modern jews as members of the oppressor race. Considering
the extreme dicotomy between medieval religion on the one hand and medieval
antisemitism on the other, I don't think that this "Jesus was white" thesis
ever played the roles that some hold it did.
Representations of Jesus as black or korean or whatever are fine. It seems
awfully self-serving to insist that Jesus belongs to one's own racial group. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[Stuff deleted]
Will, there has been a lot of discussion going on about this over in
s.r.c.b-s.
I will make the case here though and try to help you out:
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it
is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
(Ephesians 2:8-9).
Yes, it is by God's grace and our faith that we are saved. We are not
saved by what we do. However,
15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
(John 14:15).
Keeping Christ's commandments is a "work" per se, and a demonstration of
our love for him. Also,
6 He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his
vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.
7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years
I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why
cumbereth it the ground?
8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I
shall dig about it, and dung it:
9 And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it
down.
(Luke 13:6-9).
Again,
16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye
should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that
whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
(John 15:16).
It is clear from these verses that we are called to bring forth fruit.
What is that fruit. Well, Paul speaks of the fruit of the spirit being
love, joy, peace, patience, etc. All of these are things that are manifest
in the actions that we carry out.
If a person claims to believe in Jesus Christ, but does not do the things
Christ commanded, I dare say, that they really don't have any faith.
Asking which is more important, faith or works, is like asking which blade
on a pair of scissors is most important or like asking which leg of your
pants is more important.
Good works should come out of and be a result of our faith. To have faith,
true faith in Christ requires you to do what he commands. The parable
above speaks allegorically of a person who does bear no fruit. Christs
commands are actions, and if we don't do those actions and produce fruit,
then we shall be uprooted just like the tree.
It is a dead and useless faith which has no action behind it. Actions
prove our faith and show the genuineness of it. I can sit and talk for
days about the fact that I have so much faith in my ability to jump off a
building and not hit the ground. In other words, I can sit and tell you
all day long that I have faith in my ability to fly. I really don't have
that faith though unless I am willing to jump off the roof and take the
test. Words and talk mean nothing.
I could go on and give more scriptures and if people want me to I will, but
this should be sufficient.
Hope it helped.
Jon
----------------
sig file broken....
please try later... | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
: Mr Connor's assertion that "more complex" == later in paleontology
: is simply incorrect. Many lineages are known in which whole
: structures are lost -- for example, snakes have lost their legs.
: Cave fish have lost their eyes. Some species have almost completely
: lost their males. Kiwis are descended from birds with functional
: wings.
Joel,
The statements I made were illustrative of the inescapably
anthrpomorphic quality of any desciption of an evolutionary process.
There is no way evolution can be described or explained in terms other
than teleological, that is my whole point. Even those who have reason
to believe they understand evolution (biologists for instance) tend to
personify nature and I can't help but wonder if it's because of the
limits of the language or the nature of nature. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Who has to consider it? The being that does the action? I'm still
not sure I know what you are trying to say. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Quoth the Moderator:
In a short poem ("God in His mercy made / the fixed pains of Hell"),
C. S. Lewis expresses an idea that I'm sure was current among others,
but I haven't be able to find its source:
that even Hell is an expression of mercy, because God limits the amount
of separation from Him, and hence the amount of agony, that one can
achieve.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[deletions]
[deletions]
As you have presented it, it is indeed an argument from incredulity.
However, from what I have seen, it is not often presented in this manner.
It is usually presented more in the form, "And *besides*, I cannot see...
...nor have I ever been offered a convincing explanation."
Moreover, it is not unreasonable to ask for an explanation for such
phenomena. That theism does not provide a convincing explanation is not
an argument in theism's favor. Especially when different theisms offer
different explanations, and even different adherents of what is purportedly
the same theism give different explanations...
Not im my experience. In my experience, the most common reason is the
lack of evidence in theism's favor. You mileage may vary. :->
Oh, heck, I'll be snide this once. :-> It's also fairly easy to attack
arguments that are not made. (I.e. 'strawmen'.)
Sage advice indeed.
Sincerely,
Raymond Ingles [email protected] | 0 | alt.atheism |
When the Quran uses the word *din* it means way of individual thinking, behaving,
communal order and protocols based on a set of beliefs. This is often
interpreted as the much weaker term religion.
The atheists are not mentioned in the Quran along with Jews,
Mushriqin, Christians, etc. because the latter are all din. To have a
din you need a set of beliefs, assumptions, etc, to forma a social
code. For example the Marxist have those, such as History, Conflict,
etc. That they do not put idols (sometimes they did) to represent
those assuptions does not mean they are any different from the other
Mushriq, or roughly polytheists.
There cannot be social Atheism, because when there is a community,
that community needs common ideas or standard beliefs to coordinate
the society. When they inscribe assumptions, say Nation, or "Progress is
the natural consequence of Human activity" or "parlamentarian
democracy is doubtlessly the best way of government", however
they individually insist they do not have gods, from the Quranic point
of view they do. Therefore by definition, atheism does not exist.
"We are a atheist society" in fact means "we reject the din other than
ours".
Atheism can only exist when people reject all the idols/gods/dogmas/
suppositions/.. of the society that they part, and in that case that
is a personal deviation of belief, and Quran tells about such
deviations and disbelief. But as I mentioned, from a Quranic point of
looking at things, there is no Atheism in the macro level.
I think it took more than one minute. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Any suggestions as to what a better solution might be? I realize the
off-hand nature of the numbers I used. And I can't answer as to what
an acceptable loss rate is. However, as I said in another post, I
despise the idea of supporting criminals for life. It's the economics
of the situation that concern me most. The money spent feeding, clothing,
housing and taking care of people who have demonstrated that they are
unfit to live in society could go to a number of places, all of which
I, and probably others, would consider far more worthwhile and which
would enrish the lives of all Americans. Give people jobs, give the
homeless shelter. Any number of things.
Clyde
| 0 | alt.atheism |
It is funny how this one little quote from Genesis is treated
by certain anti-Christians as if Christians have been given a
firm command to destroy the earth. You could prove almost
anything by taking little quotes out of context from the Bible
- it's a big book, you know. I doubt you could find a single
case of a anti-ecological action taking place specifically
because teh perpetrator was motivated by a Christian belief.
As for the Nazis, they were motivated by German Nationalism,
not by Christianity. In fact they despised Christianity as a
weak pacifist religion, and were much more keen on pagan
glorification of strength and warfare. They killed the Jews
because they were not Germans, not because they were
"Christ-killers" - they were just as keen on killing the other
non-German ethnic minority, the Romanies or Gypsies. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The number of civilian Iraqi deaths were way over-exaggerated and
exploited for anti-war emotionalism by the liberal news media. The
facts are that less Iraqis died in the Gulf War than did civilians
in any other war of comparable size this century! This was due mostly
to the short duration coupled with precise surgical bombing techniques
which were technically possible only recently.
The idea that "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqi citizens died is
ludicrous. Not even "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqi soldiers died,
and they were the ones being targeted! Or do you think that the US
and its allies were specifically out to kill and maim Iraqi civilians?
Either the smart bombs didn't hit their targets (and we know they did),
or they were targeting civilian targets (!) which is hardly condusive to
destroying Iraq's military potential. The military mission planners are
not fools, they know they have to hit *military* targets to win a war.
Hitting civilian targets does nothing but unite the people against you,
not a laudable goal if one wants the people to rise up against their
tyrant-dictator.
How about all the innocent people who died in blanket-bombing in WW2?
I don't hear you bemoaning them! War is never an exact science, but
with smart bombs, it's becoming more exact with a smaller percentage
of civilian casualties. Sometimes mistakes are made; targets are
misidentified; innocents die. That's war the way it really is.
But the alternative, to allow tyrannical dictators to treat the earth
like it's one big rummage sale, grabbing everything they can get is
worse. Like Patrick Henry said some 217 years ago, "I know not what
course others may take -- but as for me, give me liberty, or give me
death!" War is always the price one must be willing to pay if one
wishes to stay free.
Mathew, your sarcasm is noted but you are completely off-base here.
You come off sounding like a complete peace-nik idiot, although I
feel sure that was not your intent.
So the Iraqi war was wrong, eh? I'm sure that appeasement would have
worked better than war, just like it did in WW2, eh? I guess we
shouldn't have fought WW2 either -- just think of all those innocent
German civilians killed in Dresden and Hamburg. How about all the poor
French who died in the crossfire because we invaded the continent? We
should have just let Hitler take over Europe, and you'd be speaking
German instead of English right now.
Tyrants like Hussein *have* to be stopped. His kind don't understand
diplomacy; they only understand the point of a gun. My only regret is
that Bush wimped out and didn't have the military roll into Baghdad, so
now Hussein is still in power and the Iraqi people's sacrifice (not to
mention the 357 Americans who died) was for naught. Liberating Kuwait
was a good thing, but wiping Hussein off the map would've been better!
And as for poor, poor Rodney King! Did you ever stop and think *why*
the jury in the first trial brought back a verdict of "not guilty"?
Those who have been foaming at the mouth for the blood of those
policemen certainly have looked no further than the video tape.
But the jury looked at *all* the evidence, evidence which you and I
have not seen. When one makes a judgment without the benefit of a
trial where evidence can be presented on both sides, one has simply
lowered himself to the level of vigilante justice, a state-of-mind
which your sarcasm above seemingly spoke against, but instead tends
to support in the case against the policemen.
Law in this country is intended to protect the rights of the accused,
whether they be criminals or cops. One is not found guilty if there is
a reasonable doubt of one's guilt, and only the jury is in a position
to assess the evidence and render a verdict. Anyone else is simply
succumbing to verbal vigilantism.
Regards, | 0 | alt.atheism |
There was a recent discussion of Dungeons and Dragons and other role
playing games. Since there is a lot of crossover between gamers and
science fiction and fantasy fans, I will mention that I am the editor
and publisher of RADIO FREE THULCANRA, a Christian-oriented science
fiction fanzine. It is not a Christian magazine with a special
interest in science fiction. It is a science fiction fanzine with a
special interest in Christianity. Gaming is not a major topic of
discussion but it has come up in some letters. (No, there are no
arguments about whether D&D is satanic. People who think it is are
not likely to be reading RFT.) Anyway, I am now working on the April
issue. I will send a sample copy to any reader of
soc.religion.christian who requests it. It is printed on paper, so
requests should include a snail-mail address.
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm Internet: [email protected] | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
That's very interesting. I wonder, are women's reactions
recorded after a frustrating night with a man? Is that
considered to be important? | 0 | alt.atheism |
[stuff deleted for brevity]
Your very starting point is wrong. Christianity is not based on following
a moral standard. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith...
