text
stringlengths 1
51k
| label
int64 0
15
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
First, I thank collectively all people who have given good answers
to my questions. In my follow-up to Jason Smith's posting, I will
address some issues that have caused misunderstanding:
Yes, to some degree. There was an excellent discussion in sci.skeptic
on the nature of scientific work two weeks ago, I hope it did not
escape your notice.
The correct word is 'likely'. There is no way to be sure our models and
theories are absolutely correct. Theories are backed up by evidence,
but not proved - no theory can be 'true' in a mathematical sense.
However, theories are not mere descriptions or rationalisations of
phenomena. It is extremely important to test whether theories can
_predict_ something new or not yet observed. All successful theories
science has come up with have passed this test, including the Big
Bang theory of cosmic evolution, the theory of natural selection etc.
It does not mean they _must_ be correct, but they are not mere
'best fits' for the data.
Well, yes, if you want to _believe_ in them. This is not what science
requires - take a good look at the theory and the evidence, see if
the theory has made any successful predictions, and use your reason.
Disbelievers are not punished.
This is what puzzles me - why do we need to have faith in _anything_?
My fellow atheists would call me a weak atheist - someone who is
unable to believe, ie, fails to entertain any belief in God.
Yes, I know that one can't believe without God's help; Luther makes
this quite clear in his letter to Erasmus. I'm afraid this does not
change my situation.
(deletions)
No, it is not, although it does look like one. This is a true dichotomy,
either something exists, or nothing exists. If nothing exists, nobody
would ask why. If something exists, it is possible to ask why, but
actually no existing being could give an answer.
Imagine, for a moment, that the nobodies in non-existence could also
ask: "Why nothing exists?" This is equivalent to my counter-question,
"why nothing exists in nothingness".
Now, "why anything exists" is equivalent to "why something exists in
somethingness". _This_ is what I meant with my tautology, my apologies
for the poor wording in my previous post.
I do indeed think there probably _is_ no reason for being, or existence,
in general, for reasons I stated above. However, they will still
leave open the question "why this, and not that", and this is where
theistic explanations come in.
Science cannot give reasons for any _particular_ human being's existence.
This is a deep philosophical question - is determinism true, or not?
Also, is God deterministic or not? I tend to think this question has
no meaning in His case.
If I am for a reason, I've yet failed to see what it would be.
From our perspective, it looks like 'I' exist for truly random
reasons. I just rolled two dice - why did I get 6 and 1? How can
I believe there is any better reason for my existence?
Yes, I am satisfied with this reason, until I find something better.
My 15 years of Christianity were of no help in this respect, I have
to admit, but I am patient.
No, it doesn't, but I think an existing God cannot know why He exists,
for an answer to this question is not knowable. Of course, this
should not be any obstacle to belief in His existence.
It is impossible to know unknowable things. However, the question
"why do I exist, in particular" is _not_ an invalid question - this
is not what I said. But from our perspective, it is impossible to
tell, and I can't just believe in any given explanation instead of
another, especially since I found I was deluding myself.
I think "pre-existence" is an oxymoron. There is no time 'outside' of
this spacetime (except in some other universe), and from that
perspective, our universe never was. It exists only for those who
are inside it.
No. The validity of the question has to be discussed separately; I think
philosophy is of great help here. What can be known, and what is not
knowable?
This is a very good question. In trying to answer this, and numerous
other questions that bothered me, I finally found nothing to base
my faith on.
I think it would be honest if we all asked ourselves, "why do I believe"
or "why I don't believe".
Petri
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
This is an annual time of prayer organized by the Focus on the Family
organization. If you have not heard about it on your Christian radio
station or at your local church, call them and they may be able to
give you the information.
Many cities in the San Francisco bay area have local coordinators
organizing the time and the place to meet to pray. In San Francisco,
Oakland, Berkeley, San Jose, people will be meeting at ~12:15pm at
each city's City Hall.
Last year, I attended at the Mountain View city hall. It was a very
quiet and meaningful time of prayer. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
True, all you need to define is one statement that defined one
polarity, and all the other states are considered the other
polarity. Then again what is the meaning of nil, false or true :-) ?
Cheers,
Kent | 0 | alt.atheism |
Not if they are unwilling to go through a public marriage ceremony,
nor if they say they are willing but have not actually done so.
Let's distinguish _real_ logistical problems (like being stranded on a
desert island) from _excuses_ (such as waiting for so-and-so's brother
to come back from being in the army so he can be in the ceremony)...
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Here is some material by Michael Davies on the subject of schism in
general and Archishop Lefebvre in particular. He wrote it around
1990. The first part of the two-part article was on the scandalous
activities of Archbishop Weakland (in this country), but I cut all
that. And I pared down the rest to what was relevant.
Joe Buehler
...
Schism and Disobedience
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, schism consists primarily in a
refusal of submission to the Pope or communion with the members of the
Church united to him. On first sight it would appear that, whatever
the subjective motivation of the Archbishop, as discussed above, he
must be in a state of objective schism as he has refused to submit to
the Pope on a very grave matter involving his supreme power of
jurisdiction. However, standard Catholic textbooks of theology make it
clear that while all schisms involve disobedience not all acts of
disobedience are schismatic. If this were so, as was noted at the
beginning of this article, it would mean that the number of American
bishops who are not schismatic would not reach double figures.
The distinction between disobedience and schism is made very clear in
the article on schism in the very authoritative Dictionnaire de
Theologie Catholique. The article is by Father Yves Congar who is
certainly no friend of Archbishop Lefebvre. He explains that schism
and disobedience are so similar that they are often confused. Father
Congar writes that schism involves a refusal to accept the existence
of legitimate authority in the Church, for example, Luther's rejection
of the papacy. Father Congar explains that the refusal to accept a
decision of legitimate authority in a particular instance does not
constitute schism but disobedience. The Catholic Encyclopedia
explains that for a Catholic to be truly schismatic he would have to
intend "to sever himself from the Church as far as in him lies." It
adds that "not every disobedience is schism; in order to possess this
character it must include besides the transgression of the command of
the superiors, a denial of their divine right to command."Not only
does Mgr. Lefebvre not deny the divine right of the Pope to command,
but he affirms repeatedly his recognition of the Pope's authority and
his intention of never breaking away from Rome. The Archbishop made
his attitude clear in the July/August 1989 issue of 30 Days: "We pray
for the Pope every day. Nothing has changed with the consecrations
last June 30. We are not sedevacantists. We recognize in John Paul II
the legitimate Pope of the Catholic Church. We don't even say that he
is a heretical Pope. We only say that his Modernist actions favor
heresy."
...
Intrinsically Schismatic?
The principal argument used by those claiming that Mgr. Lefebvre is in
schism is that the consecration of a bishop without a papal mandate is
an intrinsically schismatic act. A bishop who carries out such a
consecration, it is claimed, becomes ipso facto a schismatic. This is
not true. If such a consecration is an intrinsically schismatic act it
would always have involved the penalty of excommunication. In the 1917
Code of Canon Law the offence was punished only by suspension (see
Canon 2370 of the 1917 Code). Pope Pius XII had raised the penalty to
excommunication as a response to the establishment of a schismatic
church in China. The consecration of these illicit Chinese bishops
differed radically from the consecrations carried out by Mgr. Lefebvre
as the professed intention was to repudiate the authority of the Pope,
that is, to deny that he has the right to govern the Church, and the
illicitly consecrated Chinese bishops were given a mandate to exercise
an apostolic mission. Neither Archbishop Lefebvre nor any of the
bishops he has consecrated claim that they have powers of
jurisdiction. They have been consecrated solely for the purpose of
ensuring the survival of the Society by carrying out ordinations and
also to perform confirmations. I do not wish to minimize in any way
the gravity of the step take by Mgr. Lefebvre. The consecration of
bishops without a papal mandate is far more serious matter than the
ordination of priests as it involves a refusal in practice of the
primacy or jurisdiction belonging by divine right to the Roman
Pontiff. But the Archbishop could argue that the crisis afflicting the
Church could not be more grave, and that grave measures were needed in
response.
It appears to be taken for granted by most of the Archbishop's critics
that he was excommunicated for the offense of schism, and the Vatican
has certainly been guilty of fostering this impression. There is not
so much as a modicum of truth in this allegation. The New Code of
Canon Law includes a section beginning with Canon 1364 entitled
"Penalties for Specific Offenses" (De Poenis in Singula Dicta). The
first part deals with "Offenses against Religion and the Unity of the
Church" (De Delictis contra Religionem et Ecclesiae Unitatem). Canon
1364 deals with the offense of schism which is, evidently, together
with apostasy and heresy, one of the three fundamental offenses
against the unity of the Church.
But the Archbishop was not excommunicated under the terms of this
canon or, indeed, under any canon involving an offense against
religion or the unity of the church. The canon cited in his
excommunication comes from the third section of "Penalties for
Specific Offenses" which is entitled "Usurpation of Ecclesial
Functions and Offenses in their Exercise" (De Munerum Ecclesiasticorum
Usurpatione Degue Delictis iniis Exercendis). The canon in question is
Canon 1382, which reads: "A bishop who consecrates someone bishop and
the person who receives such a consecration from a bishop without a
pontifical mandate incur an automatic (latae sententiae)
excommunication reserved to the Holy See."
The scandalous attempts to smear Archbishop Lefebvre with the offense
of schism are, then, contrary to both truth and charity. A comparable
smear under civil as opposed to ecclesiastical law would certainly
justify legal action for libel involving massive damages. An accurate
parallel would be to state that a man convicted of manslaughter had
been convicted of first degree murder.
I must stress that what I have written here is not the dubious opinion
of laymen unversed in the intricacies of Canon Law. Canon lawyers
without the least shred of sympathy for Mgr. Lefebvre have repudiated
the charge of schism made against him as totally untenable. Father
Patrick Yaldrini, Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law of the Institut
Catholique in Paris noted in the 4 July 1988 issue of Valeurs
actuelles that, as I have just explained, Mgr. Lefebvre was not
excommunicated for schism but for the usurpation of an ecclesiastical
function. He added that it is not the consecration of a bishop which
constitutes schism but the conferral of an apostolic mission upon the
illicitly consecrated bishop. It is this usurpation of the powers of
the sovereign pontiff which proves the intention of establishing a
parallel Church.
Cardinal Rosalio Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the
Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, commented on the consecrations
in the 10 July 1988 issue of la Repubblica. It would be hard to
The act of consecrating a bishop (without a papal mandate) is not
in itself a schismatic act. In fact, the Code that deals with
offenses is divided into two sections. One deals with offenses
against religion and the unity of the Church, and these are
apostasy, schism, and heresy. Consecrating a bishop with a
pontifical mandate is, on the contrary, an offense against the
exercise of a specific ministry. For example, in the case of the
consecrations carried out by the Vietnamese Archbishop Ngo Dinh
Thuc in 1976 and 1983, although the Archbishop was excommunicated
he was not considered to have committed a schismatic act because
there was no intention of a breach with the Church.
....
It is not simply unjust but ludicrous to suggest that in consecrating
bishops without a papal mandate Archbishop Lefebvre had the least
intent of establishing a schismatic church. He is not a schismatic and
will never be a schismatic. The Archbishop considers correctly that
the the Church is undergoing its worst crisis since the Arian heresy,
and that for the good of the Church it was necessary for him to
consecrate the four bishops to ensure the future of his Society. Canon
Law provides for just such a situation, and even if one believes that
the future of the Society could have been guaranteed without these
consecrations, the fact that the Archbishop believed sincerely that it
could not means, as Canon Law states clearly, that he has not incurred
excommunication. Furthermore, while the Vatican allows such prelates
as Archbishop Weakland to undermine the Faith with impunity it cannot
expect Catholics to pay the least attention to its sanctions against a
great and orthodox Archbishop whose entire life has been devoted to
the service of the Church and the salvation of souls.
Dr. Eric M. de Saventhem, President of the International Una Voce
Association, is one of the best informed laymen in the Church, and he
knows the Archbishop intimately. Dr. de Saventhem, like myself, has no
greater desire than to see a reconciliation between Mgr. Lefebvre and
the Holy See during the Archbishop's lifetime. A quotation from a
statement by Dr. de Saventhem which was published in the 15 February
1989 Remnant merits careful study: | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
From what I read, the other fellow told Salameh how to put it together
over the phone. The bomb was supposedly some sort of sophisticated
type, so to put a (I assume complicated) sophisticated bomb together
from instructions _over the phone_ (!) one must need some brains I would
expect.
I read this in an article in "The Australian Muslim Times", the
newspaper (weekly) of the Australian Muslim community.
If this is true, perhaps one of the Muslims based in North America (if
they see this posting) can elaborate.
I don't deny this fact.
The thrust of my argument here is that
(a) Salameh is, according to US law, innocent as he has not been found
guilty in a court of law. As his guilt has not been established, it is
wrong for people to make postings based on this assumption.
(b) Islam teaches us _not_ to harm innocents. If Muslims -- who perhaps
have not realized that Islam teaches this -- perform such actions, it is
_not_ _because_ of the teachings of Islam, but rather _in spite of_ and
_in contradiction to_ the teachings of Islam. This is an important
distinction.
I should clarify what Muslims usually mean when they say "Muslim". In
general, anyone who calls themselves a "Muslim" and does not do or
outwardly profess
something in clear contradiction with the essential teachings of Islam
is considered to be a Muslim. Thus, one who might do things contrary to
Islam (through ignorance, for example) does not suddenly _not_ become a
Muslim. If one knowingly transgresses Islamic teachings and essential
principles, though, then one does leave Islam.
The term "Muslim" is to be contrasted with "Mu'min", which means "true
believer". However, whether a Muslim is in reality a Mu'min is
something known only by God (and perhaps that person himself). So you
will not find the term Mu'min used very much by Muslims in alt.atheism,
because it is not known to anybody (except myself and God), whether I,
for example, am a "true believer" or not. For example, I could just be
putting on a show here, and in reality believe something opposite to
what I write here, without anyone knowing. Thus, when we say "Muslims"
we mean all those who outwardly profess to follow Islam, whether in
practice they might, in ignorance, transgress Islamic teachings. By
"Muslim" we do not necessarily mean "Mu'min", or "true believer" in
Islam. | 0 | alt.atheism |
This book is worth a read to get a sensible view of this issue.
The book is in two sections. Section 1 contains a fairly reasonable
analysis of the Bible, showing many inconsistencies between the Bible
and modern science. Well we all know that, no surprises.
Section 2 analyses the Koran's version of the Old Testament stories,
and seems, on the face of it, to present a good case showing the Koran
is consistent with modern science. However, it was plain to me, that
this consistency was only possible by the vague phraseology of the
Koran. Take the flood, for example, the bible is full of detail,
("forty days and forty nights", "pair of every animal", etc.), we all
know this is nonsense. The Koran's description of the same event is
so obscure as to make possible an interpretation such as "A big river
flooded for a few days and caused much damage". Yes, no contradiction
but also not much fact.