NOT BY WORKS so that no man may boast." (Eph. 2:7-8) You say that
you know the Bible well, and can recognize (do you mean recite?) many
passages from memory. That could very well be so. However, it looks like
there are a few more passages that you should pay attention to. (Titus 3:5
and James 2:10 are among them.)
Obedience to the moral law is imporant. However, it is supposed to be the
result of turning your life over to Christ and becoming a Christian. It is
by no means the starting point.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Welcome. I am the official keeper of the list of nicknames that people
are known by on alt.atheism (didn't know we had such a list, did you).
Your have been awarded the nickname of "Buckminster." So the next time
you post an article, sign with your nickname like so:
Dave "Buckminster" Fuller. Thanks again.
Jim "Humor means never having to say you're sorry" Copeland | 0 | alt.atheism |
No, the argument says John has known Q, ie a codified version of the logia,
and not the original, assuming that there has been one. It has weaknesses,
of course, like that John might have known the original, yet rather referred
to Q in his text, or that the logia were given in a codified version in
the first place.
The argument alone does not allow a firm conclusion, but it fits well into
the dating usually given for the gospels.
Not necessarily, Luke may have trusted the version he knew better than the
version given by Matthew. Improving on Matthew would give a motive, for
instance.
As far as I know, the theory that Luke has known Matthew is based on a
statistical analysis of the texts.
Yep, but it will take another day or so to get the source. I hope your German
is good enough. :-)
I still do not see how copies from 200 allow to change the dating of John.
Yes, but an if gives only possibilities and no evidence. The authencity of
many letters is still discussed. It looks as if conclusions about them are not
drawn because some pet dogmas of the churches would probably fall with them as
well.
Well, rather like some newsletter of a political party reporting from the
big meeting. Not necessarily wrong, but certainly bad.
Yes, but the accuracy of their tradition is another problem. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Let's get back to basics. Canon (from the latin) means a rule. If
we say that a rule is open then its a rule made to be broken.
There is an issue also of measurement against a rule. Thus the words
that are spoken need to be compared against the rule/canon but not
added to the canon.
Is new revelation necessary? Topical, current, personal revelation
I'd say is necessary. New revelation for all people for all times
is not necessary as we have that in Scripture.
You also seem to confuse canon with scripture. Scripture may speak of
itself being open - ie God speaking today. It would speak that it is
closed in the sense that the canon is unchangeable. (Though the concept
of canon is later historically.)
I agree with the problem of confusion. If prophecy is meant to encourage,
exhort or correct then is an overlap with scripture. If prophecy is
meant to bring a `word' of the form "the man you live with is not your
husband" then that is knowledge. Yet the exact words their are scripture.
I would expect the difference to be the motive and means for delivery.
The reading of scripture itself can be a powerful force.
Regards
David | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
It's about time. Why do atheists spend so much time paying attention
to the bible, anyway?
Face it, there are better things to do with your life! I used to
chuckle and snort over the silliness in that book and the absurdity
of people believing in it as truth, etc. Why do we spend so little
time on the Mayan religion, or the Native Americans? Heck, the Native
Americans have signifigantly more interesting myths. Also, what
about the Egyptians.
I think we pay so much attention to Christianity because we accept
it as a _religion_ and not a mythology, which I find more accurate.
I try to be tolerant. It gets very hard when someone places a book
under my nose and tells me it's special. It's not. | 0 | alt.atheism |
: >People who reject God don't want to be wth Him in heaven. We spend our
: >lives choosing to be either for Him or against Him. God does not force
: >Himself on us.
: I must say that I am shocked. My impression has been that Jayne Kulikaskas
: usually writes this much less offensive and ludicrous than this. I am not
: saying that the offensiveness is intentional, but it is clear and it is
: something for Christians to consider.
Jayne stands in pretty good company. C.S. Lewis wrote a whole book
promoting the idea contained in her first sentence quoted above. It is
called "The Final Divorce". Excellent book on the subject of Heaven and
Hell, highly recommended. It's an allegory of souls who are invited, indeed
beseeched to enter Heaven, but reject the offer because being with God in
Heaven means giving up their false pride.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
That's a very weak argument--due the lack (with regard to critical
events) of independent supporting texts.
As for the dating of the oldest extant texts of the NT.... How would
you feel about the US Civil War in a couple of thousand years if the
only extant text was written about *now*? Now adjust for a largely
illiterate population, and one in which every copy of a manuscript is
done by hand....
--Hal
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
It is just as Christ said about his return:
"Some will say, 'He is in the desert.' or some will say, 'He is in the
wilderness.' But do not believe them. For as lightning flashes east to
west so shall the coming of the Son of Man be."
{ My paraphrase - I think the
verse is
somewhere in John }
Jon
----------------
sig file broken....
please try later... | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
...
But what was wrong with it? It won't tempt anyone to any kind of sin, as
far as I can tell. It doesn't belittle anyone. It does not substitute
offensiveness for humor (it's genuinely funny).
We shouldn't assume that _all_ jokes that mention sexuality are "dirty"
merely because so many are.
And we should never mistake prudery for spirituality. It can be the direct
opposite -- a symptom of the _lack_ of a healthy perspective on God's
creation.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[email protected] (Dave Mielke) writes,
I am extremely uncomfortable with this way of phrasing it. God's love
is unconditional, unqualified, unfathomable. We are capable of
rejecting God's love but He never fails to love us.
These verses do not show that God's love is qualified but rather that He
is opposed to evil.
I am uncomfortable with the tract in general because there seems to be
an innappropriate emphasis on Hell. God deserves our love and worship
because of who He is. I do not like the idea of frightening people into
accepting Christ.
I see evangelism as combining a way of living that shows God's love with
putting into words and explaining that love. Preaching the Gospel
without living the Gospel is no better than being a noisy gong or a
clanging cymbal.
Here's a question: How many of you are Christians because you are
afraid of going to Hell? How many are responding to God's love? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Sorry, you're right. I did not clearly state it.
The most common form of condescending is the rational versus irrational
attitude. Once one has accepted the _assumption_ that there is no god(s),
and then consider other faiths to be irrational simply because their
assumption(s) contradict your assumption, then I would say there's a
lack of consistency here.
Now I know you'll get on me about faith. If the _positive_ belief that God
does not exist were a closed, logical argument, why do so many rational
people have problems with that "logic"?
But you, probably like me, seem to be a soft atheist. Sorry for the flamage.
;) What is the CLIPPER project BTW?
It might have appeared to attack atheism in general, but its point was
that mass killing happens for all sorts of reasons. People will hate who
they will and will wave whatever flag to justify it, be it cross or
hammer&sickle. The Stalin example _is_ important not only because it's
still a widely unappreciated era that people want to forget but also
because people really did love him and his ideas, even after all that he
had wrought.
First, all the pink crows/unicorns/elves arguments in the world will not
sway most people, for they simply do not accept the analogy. Why?
One of the big reasons is that many, many people want something
beyond this life. You can pretend that they don't want this, but I for
one can accept it and even want it myself sometimes.
And there is nothing unique in this example of why people want a God.
Can love as a truth be proven, logically?
John the Baptist boasted of Jesus to many people. I find it hard to see
how that behavior is arrogant at all. Many Christians I know also boast
in this way, but I still do not necessarily see it as arrogance. Of course,
I do know arrogant Christians, doctors, and teachers as well. Technically,
you might consider the person who originally made a given claim to be arrogant,
Jesus, for instance.
I speak against strong atheism. I also often find that the evidence
supporting a faith is very subjective, just as, say, the evidence supporting
love as truth is subjective.
No apology necessary. :)
--
Bake Timmons, III | 0 | alt.atheism |
How do you know it's based on ignorance, couldn't that be wrong? Why would it
be wrong
to fall into the trap that you mentioned?
Also, if I may, what the heck where we talking about and why didn't I keep
some comments on there to see what the line of thoughts were?
MAC
--
****************************************************************
Michael A. Cobb
"...and I won't raise taxes on the middle University of Illinois
class to pay for my programs." Champaign-Urbana
-Bill Clinton 3rd Debate [email protected] | 0 | alt.atheism |
What loyalty!
Jim, it seems you've been reading a little too much Russell Hoban
lately. As Hemingway said, my imitators always imitate the _bad_
aspects of my writing. Hoban would, no doubt, say the same here.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Ah, now here is the core question. Let me suggest a scenario.
We will grant that a God exists, and uses revelation to communicate
with humans. (Said revelation taking the form (paraphrased from your
own words) 'This infinitely powerful deity grabs some poor schmuck,
makes him take dictation, and then hides away for a few hundred years'.)
Now, there exists a human who has not personally experienced a
revelation. This person observes that not only do these revelations seem
to contain elements that contradict rather strongly aspects of the
observed world (which is all this person has ever seen), but there are
many mutually contradictory claims of revelation.
Now, based on this, can this person be blamed for concluding, absent
a personal revelation of their own, that there is almost certainly
nothing to this 'revelation' thing?
Absent this better language, and absent observations in support of the
claims of revelation, can one be blamed for doubting the whole thing?
Here is what I am driving at: I have thought a long time about this. I
have come to the honest conclusion that if there is a deity, it is
nothing like the ones proposed by any religion that I am familiar with.
Now, if there does happen to be, say, a Christian God, will I be held
accountable for such an honest mistake?
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles [email protected] | 0 | alt.atheism |
Then not murdering would have no moral significance, since there
would be nothing voluntary about it.
You are starting to get the point. Mimicry is not necessarily the
same as the action being imitated. A Parrot saying "Pretty Polly"
isn't necessarily commenting on the pulchritude of Polly.
See above.
They do. I and other posters have given you many examples of exactly
this, but you seem to have a very short memory.
I'm saying:
"There must be the possibility that the organism - it's not
just people we are talking about - can consider alternatives."
It's right there in the posting you are replying to. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Undoubtedly people adopt atheism for many reasons, but I suspect that a biggie
is that the God they've believed in is (in J.B. Phillips's words) "too small".
If a person's understanding of God is not allowed to grow and develop, it will
eventually become inadequate. The grey-haired gentleman on a throne who was a
comforting image in childhood becomes a joke.
A therapist friend of mine sometimes suggests to her clients that they "fire
God". What she means by that is letting go of an inadequate understanding of
God to make room for a fuller one. But she follows up by encouraging them to
"hire a new one". My guess is that a lot of folks go through the firing
process, but are not adequately supported in the subsequent re-hire. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I _know_ I shouldn't get involved, but... :-)
[bit deleted]
Righto, DAN, try this one with your Cornflakes...
The book says that Muhammad was either a liar, or he was crazy ( a
modern day Mad Mahdi) or he was actually who he said he was.
Some reasons why he wouldn't be a liar are as follows. Who would
die for a lie? Wouldn't people be able to tell if he was a liar? People
gathered around him and kept doing it, many gathered from hearing or seeing
how his son-in-law made the sun stand still. Call me a fool, but I believe
he did make the sun stand still.
Niether was he a lunatic. Would more than an entire nation be drawn
to someone who was crazy. Very doubtful, in fact rediculous. For example
anyone who is drawn to the Mad Mahdi is obviously a fool, logical people see
this right away.
Therefore since he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, he must have been the
real thing.
-- | 0 | alt.atheism |
The last state church was in Massachusetts. Sam Adams, the patriot-brewmaster,
during his tenure as governor after the Revolutionary War got it passed.
I believe it was eliminated around 1820. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Of course, the list has to agree with the nickname laws laid down by the
GIPU almost 2000 years ago (you know... the 9 of them that were written on
the iron tablets that melted once and had to be reinscribed?). Since I am
a prophet of the GIPU I decree that you should post the whole list of
nicknames for the frequent posters here! | 0 | alt.atheism |
The traditions of the church hold that all the "apostles" (meaning the 11
surviving disciples, Matthias, Barnabas and Paul) were martyred, except for
John. "Tradition" should be understood to read "early church writings other
than the bible and heteroorthodox scriptures". | 0 | alt.atheism |
Actually the book is called "Seventh Day Adventists believe..." And there
are 27 basica beliefs. I believe it is printed by the Reveiew and
Herald Publishing Association.
--
"Competition is the law of the jungle.
Cooperation is the law of civilization." -- Eldridge Cleaver | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I did not claim that our system was objective.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
[reply to [email protected] (E. H. Welbon)]
For many atheists, the lack of belief in gods is secondary to an
epistemological consideration: what do we accept as a reliable way of
knowing? There are no known valid logical arguments for the existence
of gods, nor is there any empirical evidence that they exist. Most
philosophers and theologians agree that the idea of a god is one that
must be accepted on faith. Faith is belief without a sound logical
basis or empirical evidence. It is a reliable way of knowing?
There is probably nothing else most people would accept in the absence
of any possibility of proof. Even when we agree to take someone elses
word "on faith", we just mean that having found this person to be
reliable in the past, we judge him likely to be a reliable source now.
If we find faith less reliable than logic and empirical evidence
everywhere else, why assume it will provide reliable knowledge about
gods?
The difference between the atheist and the theist is fundamentally then
one of whether or not faith is held to be a reliable way of knowing,
rather than, as some agnostic posters would have it, whether ones faith
is in gods or no gods. The theist believes that faith is an acceptable
basis for a belief in gods, even if he rejects faith as reliable at
other times, for example in his work as a scientist. The atheist
believes that only logic and empirical evidence lead to reliable
knowledge. Agnosticism seems to me a less defensible position than
theism or atheism, unless one is a sceptic in regards to all other
knowledge. Without evidence, why should we believe in gods rather than
Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?
I would also like to point out as others have that the atheist doesn't
require absolute knowledge of the lack of gods. I don't believe that
there is any such thing as absolute knowledge. Atheism is the best and
simplest theory to fit the (lack of) facts and so should be held until
contrary evidence is found. | 0 | alt.atheism |
I pointed out the secession movement in Aceh which has also been
brutally dealt with in the past by the Indonesian government. The
harshly with all secessionist movements.
the evidence, it appears to me that the Indonesian government has dealt
very harshly with all secession movements.
I know that the head of the Indonesian armed forces for a very long time
was Benny Murdani -- a "Christian". Indonesia has been heavy handed in
East Timor for a long time , even when Murdani was head of the armed
forces. The people who make up the
Indonesian government are in general motivated by national interests,
not religious ones. | 0 | alt.atheism |
I read somewhere, I think in Morton Smith's _Jesus the Magician_, that
old Lazarus wasn't dead, but going in the tomb was part of an initiation
rite for a magi-cult, of which Jesus was also a part. It appears that
a 3-day stay was normal. I wonder .... ? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
(Dean and I write lots and lots about absolute truth and arrogance.)
I agree that we'll probably never agree, and I'm starting to feel
frustrated, and I'm tired of having my conversations with my husband
dominated by this topic (just kidding, :-)).
I do have to say, though, that participating in this discussion has been
a good learning experience for me. My views on this topic have evolved
and clarified through this, and I suspect that we may not disagree as
much as we think.
I admit that I'm strongly prejudiced against evangelical Christianity,
and I may not always be rational in my reactions to it. I grew up
in EC, and went to an EC college. It was definitely the wrong place
for me, and I react strongly to any implication that EC or conservative
Christianity has any sort of stronghold on true Christianity. I shudder
when I remember the condescending attitude I had about other Christians
who didn't adhere to the EC model.
I have come to see that my real objection to this whole notion of
absolute truth is the actions I have seen it lead to. I have had some
very bad experiences with evangelical Christians claiming to know the
truth, and judging me or others based on their belief that they have
the answers. Knowing the truth doesn't seem to leave a whole lot of
room for others' opinions.
I can accept your belief in absolute truth as long as you* don't try to
use that belief to try to force others to comply with it, and you are
very careful that you don't hurt others with it. Love your neighbor
seems to go totally out the window when one knows the truth and believes
that everyone should be living by that truth. Other people have
convictions about the truth every bit as strong and sincere as yours,
based on careful searching, prayer, and their relationship with God.
Don't dismiss them because God didn't lead them to the same conclusions
as yours.
*This is not directed personally at you, Dean. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Does anybody have Bobby's post in which he said something like "I don't
know why there are more men than women in islamic countries. Maybe it's
atheists killing the female children"? It's my personal favorite!
| 0 | alt.atheism |
I hope you're not going to flame him. Please give him the same coutesy you'
ve given me. | 0 | alt.atheism |
LISTOWNER: I have sent this to Mr Anderson privately. Post it only
if you think it of general interest.
Here is a copy of something I wrote for another list. You may
find it relevant.
A listmember asks:
> What makes common-law marriages wrong?
A common-law marriage is not necessarily wrong in itself. There is
nothing in the Bible (Old or New Testament) about getting married by
a preacher, or by a priest (Jewish or Christian). And in fact Jewish
priests have never had any connection with weddings.
There is a common notion that the marriage is performed by the
clergyman. In fact, the traditional Christian view (at least in the
West) is that the bride and groom are the ministers of the marriage,
and that the clergyman is there only as a witness.
HOWEVER!
The essential ingredient of a marriage is mutual commitment. Two
persons are considered to be married if and only if they have bound
themselves by mutual promises to live together as husband and wife,
forsaking all others, till death do them part.
The reason why those who have reason to be concerned about who
is married to whom have always insisted on some kind of public
ceremony is in order that society, and the couple themselves, may be
clear about whether a commitment has been made.
Suppose that we do away with the public ceremony, the standard vows,
etc. Instead, we have a man and a woman settling down to live
together.
After a year or so, the man says to the woman: Hey, honey, it
was great while it lasted, but I think it's time to move on.
younger.
ocean, as eternal as the stars. As long as I live, I am yours,
utterly and completely. When I lie on my deathbed, my last feeble
breath will utter your name. My..."
man is in a romantic mood, he is bound to say all kinds of silly
things like that. You mustn't take them literally.
And that is why you have an insistence on a formal ceremony that is
a matter of public record.
The Church insists on it, because it is her duty (among other
things) to give moral advice, and you cannot give a man moral advice
about his relations with a woman if you have no idea who is married
to whom, if anybody, and vice versa.
The State insists on it, since the state has a concern with
property rights, with child care and support, and therefore needs to
know who has made what commitments to whom.
Prospective fathers-in-law insist on it, because they don't
want their daughters seduced and abandoned.
Prospective spouses insist on it, because they want to make
sure they know whether what they are hearing is a real commitment,
or just "poetry."
And persons making vows themselves insist on making them
formally and publicly, in order that they may be clear in their own
minds about what it is that they are doing, and may know themselves
that this is not just rhetoric. This is the real thing.
Hence the insistence on a formal public explicit avowal of the
marriage commitment. The Church goes further and insists that, when
Christians marry, a clergyman shall be present at the wedding and
record the vows on behalf of the Church, not because it is
impossible to have a valid wedding without a clergyman, but in order
to make sure that the couple understand what the Christian teaching
about marriage is, and that they are in fact promising to be married
in a Christian sense. The Church also prefers a standard marriage
vow, and is wary of letting couples Write their own vows, for much
the same reason that lawyers prefer standard terminology when they
draw up a will or a contract. Certain language has been repeatedly
used in wills, and one can be sure how the courts will interpret it.
Try to say the same thing in your own words, and you may find that
the probate judge's interpretation of them is not at all what you
intended. Similarly, the Church prefers to avoid endless debates
about whether "You are my main squeeze" and "I am here for the long
haul" do in fact cover the same territory as "forsaking all others"
and "till death do us part."
This topic has come up on the list before. (Is there any topic
that hasn't?) One listmember was asking, "If a couple love each
other and are living together, isn't that marriage in the eyes of
God?" Eventually someone asked, "In that case, what is their status
if they break up? Is that the moral equivalent of getting a divorce?
Are they in a relationship that God forbids either of them to walk
of that!" In fact, there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that
someone who says, "We don't need a piece of paper or a ceremony in
front of a judge or a preacher in order to show that we love each
other," is trying to have it both ways -- to have the advantages of
marriage plus the option of changing his mind with a minimum of
bother.
At this point someone may say, "None of this applies to me and my
mate. We are quite clear on the fact that we have assumed a lifelong
commitment, 'for better or worse, forsaking all others, till death
us do part.' So in our case, no ceremony is needed."
To this my reply would be: The reason for requiring a driver's
license is to keep dangerous drivers off the road. What is wrong in
itself is not the existence of unlicensed drivers, but the existence
of dangerous drivers. However, testing and licensing drivers is an
obvious and reasonable means of pursuing the goal of reducing the
number of dangerous drivers on the road. Therefore the State rightly
makes and enforces such laws, and you the citizen have a positive
moral obligation to refrain from driving without a license no matter
how much of a hotshot behind the wheel you think you are.
Back to the original question. We have a listmember who knows a
couple who have been living together for around 20 years. He asks:
At what point did they stop fornicating and start being married? I
answer: at the point, if any, where they both definitely and
explicitly accepted an obligation to be faithful to each other, for
better or worse, as long as they both lived. If they have accepted
such an obligation, what are their reasons for not being willing to
declare it in front of, say, a justice of the peace? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I am not aware of any "Turkish Caliphate" viewpoint on this. Can you
reference?