The Koran might be consistent with modern science, but being
consistent due to its vagueness compared with other books of that
time, does not seem much of an achievement.
The book concludes by saying something like, the Koran must have had
divine inspiration because at the time it was written there were a lot
of (to us now) ridiculous ideas about the universe, and none of them
can be found in the Koran! Arguing for the greatness of a book by
talking about what it does not contain seems absurd in the extreme.
The above is, of course, from memory so I may have missed some points.
-- | 0 | alt.atheism |
Over the years, I have met Christians who are not associated with
any local church and are not members of any local church. This is
an issue that may be very personal, but is important. What does
the Bible say about this and how can we encourage our friends with
regard to this issue? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Greetings,
Probably a tired old horse, but... maybe with a slightly different
twist. I wanted to know if there are any good English-language texts
for learning ancient Hebrew, and how these compare with German
educational texts qualitywise, if anybody has an idea. I can't figure
out if I should buy one here for later study or wait until I get back to
the U.S.
Something I find interesting about studying theology in Germany is the
fact that the students get their ancient language-learning out of the
way early [I'm not a theology student, but I spend a lot of time with
such folks] in their careers. They take the first two years or so to just
do Greek and Latin and Hebrew [possibly Aramaic, too--who knows].
What's it like at divinity schools or seminaries in the States? Is
there a lot of language instruction done? I really don't have a basis
for comparison.
Regards, Phil
--
Philip Sells Is anything too hard for the LORD?
[email protected] --Gen. 18:14 | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Specifically, which changes are you talking about? Are you arguing
that the motto is interpreted as offensive by a larger portion of the
population now than 40 years ago? | 0 | alt.atheism |
I AM Satan!
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Frank, I got your mailing on early historical references to Christianity.
I'd like to respond, but I lost your address. Please mail me. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Well, despite what my mother told me about accepting dares, here goes.
You have to be very careful about what you mean by "question authority".
Taken literally, it is nonsense. That which is authoratative is authoratative,
and to say "I question to word of this authority" is ridiculous. If it is
open to question, it isn't an authority. On the other hand, it is perfectly
reasonable to question whether something is an authority. The catch phrase
here should be "authenticate authority." Once you have authenticated
your authority, you must believe what it says, or you are not treating it as
an authority.
The difficulty is that authenticating an authority is not easy. You
can perhaps discredit a claim to authority by showing logical inconsistency
in what it teaches, or by showing that it does not obey its own rules of
discourse. But the fact that I cannot discredit something does not, in
inself, accredit it. (Nor does the fact that I can convince myself and
other that I have discredited something necessarilly mean that it is false.)
I cannot accredit an authority by independantly verifying its teachings,
because if I can independantly verify its teachings, I don't need an
authority. I need an authority only when there is information I need which
I cannot get for myself. Thus, if I am to authenticate an authority, I must
do it by some means other than by examining its teachings.
In practical matters we accept all kinds of authorities because we don't
have time to rediscover fundamental knowledge for ourselves. Every scientist
woring today assumes, on the authority of the scintific community, all sorts
of knowledge which is necessary to his work but which he has not time to
verify for himself.
In spiritual matters, we accept authority because we have no direct source
ofinformation. We select our authorities based on various criteria. (I am
a Catholic, in part, because the historical claims of the RC church seem
the strongest.) Without authorities there would be no subject matter for
belief, unless we simply made something up for ourselves (as many do).
The atheist position seems to be that there are no authorities. This is a
reasonable assertion in itself, but it leads to a practical difficulty.
If you reject all authority out of hand, you reject all possibility of
every receiving information. Thus the atheist position can never possibly
change. It is non-falsifiable and therefore unscintific.
To demand scintific or rational proof of God's existence, is to deny
God's existence, since neither science, nor reason, can, in their very
nature, prove anything.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Apparently not.
In response to his claim that it "terrifies" gay people not to be able
to "indoctrinate children to our lifestyle" (or words to that effect),
I sent Roger a very calm, carefully-written, detailed letter
explaining simply why the BSA policy does, indeed terrify me. I did
not use inflammatory language and left myself extremely open for an
answer. Thus far, I have not received an answer. I can conclude only
that Roger considers his position either indefensible or simply not
worth defending.
In fact, that's exactly the point: people can control their behavior.
Because of that fact, there is no need for a blanket ban on
homosexuals.
You tell me.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Sure, why not? But, are you using Paul to correct the words of Jesus?
"So *anyone* who dissolves even one of the smallest commands and teaches
others the same way, will be known as the lowest in the kingdom of the
skies; whereas *anyone* who keeps the commands and teaches them too, will
be known as *someone* great in the kingdom of the skies." Mat5:19 (Gaus)
Are you an "anyone" or are you a "no one?"
Why not assume, that since Jesus didn't say that his words apply only to
Jews, that they apply to all human beings, irregardless of race or sex?
Why not assume, that even though Jesus did not mention your name, still
Jesus was talking directly to you?
Does it say that it applies to *you*? Are you anyone or no one?
Ex20:8-11(JPS) Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy. Six days you
shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of
the LORD your God; you shall not do any work - you, your son or
daughter, your male or female slave, or your cattle, or the stranger who
is within your settlements. For in six days the LORD made heaven and
earth and sea, and all that is in them, and He rested on the seventh
day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hollowed it.
Note: There is no specific requirement for worship here, however I for
one would not be so bold as to call these verses a "ceremonial detail."
Don't many Christians still practice circumcision?
It's unfortunate that Jesus didn't use your name directly, or maybe
Jesus did? Are you somebody or nobody?
If you don't see a problem, then perhaps there is none. As Paul closes
Romans 14 (Gaus):
In short, pursue the ends of peace and of building each other up.
Don't let dietary considerations undo the work of God. Everything may be
clean, but it's evil for the person who eats it in an offensive spirit.
Better not to eat the meat or drink the wine or whatever else your
brother is offended by. As for the faith that you have, keep that
between yourself and God. The person is in luck who doesn't condemn
himself for what he samples. On the other hand, the person with doubts
about something who eats it anyway is guilty, because he isn't acting on
his faith, and any failure to act on faith is a sin. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
A section of Richard Badenas' book, "Christ The End of the Law, Romans 10.14
in Pauline Perspective." The section I have is on the Contextual setting and
meaning of Romans 9-11. In addition, there are 111 endnotes.
Since the file is so long, and because of other reasons, I will take requests
for the article personally.
Of course, I believe Badenas' insights to be true, and, quite damaging to the
traditional Augustinian/Calvinist view. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I must have missed the postings about Waco, David Koresh, and the Second
Coming. How does one tell if a Second Coming is the real thing, unless the
person claiming to be IT is obviously insane?
I'm not saying that David Koresh is the Second Coming of Christ. How could
somebody who breaks his word be the Second Coming? Koresh did promise that
he would come out of his compound if only he was allowed to give a radio
broadcast. He didn't. Still it seems to me that he did fool some people.
And, from my meagre knowledge of the Bible, it seems that Christians have
been hard on the Jews of Christ's day for being cautious about accepting
somebody that their religious authorities didn't accept as the Messiah.
So I was surprised that nobody had discussed the difficulty of wanting to be
early to recognize the Second Coming while, at the same time, not wanting to
be credulously believing just anybody who claims to be God.
[Mark 13:21 And then if any one says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!'
or 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it.
Mark 13:22 False Christs and false prophets will arise and show signs and
wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.
Mark 13:23 But take heed; I have told you all things beforehand.
Mark 13:24 "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be
darkened, and the moon will not give its light,
Mark 13:25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in
the heavens will be shaken.
Mark 13:26 And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with
great power and glory.
My understanding of Jesus' answer is that, unlike his first coming,
which was veiled, the second coming will be quite unmistakeable. He's
telling us not to be misled by the other things that have to happen
before his second coming -- the actual second coming will make his
power openly visible.
By the way, from Koresh's public statement it's not so clear to me
that he is claiming to be Christ. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
=
= : [ The discussion begins: why does the universe exist at all? ]
=
= : One of the Laws of Nature, specifying cause and effect seems to dictate
= : (at least to this layman's mind) there must be a causal event. No
= : reasonable alternative exists.
=
= I would argue that causality is actually a property of spacetime;
= causes precede their effects.
And I must concede here. Cause *before* effect, implies time, time is part
of spacetime. Hense, the argument would be valid. I could return and say
that this does not infer the cause and effect relationship being *unique*
to *this* spacetime, but I won't 8^), because the point is moot. Doesn't
address why (which Petri Pikho addresses below).
I also concede that I was doubly remiss, as I asserted "No reasonable
alternative exists", an entirely subjective statement on my part (and one
that could be invalidated, given time and further discovery by the
scientist). I also understand that a proving a theory does not necessarily
specify that "this is how it happened", but proposes a likely description of
the phenomena in question. Am I mistaken with this understanding?
= But if you claim that there must be
= an answer to "how" did the universe (our spacetime) emerge from
= "nothing", science has some good candidates for an answer.
All of which require something we Christians readily admit to: ``Faith''.
The fact that there are several candidates belies that *none* are conclusive.
With out conclusive evidence, we are left with faith.
It could even be argued that one of these hypotheses may one day be proven (as
best as a non-repeatable event can be "proven"). But I ask, what holds
someone *today* to the belief that any or all of them are correct, except by
faith?
[ a couple of paragraphs deleted. Summary: we ask "Why does the
universe exist" ]
= I think this question should actually be split into two parts, namely
=
= 1) Why is there existence? Why anything exists?
=
= and
=
= 2) How did the universe emerge from nothing?
=
= It is clear science has nothing to say about the first question. However,
= is it a meaningful question, after all?
=
= I would say it isn't. Consider the following:
Apparently it *is* for many persons. Hence, we *have* religions.
= The question "why anything exists" can be countered by
= demanding answer to a question "why there is nothing in nothingness,
= or in non-existence". Actually, both questions turn out to be
= devoid of meaning. Things that exist do, and things that don't exist
= don't exist. Tautology at its best.
Carefully examine the original question, and then the "counter-question".
The first asks "Why", while the second is a request for definition. It
doesn't address why something does or does not exist, but asks to define
the lack of existence. The second question is unanswerable indeed, for
how do we identify something as "nothing" (aren't they mutually exclusive
terms)?. How do we identify a state of non-existence (again, this is
nearing the limits of this simple layman's ability to comprehend, and I
would appreciate an explanation).
I might add, the worldview of "Things that exist do, and things that
don't...don't" is as grounded in the realm of the non-falsifiable,
as does the theist's belief in God. It is based on the assumption
that there is *not* a reason for being, something as ultimately
(un)supportable as the position of there being a reason. Its very
foundation exists in the same soil as that of one who claims there *is* a
reason.
We come to this. Either "I am, therefore I am.", or "I am for a reason."
If the former is a satisfactory answer, then you are done, for you are
satisfied, and need not a doctor. If the latter, your search is just
beginning.
= I seriously doubt God could have an answer to this question.
Time will tell. 8^)
=
= Some Christians I have talked to have said that actually, God is
= Himself the existence. However, I see several problems with this
= answer. First, it inevitably leads to the conclusion that God is
= actually _all_ existence, good and evil, devils and angels, us and
= them. This is pantheism, not Christianity.
Agreed. It would lead me to question their definition of Christianity as
well.
= Another answer is that God is the _source_ of all existence.
= This sounds much better, but I am tempted to ask: Does God
= Himself exist, then? If God is the source of His own existence,
= it can only mean that He has, in terms of human time, always
= existed. But this is not the same as the source of all existence.
This does not preclude His existence. It only seeks to identify His
*qualities* (implying He exists to *have* qualities, BTW).
= The best answer I have heard is that human reasoning is incapable
= of understanding such questions. Being an atheist myself, I do not
= accept such answers, since I do not have any other methods.
Like the theist, we come to a statement of faith, for this position assumes
that the evidence at hand is conclusive. Note, I am not arguing against
scientific endeavor, for science is useful for understanding the universe in
which we exist. But I differ from the atheist in a matter of perspective. I
seek to understand what exists to understand and appreciate the art of the
Creator.
I also have discovered science is an inadequate tool to answer "why". It
appears that M. Pihko agrees (as we shall see). But because a tool is
inadequate to answer a question does not preclude the question. Asserting
that 'why' is an invalid question does not provide an answer.
= : As far as I can tell, the very laws of nature demand a "why". That isn't
= : true of something outside of nature (i.e., *super*natural).
=
= This is not true. Science is a collection of models telling us "how",
= not why, something happens. I cannot see any good reason why the "why"
= questions would be bound only to natural things, assuming that the
= supernatural domain exists. If supernatural beings exist, it is
= as appropriate to ask why they do so as it is to ask why we exist.
My apologies. I was using why as "why did this come to be". Why did
pre-existence become existence. Why did pre-spacetime become spacetime.
But we come to the admission that science fails to answer "Why?". Because
it can't be answered in the realm of modern science, does that make the
question invalid?
= : I don't believe *any*
= : technology would be able to produce that necessary *spark* of life, despite
= : having all of the parts available. Just my opinion.
=
= This opinion is also called vitalism; namely, that living systems are
= somehow _fundamentally_ different from inanimate systems. Do Christians
= in general adopt this position? What would happen when scientists announce
= they have created primitive life (say, small bacteria) in a lab?
I suppose we would do the same thing as when Galileo or Capernicus was
*vindicated* (before someone starts jumping up and down screaming
"Inquisition!", note I said *vindicated*. I certainly hope we've gotten
beyond the "shooting the messenger" stage).
M. Pihko does present a good point though. We may need to ask "What do I
as an individual Christian base my faith on?" Will it be shaken by the
production of evidence that shatters our "sacred cows" or will we seek to
understand if a new discovery truly disagrees with what God *said* (and
continues to say) in his Word?
"Why do I ask why?" (apologies to Budweiser and company 8^]).
Jason.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
You're closer than you might imagine. I certainly despised living
under the Soviet regime when it purported to organize society according
to what they fondly imagined to be the "objective" conclusions of
Marxist dialectic.
But I don't hate Physics so long as some clown doesn't start trying
to control my life on the assumption that we are all interchangeable
atoms, rather than individual human beings. | 0 | alt.atheism |
I have come across what I consider to be an excellent tract. It is a
bit lengthy for a posting, but I thought I'd share it with all of you
anyway. Feel free to pass it along to anyone whom you feel might
benefit from what it says. May God richly bless those who read it.
=======================================================================
D O E S G O D L O V E Y O U ?
Q. What kind of question is that? Anyone who can read sees signs,
tracts, books, and bumper stickers that say, "God Loves You." Isn't
that true?