However, I found a quote due to Imam Ali, whom the Shias follow:
"Men, never obey your women in any way whatsoever. Never let them give their
advice on any matter whatsoever, even those of everyday life. Indeed, allow
them freely to give advice on anything and they will fritter away one's
wealth and disobey the wishes of the owner of this wealth.
We see them without religion, when, alone, they are left to their own
devices; they are lacking in both pity and virtue when their carnal
desires are at stake. It is easy to enjoy them, but they cause great
anxiety. The most virtious among them are libertines. But the most
corrupt are whores. Only those of them whom age has deprived of any
charm are untainted by vice. They have three qualities particular to
miscreants; they complain of being oppressed, whereas it is they
who oppress; they make oaths, whereas they are lying; they pretend
to refuse men's solicitations, whereas they desire them most ardently.
Let us beg the help of God to emerge victorious from their evil deeds.
And preserve us in any case from their good ones."
(Quote from Mas'ud al-Qanawi, ref. A. Bouhdiba, Sexuality in Islam,
p. 118).
I wouldn't consider this quote as being exemplary of the Islamic (TM)
viewpoint though. For all we know, the prophet's cousin and
the Fourth Khalif Hazret-i Ali may have said this after a frustrating
night with a woman.
Selim Guncer
| 0 | alt.atheism |
This posts contains too many fallacies to respond too.
1) The abolishment of divinity requires the elimination of
freewill.
You have not shown this. You have not even attempted to. However,
the existance of an Omniscience being does eliminate freewill in mortals.*
* Posted over five months ago. No one has been able to refute it,
nor give any reasonable reasons against it.
--
"Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.
They do what god tells them to do. " | 0 | alt.atheism |
(deletion)
Straw man. And you brought up leniency.
Assuming that misjudgements are not correlated.
(Deletion)
Has been discussed here. Chapter and verse were cited, I assume that you
weren't looking then.
Let's be more exact, do you think it is not in the Quran?. And what would
your consequences be when it it was shown to be in it?
I have not claimed that. It is sufficient for the argument when there are
a lot of male dominated societies that qualify as Machistic. Are you going
to say that the situation of women is better in sufficeint areas of the
Orient?
(Deletion)
You apparently have trouble reading things you don't like. The point was
having sex the way one wishes being a strong desire. Marriage is a red
herring. Tell me about homosexuals, for one. You simply ignore everything
that doesn't fit into the world as you would like to have it. | 0 | alt.atheism |
: Regardless of people's hidden motivations, the stated reasons for many
: wars include religion. Of course you can always claim that the REAL
: reason was economics, politics, ethnic strife, or whatever. But the
: fact remains that the justification for many wars has been to conquer
: the heathens.
: If you want to say, for instance, that economics was the chief cause
: of the Crusades, you could certainly make that point. But someone
: could come along and demonstrate that it was REALLY something else, in
: the same manner you show that it was REALLY not religion. You could
: in this manner eliminate all possible causes for the Crusades.
:
Scott,
I don't have to make outrageous claims about religion's affecting and
effecting history, for the purpsoe of a.a, all I have to do point out
that many claims made here are wrong and do nothing to validate
atheism. At no time have I made any statement that religion was the
sole cause of anything, what I have done is point out that those who
do make that kind of claim are mistaken, usually deliberately.
To credit religion with the awesome power to dominate history is to
misunderstand human nature, the function of religion and of course,
history. I believe that those who distort history in this way know
exaclty what they're doing, and do it only for affect. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Hmmm... people in the americas before the time of Christ, children who
die young, etc. ?
But of course, the popular conception of hell (correct or incorrect) is
something akin to eternal perpetuation of consciousness, at the very least.
I think a good number of atheists believe there is nothing beyond
bodily death, but it is simply an abuse of language to say they believe
they're going to hell. They believe they're going to _die_. Understand
that you've turned Hell into a verb. Using the same logic, it also follows
that all animals are 'going to Hell.' Are you sure this is what you want
to say? (presumably animals don't have the opportunity to get to heaven,
but this still doesn't change the fact that they're going to Hell (die
a final death))
I don't claim to know whether or not there is an afterlife of _some_
sort, but if Hell is as you described (final death, and
not eternal perpetuation of consciousness) it will be true that
there will never be a moment when I am aware of my non-existence.
(assuming I 'go to Hell' and not to Heaven) In other words, I'll
never know I'm dead. Hmmm...
Ever hear people say of a loved one who was ill, and has died:
"At least she's not suffering any more; She's in Heaven now." ?
Consider the following statement:
"At least she's not suffering any more; She's in Hell now."
The above statement sounds odd, but according to your definition of Hell,
it would be a true statement. The person in Hell would not be suffering.
Granted, they wouldn't be *anything* (wouldn't be having any
conscious experience whatsoever).
You say Hell (death) is eternal. However, this loses its meaning
to a dead person. And to me, it seems that the threat of some sort
of eternal punishment only makes sense/has force if one expects to
be conscious throughout this eternity.
Many atheists believe that the thirst for an afterlife is simply the
product of propaganda ("Friend, do you want the FREE gift of e-ternal life?"
It's my understanding that the early jews did not believe in an afterlife.
Can anyone back me up on this?) combined with the survival instinct all
animals share. The difference is we have consciousness, and once we get the
idea of eternal life drilled into our brains, we then desire a sort of
super-survival.
That would depend on what Heaven is like. If God is a King, and
an eternity in heaven consists of giving thanks and praise to the King,
I might opt for Hell. I read a lovely account of a missionary trying to
convert Eskimos to Christianity in the book _The Illusion of Immortality_
by Corliss Lamont. The missionary started to speak about Heaven.
"Are there seals in heaven? Will we be able to go hunting?" asked an
Eskimo. The missionary said no. The group of Eskimos then said something
to the effect of, "Well what good is your Heaven if there's no hunting?
Scram." I highly recommend the above book (IOI) to anyone who wants an
account of the other side of the immortality coin (that there is no
immortality).
Pax, | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
It was a gift from God. I think basically the reasoning was that the
tradition in the Church held that Mary was also without sin as was Jesus.
As the tenets of faith developed, particularly with Augustine, sin was
more and more equated with sex, and thus Mary was assumed to be a virgin
for life (since she never sinned, and since she was the spouse of God, etc.)
Since we also had this notion of original sin, ie. that man is born with
a predisposition to sin, and since Mary did not have this predisposition
because she did not ever sin, she didn't have original sin. When science
discovered the process of conception, the next step was to assume that
Mary was conceived without original sin, the Immaculate Conception.
Mary at that time appeared to a girl named Bernadette at Lourdes. She
refered to herself as the Immaculate Conception. Since a nine year old
would have no way of knowing about the doctrine, the apparition was deemed
to be true and it sealed the case for the doctrine.
RCs hold that all revelation comes from two equally important sources, that
being Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition. In this case, mostly tradition. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
And the two simplest refutations are these:
(1) What impact? The only record of impact comes from the New Testament.
I have no guarantee that its books are in the least accurate, and that
the recorded "impact" actually happened. I find it interesting that no other
contemporary source records an eclipse, an earthquake, a temple curtain
being torn, etc. The earliest written claim we have of Jesus' resurrection
is from the Pauline epistles, none of which were written sooner than 20 years
after the supposed event.
(2) It seems probable that no one displayed the body of Jesus because no
one knew where it was. I personally believe that the most likely
explanation was that the body was stolen (by disciples, or by graverobbers).
Don't bother with the point about the guards ... it only appears in one
gospel, and seems like exactly the sort of thing early Christians might make
up in order to counter the grave-robbing charge. The New Testament does
record that Jews believed the body had been stolen. If there were really
guards, they could not have effectively made this claim, as they did. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Not quite correct. Biblical teaching expects us to celebrate the
resurrection of Christ not once a year but every time someone is baptized.
Col. 2:12-Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him
through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the
dead." Rom. 6:4-Therefore we are buried with him in baptism into death:
that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the
Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."
Those really want to celebrate the resurrection should by faith walk in
newness of life after baptism. It is not necessary to celebrate a pagan
goddess in the process.
Paul answered your question in Romans 9. In v. 4 he stated that the
adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of
God, and the promises were given to the Israelites. It is a package deal.
He goes on to identify those who are true Israelites. Vs 6-8 makes it
plain that the true Israelites are not those who are born that way but
those who accept the promise of God. Paul continued to emphasize that he
was an Israelite in 2 Cor. 11:22, then in Gal 3:29 he says that all those
who belong to Christ are Abraham's seed, and heirs to all the promises
given to the Israelites. The promises come with the law. It is all or
nothing. Why is it that you only want to discard one part of the law?
Certainly you would want your husband to be faithful to you. Or do you
believe that adultery is no longer forbidden? Same law.
BTW please give a reference for your statement that the Gentiles are only
required to observe the basis commandmants. Could you list those
please. Acts 15 deals with circumcision and the law of Moses which was
added because of transgression of God's eternal law (Gal 3:19; Rom 4:15) | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
: > This is a good point, but I think "average" people do not take up Christianity
: > so much out of fear or escapism, but, quite simply, as a way to improve their
: > social life, or to get more involved with American culture, if they are kids of
: > immigrants for example. Since it is the overwhelming major religion in the
: > Western World (in some form or other), it is simply the choice people take if
: > they are bored and want to do something new with their lives, but not somethong
: > TOO new, or TOO out of the ordinary. Seems a little weak, but as long as it
: > doesn't hurt anybody...
: The social pressure is indeed a very important factor for the majority
: of passive Christians in our world today. In the case of early Christianity
: the promise of a heavenly afterlife, independent of your social status,
: was also a very promising gift (reason slaves and non-Romans accepted
: the religion very rapidly).
If this is a hypothetical proposition, you should say so, if it's
fact, you should cite your sources. If all this is the amateur
sociologist sub-branch of a.a however, it would suffice to alert the
unwary that you are just screwing around ... | 0 | alt.atheism |
I disagree with these. What society thinks should be irrelevant. What the
individual decides is all that is important.
I think this is fairly obvious
Generally by what they "feel" is right, which is the most idiotic policy I can
think of.
By thinking for ourselves. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Archive-name: atheism/introduction
Alt-atheism-archive-name: introduction
Last-modified: 5 April 1993
Version: 1.2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
An Introduction to Atheism
by mathew <[email protected]>
This article attempts to provide a general introduction to atheism. Whilst I
have tried to be as neutral as possible regarding contentious issues, you
should always remember that this document represents only one viewpoint. I
would encourage you to read widely and draw your own conclusions; some
relevant books are listed in a companion article.
To provide a sense of cohesion and progression, I have presented this article
as an imaginary conversation between an atheist and a theist. All the
questions asked by the imaginary theist are questions which have been cropped
up repeatedly on alt.atheism since the newsgroup was created. Some other
frequently asked questions are answered in a companion article.
Please note that this article is arguably slanted towards answering questions
posed from a Christian viewpoint. This is because the FAQ files reflect
questions which have actually been asked, and it is predominantly Christians
who proselytize on alt.atheism.
So when I talk of religion, I am talking primarily about religions such as
Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which involve some sort of superhuman divine
being. Much of the discussion will apply to other religions, but some of it
may not.
"What is atheism?"
Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of God.
Some atheists go further, and believe that God does not exist. The former is
often referred to as the "weak atheist" position, and the latter as "strong
atheism".
It is important to note the difference between these two positions. "Weak
atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong
atheism" is a positive belief that God does not exist. Please do not
fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists".
Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their
atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making
flat-out denials.
"But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?"
Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe
it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to
believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or
not. Which brings us to agnosticism.
"What is agnosticism then?"
The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor Huxley at a meeting of the
Metaphysical Society in 1876. He defined an agnostic as someone who
disclaimed ("strong") atheism and believed that the ultimate origin of things
must be some cause unknown and unknowable.
Thus an agnostic is someone who believes that we do not and cannot know for
sure whether God exists.
Words are slippery things, and language is inexact. Beware of assuming that
you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact
that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic. For example, many people
use agnosticism to mean "weak atheism", and use the word "atheism" only when
referring to "strong atheism".
Beware also that because the word "atheist" has so many shades of meaning, it
is very difficult to generalize about atheists. About all you can say for
sure is that atheists don't believe in God. For example, it certainly isn't
the case that all atheists believe that science is the best way to find out
about the universe.
"So what is the philosophical justification or basis for atheism?"
There are many philosophical justifications for atheism. To find out why a
particular person chooses to be an atheist, it's best to ask her.
Many atheists feel that the idea of God as presented by the major religions
is essentially self-contradictory, and that it is logically impossible that
such a God could exist. Others are atheists through scepticism, because they
see no evidence that God exists.
"But isn't it impossible to prove the non-existence of something?"
There are many counter-examples to such a statement. For example, it is
quite simple to prove that there does not exist a prime number larger than
all other prime numbers. Of course, this deals with well-defined objects
obeying well-defined rules. Whether Gods or universes are similarly
well-defined is a matter for debate.
However, assuming for the moment that the existence of a God is not provably
impossible, there are still subtle reasons for assuming the non-existence of
God. If we assume that something does not exist, it is always possible to
show that this assumption is invalid by finding a single counter-example.
If on the other hand we assume that something does exist, and if the thing in
question is not provably impossible, showing that the assumption is invalid
may require an exhaustive search of all possible places where such a thing
might be found, to show that it isn't there. Such an exhaustive search is
often impractical or impossible. There is no such problem with largest
primes, because we can prove that they don't exist.
Therefore it is generally accepted that we must assume things do not exist
unless we have evidence that they do. Even theists follow this rule most of
the time; they don't believe in unicorns, even though they can't conclusively
prove that no unicorns exist anywhere.
To assume that God exists is to make an assumption which probably cannot be
tested. We cannot make an exhaustive search of everywhere God might be to
prove that he doesn't exist anywhere. So the sceptical atheist assumes by
default that God does not exist, since that is an assumption we can test.
Those who profess strong atheism usually do not claim that no sort of God
exists; instead, they generally restrict their claims so as to cover
varieties of God described by followers of various religions. So whilst it
may be impossible to prove conclusively that no God exists, it may be
possible to prove that (say) a God as described by a particular religious
book does not exist. It may even be possible to prove that no God described
by any present-day religion exists.
In practice, believing that no God described by any religion exists is very
close to believing that no God exists. However, it is sufficiently different
that counter-arguments based on the impossibility of disproving every kind of
God are not really applicable.
"But what if God is essentially non-detectable?"
If God interacts with our universe in any way, the effects of his interaction
must be measurable. Hence his interaction with our universe must be
detectable.
If God is essentially non-detectable, it must therefore be the case that he
does not interact with our universe in any way. Many atheists would argue
that if God does not interact with our universe at all, it is of no
importance whether he exists or not.
If the Bible is to be believed, God was easily detectable by the Israelites.
Surely he should still be detectable today?
Note that I am not demanding that God interact in a scientifically
verifiable, physical way. It must surely be possible to perceive some
effect caused by his presence, though; otherwise, how can I distinguish him
from all the other things that don't exist?
"OK, you may think there's a philosophical justification for atheism, but
isn't it still a religious belief?"
One of the most common pastimes in philosophical discussion is "the
redefinition game". The cynical view of this game is as follows:
Person A begins by making a contentious statement. When person B points out
that it can't be true, person A gradually re-defines the words he used in the
statement until he arrives at something person B is prepared to accept. He
then records the statement, along with the fact that person B has agreed to
it, and continues. Eventually A uses the statement as an "agreed fact", but
uses his original definitions of all the words in it rather than the obscure
redefinitions originally needed to get B to agree to it. Rather than be seen
to be apparently inconsistent, B will tend to play along.
The point of this digression is that the answer to the question "Isn't
atheism a religious belief?" depends crucially upon what is meant by
"religious". "Religion" is generally characterized by belief in a superhuman
controlling power -- especially in some sort of God -- and by faith and
worship.
[ It's worth pointing out in passing that some varieties of Buddhism are not
"religion" according to such a definition. ]
Atheism is certainly not a belief in any sort of superhuman power, nor is it
categorized by worship in any meaningful sense. Widening the definition of
"religious" to encompass atheism tends to result in many other aspects of
human behaviour suddenly becoming classed as "religious" as well -- such as
science, politics, and watching TV.
"OK, so it's not a religion. But surely belief in atheism (or science) is
still just an act of faith, like religion is?"
Firstly, it's not entirely clear that sceptical atheism is something one
actually believes in.
Secondly, it is necessary to adopt a number of core beliefs or assumptions to
make some sort of sense out of the sensory data we experience. Most atheists
try to adopt as few core beliefs as possible; and even those are subject to
questioning if experience throws them into doubt.
Science has a number of core assumptions. For example, it is generally
assumed that the laws of physics are the same for all observers. These are
the sort of core assumptions atheists make. If such basic ideas are called
"acts of faith", then almost everything we know must be said to be based on
acts of faith, and the term loses its meaning.
Faith is more often used to refer to complete, certain belief in something.
According to such a definition, atheism and science are certainly not acts of
faith. Of course, individual atheists or scientists can be as dogmatic as
religious followers when claiming that something is "certain". This is not a
general tendency, however; there are many atheists who would be reluctant to
state with certainty that the universe exists.
Faith is also used to refer to belief without supporting evidence or proof.
Sceptical atheism certainly doesn't fit that definition, as sceptical atheism
has no beliefs. Strong atheism is closer, but still doesn't really match, as
even the most dogmatic atheist will tend to refer to experimental data (or
the lack of it) when asserting that God does not exist.
"If atheism is not religious, surely it's anti-religious?"
It is an unfortunate human tendency to label everyone as either "for" or
"against", "friend" or "enemy". The truth is not so clear-cut.
Atheism is the position that runs logically counter to theism; in that sense,
it can be said to be "anti-religion". However, when religious believers
speak of atheists being "anti-religious" they usually mean that the atheists
have some sort of antipathy or hatred towards theists.
This categorization of atheists as hostile towards religion is quite unfair.
Atheist attitudes towards theists in fact cover a broad spectrum.
Most atheists take a "live and let live" attitude. Unless questioned, they
will not usually mention their atheism, except perhaps to close friends. Of
course, this may be in part because atheism is not "socially acceptable" in
many countries.
A few atheists are quite anti-religious, and may even try to "convert" others
when possible. Historically, such anti-religious atheists have made little
impact on society outside the Eastern Bloc countries.
(To digress slightly: the Soviet Union was originally dedicated to separation
of church and state, just like the USA. Soviet citizens were legally free to
worship as they wished. The institution of "state atheism" came about when
Stalin took control of the Soviet Union and tried to destroy the churches in
order to gain complete power over the population.)
Some atheists are quite vocal about their beliefs, but only where they see
religion encroaching on matters which are not its business -- for example,
the government of the USA. Such individuals are usually concerned that
church and state should remain separate.
"But if you don't allow religion to have a say in the running of the state,
surely that's the same as state atheism?"
The principle of the separation of church and state is that the state shall
not legislate concerning matters of religious belief. In particular, it
means not only that the state cannot promote one religion at the expense of
another, but also that it cannot promote any belief which is religious in
nature.
Religions can still have a say in discussion of purely secular matters. For
example, religious believers have historically been responsible for
encouraging many political reforms. Even today, many organizations
campaigning for an increase in spending on foreign aid are founded as
religious campaigns. So long as they campaign concerning secular matters,
and so long as they do not discriminate on religious grounds, most atheists
are quite happy to see them have their say.
"What about prayer in schools? If there's no God, why do you care if people
pray?"
Because people who do pray are voters and lawmakers, and tend to do things
that those who don't pray can't just ignore. Also, Christian prayer in
schools is intimidating to non-Christians, even if they are told that they
need not join in. The diversity of religious and non-religious belief means
that it is impossible to formulate a meaningful prayer that will be
acceptable to all those present at any public event.
Also, non-prayers tend to have friends and family who pray. It is reasonable
to care about friends and family wasting their time, even without other
motives.
"You mentioned Christians who campaign for increased foreign aid. What about
atheists? Why aren't there any atheist charities or hospitals? Don't
atheists object to the religious charities?"
There are many charities without religious purpose that atheists can
contribute to. Some atheists contribute to religious charities as well, for
the sake of the practical good they do. Some atheists even do voluntary work
for charities founded on a theistic basis.
Most atheists seem to feel that atheism isn't worth shouting about in
connection with charity. To them, atheism is just a simple, obvious everyday
matter, and so is charity. Many feel that it's somewhat cheap, not to say
self-righteous, to use simple charity as an excuse to plug a particular set
of religious beliefs.
To "weak" atheists, building a hospital to say "I do not believe in God" is a
rather strange idea; it's rather like holding a party to say "Today is not my
birthday". Why the fuss? Atheism is rarely evangelical.
"You said atheism isn't anti-religious. But is it perhaps a backlash against
one's upbringing, a way of rebelling?"