A. It is true that God offers His love to the whole world, as we read
in one of the most quoted verses in the Bible:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but
have everlasting life. John 3:16
The way of the wicked is an abomination unto the LORD: but he
loveth him that followeth after righteousness. Proverbs 15:9
For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of
the ungodly shall perish. Psalm 1:6
Q. But I am not wicked. I am a decent, moral person. Surely the good
I have done in my life far outweighs whatever bad I have done. How
can these verses apply to me?
A. By God's standard of righteousness even the most moral person is
looked upon by God as a desperate sinner on his way to Hell. The
Bible teaches that no one is good enough in himself to go to Heaven.
On the contrary, we are all sinners and we are all guilty before
God.
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There
is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after
God. Romans 3:10-11
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately
wicked: who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9
Q. If I am such a wicked person in God's sight, what will God do to me?
A. The Bible teaches that at the end of the world all the wicked will
come under eternal punishment in a place called Hell.
For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the
lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase,
and set on fire the foundations of the mountains. I will heap
mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them. They
shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat,
and with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of
beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust.
Deuteronomy 32:22-24
Q. Oh, come on now! Hell is not real, is it? Surely things are not
that bad.
A. Indeed, Hell is very real, and things are that bad for the individ-
ual who does not know the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior. The Bible
makes many references to Hell, indicating that it is both eternal
and consists of perpetual suffering.
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was
cast into the lake of fire. Revelation 20:15
So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come
forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall
cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and
gnashing of teeth. Matthew 13:49-50
... when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with
his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them
that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord
Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting
destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory
of his power; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9
Q. That is terrible! Why would God create a Hell?
A. Hell is terrible, and it exists because God created man to be
accountable to God for his actions. God's perfect justice demands
payment for sin.
For the wages of sin is death; Romans 6:23
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ;
that every one may receive the things done in his body,
according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
2 Corinthians 5:10
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak,
they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
Matthew 12:36
Q. Does that mean that at the end of the world everyone will be brought
to life again to be judged and then to be sent to Hell?
A. Indeed it does; that is, unless we can find someone to be our
substitute in bearing the punishment of eternal damnation for our
sins. That someone is God Himself, who came to earth as Jesus
Christ to bear the wrath of God for all who believe in Him.
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one
to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of
us all. Isaiah 53:6
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for
our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him;
and with his stripes we are healed. Isaiah 53:5
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also
received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the
scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the
third day according to the scriptures: 1 Corinthians 15:3-4
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that
we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
2 Corinthians 5:21
Q. Are you saying that if I trust in Christ as my substitute, Who was
already punished for my sins, then I will not have to worry about
Hell anymore?
A. Yes, this is so! If I have believed in Christ as my Savior, then it
is as if I have already stood before the Judgment Throne of God.
Christ as my substitute has already paid for my sins.
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he
that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath
of God abideth on him. John 3:36
Q. But what does it mean to believe on Him? If I agree with all that
the Bible says about Christ as Savior, then am I saved from going to
Hell?
A. Believing on Christ means a whole lot more than agreeing in our
minds with the truths of the Bible. It means that we hang our whole
lives on Him. It means that we entrust every part of our lives to
the truths of the Bible. It means that we turn away from our sins
and serve Christ as our Lord.
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one,
and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and
despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Matthew 6:24
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be
blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the
presence of the Lord; Acts 3:19
Q. Are you saying that there is no other way to escape Hell except
through Jesus? What about all the other religions? Will their
followers also go to Hell?
A. Yes, indeed. They cannot escape the fact that God holds us account-
able for our sins. God demands that we pay for our sins. Other
religions cannot provide a substitute to bear the sins of their
followers. Christ is the only one who is able to bear our guilt and
save us.
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none
other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be
saved. Acts 4:12
I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the
Father, but by me. John 14:6
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us
our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1 John 1:9
Q. Now I am desperate. I do not want to go to Hell. What can I do?
A. You must remember that God is the only one who can help you. You
must throw yourself altogether on the mercies of God. As you see
your hopeless condition as a sinner, cry out to God to save you.
And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much
as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying,
God be merciful to me a sinner. Luke 18:13
... Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe
on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, ...
Acts 16:30-31
Q. But how can I believe on Christ if I know so little about Him?
A. Wonderfully, God not only saves us through the Lord Jesus, but He
also gives us the faith to believe on Him. You can pray to God that
He will give you faith in Jesus Christ as your Savior.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of
yourselves: it is the gift of God: Ephesians 2:8
God works particularly through the Bible to give us that faith. So,
if you really mean business with God about your salvation, you
should use every opportunity to hear and study the Bible, which is
the only Word of God.
In this brochure, all verses from the Bible are within indented
paragraphs. Give heed to them with all your heart.
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of
God. Romans 10:17
Q. But does this mean that I have to surrender everything to God?
A. Yes. God wants us to come to Him in total humility, acknowledging
our sinfulness and our helplessness, trusting totally in Him.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a
contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. Psalm 51:17
Because we are sinners we love our sins. Therefore, we must begin
to pray to God for an intense hatred of our sins. And if we
sincerely desire salvation, we will also begin to turn from our sins
as God strengthens us. We know that our sins are sending us to
Hell.
Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him
to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his
iniquities. Acts 3:26
Q. Doesn't the Bible teach that I must attend church regularly and be
baptized? Will these save me?
A. If possible, we should do these things, but they will not save us.
No work of any kind can secure our salvation. Salvation is God's
sovereign gift of grace given according to His mercy and good pleas-
ure. Salvation is
Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:9
Q. What else will happen at the end of the world?
A. Those who have trusted in Jesus as their Savior will be transformed
into their glorious eternal bodies and will be with Christ forever-
more.
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout,
with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God:
and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are
alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the
clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be
with the Lord. 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
Q. What will happen to the earth at that time?
A. God will destroy the entire universe by fire and create new heavens
and a new earth where Christ will reign with His believers forever-
more.
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in
the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and
the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and
the works that are therein shall be burned up. ...
Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new
heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
2 Peter 3:10,13
Q. Does the Bible give us any idea of when the end of the earth will
come?
A. Yes! The end will come when Christ has saved all whom He plans to
save.
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the
world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end
come. Matthew 24:14
Q. Can we know how close to the end of the world we might be?
A. Yes! God gives much information in the Bible concerning the timing
of the history of the world and tells us that while the Day of the
Lord will come as a thief in the night for the unsaved, it will not
come as a thief for the believers. There is much evidence in the
Bible that the end of the world and the return of Christ may be
very, very close.* All the time clues in the Bible point to this.
For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden
destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with
child; and they shall not escape. 1 Thessalonians 5:3
Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his
secret unto his servants the prophets. Amos 3:7
Q. But that means Judgment Day is almost here.
A. Yes, it does. God warned ancient Nineveh that He was going to
destroy that great city and He gave them forty days warning.
And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he
cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be
overthrown. Jonah 3:4
Q. What did the people of Nineveh do?
A. From the king on down they humbled themselves before God, repented
of their sins, and cried to God for mercy.
But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry
mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil
way, and from the violence that is in their hands. Who can
tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his
fierce anger, that we perish not? Jonah 3:8-9
Q. Did God hear their prayers?
A. Yes. God saved a great many people of Nineveh.
Q. Can I still cry to God for mercy so that I will not come into judg-
ment?
A. Yes. There is still time to become saved even though that time has
become very short.
How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which
at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed
unto us by them that heard him; Hebrews 2:3
In God is my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength,
and my refuge, is in God. Trust in him at all times; ye
people, pour out your heart before him: God is a refuge for
us. Psalm 62:7-8
A R E Y O U R E A D Y T O M E E T G O D ?
A book entitled 1994?, written by Harold Camping, presents Biblical
information that we may be very near the end of time. For information
on how to obtain a copy or to receive a free program guide and list of
radio stations on which you can hear our Gospel programs, please write
to Family Radio, Oakland, California, 94621 (The United States of Amer-
ica), or call 1-800-543-1495.
----------------------------------------
The foregoing is a copy of the "Does God Love You?" tract printed by,
and available free of charge from, Family Radio. A number of minor
changes have been made to its layout to facilitate computer printing
and distribution. The only change to the text itself is the paragraph
which describes the way in which Biblical passages appear within the
text. In the original tract they appear in italic lettering; they
appear here as indented paragraphs.
I have read Mr. Camping's book, compared it with what the Bible actual-
ly says, find it to be the most credible research with respect to what
the future holds that I have ever come across, and agree with him that
there is just too much data to ignore. While none of us is guaranteed
one more second of life, and while we, therefore, should take these
matters very seriously regardless of when Christ will actually return,
it would appear that our natural tendency to postpone caring about our
eternal destiny until we feel that our death is imminent is even more
senseless now because, in all likelihood, the law of averages with
respect to life expectancy no longer applies. If you wish to obtain a
copy of this book so that you can check out these facts for yourself,
you may find the following information helpful:
title: 1994?
author: Harold Camping
publisher: Vantage Press
distributor: Baker and Taylor
ISBN: 0-533-10368-1
I have chosen to share this tract with you because I whole-heartedly
agree with everything it declares and feel that now, perhaps more than
ever before, this information must be made known. To paraphrase Acts
20:27, it does not shun to declare unto us all the counsel of God. I
am always willing to discuss the eternal truths of the Bible with
anyone who is interested as I believe them to be the only issues of any
real importance since we will spend, comparatively speaking, so little
time on this side of the grave and so much on the other. Feel free to
get in touch with me at any time:
e-mail: [email protected]
office: 1-613-765-4671
home: 1-613-726-0014 | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
(Deletion)
No it in the way it is usually used. In my view, you are saying here that
driving a car requires faith that the car drives.
For me it is a conclusion, and I have no more faith in it than I have in the
premises and the argument used.
No, that's a word game. The term god is used in a different way usually.
When you use a different definition it is your thing, but until it is
commonly accepted you would have to say the way I define god is ... and
that does not exist, it is existence itself, so I say it does not exist.
Interestingly, there are those who say that "existence exists" is one of
the indubitable statements possible.
Further, saying god is existence is either a waste of time, existence is
already used and there is no need to replace it by god, or you are implying
more with it, in which case your definition and your argument so far
are incomplete, making it a fallacy.
(Deletion)
(Deletion)
Where does that follow? Aren't observations based on the assumption
that something exists?
And wouldn't you say there is a level of definition that the assumption
"god is" is meaningful. If not, I would reject that concept anyway. | 0 | alt.atheism |
I am a student at UW-Eau Claire. I am doing a paper an witches and wanted to
get your point of view. I will not use you name unless you specifically tell
me to do so.
Please answer this question:
As a Christian, are you offended by witches and Wiccan? Do you feel that tehy
are pagan in the evil sense of the word?
You time and cooperation is appreciated. Thanks, J.
-This survey is being conducted in partial fulfillment of the course
requirements for Engl 201, taught by Karen Welch at the University of
Wisconsin-Eau Claire. This course is in compliance with the course
certification requirements of the University Institutional Review Board for the
PRotection of Human Subjects. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
A few points about Mary's being taken into heaven at the end of her life on
earth:
One piece of evidence for Mary's assumption into heaven is the fact
that no Christian church ever claimed to be the sight where she was
buried. Some Christian churches claimed to be located at the final
resting places of Peter, Mark, and other saints, but no one ever
claimed to possess the body of Mary, the greatest of the saints. Why?
Because everyone knew that she had been taken up into heaven.
Although there is no definitive scriptural proof for the assumption of
Mary, some passages seem suggestive, like the passage in Revelation
that describes a woman giving birth to a Son and later being crowned
in the heavens. Of course, the woman in this passage has other
interpretations; she can also be taken a symbol for the Church.
The assumption of Mary makes sense because of her relationship to
Christ. Jesus, perfect God and perfect man, fulfilled the
requirements of the law perfectly. Under the law God gave to us, we
are to honor our mother and father, and Christ's act of taking his
mother into heaven is part of his fulfillment of that law. Also, he
took his flesh from her, so it seems appropriate that he decide not to
allow her flesh to rot in the grave.
One last point: an ex-Catholic attempted to explain Catholic doctrine
on the assumption by asserting it is connected to a belief that Mary
did not die. This is not a correct summary of what Catholics believe.
The dogma of the assumption was carefully phrased to avoid saying
whether Mary did or did not die. In fact, the consensus among Catholic
theologians seems to be that Mary in fact did die. This would make
sense: Christ died, and his Mother, who waited at the foot of the
cross, would want to share in his death. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Hello,
I'm writing a paper on the role of the catholic church in Poland after 1989.
Can anyone tell me more about this, or fill me in on recent books/articles(
in english, german or french). Most important for me is the role of the
church concerning the abortion-law, religious education at schools,
birth-control and the relation church-state(government). Thanx, | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Hello,
I have seen two common threads running through postings by atheists on the
newsgroup, and I think that they can be used to explain each other.
Unfortunately I don't have direct quotes handy...
1) Atheists believe that when they die, they die forever.
2) A god who would condemn those who fail to believe in him to eternal death
is unfair.
I don't see what the problem is! To Christians, Hell is, by definition,
eternal death--exactly what atheists are expecting when they die. There's no
reason Hell has to be especially awful--to most people, eternal death is bad
enough.
Literal interpreters of the Bible will have a problem with this view, since
the Bible talks about the fires of Hell and such. Personally, I don't think
that people in Hell will be thrust into flame any more than I expect to Jesus
with a double-edged sword issuing from his mouth--I treat both these statements
as metaphorical. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
My brother has been alienated from my parents and me since shortly after
his marriage to a domineering and insecure woman, about twelve years ago.
We've kept things on a painfully polite, Christmas-card sort of level
for most of this time. Attempts to see each other end disastrously, with
his wife throwing a screaming fit and storming out over either our imagined
slights to her, or his inattention or insensitivity to her (I mean, this'll
happen by the end of a single restaurant meal). He seems, from what I've
seen, to live in a state of quivering anxiety, hoping futilely to keep
the next storm from breaking. He has sacrificed not only meaningful contact
with us but also other friends and outside interests. Now, this is his
choice, and I need to accept it even if I deplore it. But it's hard.
From time to time I've wanted to drop the pretense that we have a
relationship--by cutting off contact--or trying to have a real if painful
relationship, by talking honestly with him, but I've always thought, "Why
be dramatic? And you know he'll only get evasive and then find some excuse
to get off the phone. Just leave the door open, in case he ever decides to
come back." It's been an unsatisfying choice, to allow us to go on
with the superficial trappings of a relationship, but it was the best I
could think of.
Now, this weekend, my mother finally decided that she wasn't going
to pretend any more and has cut off relations with them. This was the
outcome of a phone conversation in which my sister-in-law screamed and
raved at my mother, blaming her for everything wrong in their lives, and
in which my brother evaded, temporized, claimed the situation was
beyond his control, and as always expected my mother to make all the
allowances and concessions. Mom said she would not, that she would not
quietly take abuse any more, and that if these were the terms of their
relationship, she didn't want to talk to or see them any more. And she hung
up. (I have never seem my mother lose her temper, and I think that this is
the first time she's ever hung up on someone.) Mom says she feels as if
she's divorced my brother, and that it's a relief in some ways to have the
break out in the open and done with.
I have mixed feelings. I'm proud of Mom for sticking up for herself;
angry at my brother and sister-in-law for hurting her, for being jerks, for
persisting in such a wretched life, which hurts us all and is warping their
children; angry at my sister-in-law for being so hateful, and angry at my
brother for being a coward and having so little respect for himself or us
that he's willing to throw us aside and use up all his energy trying to
appease an unappeasable,
emotionally disturbed woman; pained for their children, who are a mess;
scared for the future, since this marks the time when either things will
change and improve or the break will become irrevocable; nastily self-
righteous over this bit of proof that they can't "get away" with treating
us or each other this way, and then disgusted with myself for even
beginning to gloat over others' misery; and finally, mostly, sad, sad,
sad, to see my parents hurt and my brother and sister-in-law trapped in
a horrible, destructive situation that they can't see a way out of--or
they can't bear to take whatever paths they do see. And I'm frustrated
because I don't know what if anything to do, and doing nothing drives me
up the wall. I try to pray, about my own feelings of rage, impotence,
and vindictiveness, and about their situation, but I am not
free of the desire to *DO* something concrete. (The desire to *DO*
something, to define a problem and fix it, is one of my besetting
vices; I'm having a terrible time quieting down my internal
mental chatter enough to listen for God.)
Do you thoughtful and kind people on the net have advice for me? Is
this a time to reach out to my brother? To let things be? How can I
conquer my rage AT him enough to be there FOR him?
Here's the big question I've been evading throughout this long, long
post: Is it ok, as a Christian and a proponent of faith, hope, and
charity, to accept the destruction of a relationship? To give up on
my own brother, or at least to accept that I am powerless to help him
and can only wait and see what happens? Do please answer--by e-mail or
post.
Thank you. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Hi there netters,
I have a question I would very much like to see some discussion on:
Is there such a thing as a 'justifible' war?
What I would love to see it some basis from scripture for either: "All war
is wrong", or "Some war is justifiable".
To get things started I would like to outline why I am asking the
question. In my high school days I had been quite involved in the the New
Zealand Cadet Forces (This is a bit like ROTC from what I understand of
it, but with a lot more emphasis on fun than military career training).
Through this I became extremely enamoured of flying, have become involved
in the sport of gliding, and have a great interest in military aviation
hardware as the very best a 'real' flyer could ask for. My favourite
computer games are the accurate simulations of military aircraft, both
past and present.
I became a Christian about 10 years ago, and at the time rejected all
military activity as immoral. For me, all war was in complete opposition
to God's commandments to love one another, especially one's enemies.
During the war in Iraq, I found myself with great excitement listening to
the reports of the effectiveness of the the attacks using the aviation
technology I so admire - The F117A 'Stealh' bomber, the F14, F15 and F16
strike aircraft, etc. After the war concluded I began to really enjoy
simulations based around this conflict - Great to go and bomb Saddam's
bio-weapons plants in an F117A on my computer, or shoot down some of his
Mig's in an F16. The simulation of the death of people was a wonderful
game. I imagine the real pilots view the real thing in much the same way.
One only has to look at the language used to see that the personal impact
of war is ignored: A building containing people, or an aircraft flown by a
pilot is simply a 'target'. Dead civilians are 'collateral damage'. These
euphanisms are a way of removing the reality of war from the people whose
support are necessary for the continued waging of war - One only has to
look at Vietnam to see how important public opinion is.
Now we see troops sponsored by the United Nations entering Somalia, and
the prospect of military intervention in the Muslim/Croat/Serb conflict in
the former Yugoslavia. My revulsion in particular to the siege of
Sarajevo, and in the last few days of (sorry 'bout spelling) Sebrenitsa,
has caused me to rethink where I stand on 'justifiable' war.
I will list several wars in the last 50 years I can look at each, and say
- Yes this may have been justifible, this may not. These are simply my gut
reactions to each - In many cases with the benefit of the impartiality
history brings. Let me go through a few and state some of my reasons for
my reaction - I am not a historian, so excuse any historical blunders, I
am working from popular history as it is known in New Zealand.
1. The Second World War
- Murder of Jews - Hitler had to be stopped.
- Massive civilian casualties on both sides
- Dresden, Hiroshima/Nagasaki
- Probably justifiable.
2. Korean war
- Political expansionism by North Korea, basically
communism vs. capitalism.
- Probably not justifiable.
3. Vietnam
- As above, worsened by US involvement.
4. Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia.
- Genocide by Khmer Rouge.
- Probably justifiable.
5. Iraq (Desert Storm)
- Political expansionism, threat to world oil supply
- Other factors such as genocide.
- Not sure, but probably justifiable
6. A future involvement in Bosnia
- Genocide - so called 'Ethnic Cleansing'
- Emotive - much TV coverage of atrocities and civilian casualties.
- Probably justifiable
7. Possible future use of nuclear weapons - tactical or strategic,
somewhere in the world by the US in response to someone else - e.g. Libya
or Israel.
- My feelings in this are simple
- Nuclear war/weapons are abhorrent
- I love the New Zealand government's stand on banning all nuclear
armed or powered warships from NZ port.
- Never justifiable.
These are my own views, I have looked at scripture, and I am confused. I
would appreciate others view, particularly those based on scripture. I
*don't* want a - Naaahh, yer wrong - I think answers 8-).
Thanks for your help.
==========================================================================
|
Alastair Thomson, | Phone +64-3-479-8347
Chief Programmer, | Fax +64-3-479-8529
The Black Albatross Porject, |
University of Otago, |
Department of Computer Science, | e-mail [email protected]
P.O. Box 56 | [email protected]
Dunedin | NeXTmail Welcome
New Zealand |
"God loved the world so much, that he gave us His Son, to die in
our place, so that we may have eternal life" John 3:16, paraphrase | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I'm interested if anyone out here can point me towards a review of the
following book in any scholarly Christian journal, whether it be
conservative or liberal, Protestant or Catholic.
_The_Lost_Years_of_Jesus_ (documentary evidence for Jesus' 17 year
journey to the East), by Elizabeth Clare Prophet. Supposedly this
is a theory that was refuted in the past, and she has re-examined it.
I thought this was just another novel book, but I saw it listed as
a text for a class in religious studies here. Also, the endorsements seem
to come from some credible sources, so I'm wondering if scholars have
reviewed it (or anyone on the net, for that matter).
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Hmm...makes you wonder whether prayer "in Jesus' name" means
"saying Jesus' name" or whether we're simply to do all things with the
attitude that we belong to Jesus.
Frank D.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Typical statement from an irrational and brainwashed person.
The bible was written by some male chavnist thousands of years ago
(as were all of the "holy" books). Follow the parts that you think are
suitable for modern life. Ignore the others. For heaven's (!) sake don't
take it literally.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So you think it is easy to be a Muslim? Or be a Buddhist?
The Buddha's commandments are 500 yrs older than Christ's and in
my opinion tougher to follow. Moreover the Buddha says that we are
intrinsically good (as against Christ's "we are all sinners").
Only we allow ourselves to be distracted. By meditating we can awaken
ourselves (etc etc). Also there is no concept of God in Buddhism.
(In my opinion you can be an Atheist and a Buddhist).
But to "awaken" yourself is no easy task. Can you stay away from eating meat?
Can you sit still and think of nothing (meditate) for sometime everyday?
Buddhists do (or are supposed to). Can you pray five times a day?
Can you fast for a month every year (Ramzan). Are you willing
to give 1/6 th of your income as tithe? Muslims do. In fact I think
Jesus was an ordinary man (just as Buddha and Mohamed) probably with a
philosopy ahead of the times (where he lived).
Considering the fact that Christianity is a young religion
(compared to Hindiusm, Judaism, Zorasterism, Buddihsm) it is also very
probable that the Bible is merely a collection of borrowed ideas.
(There was a good deal of trade between the eastern lands and the
middle east at the time of Christ).
And perhaps some more. But leave the crap in it out ("woman was created
after man, to be his helper" etc).
aras
When ever I turn on my TV there is this Pat Robertson and
other brain washers (Oh boy, what an act they put on!) with an
1-800 number to turn in your pledges.
God it seems is alive and well inside these boxes.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I find it interesting that cls never answered any of the questions posed.
Then he goes on the make statements which make me shudder. He has
established a two-tiered God. One set of rules for the Jews (his people)
and another set for the saved Gentiles (his people). Why would God
discriminate? Does the Jew who accepts Jesus now have to live under the
Gentile rules.
God has one set of rules for all his people. Paul was never against the
law. In fact he says repeatedly that faith establishes rather that annuls
the law. Paul's point is germane to both Jews and Greeks. The Law can
never be used as an instrument of salvation. And please do not combine
the ceremonial and moral laws in one.
In Matt 5:14-19 Christ plainly says what He came to do and you say He was
only saying that for the Jews's benefit. Your Christ must be a
politician, speaking from both sides of His mouth. As Paul said, "I have
not so learned Christ." Forget all the theology, just do what Jesus says.
Your excuses will not hold up in a court of law on earth, far less in
God's judgement hall. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Ahhh go back to alt.autotheism where you belong! | 0 | alt.atheism |
(Deletion)
You have demanded harsh punishments of several crimes. Repeating
offenders have slipped in only as justification of harsh punishment at
all. Typically religious doublespeak. Whenever you have contradictory
statements you choose the possibility that suits your current argument.
It is disgusting that someone with ideas that would make Theodore KKKaldis
feel cozy can go along under the protection of religion. | 0 | alt.atheism |
There is some controversy in my denomination as to what authority is vested
in the pastor. I am still forming my opinion. I am solicing opinions, and
references for what that is, how much, and how it should be used.
As a general reference, I would not exclude responses from different
denominations based on Biblical teachings, but you have to understand our
church is independent, protestant and likely to be much different from those
that follow ecclesiastical authority in the church. We may need to discuss
the roles of deacons and elders.
Thanks for your replies.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
It is all written in _The_Wholly_Babble:_the_Users_Guide_to_Invisible_
_Pink_Unicorns_.
To be granted faith in invisible pink unicorns, you must read the Babble,
and obey what is written in it.
To obey what is written in the Babble, you must believe that doing so is
the way to be granted faith in invisible pink unicorns.
To believe that obeying what is written in the Babble leads to believing
in invisible pink unicorns, you must, essentially, believe in invisible
pink unicorns.
This bit of circular reasoning begs the question:
What makes obeying different from believing? | 0 | alt.atheism |
As far as I can see, one of the big differences between Davidians and
Christians is in who they follow. I have sometimes tried to put myself
in the feet of one of Jesus's disciples. Basically, they gave up a
lot --- career, possibly family, and well, a whole bunch, to follow
Jesus.
So what is the difference? It is quite plain. Jesus was good and
David Koresh was not.
The problem is, I think, is that we try to legislate what is good
and what is bad in terms of principles. For instance, there are thousands of
laws in the U.S. governing what is legal and what is not. Often, it is hard
to bring people to justice, because it is not possible to find
a legal way to do it. If only we could trust judges to be just,
then we could tell them to administer justice fairly, and justice
would be followed. But since judges don't always get it right,
we have a complicated system involving precedent and bunches
of other stuff which attempt to make the imperfect (the justice
of man) into something perfect. But what I hear about the justice
system in the U.S. tells me that quite the opposite is true.
There is also a problem that we tend to judge the presentation
more than the material being presented. So we might consider
a ranting Christian to be bad, but an eloquent person from another
religion to be good. This goes along with the American desire
to protect the Constitution at all costs, even if it allows
people to do bad things.
I think that it is the message that is important. If a man is
presenting a false message, even if he is ever ever so mild mannered,
then that man is performing a tremendous disservice.
I know that I am rambling here. I guess that what I am trying to
say is that we shouldn't be looking for principles that tell us
why the Davidians got it wrong. It is not wrong to follow and
worship a person. But it is important to choose the right person.
It is simple. Choose Jesus, and you got it right. Choose
anyone else, and you got it wrong. Why? Because Jesus is the
begotten son of God, and nobody else is. Jesus was without sin, and
nobody else was. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
That's right, and this is pretty impossible, right? It would be ideal if
we could believe for a while, just to try out religion, and only then
determine which course of thought suits us best. But again, this is not
possible. Not that religion warrants belief, but the belief carries with
it some psychological benefits. There are also some psychological
burdens, too.
Well, if there were some psychological or other benefits gained from racism,
they could only be fully understood or judged by persons actually "believing"
in racism. Of course, the parallel happens to be a poor one, but you
originated it. | 0 | alt.atheism |
I have been looking at some of the recent productions on homosexuality
and decided that I was interested in videotaped copies of these. If
anyone can help me out here, I would very much appreciate it.
Here is what I am looking for:
* - "The Gay Agenda" produced by Ty Beeson's group The Report.
* - John Ankerberg's recent series "Understanding Homosexuality and
Experiencing Genuine Change."
* - James Kennedy's special on homosexuality which aired this week,
and the portion of the previous week's program which discussed "The
Gay Agenda."
I will not pay money for copies, since this is copyrighted material
and that would be illegal. I will pay for return postage. If
somebody can think of something they would desire in trade, please let
me know and I'll see what I can do.
Oh, BTW, I'm watching the March On Washington right now on C-SPAN.
Other than the fact that I'm generally repulsed by what I'm watching,
I found one thing of interest. General David Dinkins just finished
speaking, and remarked that the New York City delegation consists of
about 200,000 people. Funny, I don't see 200,000 people out there,
period. Must've been quite the party scene last night. Or maybe
their exaggerations were just too much.
Sean Patrick Ryan****[email protected] or [email protected]
3215 Oregon Dr. #2, Anchorage, AK 99517-2048****907-272-9184****fnord
Abortion stops a beating heart****Disclaimer: I didn't inhale, either
IDITAROD SCOREBOARD 1993 - MEN 16, WOMEN 5****Read alt.flame.sean-ryan | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The ONLY unity I've found which is true is when all parties involved are
disciples. I came out of a church in which even the different
congregations were always competing and arguing about which one was
better and who had the better messages (while none of them put anything
into practice from those messages). Since becoming a disciple, I've
found that when I travel to another church in the same movement, they
are just as accepting there as any other. We had a retreat back in
January when some of the congregation from Louisville, KY came up (this
retreat was for college students) and it was as though I had known even
the people from Louisville for years (and I had only become a disciple
the previous April and had never been to the church in Kentucky). One
of the keys to unity is unselfish love and self-sacrifice. That is only
one area in which disciples stand out from "Christians". Also, another
part of unity is a common depth of conviction. I've also been a part of
some "Christian" campus fellowships who were focused on unity between
churches and saw that those churches had one thing involved: a lack of
conviction about everything they believed. That was why they could be
unified, they didn't care about the truth but delighted in getting along
together.