Perhaps it is, for some. But many people have parents who do not attempt to
force any religious (or atheist) ideas upon them, and many of those people
choose to call themselves atheists.
It's also doubtless the case that some religious people chose religion as a
backlash against an atheist upbringing, as a way of being different. On the
other hand, many people choose religion as a way of conforming to the
expectations of others.
On the whole, we can't conclude much about whether atheism or religion are
backlash or conformism; although in general, people have a tendency to go
along with a group rather than act or think independently.
"How do atheists differ from religious people?"
They don't believe in God. That's all there is to it.
Atheists may listen to heavy metal -- backwards, even -- or they may prefer a
Verdi Requiem, even if they know the words. They may wear Hawaiian shirts,
they may dress all in black, they may even wear orange robes. (Many
Buddhists lack a belief in any sort of God.) Some atheists even carry a copy
of the Bible around -- for arguing against, of course!
Whoever you are, the chances are you have met several atheists without
realising it. Atheists are usually unexceptional in behaviour and
appearance.
"Unexceptional? But aren't atheists less moral than religious people?"
That depends. If you define morality as obedience to God, then of course
atheists are less moral as they don't obey any God. But usually when one
talks of morality, one talks of what is acceptable ("right") and unacceptable
("wrong") behaviour within society.
Humans are social animals, and to be maximally successful they must
co-operate with each other. This is a good enough reason to discourage most
atheists from "anti-social" or "immoral" behaviour, purely for the purposes
of self-preservation.
Many atheists behave in a "moral" or "compassionate" way simply because they
feel a natural tendency to empathize with other humans. So why do they care
what happens to others? They don't know, they simply are that way.
Naturally, there are some people who behave "immorally" and try to use
atheism to justify their actions. However, there are equally many people who
behave "immorally" and then try to use religious beliefs to justify their
actions. For example:
"Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Jesus Christ
came into the world to save sinners... But for that very reason, I was
shown mercy so that in me... Jesus Christ might display His unlimited
patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive
eternal life. Now to the king eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God,
be honor and glory forever and ever."
The above quote is from a statement made to the court on February 17th 1992
by Jeffrey Dahmer, the notorious cannibal serial killer of Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. It seems that for every atheist mass-murderer, there is a
religious mass-murderer. But what of more trivial morality?
A survey conducted by the Roper Organization found that behavior
deteriorated after "born again" experiences. While only 4% of respondents
said they had driven intoxicated before being "born again," 12% had done
so after conversion. Similarly, 5% had used illegal drugs before
conversion, 9% after. Two percent admitted to engaging in illicit sex
before salvation; 5% after.
["Freethought Today", September 1991, p. 12.]
So it seems that at best, religion does not have a monopoly on moral
behaviour.
"Is there such a thing as atheist morality?"
If you mean "Is there such a thing as morality for atheists?", then the
answer is yes, as explained above. Many atheists have ideas about morality
which are at least as strong as those held by religious people.
If you mean "Does atheism have a characteristic moral code?", then the answer
is no. Atheism by itself does not imply anything much about how a person
will behave. Most atheists follow many of the same "moral rules" as theists,
but for different reasons. Atheists view morality as something created by
humans, according to the way humans feel the world 'ought' to work, rather
than seeing it as a set of rules decreed by a supernatural being.
"Then aren't atheists just theists who are denying God?"
A study by the Freedom From Religion Foundation found that over 90% of the
atheists who responded became atheists because religion did not work for
them. They had found that religious beliefs were fundamentally incompatible
with what they observed around them.
Atheists are not unbelievers through ignorance or denial; they are
unbelievers through choice. The vast majority of them have spent time
studying one or more religions, sometimes in very great depth. They have
made a careful and considered decision to reject religious beliefs.
This decision may, of course, be an inevitable consequence of that
individual's personality. For a naturally sceptical person, the choice
of atheism is often the only one that makes sense, and hence the only
choice that person can honestly make.
"But don't atheists want to believe in God?"
Atheists live their lives as though there is nobody watching over them. Many
of them have no desire to be watched over, no matter how good-natured the
"Big Brother" figure might be.
Some atheists would like to be able to believe in God -- but so what? Should
one believe things merely because one wants them to be true? The risks of
such an approach should be obvious. Atheists often decide that wanting to
believe something is not enough; there must be evidence for the belief.
"But of course atheists see no evidence for the existence of God -- they are
unwilling in their souls to see!"
Many, if not most atheists were previously religious. As has been explained
above, the vast majority have seriously considered the possibility that God
exists. Many atheists have spent time in prayer trying to reach God.
Of course, it is true that some atheists lack an open mind; but assuming that
all atheists are biased and insincere is offensive and closed-minded.
Comments such as "Of course God is there, you just aren't looking properly"
are likely to be viewed as patronizing.
Certainly, if you wish to engage in philosophical debate with atheists it is
vital that you give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are
being sincere if they say that they have searched for God. If you are not
willing to believe that they are basically telling the truth, debate is
futile.
"Isn't the whole of life completely pointless to an atheist?"
Many atheists live a purposeful life. They decide what they think gives
meaning to life, and they pursue those goals. They try to make their lives
count, not by wishing for eternal life, but by having an influence on other
people who will live on. For example, an atheist may dedicate his life to
political reform, in the hope of leaving his mark on history.
It is a natural human tendency to look for "meaning" or "purpose" in random
events. However, it is by no means obvious that "life" is the sort of thing
that has a "meaning".
To put it another way, not everything which looks like a question is actually
a sensible thing to ask. Some atheists believe that asking "What is the
meaning of life?" is as silly as asking "What is the meaning of a cup of
coffee?". They believe that life has no purpose or meaning, it just is.
"So how do atheists find comfort in time of danger?"
There are many ways of obtaining comfort; from family, friends, or even pets.
Or on a less spiritual level, from food or drink or TV.
That may sound rather an empty and vulnerable way to face danger, but so
what? Should individuals believe in things because they are comforting, or
should they face reality no matter how harsh it might be?
In the end, it's a decision for the individual concerned. Most atheists are
unable to believe something they would not otherwise believe merely because
it makes them feel comfortable. They put truth before comfort, and consider
that if searching for truth sometimes makes them feel unhappy, that's just
hard luck.
"Don't atheists worry that they might suddenly be shown to be wrong?"
The short answer is "No, do you?"
Many atheists have been atheists for years. They have encountered many
arguments and much supposed evidence for the existence of God, but they have
found all of it to be invalid or inconclusive.
Thousands of years of religious belief haven't resulted in any good proof of
the existence of God. Atheists therefore tend to feel that they are unlikely
to be proved wrong in the immediate future, and they stop worrying about it.
"So why should theists question their beliefs? Don't the same arguments
apply?"
No, because the beliefs being questioned are not similar. Weak atheism is
the sceptical "default position" to take; it asserts nothing. Strong atheism
is a negative belief. Theism is a very strong positive belief.
Atheists sometimes also argue that theists should question their beliefs
because of the very real harm they can cause -- not just to the believers,
but to everyone else.
"What sort of harm?"
Religion represents a huge financial and work burden on mankind. It's not
just a matter of religious believers wasting their money on church buildings;
think of all the time and effort spent building churches, praying, and so on.
Imagine how that effort could be better spent.
Many theists believe in miracle healing. There have been plenty of instances
of ill people being "healed" by a priest, ceasing to take the medicines
prescribed to them by doctors, and dying as a result. Some theists have died
because they have refused blood transfusions on religious grounds.
It is arguable that the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control -- and
condoms in particular -- is increasing the problem of overpopulation in many
third-world countries and contributing to the spread of AIDS world-wide.
Religious believers have been known to murder their children rather than
allow their children to become atheists or marry someone of a different
religion.
"Those weren't REAL believers. They just claimed to be believers as some
sort of excuse."
What makes a real believer? There are so many One True Religions it's hard
to tell. Look at Christianity: there are many competing groups, all
convinced that they are the only true Christians. Sometimes they even fight
and kill each other. How is an atheist supposed to decide who's a REAL
Christian and who isn't, when even the major Christian churches like the
Catholic Church and the Church of England can't decide amongst themselves?
In the end, most atheists take a pragmatic view, and decide that anyone who
calls himself a Christian, and uses Christian belief or dogma to justify his
actions, should be considered a Christian. Maybe some of those Christians
are just perverting Christian teaching for their own ends -- but surely if
the Bible can be so readily used to support un-Christian acts it can't be
much of a moral code? If the Bible is the word of God, why couldn't he have
made it less easy to misinterpret? And how do you know that your beliefs
aren't a perversion of what your God intended?
If there is no single unambiguous interpretation of the Bible, then why
should an atheist take one interpretation over another just on your say-so?
Sorry, but if someone claims that he believes in Jesus and that he murdered
others because Jesus and the Bible told him to do so, we must call him a
Christian.
"Obviously those extreme sorts of beliefs should be questioned. But since
nobody has ever proved that God does not exist, it must be very unlikely
that more basic religious beliefs, shared by all faiths, are nonsense."
That does not hold, because as was pointed out at the start of this dialogue,
positive assertions concerning the existence of entities are inherently much
harder to disprove than negative ones. Nobody has ever proved that unicorns
don't exist, but that doesn't make it unlikely that they are myths.
It is therefore much more valid to hold a negative assertion by default than
it is to hold a positive assertion by default. Of course, "weak" atheists
would argue that asserting nothing is better still.
"Well, if atheism's so great, why are there so many theists?"
Unfortunately, the popularity of a belief has little to do with how "correct"
it is, or whether it "works"; consider how many people believe in astrology,
graphology, and other pseudo-sciences.
Many atheists feel that it is simply a human weakness to want to believe in
gods. Certainly in many primitive human societies, religion allows the
people to deal with phenomena that they do not adequately understand.
Of course, there's more to religion than that. In the industrialized world,
we find people believing in religious explanations of phenomena even when
there are perfectly adequate natural explanations. Religion may have started
as a means of attempting to explain the world, but nowadays it serves other
purposes as well.
"But so many cultures have developed religions. Surely that must say
something?"
Not really. Most religions are only superficially similar; for example, it's
worth remembering that religions such as Buddhism and Taoism lack any sort of
concept of God in the Christian sense.
Of course, most religions are quick to denounce competing religions, so it's
rather odd to use one religion to try and justify another.
"What about all the famous scientists and philosophers who have concluded
that God exists?"
For every scientist or philosopher who believes in a god, there is one who
does not. Besides, as has already been pointed out, the truth of a belief is
not determined by how many people believe it. Also, it is important to
realize that atheists do not view famous scientists or philosophers in the
same way that theists view their religious leaders.