Creeds? What need is there of creeds when the Bible stands firmly
better?
According to the Scriptures, splits and differences of opinion are going
to be there. As per a previous note, I mentioned that there are those
who teach falsely by many means. There are also differences of opinion
and belief. However, Scripture states:
In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your
meetings do more harm than good. In the first place, I hear that when
you come together as a church, there re divisions among you, and to some
extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to
show which of you have God's approval (1 Corinthians 11:17-19).
How will God show his approval? By fruitfulness (see Acts 2:47), but
before that, there are these qualities:
devotion to the apostles teaching
fellowship
communion
filling with awe for God
all having everything in common.
glad and sincere hearts
praising God
enjoying the favor of the people
All these are mentioned in Acts 2:42-47. God also shows that those who
have these qualities are persecuted. Look at Stephen, "a man full of
faith and of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 6:5) who was later stoned (Acts
7:54-60).
One can say that a church is the true church only if that church is
perfect not only in the congregation but worldwide as a movement. I
have yet to find that, but the closest one I've found is the Boston
Church of Christ movement, which constantly strives to have errors
pointed out and corrected. It is also the only one I've seen which is
totally sold out to God.
As for cooperation, that can always occur. Unity, on the other hand may
never occur. As for those who think about only one church being the
"true one", I remind them that Mark 9:38-41 states that there are
disciples who are not a part of the main group to begin with, but they
will not lose their reward. As with the Boston movement, I've heard
numerous times this exact same thing, that there are disciples out there
that are not a part of the Boston movement but that does not make them
any less disciples. Of course, few people admit that they've ever run
into someone who has the qualities of a disciple outside the movement.
I know I haven't.
I must warn that this sounds cliquey to me. A clique is a group which
runs around together to some extent exclusively. This causes problems
in fellowship and causes divisions. I would not say at all that this is
something "correct" for a church/group to do for any reason. In one of
the churches I attended, for example, there was an internal clique of
people who were on the 14 different groups/committees/organizational
heads of the congregation. They rarely talked to anyone else outside of
the committees and seldom were voted out of office without another
office being "opened up" so that they would have to step right back in.
Their degree of exclusion was such that when the new pastor came, he
nearly had to wipe out everything and start from scratch (I wish he
would've since they still have no clue about what it means to be a
disciple). Anyway, this rigidity in the clique is beginning to be
broken down, but is still there. So, I must warn against such division
within. There's enough division without.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[FAQ and Darius' response deleted]
I am myself an SDA and I am in total agreement with what Darius has to say.
I also worship on Saturday to honor the Lord. Your mention of "[esteeming]
all days alike" IMO has to do with the fast days observed by the Jews. But
no matter how you interpret that passage, I do accept your worship on Sunday
as being done in honor of the Lord, in contrast with what many of my fellow
SDA believers may believe. To me, though, the bible overwhelmingly points
to Saturday as the day to be kept in honor of creation and of God's
deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage. To those who would
attempt to point out that my observance of Saturday is being legalistic,
this is simply not the case. Rather, keeping Saturday allows me a full day
to rest and contemplate God's goodness and grace.
The idea was introduced to me once that the reason Paul wanted the
Corinthians to lay aside money for the collection on the first day of the
week was because that was when they received their weekly wages. Paul
wanted them to lay aside money for the collection as first priority, before
spending their money on other things. I do not have any proof in front of
me for this though, although it would explain why they would lay aside money
in their homes instead of a meeting.
It would seem to me that you assume that the christians in the NT regularly
worshipped on the first day. I assume that the christians in the NT
regularly worshipped on the seventh day. But I agree with you that we only
have implications because the authors did assume the reader knew when worhip
was. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Hello everyone.
Last week I posted a similar question to alt.wedding. Now I come in
search of a deeper-level answer.
My fiance is Lutheran and I am Catholic. We plan on getting married in
her church because she is living there now and I plan on moving there
in a month or so. I called my Catholic priest to find out what I needed
to do in order for the marriage to be recognized by my church.
Needless to say that I have found that there is no "hard and fast" rule
when it comes to how the Catholic law for interfaith weddings is interpreted.
But I'm pretty sure that we CAN get married without too much problem; the
trick lies in the letter of dispensation.
But that is not why I am here....
What I'd like to know is:
What are the main differences between the Lutheran and Catholic religions?
My priest mumbled something about how the Eucharist was understood...
I have heard that if two religions combine soon, it would be these two.
Any help would be appreciated...
Thanks so much!
Bill
--
Bill Burns [ Internet: [email protected] ] Mac Network System Administrator
[ AppleLink: SHADOW ] Apple Student Rep, MTU
First we must band together as friends,
then mearcilessly crush our enemies into paste. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Well, it looks like the folks in soc.religion.islam have loosened up
a bit and are discussing this topic as well as the banking/interest
topic. A few books on the subject have also been mentioned in addition
to the one you mentioned. These may be hard to find, but I think I may
take a stab at it out of curiosity. I know the one film I saw on this
subject was pretty weak and the only two quotes I have seen which were
used to show science in the Koran (which I posted here) were also pretty
vague. I suspect that these books will extrapolate an awful lot on the
quotes they have.
At least one poster on the Islam channel seems to have some misgivings
about the practice of using the Koran to decide what is good science.
I wonder if Islam has ever come up with the equivalent of the Christians
"Creation Science" on any topic. It would be interesting to find a history
of scientific interpretations of the Koran, to see if anyone used the Koran
to support earlier science which has since been discarded. It is all too
easy to look at science as it exists today and then "interpret" passages
to match those findings. People do similar things with the sayings of
Nostradamus all the time. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Says who? Other than a hear-say god.
You sure don't understand it.
Bill, I hereby award you the Golden Shovel Award for the biggist pile of
bullshit I've seen in a whils. I'm afraid there's not a bit of religion in
macroevolution, and you've made a rather grand statement that Science can
not explain origins; to a large extent, it already has!
| 0 | alt.atheism |
For all those people who insist I question authority: Why?
Chris Mussack | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
From article <[email protected]>, by [email protected] (Ruth Ditucci):
I do hope that you are not suggesting that merely because a person
replies in an "acrid, angry and sarcastic" manner that this
demonstrates their 'non-christianity'? The simple fact is that there
is not a Christian on the face of the planet (that I know of!) that is
perfect. I have been known at times to have a fit of temper, or a
sulk, but this does not make me any the less a Christian.
One of the points of being a Christian (as I perceive it) is to become
MORE LIKE Christ. This statement inherently suggests that we ARE NOT
already like Christ. Jesus never unrighteously lost his temper. I
do. Jesus was perfect. I'm not.
You must understand that this is because Christians often forget to
treat others as our role-model - Christ - would. This is because we are
human and falible. I, for one, do not pretend to be infalible, and I
hope that my fellow-men will bear with me when I make mistakes. This
surely is not too much to ask, when I make every effort to bear with
_them_.
And don't we know it!
Again I say, we are ALL human!
To my brethren, this:
Ms Duticci has a valid point and we as Christians ought to heed the
warning in her article. We oftimes discredit ourselves and our
Saviour, in the way that we treat others. Strive towards the goal set
us by our Lord, but in the meantime, remember :
"There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ..."
When you blow it - go easy on yourself. Forgive yourself, as your
Father in heaven forgives you! And remember - and this is something I
firmly beieve and cling to - one day, we shall see Him face to face,
and in that day, we shall (finally!) be perfected.
I look forward to seeing you there.
RRRRR OO BBBBB :
R R OO OO B B :
R R OO OO B BB : Robert Pomeroy
R RR O O B B :
RRRR O O BBBBB : [email protected]
R R O O B B :
R R OO OO B BB : 1993
R R OO OO B B :
R R OO BBBBB :
PS If you want to draw anything to my attention, then please mail me
direct, because I don't often read the news... | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
No, Bobby. Stalin killed millions in the name of Socialism. Atheism was a
characteristic of the Lenin-Stalin version of Socialism, nothing more.
Another characteristic of Lenin-Stalin Socialism was the centralization of
food distribution. Would you therefore say that Stalin and Lenin killed
millions in the name of rationing bread? Of course not.
In earlier posts you stated that true (Muslim) believers were incapable of
evil. I suppose if you believe that, you could reason that no one has ever
been killed in the name of religion. What a perfect world you live in,
Bobby.
Bobby is referring to a rather obscure law in _The Good Atheist's
Handbook_:
Law XXVI.A.3: Give that which you do not believe in a face.
You must excuse us, Bobby. When we argue against theism, we usually argue
against the Christian idea of God. In the realm of Christianity, man was
created in God's image.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Whoah whoah whoah WHOAH!!! What?!?
That last paragraph just about killed me. The Deuterocanonicals have
ALWAYS been accepted as inspired scripture by the Catholic Church,
which has existed much longer than any Protestant Church out there.
It was Martin Luther who began hacking up the bible and deciding to
REMOVE certain books--not the fact that the Catholic Church decided
to add some much later--that is the reason for the difference between
"Catholic" and "Protestant" bibles. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
No, Mathew is proposing a public defence mechanism, not treating the
electronic device as an impropriety on the wearer. What he is saying is that
the next step beyond what you propose is the permanent bugging of potential
criminals. This may not, on the surface, sound like a bad thing, but who
defines what a potential criminal is? If the government of the day decides
that being a member of an opposition party makes you a potential criminal
then openly defying the government becomes a lethal practice, this is not
conducive to a free society.
Mathew is saying that implanting electronic surveillance devices upon people
is an impropriety upon that person, regardless of what type of crime or
what chance of recidivism there is. Basically you see the criminal justice
system as a punishment for the offender and possibly, therefore, a deterrant
to future offenders. Mathew sees it, most probably, as a means of
rehabilitation for the offender. So he was being cynical at you, okay? | 0 | alt.atheism |
According to [email protected], muslims tithe 1/6 of their income.
Perhaps there are some offshoots of Islam that impose this on their
followers. But the standard tithe is 1/40 of one's net worth, once
a year.
The same writer also objects to the Bible for teaching that
> "woman was created after man, to be his helper" etc.
This is presumably a reference to Genesis 2. Suppose that that
chapter had been written with the sexes reversed. We have God
creating woman, and then saying, "It is not good that woman should
be alone. I will make a help meet for her." Feminists would be
outraged. The clear implication would be that God had started at the
bottom and worked up, making first the plants, then the fish and
birds, then the beasts, then woman, and finally His masterpiece, the
Male Chauvinist Pig. The statement that woman is not capable of
functioning by herself, that she needs a man to open doors for her,
would have been seen as a particularly gratuitous insult. The fact
that the creation of woman from the dust of the ground was given
only briefly and in general, while the creation of the Man was given
in six times the number of words, would have been cited as evidence
of the author's estimate of the relative importance of the sexes.
The verdict would have been unequivocal. "No self-respecting woman
can accept this book as a moral guide, or as anything but sexist
trash!" I suggest that Moses, fearing this reaction, altered his
original draft and described the creation with Adam first and then
Eve, so as to appease Miriam and other radical feminists of the day.
For some reason, however, it did not work. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[remainder of message deleted]
Pardon me for replying to only a portion of your message :)
The reason we can say "God just exists" and can't say "The universe just
exists" is because the universe is a natural realm and is subject to natural
laws in general and the law of cause and effect in particular. That is, we
observe in nature that every cause has an effect, and every effect was produced
by a cause. The existence of the natural realm, as an effect itself, cannot be
its own cause; it must therefore have a supernatural cause.
God, on the other hand, is a supernatural being, and is therefore not subject
to such natural laws as the law of cause and effect. As a supernatural being,
God's eternal existence does not imply a previous cause the way the existence
of a physical, natural cosmos does. Thus, those who believe in the
supernatural have a valid basis for accepting the existence of uncaused
phenomena such as the eternal God, whereas those who deny the existence of the
supernatural are faced with the dilemma of a physical universe whose very
nature shows that it is not sufficient to explain its own existence.
This is, of course, an oversimplification of a complex topic, but I just wanted
to clarify some important differences between the supernatural (God) and the
natural (the universe), since you seem to mistake them as being
interchangeable. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
(2) is a corrallary of (1).
The negation of (2) would contridict (1).
(2) Is a corrallary of (1)
The negation of (2) would contradict (1).
--
"Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.
They do what god tells them to do. " | 0 | alt.atheism |
I've seen this verse used to back up this idea:
"...He has also set eternity in the hearts of men..." (Ecclesiastes 3:11) | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
A listmember (D Andrew Killie, I think) wrote, in response to the
suggestion that genocide may sometimes be the will of God:
> Any God who works that way is indescribably evil,
> and unworthy of my worship or faith.
Nobuya "Higgy" Higashiyama replied (as, in substance, did others):
> Where is your source of moral standards by which you judge God's
> behavior?
It is often argued that we have no standing by which to judge God's
actions. Who is the clay to talk back to the potter? But we find a
contrary view in Scripture. When God proposes to destroy the city of
+ Suppose that there are some good men in the city.
+ Will you destroy the righteous along with the wicked?
+ Far be it from you, Lord, to do such a thing!
+ Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
I am told that the Hebrew is actually a bit stronger than this, and
can perhaps be better rendered (dynamic equivalence) as
+ Shame on you, Lord, if you do such a thing!
There are those who say that the definition of "good" is "whatever
God happens to want." But if that is so, then the statement that God
is good has no meaning. It simply says that God does what He wants.
That being the case, no one can either love or obey God because He
is good. The only motive left for obeying Him is that He is
powerful. Just as it makes sense to obey a dictator, even when he
tells you to round up all Jews and exterminate them, because if you
defy him you might end up in the gas chamber yourself, so it makes
sense to obey God, because He has the power to punish you if you
don't. This ethical theory I take to be in radical contradiction to
Genesis 18 and to Christianity in general.
Any theory that makes our moral judgements worthless makes any
further discussion of morality (or of the goodness of God)
meaningless. However, it does not follow that our moral judgements
are always infallible in particular cases, still less our judgements
in particular cases about the course of action most likely to
achieve a good result.
When I read the Scriptural accounts of the actions of God in
history, those actions often seem to me very different from what I
might expect of a God who loves us and desires what is best for us.
Moreover, leaving the Scriptures aside, and considering the natural
world, I find that Nature is often very different from what I might
"Those who believe that the Author of Nature is also the Author of
the Scriptures must expect to find in the Scriptures the same sort
of difficulties that they find in Nature.")
Now, that some such difficulties should exist is not in itself an
argument against the existence, power, wisdom, and goodness of God.
On the contrary, their ABSENCE would be such an argument. Suppose
that I am watching Bobby Fisher play chess, and suppose that every
time he makes a move, I find myself nodding and saying: "Good move!
Just what I was expecting him to do. Same move I would have made if
I were playing." That would be a sign that Fisher is no better a
chess player than myself. Given that he is better, I expect that at
least some of his moves will have me thinking, "Now, what do suppose
induced him to do that?" or even, "Boy, that was a real slip -- he's
just thrown the game away!" Similarly, if God understands the
workings of the universe better than I do, it is to be expected that
sometimes it will look to me as if He has made a mistake.
One difference between Fisher at the chessboard and God at the
controls of the universe is that I can see the end of the chess
game. If Fisher wins, I revise my earlier inference that it was
carelessness that made him lose his queen 23 moves earlier.
However, if he loses, and particularly if I can see that there was a
time when he had an opportunity for a checkmate in two moves and did
not take it, then I know that he is not as good a player as I had
thought.
With God, on the other hand, I shall not in this life see the total
result of some of His actions. Therefore, my grounds for judging
that I have seen a bad move on His part must always be far shakier
than my grounds for making a similar judgement about Fisher.
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
In the book of Genesis, we read that Joseph's ten older brothers,
who (with good reason) found him insufferable, conspired to sell
him into slavery in Egypt. There he eventually became Viceroy, and
when there was a famine in Canaan, he was able to provide for his
family. When his brothers nervously apologized, he told them: "Do
not worry. You meant to do me evil, but God turned it into good."
The history of the Jews is largely a history of events
that look like catastrophes that threaten the continued
survival of the religion, or the people, or both. But,
amazingly, those events turn out to be the saving of the Jews
and of Judaism.
The sale of Joseph by his brothers looked like the breakup
of the family. But in fact, it ended with a reconciliation of
the quarrel between them. The famine that drove the family out
of Canaan looked like a misfortune for them. But in fact, if
they had stayed in Canaan, they would almost certainly have
intermarried with the Canaanites and been assimilated into
their culture. Their oppression by the Egyptians a few
generations after their arrival in Egypt again looked like a
disaster. But God used it to bring them out of Egypt, and into
the Promised Land.
Here the people built a Temple, and regularly offered
sacrifices. But the Babylonians captured Jerusalem and Judea,
destroyed Temple and city and countryside, and deported most of
the people to Babylon. You might have thought that that would
be the end of the people and the religion. But it was not.
Living in Canaan, the people had been under constant danger of
assimilation. Again and again, they had turned from the
worship of the LORD to the worship of the Canaanite fertility
cults, with their ritual prostitution and ritual human
sacrifice. The Babylonian captivity put a stop to that. Never
again did the Jews show any interest in polytheism or idolatry.
Neither the worship of the Canaanites mor that of the
Babylonians ever again had a foothold among them.
Nor is that all. Judaism had been in danger of becoming
simply a system of sacrifices and Temple observances. The only
prescribed acts of worship consisted of coming to Jerusalem
every so often and offering a sacrifice. During the Captivity,
with the Temple gone, the Jews invented the synagogue, a place
of meeting for reading and study and discussion of the
Scriptures. They came to realize clearly, what they were in
danger of forgetting while they continued to live in Judea,
that God is not simply a local or tribal deity, not just the
controller of the land of Canaan, or the patron of the Jewish
people, but the Creator of the world, and the Ruler and Judge
of all humans everywhere.
Time passed, and the Babylonian Empire was replaced by
that of the Persians, and then that of the Greeks, or rather
the Macedonians. The ruler, Antiochus Epiphanes, was determined
to stamp out Judaism, and to this end he made the reading and
the study of the Torah punishable by death. Again, one might
think that this would be the end of Judaism. But it was not.
The people met for worship, and instead of reading the Torah
portion appointed for the day, they would read some passage
from the prophets that had a similar theme, and then discuss
that. Before this time, the Torah, the so-called Five Books of
Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy)
were the only books read and studied in the synagogue. If it
had not been for Antiochus, the books of the prophets would
probably have been forgotten altogether. His hatred for Judaism
saved them.
[Other examples here omitted for brevity's sake.]
Some of you may remember that Julie Andrews first became
famous as Eliza Doolittle in the stage production of MY FAIR
LADY. When Warner Brothers undertook to make a movie of it,
everyone expected that Julie, who had been so magnificent on
stage, would play the same role in the movie. Instead, the
studio decided to go with an established screen star, and cast
Audrey Hepburn. Julie Andrews was naturally crushed. But she
later realized that if she had played the screen role, she
would have been type-cast for life as an Elize Doolittle type.
It would have been a disaster for her. As it was, Walt Disney
offered her the role of Mary Poppins, and she won an Oscar for
it. At the presentation, she stood there, smiling, and looking
at Walt Disney, she said, "And now, my special thanks to the
man who made all this possible -- JACK WARNER!" It was the most
memorable line of the evening.
In a similar spirit, we Jews might thank the men who in
the providence of God have preserved Judaism, and kept it alive
to this day, beginning with Joseph's brothers, and continuing
with two Pharaohs, with Nebuchadnezzar, with Antiochus
Epiphanes....
After the formal meeting had broken up, one woman came up to him
privately and said, "You were talking about the Holocaust, weren't
you?" He answered, "If that is an example that came to your mind,
then you are right, I was talking about it to you. But I would not
talk about it to everyone, for not everyone can bear it." I assume
that he meant that, without the Holocaust, there would have been no
state of Israel.
Someone hearing the rabbi's lecture might leap to the conclusion
that God is dependent on the wickedness of men to accomplish His
purposes -- or at least that the rabbi thought so. He might then go
on to suppose that the wickedness is in fact God's doing -- that He
stirred up Joseph's brothers to a murderous hate against him, and
that when the Israelites were in Egypt, God hardened Pharaoh's
heart, so that he oppressed the people, and would not let them go.
And this raises questions about how an action can be considered
wicked and at the same time be considered something that God has
brought about.
I suggest another way of looking at it. Consider a sculptor who has
a log of wood from which he proposes to carve a statue. But the log,
instead of having a smooth even grain throughout, has a large knot
that spoils the appearance of the surface. The sculptor considers
the wood for a while, and then carves a statue that features the
knot, that makes that particular interruption in the grain and color
of the wood correspond to some feature of the statue, so that
observers will say: "How fortunate the sculptor was in finding a
piece of wood with a knot like that in just the right place. Its
presence is the crowning touch, the thing that makes the statue a
great work of art." In reality, the knot, far from being what the sculptor was
looking for, was a challenge to his skill. If the wood had not
contained that flaw, he would still have made a great work of art,
but a different one. So, if Joseph's brothers had not sold him, God
would still have brought about His purposes for the Jewish people,
but He would have done so in another manner. If Judas had not
betrayed Jesus, if Caiaphas and his fellow leaders had not rejected
Jesus, but had rather acknowledged Him as the Annointed of God, if
Pilate had followed his conscience rather than his fears and had set
Jesus free, it might appear that there would have been no
Crucifixion, and therefore no Redemption, and therefore no
Salvation. Not so. God did not need Judas' sin to redeem us. If
Judas had done right, then God in Christ would still have reconciled
the world to Himself. We do not know how, just as we do not know
how Michelangelo would have painted the Sistine Chapel if its
interior had instead been shaped like Grand Central Station, and
just as we do not know how Bobby Fisher would have won his fourth
game agianst Spassky if Spassky had refused the exchange of bishops
and had attacked Fisher's knight instead (don't bother to look up
the game in question--I am making up this example, but the point is
none the less valid).
Thus, we may say both (1) that God used, say, the cowardice of
Pilate to accomplish His purposes, and (2) that the said cowardice
was not God's doing, and that Pilate would not have thwarted God's
plans by behaving justly and courageously.
What, then, are we to make of the place where God says to Moses, "I
will harden Pharaoh's heart, so that he will not let the people go"?
Some Christians have taken this to mean that Pharaoh was a puppet
with God pulling the strings, and that his stubbornness and cruelty
were not his own work, but the work of God in him. I suppose rather
that what God was telling Moses was something like this: "If you see
that Pharaoh is not willing to let the people go, do not be
discouraged, or suppose that the situation is out of my control. My
purposes will not be thwarted. If Pharaoh chooses to hear you and
let the people go, well and good. If he does not, I will fit his
resistance into my plans, and fit it so perfectly that future
historians and theologians will suppose that I would have been
thrown for a loss if Pharaoh had obeyed me."
To return to the question that started this all off. Is it possible
that the Serbs, in slaughtering the Moslems of Bosnia, are
instruments of God's will?
First point. What they are doing is wrong, just as what
Joseph's brothers did was wrong, just as what Judas did was wrong.
They intend it for evil. If God somehow brings good out of it, that
does not make them any less subject to just condemnation and
punishment.
Second point. Of course, God will bring good out of it. But not
the same good that He would have brought if the Serbians had
refrained from the sins of robbery and rape and murder. Nor does the
good He purposes excuse us from the duty of doing what is right. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The concept of God as a teacher is indeed interesting. Does He grade on
a curve, does He cheat? That is interesting. Not to mention thought
provoking. My own concept is that He is a Father and we are His
children. In that He loves us, with a love that we can never understand
until we are with Him. The Bible says that He looks on the heart as the
final measure. From that perspective, in a grading context, the heart is
the final test.
Specifically, most Christians would agree that there is only one Heaven
and one Hell. From that perspective, it is Heaven or Hell. You either go
to one or the other. The "grading" on a pass/fail basis is done by God
the Father with intervention by Jesus the Son. Not by others. For only
God sees the heart. The Bible says of the heart, "...who can know it." I
would say there has always been, and always be, an unchanging method.
That is what makes a relationship with Christ so secure. In an uncertain
and ever changing landscape He is always the same. Yesterday, today and
tomorrow. Concerning whether or not our childhoods are considerd as part
of the test, my own conviction is no. Were that the case I certainly
wouldn't be going to Heaven. The Bible speaks very plainly about the
love and care Jesus had for and about children. The reality is that we
are all children. Some of us just have bigger bodies and grey hair. But
the Father, our Father is always there. Like most Fathers He wants only
the best for His own. There maybe decipline, but there is more love.
It's sometimes looks like Christianity is a test, to see who makes it
and who doesn't. Those who do pass=Heaven, and those who don't go to the
other place. But it is really much more than that...
There are few experts. Most of us are just travelers looking for the
light and the way Home. Praying that we can bring others with us.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
As our local.religion.christian BBS group seems moribund, I'm posting here.
On one of the Sundays just before Easter I went to church. The sermon was
based on a story in the Book of Joshua. (The one about Joshua sending out
spies to the land he was planning to take) What I particularly remember,
because of having heard part of a CBC radio documentary on Bosnia, was that
the Rahab (the woman who sheltered the spies) said that the people were
"melting in fear." What with having heard that CBC radio documentary and
knowing that the Muslims in Bosnia were losing the war, I felt
uncomfortable. After all, the Serbs are driving non-Christians out. On
the other hand, ministers do say that the Bible is opposed to the values
held by our secular society. Anyhow members of that church are involved in
out-of-country missionary work. Also, the pastor has talked of spiritual
warfare and of bringing Christ to the nonreligious people of our area.
The next Sunday, the sermon was about Joshua 6 (where the Israelites
take Jericho and then proceed to massacre everybody there --- except
for Rahab, who had sheltered the spies). With those reports about
Bosnia in my mind, I felt uncomfortable about the minister saying that
the massacre (the one in Joshua) was right. But what really bothered
me was that, if I was going to try taking Christianity seriously, I
shouldn't be so troubled about the reports of "ethnic cleansing" in
Bosnia. Certainly, my sympathies shouldn't be with the Moslims.
Considering that the Bosnian Muslims are descendants of Christians
who, under Turkish rule, converted to Islam could the Serbs be doing
God's work? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
So true. I'm not sure of the basis of the belief, but it was a widely
held belief among the laity of the RC church and their support of it
lead to it being declared to be true. Basically the teaching on infallibility
holds that the pope is infallible in matters of faith and doctrine, the
college of bishops is likewise infallible, and the laity is as well.
The pope gets most of the attention/criticism but the consensus of the
other bodies is equally infallible (according to RC teaching). | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Not any more so than
holding people against their will is wrong
if you hold people against their will we will punish you
our punishment will be to hold you against your will
Is there any punishment which isn't something which, if done by a private
person to another private person for no apparent reason, would lead to
punishment? (Fines, I suppose.) | 0 | alt.atheism |
[deletia- and so on]
I seem to have been rather unclear.
What I was asking is this:
Please show me that the most effective substance-absure recovery
programs involve meetinsg peoples' spiritual needs, rather than
merely attempting to fill peoples' spiritual needs as percieved
by the people, A.A, S.R.C. regulars, or snoopy. This will probably
involve defining "spritual needs" (is it not that clear) and
showing that such things exist and how they can be filled.
Annother tack you might take is to say that "fulfilling spiritual
needs" means "acknowledging a "higher power" of some sort, then
show that systems that do require this, work better than otherwise
identical systems that do not. A correlation here would help you,
but as you point out this might just be demonstrating swapping
one crutch for annother. (however, I do feel that religion is
usually a better crutch than alchohol, as it is not usually
poisonous! :) )
I hope with that clarification, my question will be answerable. I actually
did know about the 12 step program, its the question of what it does,
rather than what it tries to do, that makes a difference to me.
---
- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0 | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
In this era of AIDS, isn't someone's fucking *everyone's* interest? (semi
:-))
I propose "We have no motto."
Recently in the glorious state of Maryland (the only state whose state song
refers to Abraham Lincoln as a tyrant), people have gotten all wound up over
the state motto (which we inherited from the Calverts):
"Fatti Maschii, Parole Femine"
which, if you read Italian, says,
"Manly deeds, womanly words"
or something to that effect. In the state which not so long ago had four
women out of seven representatives, this represents a problem. The official
solution was to change the translation, so now it means:
"Strong deeds, gentle words"
My personal suggestion was changing it to "walk softly and carry a big
stick." | 0 | alt.atheism |
What are the volumes that it speaks besides the fact that he leaves your
choices up to you?
I definitely agree that it's rather presumptuous for either "side" to give some
psychological reasoning for another's belief.
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 |
imaginative?
No, but at least it would be a theory. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Yup. I can hear the _millions_ cheering for DK right now! Josef Stalin eat
your heart out! :)
--
Bake Timmons, III | 0 | alt.atheism |
Uh oh. This looks a bit too much like Bobby's "Atheism Is False" stuff. Are
we really going to have to go through this again? Maybe the universe is
cyclical! :) :(
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Satan was one of God's highest ranking angels, like Uriel, Raphael,
Michael, and Gabriel. In fact, his name was Satanel. He did challenge
God's authority and got kicked out of heaven. A lot of the mythology
of Satan (he lost the -el suffix when he fell) comes from the
Book of Enoch and is not found in the bible.