A famous scientist is only human; she may be an expert in some fields, but
when she talks about other matters her words carry no special weight. Many
respected scientists have made themselves look foolish by speaking on
subjects which lie outside their fields of expertise.
"So are you really saying that widespread belief in religion indicates
nothing?"
Not entirely. It certainly indicates that the religion in question has
properties which have helped it so spread so far.
The theory of memetics talks of "memes" -- sets of ideas which can propagate
themselves between human minds, by analogy with genes. Some atheists view
religions as sets of particularly successful parasitic memes, which spread by
encouraging their hosts to convert others. Some memes avoid destruction by
discouraging believers from questioning doctrine, or by using peer pressure
to keep one-time believers from admitting that they were mistaken. Some
religious memes even encourage their hosts to destroy hosts controlled by
other memes.
Of course, in the memetic view there is no particular virtue associated with
successful propagation of a meme. Religion is not a good thing because of
the number of people who believe it, any more than a disease is a good thing
because of the number of people who have caught it.
"Even if religion is not entirely true, at least it puts across important
messages. What are the fundamental messages of atheism?"
There are many important ideas atheists promote. The following are just a
few of them; don't be surprised to see ideas which are also present in some
religions.
There is more to moral behaviour than mindlessly following rules.
Be especially sceptical of positive claims.
If you want your life to have some sort of meaning, it's up to you to
find it.
Search for what is true, even if it makes you uncomfortable.
Make the most of your life, as it's probably the only one you'll have.
It's no good relying on some external power to change you; you must change
yourself.
Just because something's popular doesn't mean it's good.
If you must assume something, assume something it's easy to test.
Don't believe things just because you want them to be true.
and finally (and most importantly):
All beliefs should be open to question.
Thanks for taking the time to read this article.
mathew
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.2
iQCVAgUBK8AjRXzXN+VrOblFAQFSbwP+MHePY4g7ge8Mo5wpsivX+kHYYxMErFAO
7ltVtMVTu66Nz6sBbPw9QkbjArbY/S2sZ9NF5htdii0R6SsEyPl0R6/9bV9okE/q
nihqnzXE8pGvLt7tlez4EoeHZjXLEFrdEyPVayT54yQqGb4HARbOEHDcrTe2atmP
q0Z4hSSPpAU=
=q2V5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- | 0 | alt.atheism |
It is good to remember that every translation is to some extent an
interpretation, so (as you point out below) one must really go back to
the original Arabic. Regarding the verses relevant to nature, I prefer
to use Dr. Maurice Bucaille's translations (in his book, "The Bible, the
Qur'an and Science") for in general his translations are more literal.
Maurice Bucaille translates the portion of the verse you are addressing
as
"...Each one is travelling with an orbit in its own motion."
(Also note that "the celestial bodies" in the first translation quoted
by you above is the translator's interpolation -- it is not existent in
the original Arabic, which is why it is included in brackets.)
You're right, what the verses _do_ contain isn't all that remarkable.
However, Dr. Bucaille (a surgeon, that's how he's a "Dr.") thinks it is
significant that the above verse contains no geocentric ideas, even
though geocentrism was all the rage up until the 17th century (?) or so.
(And this goes for the rest of the Qur'an as well, which has about 750
verses or so regarding nature, I think I remember reading once.) | 0 | alt.atheism |
In an earlier article, I explained that what many people find arrogant about
Christians is that some Christians profess absolute certianty about their
beliefs and doctrines. That is, many Christians insist that they CANNOT have
made any mistakes when discovering their beliefs, which amounts to saying
that they are infallible.
Impicitly claiming to be infallible is pretty arrogant, most of us will
probably agree.
In short, the problem is that no matter how good your sources are, if any
part of your doctrines or beliefs rest on your own thinking and reasoning,
then those doctrines are suspect. So long as your own brain is involved,
there is a possibility for error. I summarised the problem by writing "There
is no way out of the loop."
Someone called `REXLEX' has claimed that there IS a way out of the loop, but
he did not bother to explain what it was, preferring instead to paraphrase
Sartre, ramble about Wittgenstein, and say that the conclusion of my argument
leads to relativism.
As I have explained to him before, you cannot reject an argument as false
because you dislike where it leads: the facts do not change just because
However, as any first-year philosophy student can explain, what `REXLEX' has
written does not constitute a refutation. All he has said is that he does
not like what I wrote -- he has done nothing at all to dispute it.
*
There were two sentences in `REXLEX's post that seemed relevant to the
point at hand:
I do not dispute that some truths can be verified through experience. I
have, for example, direct experience of adding numbers. I don't claim to
be infallible at it -- in fact I remember doing sums incorrectly -- but I
do claim that I have direct experience of reasoning about numbers.
However, once we go past experiencing things and start reasoning about
them, we are on much shakier ground. That was the point of the earlier
article. Human brains are infested with sin, and they can only be trusted
in very limited circumstances.
But how far does that get you? Once God's revelation stops, and your own
reasoning begins, possibility for error appears.
For example, let's suppose that our modern Bible translations include a
perfect rendering of Jesus words at the Last Supper, and that Jesus said,
exactly, "This is my body."
We'll presume that what he said was totally without error and absolutely
true. What can we be certain of? Not much.
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-)
Why should anyone believe that his reasoning -- which he knows to be
fallible -- can lead him to perfect conclusions?
So, given the assumptions in this example, what we can be certain of is
that Jesus said "This is my body." Beyond that, once we start making up
doctrines and using our brains to reason about what Christ revealed, we
get into trouble.
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.
That is the problem of seeming arrogant. The non-Christians around us know
that human beings make mistakes, just as surely as we know it. They do not
believe we are infallible, any more than we do.
When Christians speak as if they believe their own reasoning can never lead
them astray -- when we implicitly claim that we are infallible -- the non-
Christians around us rarely believe that implicit claim. Witnessing is
hardly going to work when the person you are talking to believes that you
are either too foolish to recognise your own limits, or intentionally trying
to cover them up.
I think it would be far better to say what things we are certain of and what
things we are only "very confident" of. For example, we might say that we
know our sin, for recognising sin is something we directly experience. But
other things, whether based on reasoning from Scripture or extra-Biblical
thinking, should not be labled as infallible: we should say that we are
very confident of them, and be ready to explain our reasoning.
But, so far as I am aware, none of us is infallible -- speaking or acting
as if our thinking is flawless is ridiculous.
*
`REXLEX' suggested that people read _He is There and He is Not Silent_, by
Francis Schaeffer. I didn't think very highly of it, but I think that
Mr Schaeffer is grossly overrated by many Evangelical Christians. Somebody
else might like it, though, so don't let my opinion stop you from reading it.
If someone is interested in my opinion, I'd suggest _On Certainty_, by
Ludwig Wittgenstein.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I don't think there is really any question about which god the courts
mean. The request for solemnly swearing, so help you god,
is always made after a request to pick up the bible in your left hand
and hold up your right hand. In the courts of NC, at least, it is always
an old and new testament. | 0 | alt.atheism |
If you were omniscient, you'd know who exactly did what, and with what
purpose in mind. Then, with a particular goal in mind, you sould be
able to methodically judge whether or not this action was in accordance
with the general goal.
In an objective system, there are known goals. Then, actions are judged
as either being compatible with these goals, or not. Simple. The problem
with most systems in current practice is that the goals differ. That is,
the goals of each society are different.
Note that an objective system is not necessarily an inherent one.
I've said it many, many times.
Which part do you have a problem with?
But, we can enslave the animals, right? But just not kill them? Or
are you a vegetarian for health reasons?
No. I fail to see how my *personal* views are relevant, anyway.
Of course not. It seems perfectly valid to kill members of other species
for food. It might be nice, though, if the other animals were not made
to suffer. For instance, a cow in a field lives out its life just about
the same way it would in the wild. They seem happy enough. However,
the veal youngsters aren't treated very well.
I don't know. What is the goal of this particular system? There is no
inherent system.
Nope. Again, it seems okay to kill other species for food. | 0 | alt.atheism |
We only need to ask the question: what did the founding fathers
consider cruel and unusual punishment?
Hanging? Hanging there slowing being strangled would be very
painful, both physically and psychologicall, I imagine.
Firing squad ? [ note: not a clean way to die back in those
days ], etc.
All would be considered cruel under your definition.
All were allowed under the constitution by the founding fathers.
---
" Whatever promises that have been made can than be broken. " | 0 | alt.atheism |
Now this is getting interesting!
I was raised Roman Catholic before becoming an atheist, so I have stated
this Creed you quote nearly every Sunday until I was about 18. For some
reason, I always took the 'resurrection' in this statement to mean the
resurrection of the soul, but I guess resurrection does strictly mean
the raising of the physical body. I have some questions on this point:
1. I always thought that Christians believe the descent into hell was
pretty much immediate, and that there are people burning in hell right
now. You seem to be implying that it will not occur until after the
"great judgement" (which I read as meaning the proverbial Judgment Day).
I was always a little confused on this point, even when I was with the
church -- maybe someone can clear it up for me. Where will my "soul"
(which, by the way, I don't believe in) exist until that time?
2. Will the new body I will have be created out of the same atoms
that my body now is made of, or will it be built from scratch? My
physical body now is susceptible to aging, etc. -- so I guess my
new body will have to be radically different in order to be immortal
so it can be tortured for all eternity?
3. Since I will have a physical body, I assume it will need a physical
place to exist in -- where is this hell? In the center of the earth?
Do you think we could find it if we dig?
Mark Schnitzius
[email protected]
Univ. of Central Florida
[There is not complete agreement on the details of the afterlife. I
think the most common view is that final disposition does not occur
until a final judgement, which is still in the future. In the
meantime, some believe that people "sleep" until the final
resurrection (or because God is above time, pass directly from death
to the future time when the resurrection occurs), while others believe
that souls have a disembodied, pre-resurrection existence until then.
There are probably other alternatives that I'm omitting.
The new body is generally conceived of being implemented in a
different "technology" than the current one, one which is not mortal.
(Paul talks about the mortal being raised to immortality, and Jesus'
resurrected body -- which is the first example -- clearly was not
subject to the same kind of limitations as ours.) It is assumed that
there are enough similarities that people will recognize each other,
but I don't think most people claim to know the details. I don't
think I'd say it's the same atoms. I'd assume there would be some
analog of a physical place, but I wouldn't expect to find it under the
earth or up in the sky. I'd suspect that it's in another dimension,
outside this physical world, or whatever. But again, we have little
in the way of details. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Madmen are mad. Do we try to explain the output from a broken computer?