Read the Book of Enoch, available thru bookstores, or get the book
called "Angels: an endangered species" (I think).
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[email protected] (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) asks:
> What is the objection to celebration of Easter?
The objection naturally is in the way in which you phrase it.
Easter (or Eashtar or Ishtar or Ishtarti or other spellings) is the pagan
whore goddess of fertility. Therefore, your question to me is "what is
the objection to celebration of the pagan whore goddess?" When phrased
that way I suspect (or at least I would HOPE) that it becomes immeadiately
apparent what my objection to "celebrating" her would be.
> It is celebration of the resurrection of Jesus.
No, you are thinking perhaps of "Ressurection Sunday" I think.
(Though I'm not too crazy about the word "Sunday", but I certainly like
this phrasing much better than envoking the name of the whore goddess.)
For that matter, stay Biblical and call it Omar Rasheet (The Feast of
First Fruits). Torah commands that this be observed on the day following
the Sabbath of Passover week. (Sunday by any other name in modern
parlance.) Why is there so much objection to observing the Resurrection
on the 1st day of the week on which it actually occured? Why jump it all
over the calendar the way Easter does? Why not just go with the Sunday
following Passover the way the Bible has it? Why seek after unbiblical
methods?
> I don't recall a command in Scripture for us to celebrate
> the resurrection, but it is the sole and only reason that
> we are Christians--how could we not celebrate it?
So what does this question have to do with Easter (the whore
goddess)? I am all for celebrating the Resurrection. Just keep that
whore out of the discussion.
> If it is only the name which is a problem, I suggest that if
> we are too concerned about etymology, there are a lot of
> words we are going to have to drop. (As an aside, some
> terminally PC people here in Ottawa want dictionaries to be
> altered so that there are no negative definitions associated
> with the word _black_, so as not to offend people of colour.
Yes, I have heard of your newspapers speaking of the need to repave
streets with "Afro-Canadiantop". <grin> (I still think "blacktop" sounds
better though.)
> As a short person, I hope they will also remove the definition
> "curt or surly" associated with my physical description.)
Fine by me. And while we are at it, the left-handed people are
both "sinister" and "gauche" so we probably will have some objections from
that quarter as well.
> In Quebec French, the word for the celebration of the
> resurrection is "Pa^ques"--this is etymologically related
> to Pesach (Passover) and the pascal lamb. So is the
> French Canadian (mostly Roman Catholic) celebration better
> because it uses the right name?
Yes, that sounds much better to me. Is there anyone out there would
thinks that phrasing sounds worse?
> So from this I infer that there are different rules for
> Christians of Jewish descent? What happened to "there is
> neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for
> all are one in Christ Jesus"?
Read the letter to Philemon. Now tell me, was Philemon's "slave"
returned to him? Were there different rules upon the slave than upon
Philemon? How about male and female? Are there different "rules" that
apply to them as well? Or if there is no more "male and female" can Adam
and Steve get married to each other in your congregation? Yes, there are
differences in form and function. But the way we come to Salvation in
Messiah remains the same no matter what our position in life.
---------------------------------------
[I am in general not in favor of continuing this discussion, as it
seems repetitive, but this particular point is one that I believe is
new -- the objection is not to having a holiday but to its name.
I'd like to suggest that people think very carefully about this
argument. Words often change their meaning over time. The days of
the week are of course originally based on pagan gods. Some
Christians prefer to refer to "first day", "second day", etc. However
the majority of Christians have not been persuaded. The question
seems to be whether it makes any difference what the dictionary shows
as the derivation of a word, if what people mean by it and think when
they use it is different.
Indeed I'd like to suggest that postings like this could themselves be
dangerous. Suppose people in general use Easter to mean the
celebration of Christ's resurrection. Postings trying to convince
them that they really mean a celebration in honor of some godess run
the risk of creating exactly the situation that they claim to oppose.
They are doing their best to *create* a linkage in people's minds
between their celebration and the pagan goddess. It's not clear that
this is a healthy thing. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Did you check with the Afghans before posting this? They
might disagree. | 0 | alt.atheism |
I would like the opinion of netters on a subject that has been bothering my
wife and me lately: liturgy, in particular, Catholic liturgy. In the last few
years it seems that there are more and more ad hoc events during Mass. It's
driving me crazy! The most grace-filled aspect of a liturgical tradition is
that what happens is something we _all_ do together, because we all know how to
do it. Led by the priest, of course, which makes it a kind of dialogue we
present to God. But the best Masses I've been to were participatory prayers.
Lately, I think the proportion of participation has fallen, and the proportion
of sitting there and watching, or listening, or generally being told what to do
(which is necessary because no one knows what's happening next) is growing.
Example. Last Sunday (Palm Sunday) we went to the local church. Usually
on Palm Sunday, the congregation participates in reading the Passion, taking
the role of the mob. The theology behind this seems profound--when we say
"Crucify him" we mean it. We did it, and if He came back today we'd do it
again. It always gives me chills. But last week we were "invited" to sit
during the Gospel (=Passion) and _listen_. Besides the Orwellian "invitation",
I was really saddened to have my (and our) little role taken away. This seems
typical of a shift of participation away from the people, and toward the
musicians, readers, and so on. New things are introduced in the course of the
liturgy and since no one knows what's happening, the new things have to be
explained, and pretty soon instead of _doing_ a lot of the Mass we're just
sitting there listening (or spacing out, in my case) to how the Mass is about
to be done. In my mind, I lay the blame on liturgy committees made up of lay
"experts", but that may not be just. I do think that a liturgy committee has a
bias toward doing something rather than nothing--that's just a fact of
bureaucratic life--even though a simpler liturgy may in fact make it easier for
people to be aware of the Lord's presence.
So we've been wondering--are we the oddballs, or is the quality of the Mass
going down? I don't mean that facetiously. We go to Mass every Thursday or
Friday and are reminded of the power of a very simple liturgy to make us aware
of God's presence. But as far as the obligatory Sunday Masses...maybe I should
just offer it up :) Has anyone else noticed declining congregational
participation in Catholic Masses lately? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Between Adam and Eve and Golgotha the whole process of the fall of man
occurred. This involved a gradual dimming of consciousness of the spiritual
world. This is discernable in the world outlooks of different peoples through
history. The Greek, for example, could say, "better a beggar in the land
of the living than a king in the land of the dead." (Iliad, I think).
The question of what happens to human beings who died before Christ is
an ever present one with Christians. I am not ready to conscign Adam
or Abraham, or even Cain to eternal damnation. Yet they all died in their
sins, in the Christian sense. The same can be said of the whole of Gentile
humanity, and also of the unrepentant malefactor on the cross next to
him. I do not limit the power of Christ to save even him, through whom
Satan would mock his deed of salvation at the very moment of its fulfillment.
It is possible to experience eternity in a passing moment. The
relationship of eternity to duration is not simply one of indefinitely
extended conditions of Greenwich mean time. It is possible to imagine
an eternity of agony or bliss - or even many of them - in the
spiritual world during the time between earthly death and a new birth.
It was also a standard belief among many peoples that even the righteous
were lost. This again is the result of the loss of the paradisal consciousness
that fled from us after the fall, with our ever increasing involvement with
the sense world.
It would be interesting to share in the results of your studies of ancient
people's ideas of life after death.
Mankind fell into mist and darkness, and at "the turning point of
time" a new light entered into the world. The light still grows, and
we are developing the eyes with which to see by it. Much new
revelation and growth in under- standing lies before us. Our new
vision and understanding is still very feeble, but it contains
something new that will grow in time to embrace that which is old and
much more as well.
(At this point I should acknowledge openly my debt to the work of Rudolf
Steiner, founder of Anthroposophy, for many insights that have led me to my
views on this subject).
The way you refer to it as "doctrine" puts a modern intellectual coloring
on it. I think it was much less abstract and much more real and spiritually
concrete, a teaching that struck much closer to home than our doctrines or
teachings today can be received.
I am not so ready to attribute widespread notions in antiquity to
simple dispersion from an original source. Even if they were passed
on, the question is, to what extent did they reflect real perception
and experience? The similarity in the midst of great variety of
expression of the different people's ideas of the time immediately
after death testifies to the presence of an underlying reality. In
any case, we study geometry not by reading old manuscripts of Euclid,
but by contemplating the principles themselves.
On the other hand, there is one notion firmly embedded in Christianity
that originated most definitely in a pagan source. The idea that the
human being consists essentially of soul only, and that the soul is
created at birth, was consciously adopted from Aristotle, whose ideas
dominated Christian thought for fifteen hundred years and still does
today. He was at once the father of modern thought and at the same
time lived during that darkened time when the perception of our
eternal spiritual being had grown dim.
Indeed. I should also clarify that I do not deny that eternal
irrevocable damnation is a real possibility. But the narrow range in
which we conceive of the decisive moment, i.e. after the end of a
single earthly life, is not in my mind sufficient to embrace the
reality, and I think that is why the early creeds were couched in
terms that did not try to spell it out.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Yes, I do agree with your definition. My use of the term "always" is
rather deceptive, I admit.
Hold it. I said that all of scripture is true. However, discerning
exactly what Jesus, Paul and company were trying to say is not always so
easy. I don't believe that Paul was trying to say that all women should
behave that way. Rather, he was trying to say that under the circumstances
at the time, the women he was speaking to would best avoid volubility and
cover their heads. This has to do with maintaining a proper witness toward
others. Remember that any number of relativistic statements can be derived
from absolutes. For instance, it is absolutely right for Christians to
strive for peace. However, this does not rule out trying to maintain world
peace by resorting to violence on occasion. (Yes, my opinion.)
Sure. The Bible preaches absolute truths. However, exactly what those
truths are is sometimes a matter of confusion. As I said, the Bible does
preach absolute truths. Sometimes those fundamental principles are crystal
clear (at least to evangelicals). Sometimes they are not so clear to
everyone (e.g. should baptism be by full immersion or not, etc). That is
largely because sometimes, it is not explicitly spelled out whether the writers
are speaking to a particular culture or to Christianity as a whole. This is
where scholarship and the study of Biblical contexts comes in.
God revealed his Truths to the world, through His Word. It is utterly
unavoidable, however, that some people whill come up with alternate
interpretations. Practically anything can be misinterpreted, especially
when it comes to matters of right and wrong. Care to deny that?
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I could give much the same testimonial about my experience as a scout
back in the 1960s. The issue wasn't gays, but the principles were the
same. Thanks for a well put testimonial. Stan Krieger and his kind who
think this discussion doesn't belong here and his intolerance is the
only acceptable position in scouting should take notice. The BSA has
been hijacked by the religious right, but some of the core values have
survived in spite of the leadership and some scouts and former scouts
haven't given up. Seeing a testimonial like this reminds me that
scouting is still worth fighting for.
On a cautionary note, you must realize that if your experience with this
camp leader was in the BSA you may be putting him at risk by publicizing
it. Word could leak out to the BSA gestapo. | 0 | alt.atheism |
The proper term for what Mike expresses is Monophysitism. This was a
heresy that was condemned in the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. It
grew up in reaction to Nestorianism, which held that the Son and Jesus
are two different people who happened to be united in the same body
temporarily. Monophysitism is held by the Copts of Egypt and Ethipoia
and by the Jacobites of Syria and the Armenian Orthodox. It believes
that Jesus Christ was God (which is correct), that he was man (which is
correct), that he was one person (which is correct), but that he had
only one nature and one will and oen energy (which is heretical, the
orthodox position is that he had two natures and two wills and two
energies, both divine and human, though the wills were in perfect
harmony). That is what Mike is trying to get across, that while Jesus
came in human form, Mike says He did not have a human nature or a human
will. In reality, he had both, though neither made him subject to
original sin.
It is interesting to note that the Monothelites were a reaction to this
conflict and attempted to solve the problem by admitting two natures but
not two wills or two energies. It also was condemned, at a late council
in Constantinople I believe.
Andy Byler | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
: You know, it just occurred to me today that this whole Christian thing
: can be blamed solely on Mary.
:
: So, she's married to Joseph. She gets knocked up. What do you think
: ol' Joe will do if he finds she's been getting around? So Mary comes up
: with this ridiculous story about God making her pregnant.
:
Nice attempt Chris . . . verrry close.
You missed the conspiracy by 1 step. Joseph knew who knocked her up.
He couldn't let it be known that somebody ELSE got ol' Mary prego. That
wouldn't do well for his popularity in the local circles. So what
happened is that she was feeling guilty, he was feeling embarrassed, and
THEY decided to improve both of their images on what could have otherwise
been the downfall for both. Clever indeed. Come to think of it . . . I
have gained a new respect for the couple. Maybe Joseph and Mary should
receive all of the praise being paid to jesus. | 0 | alt.atheism |
That would be neat, but nowhere in the Bible does it say
that one who has the gift of tounges can do this. If the gift
of tounges were the ability to be understood by everyone,
no matter what languages they know, there would be no need for the
gift of interpretation, and I Corinthians 14 would not have had to
have been written.
That's a pretty harsh assumption to make about a several million
Christians world wide. Sure, there are some who want glory
for themselves who speak in tounges, just as there are among those
who do not have this gift. There were people like this in the Corinthian
church also. that does not mean that there is no true gift or that all
who speak in tounges do it for their own glory in the sight of men.
I would venture to say that a large percentage of those who do speak in tounges
do so more often in private prayer than in public.
Link Hudson | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I guess that's why scientists probably aren't mentioned either. Or
stock brokers. Or television repairmen.
It's precious to know just how deep the brainwashing from childhood
( that it takes to progress a religion ) cleans away a very substantial
part of the reasoning neurons.
But don't mind me; I don't exist. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Must there be a "why" to this? I ask because of what you also
assume about God-- namely, that He just exists, with no "why"
to His existence. So the question is reversed, "Why can't
we assume the universe just exists as you assume God to
"just exist"? Why must there be a "why" to the universe?"
It may be that one day man not only can create life but can also
create man. Now, I don't see this happening in my lifetime,
nor do I assert it is probable. But the possibility is there,
given scientists are working hard at "decoding" out "genetic
code" to perhaps help cure disease of a genetic variation.
Again, though, must there be "why" or a "divine prupose" to
man's existence?
As far as we can tell, man falls into the "mammal" catagory. Now,
if there were something more to the man (say, a soul), then
we have yet to find evidence of such. But as it is now, man
is a mammal (babies are born live, mother gives milk, we're
warm-blooded, etc.) as other mammals are and is similar in
genetic construction to some of them (in particular, primates).
For more on this check out talk.origins.