I think not. | 0 | alt.atheism |
I have stated before that I do not consider myself an atheist, but
definitely do not believe in the christian god. The recent discussion
about atheists and hell, combined with a post to another group (to the
effect of 'you will all go to hell') has me interested in the consensus
as to how a god might judge men. As a catholic, I was told that a jew,
buddhist, etc. might go to heaven, but obviously some people do not
believe this. Even more see atheists and pagans (I assume I would be
lumped into this category) to be hellbound. I know you believe only
god can judge, and I do not ask you to, just for your opinions. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[With Frank's permission, I have added some information here (and in
one case changed the order of his contributions) in order to clarify
the historical relationship of the views. My comments are based
primarily on William Rusch's historical summary in "The Trinitarian
Controversy", Fortress. I'm going to save this as an FAQ. --clh]
MAJOR VIEWS OF THE TRINITY
[SECOND CENTURY
The writers of the 2nd Cent. are important, because they set up much
of the context for the later discussions. Justin Martyr, Aristides,
Athenagoras, Tatian, and Theophilus of Antioch are known as the
"Apologists". Their theology has often been described as "Logos
theology". Based strongly on wording in John, they took more or less
a two-phase approach. Through eternity, the Logos was with the
Father, as his mind or thought. This "immanent Word" became
"expressed" as God revealed himself in history, ultimately in Jesus.
Thus Jesus' full distinction from the Father only became visible in
history, though the Logos had been present in God from eternity.
Rusch regards this view is containing many of the emphases of the
final orthodox position, but in a form which is less sophisticated,
because it did not have the technical language to properly deal with
the eternal plurality in the Godhead.
Irenaeus held views somewhat similar to the Apologists. However he
was uncomfortable with the two-stage approach. He still viewed God as
one personage, with distinctions that did not become fully visible
except through his process of self-revelation (the "economy"). The
distinctions are present in his essential nature. Irenaeus emphasized
the Holy Spirit more than the Apologists. Irenaeus' views should
probably be called "economic trinitarianism", though that term is
normally used (as below) to refer to later developments.
THIRD CENTURY
--clh]
Dynamic Monarchianism
Source: Theodotus
Adherents: Paul of Samosota, Artemon, Socinus, Modern Unitarians
Perception of God's Essence: The unity of God denotes both oneness of nature
and oneness of person. The Son and the Holy Spirit therefore are
consubstantial with the Father's divine essence only as impersonal attributes.
The divine dunamis came upon the man Jesus, but he was not God in the strict
sense of the word.
Perception of God's Subsistence: The notion of a subsistent God is a palpable
impossibility, since his perfect unity is perfectly indivisible. The
'diversity' of God is apparent and not real, since the Christ event and the
work of the Holy Spirit attest only to a dynamic operation within God, not to
a hypostatic union.
Asignation of Deity/Eternality:
Father: Unique originator of the universe. He is eternal, self-existent, and
without beginning or end.
Son: A virtuous (but finite) man in whose life God was dynamically present in
a unique way; Christ definitely was not deity though his humanity was deified.
Holy Spirit: An impersonal attribute of the Godhead. No deity or eternality
is ascribed to the Holy Spirit.
Criticism(s): Elevates reason above the witness of biblical revelation
concerning the Trinity. Categorically denies the deity of Christ and of the
Holy Spirit, thereby undermining the theological undergirding for the biblical
doctrine of salvation.
[In summary, this probably best thought of as not being Trinitarianism
at all. God is an undifferentiated one. Son and Holy Spirit are seen
as simply names for the man Jesus and the grace of God active in the
Church. --clh]
Modalistic Monarchianism
Source: Praxeas
Adherents: Noatus, Sabellius, Swedenborg, Scleiermacher, United Pentecostals
(Jesus Only)
Perception of God's Essence: The unity of God is ultra-simplex. He is
qualitatively characterized in his essence by one nature and person. This
essence may be designated interchangeably as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
They are different names for but identical with the unified, simplex God. The
three names are the three modes by which God reveals Himself.
Perception of God's Subsistence: The concept of a subsistent God is erroneous
and confounds the real issue of the phenomenon of God's modalistic manifesting
of himself. The paradox of a subsisting "three in oneness" is refuted by
recognizing that God is not three persons but one person with three different
names and corresponding roles following one another like parts of a drama.
Asignation of Deity/Eternality:
Father: Fully God and fully eternal as the primal mode or manifestation of
the only unique and unitary God
Son: Full deity/eternality ascribed only in the sense of his being another
mode of the one God and identical with his essence. he is the same God
manifested in temporal sequence specific to a role (incarnation).
Holy Spirit: Eternal God only as the tile designates the phase in which the
one God, in temporal sequence, manifested himself pursuant to the role of
regeneration and sanctification.
Criticism(s): Depersonalizes the Godhead. To compensate for its Trinitarian
deficiencies, this view propounds ideas that are clearly heretical. Its
concept of successive manifestations of the Godhead cannot account for such
simultaneous appearances of the three persons as at Christ's baptism.
[Rusch comments that evidence on these beliefs is sketchy. There are
actually two slightly different groups included: Noetus and his
followers, and Sabellius. Noetus was apparently more extreme.
Sabellius followed him, and attempted to use some features of economic
Trinitarianism to create a more sophisticated view. Unfortunately,
information about Sabellius comes from a century later, and there
seems to be some confusion between him and Marcellus of Ancyra. --clh]
[I've moved the following description to be with the other
third-century views. It originally appeared near the end. --clh]
"Economic" Trinitarianism
Source: Hippolytus, Tertullian
Adherents: Various "neo-economic" Trinitarians
Perception of God's Essence: The Godhead is characterized by triunity: Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit are the three manifestations of one identical,
indivisible substance. The perfect unity and consubstantiality are especially
comprehended in such manifest Triadic deeds as creation and redemption.
Perception of God's Subsistence: Subsistence within the Godhead is articulated
by means of such terms as "distinction" and "distribution" dispelling
effectively the notion of separateness or division.
Asignation of Deity/Eternality:
The equal deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is clearly elucidated in
observation of the simultaneous relational/operational features of the
Godhead. Co-eternality, at times, does not intelligibly surface in this
ambiguous view, but it seems to be a logical implication.
Criticism(s): Is more tentative and ambiguous in its treatment of the
relational aspect of the Trinity.
[Note that this is a development of the Apologists and Irenaeus, as
mentioned above. As with them, the threeness is visible primarily in
the various ways that God revealed himself in history. However they
did say that this is a manifestation of a plurality that is somehow
present in the Godhead from the beginning. Tertullian talks of
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as being three that are one in
substance. Many people regard this view as being essentially
orthodox, but with less developed philosophical categories. --clh]
[Origen, developing further an approach started by Clement, attempted
to apply neo-Platonism to Christian thought. He set many of the terms
of the coming battle. In Platonic fashion, he sees the Son as a
mediator, mediating between the absolute One of God and the plurality
of creating beings. The Son is generated, but he is "eternally
generated". That is, the relationship between Father and Son is
eternal. It cannot be said that "there was once when he was not" (a
phrase that will haunt the discussion for centuries). Having the Son
is intrinsic to his concept of God. The Father and Son are described
as separate "hypostases", though this may not have quite the meaning
of separate subsistence that it had in some contexts. The union is
one of love and action, but there is some reason to think that he may
have used the term homoousios ("of the same substance"). The Holy
Spirit is also an active, personal substance, originated by the Father
through the Son. Origen's intent is trinitarian, not tritheistic, but
he pushes things in the direction of separateness.
FOURTH CENTURY
--clh]
Subordinationism [often called Arianism --clh]
Source: Arius
Major Adherents: Modern Jehovah's Witnesses, and several other lesser known
cults
Perception of God's Essence: The inherent oneness of God's nature is properly
identifiable with the Father only. The Son and the Holy Spirit are discreet
entities who do not share the divine essence.
Perception of God's Subsistence: The unipersonal essence of God precludes the
concept of divine subsistence with a Godhead. "Threeness in oneness" is self-
contradictory and violates biblical principles of a monotheistic God.
Asignation of Deity/Eternality:
Father: The only one, unbegotten God who is eternal and without beginning.
Son: A created being and therefore not eternal. Though he is to be venerated,
he is not of the divine essence.
Holy Spirit: A nonpersonal, noneternal emanation of the Father. He is viewed
as an influence, an expression of God. Deity is not ascribed to him.
Criticism(s): It is at variance with abundant scriptural testimony respecting
the deity of both Christ and the Holy Spirit. Its hierarchial concept likewise
asserts three essentially separate persons with regard to the Father, Christ,
and the Holy Spirit. This results in a totally confused soteriology.
[Note also that in most versions of this view, the Son is not fully
human either. He is supernatural and sinless. That distinguishes this
view from adoptionism. --clh]
Orthodox Trinitarianism
Source: Athanasius
Adherents: Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Augustine, Thomas
Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Contemporary orthodox Christianity
Perception of God's Essence: God's being is perfectly unified and simplex: of
one essence. This essence of deity is held in common by Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. The three persons are consubstantial, coinherent, co-equal, and co-
eternal.
Perception of God's Subsistence: The divine subsistence is said to occur in
three modes of being or hypostases. As such, the Godhead exists "undivided in
divided persons." This view contemplates an identity in nature and cooperation
in function without the denial of distinctions of persons in the Godhead.
Asignation of Deity/Eternality:
In its final distillation, this view unhesitatingly sets forth Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit as co-equal and co-eternal in the Godhead with regard to both
the divine essence and function.
Criticism(s): The only shortcoming has to do with the limitations inherent in
human language and thought itself: the impossibility of totally describing the
ineffable mystery of "three in oneness."
[At least in the 4th Cent, there were several different approaches, all
of which fit the description here, and all regarded as orthodox, but which
are somewhat different in detail. Nicea was originally held to respond
to Arius. Arius can be thought of as carrying Origen's thought a bit
too far, to the point of making the Son a separate entity. In general
the East tended to take an approach based on Origen's, and it was hard
to get acceptance of Nicea in the East. Its final acceptance was
based on the work of Athanasius with the Cappadocians: Gregory of Nyssa and
Gregory of Nazianzus, among others. While starting with three,
they show that their unity in nature and and action is such that one
must think of them as being a single God. This allowed the Council
of Constantinople, in 381, to get wide agreement on the idea of
three hypostatese and one ousia. --clh]
Adapted from _Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine_, by H. Wayne House.
Frank | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Nothing is perfect. Nothing is perpetual. i.e. even if it is perfect,
it isn't going to stay that way forever.
Perpetual machines cannot exist. I thought that there
were some laws in mechanics or thermodynamics stating that.
Not an atheist
BN
-- | 0 | alt.atheism |