Well, then, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Judaism,
Zoerasterism, Shintoism, and Islam should fit this bit of logic
quite nicely... :-) All have depth, all have enduring values,
thus all must be true...
Stephen
_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ * Atheist
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ * Libertarian
_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ * Pro-individuality
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ * Pro-responsibility
_/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Jr. * and all that jazz...
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Did this happen to Jesus? I don't think so, not from what I heard. He lived
ONE DAY of suffering and died. If the wages of sin is the above paragraph, then
JESUS DIDN'T PAY FOR OUR SINS, DID HE?
I'd be surprised to see the moderator let this one through, but I seriously
want a reasonable explanation for this. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
how can >this possibly be fair to the infants?
What do you mean fair? God is just, giving to everyone what they
deserve. As all infants are in sin from the time of conception (cf
Romans 5.12, Psalm 1.7), they cannot possibly merit heaven, and as
purgatory is for the purging of temporal punishment and venial sins, it
is impossible that origianl sin can be forgiven. Hence, the unbaptized
infants are cut off from the God against whom they, with the whole of
the human race except Mary, have sinned. Which is why Jesus said,
"Truly, truly I say to you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God unless
he is born of water and Spirit" which is the true meaning of born again
(John 3.5). Thus, as infants are in sin, it is very fair for them to be
cut off from God and exlcuded from heaven.
As St. Augustine said, "I did not invent original sin, which the
Catholic faith holds from ancient time; but you, who deny it, without a
doubt are a follower of a new heresy." (De nuptiis, lib. 11.c.12) | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
It was no criticism of Islam for a change, it was a criticism of the
arguments used. Namely, whenever people you identify as Muslims are
the victims of the attacks of others, they are used an argument for
the bad situation of Muslims. But whenever deeds by Muslim that victimize
others are named, they do not count as an argument because what these
people did was not done as a true Muslims. No mention is made how Muslims
are the cause of a bad situation of another party. | 0 | alt.atheism |
See, we are disagreeing on the definition of moral here. Earlier, you said
that it must be a conscious act. By your definition, no instinctive
behavior pattern could be an act of morality. You are trying to apply
human terms to non-humans. I think that even if someone is not conscious
of an alternative, this does not prevent his behavior from being moral.
I try to show it, but by your definition, it can't be shown.
And, morality can be thought of a large class of princples. It could be
defined in terms of many things--the laws of physics if you wish. However,
it seems silly to talk of a "moral" planet because it obeys the laws of
phyics. It is less silly to talk about animals, as they have at least
some free will. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Please, define cell church. I missed it somewhere in the past when this
was brought up before. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Cloak yourself in God's sustaining and abiding love. Pray, pray, pray.
Pray for your brother, that he will assume the Godly role that is his.
Pray for your sister-in-law, the what ever is driving her to separate
your brother and herself from the the rest of the family will be healed.
Pray for God to give you the peace in the knowledge that you may not be
able to 'fix' it. From your description it would appear that it will
require devine intervention, and the realization by your brother as to
what his responsibilities are. Seek Godly counsel from your pastor, or
other spiritually mature believer. Know always that He is akways there
as a conforter, and will give you wisdon and direction as you call on
Him.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
04 May 93, D. Andrew Byler writes to All:
DAB> I think I need to again post the Athanasian Creed, whicc pretty well
DAB> delinieates orthodox Christian belief on the Trinity, and on the
DAB> Incarnation.
DAB> It's a pretty good statement of the beliefs eventually accpeted, and the
DAB> Creed is in use by the Catholic Church, as well as the Lutheran,
DAB> Anglican, and Orthodox churches (the last minus the filioque, which they
DAB> delete from the original form of the creed).
Do you have any evidence that it is used by the Orthodox Churches?
As far as I know it is purely Western, like the "Apostles' Creed". The
Orthodox Churches use the "Symbol of Faith", commonly called "The
Nicene Creed".
Steve Hayes
Department of Missiology
University of South Africa | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
without active participation. If you know the Latin, one really
beautiful way to hear the Passion is it's being chanted by three
deacons: the Narrator chants in the middle baritone range, Jesus chants
in the bass, and others directly quoted are handled by a high tenor.
I heard the Gregorian chant of the Passion on Good Friday. In this
liturgy, our Lord is definitely *very* sad. It's as if He has
resigned Himself to die for these poor pitiful creatures who are
killing Him. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
My, my, my. I knew that I would receive a response to my post, but not
THIS extensive. Thank you to all who responded; it at least showed that
people were willing to think about it, even though the general response was
a return to the same old "Why should it matter?" question. To those of you
who were a part of this response, I suggest that you read the articles
covering this same question in soc.culture.african.american, for you are in
DIRE need of some cultural enlightenment.
Hasta luego | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
You misrepresent me, Selim. The hard evidence for my statements about
his lack of objectivity are presented quite clearly in the book
"Orientalism" by Edward Said. Edward Said, by the way, is a Christian,
not a Muslim.
Regarding Bernard Lewis:
Him being a Zionist gives him a political motive for his
giving misrepresentations and half-truths about Islam.
Read "Orientalism" by Edward Said -- see the evidence for yourself.
In fact, I may post some of it here (if it isn't too long).
I haven't read Lewis's article, so I can't comment directly upon it, and
have only spoken about his writings _in general_ so far, that his
political motives make him a biased writer on Islam. His anti-Islamic
polemics, as I understand it, are often quite subtle and are often based
on telling half-truths.
Again, read "Orientalism" by Edward Said. I am _not_ asking you to take
what I say on trust, in fact I am urging you not to do so but to get
this book (it is a well-known book) and check the evidence out for
_yourself_.
If slavery is _in reality_ (as opposed to in the practice of some
Muslims) opposed by Islam, then using slaves for sexual
purposes is necessarily opposed too.
I understand your point of view, Selim -- I think, rather, it is _us_
who are not getting through to _you_.
Some of the points you repeat above I have already answered before.
Regarding women, I have made posting after posting on this subject,
showing that Islam is not anti-woman, etc. However, have you been
completely ignoring my postings or just missing them? I just reposted a
very good one, under the title "Islam and Women", reposted from
soc.religion.islam. If this has already disappeared from your site,
then please email me telling me so and I will email you a copy of this
excellent article.
IMHO, your understanding of the issue of women in Islam is sadly deficient.
Regarding slaves, _my_ posting on slavery -- the second one I made,
which is a repost of an article I wrote early last year -- is based
completely on the Qur'an and contains numerous Qur'anic verses and
hadiths to support its point of view.
Our approaches are different -- you are arguing from a historical
standpoint and I am arguing directly from the teachings of the Qur'an
and hadiths. Now, just because people say they are Muslims and perform
a particular action, does that automatically mean that their action is
part of Islam, even if it is opposed by the Qur'an and Sunnah? No! Of
course not.
Let me give you a concrete example, which might help clarify this for
you. The Qur'an prohibits drinking. Now, if a person says "I am a
Muslim" and then proceeds to drink a bottle of beer, does this now mean
that Islam teaches that people should drink beer? Of course not, and
only an idiot would think so.
Do you see my point?
You are judging Islam here on capitalist terms. Capitalism is an
ideology based largely on the assumption that people want to maximise
their wealth -- this assumption is in opposition to Islamic teachings.
To say Islam is bad because it is not capitalist is pretty unthinking --
Islam does not pretend to be capitalist and does not try to be
capitalist. (This does not mean that Islam does not support a
free-market -- for it does in general -- but there are other parts of
capitalism which are opposed to Islam as I understand it.)
One can postulate numerous reasons for this. Your theory is that it is
because Islam is not secularist and capitalist, etc. etc.
Selim, I will give you a clear historical example to show you the
fallacy of your views if you think (as you obviously do) that
Islam => lack of education and power.
For a large part of history, the Islamic world was very powerful. For a
significant section of history, the Islamic world was the foremost in
the sciences. So to say that Islam is, for example, anti-education is
completely absurd. You try to blame this situation on Islam -- history
shows that your conclusion is false and that, instead, there must be
other reasons for this situation.
Well, Selim, your viewpoint on women in Islam makes me question the extent
of your knowledge of Islam. I really think you are not
knowledgeable enough to be able to judge whether the Muslims are
following the Qur'an or not.
The Islamic world was at the forefront of the world in science at one
stage -- yet somehow, in your theory, it is by "following the Qur'an"
that Muslims are backwards in education. Selim, it is _your_ thesis
that is anti-historical, for you conveniently overlook this historical
fact which contradicts your theory.
You have certainly not shown this; you have merely stated it.
So far, it seems to me that your view on Islam being anti-education is
quite contrary to history. That you are so convinced of your views
makes me wonder just how objectively you are trying to look at all of
this.
I think, Selim, you should consider taking your own advice.
Here too.
Selim, you have such conviction of your viewpoint, yet you demonstrate
ignorance, not only of Islam but also of Islamic history (particularly
with respect to Muslims being leaders of science till about 1400 or so I
think). Yet you say that your viewpoint is based on history!
Selim, if I remember right, you say in one of your earlier posts that
you are an apostate from Islam. I think you should slow down and start
thinking clearly about the issues, and start _reading_ some of our
postings about Islam rather than ignoring them as you so obviously
have. | 0 | alt.atheism |
You ask where we are. I would echo that question. I'm not trying to be
contentious. But assuming that the Pope has universal jurisdiction
and authority, what authority do you rely upon for your decisions?
What prevents me from choosing ANY doctrine I like and saying that
Papal disagreement is an error that will be resolved in time?
This is especially true, since Councils of Bishops have basically
stood by the Pope.
It appears that much of what lies at the heart of this matter is
disagreements over what is tradition and Tradition, and also over
authority and discipline.
My question to the supporters of SSPX is this:
Is there ANY way that your positions with respect to church reforms
could change and be conformed to those of the Pope? (assuming that
the Pope's position does not change and that the leaders of SSPX
don't jointly make such choice.)
If not, this appears to be claiming infallible teaching authority.
If I adopt the view that "I'm NOT wrong, I CAN'T be wrong, and
there's NO WAY I'll change my mind, YOU must change yours", that
I've either left the Catholic Church or it has left me.
The Orthodox Church does not recognize papal authority/jurisdiction
viewing authority as present in each bishop, and in Ecumenical
Councils. We regard the subsequent development of the doctrines
regarding papal authority and jurisdiction to be a separation of
the Bishop of Rome from the Orthodox church. Without going into
the merits of the Great Schism, at least the Orthodox agree that
a split occurred, and don't paly what appear to be semantic games
like "He's the Pope, but we don't recognize that what he does
is effective...". Words aside, it appears to be a de facto split.
We sould argue from now until the Second Coming about what the "real"
traditional teaching of the Church is. If this were a simple matter
East and West would not have been separated for over 900 years.
I thought that the teaching magisterieum of the church did not allow
error in teachings regarding faith and morals even in the short term.`
I may be wrong here, I'm not Roman Catholic. :-)
What would be the effect of a Pope making an ex cathedra statement
regarding the SSPX situation? Would it be honored? If not, how
do you get around the formal doctrine of infallibility?
Again, I'm not trying to be contentions, I'm trying to understand.
Since I'm Orthodox, I've got no real vested interest in the outcome,
one way or the other.
It does if the command was legitimate. SSPX does not view the
Pope's commands as legitimate. Why? This is a VERY slippery slope.
True enough.
One could argue that they are establishing a non-geographic jurisdiction.
I don't know if that's even a concept or problem in Catholic circles.
Larry Overacker ([email protected])
-- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Another issue of importance. Was the crucification the will of God or
a tragic mistake. I believe it was a tragic mistake. God's will can
never be accomplished through the disbelief of man. Jesus came to
this world to build the kingdom of heaven on the earth. He
desperately wanted the Jewish people to accept him as the Messiah. If
the crucification was the will of God how could Jesus pray that this
cup pass from him. Was this out of weakness. NEVER. Many men and
women have given their lives for their country or other noble causes.
Is Jesus less than these. No he is not. He knew the crucification
was NOT the will of GOD. God's will was that the Jewish people accept
Jesus as the Messiah and that the kingdom of Heaven be established on
the earth with Jesus as it's head. (Just like the Jewish people
expected). If this had happened 2000 years ago can you imagine what
kind of world we would live in today. It would be a very different
world. And that is eactly what GOD wanted. Men and women of that age
could have been saved by following the living Messiah while he was on
the earth. Jesus could have established a sinless lineage that would
have continued his reign after his ascension to the spiritual world to
live with GOD. Now the kingdom of heaven on the earth will have to
wait for Christ's return. But when he returns will he be recognized
and will he find faith on this earth. Isn't it about time for his
return. It's been almost 2000 years.
Mike
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 |
> And the same goes for other cultural practices. The festival
> of Easter may possibly have some historical association with
> some pagan festival, but *today* there are, as far as I know,
> no Christians who *intend* to honor any kind of "pagan
> goddess" by celebrating Easter. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Jesus isn't God ? When Jesus returns some people may miss Him ? What version of
the Bible do you read Mike ?
Jesus is God incarnate (in flesh) . Jesus said, 'I and the Father are one.'
Jesus was taken up to heaven after His 40 day post-resurrection stint and the
angels who were there assured the apostles that Jesus would return the same way
and that everyone will see the coming. That's why Jesus warned that many would
come claiming to be Him but that we would know when Jesus actually returns.
These are two very large parts of my faith and you definitely hit a nerve :-) | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Which objective system are you talking about? What is its goal?
Again, which brand of morality are you talking about? | 0 | alt.atheism |
Seems he didn't understand anything about realities, liar, lunatic
or the real thing is a very narrow view of the possibilities of Jesus
message.
Sigh, it seems religion makes your mind/brain filter out anything
that does not fit into your personal scheme.
So anyone that thinks the possibilities with Jesus is bound to the
classical Lewis notion of 'liar, lunatic or saint' is indeed bound
to become a Christian.
Cheers,
Kent | 0 | alt.atheism |
[William Christie asked about the Essene NT.
Andrew Kille reponded
--clh] | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
just picked out this one point because it struck me....
why do you believe this? muslims believe in many of the same things
that christians and jews believe; they believe jesus, while not the
messiah, is a prophet. this seems to me to be much closer to
christianity than other religions are. (then again i tend to be
somewhat liberal about others' beliefs.)
this also relates to the serbian "ethnic cleansing" question. i have
been waiting for condemnations of this and have seen very few. HOW
can we stand by and watch innocent people, even people whose beliefs
we condemn, if this is the case (and don't get me wrong, the things
fundamenalist muslims have to say about women make my blood boil), be
tortured, raped (the stories about that made me physically ill), and
killed? jesus loves all, not just those who love him back -- and he
would advocate kindness toward them (in the hopes of converting them,
if that's the way you want to put it) rather than killing them.
i'm sorry i got off the subject here -- maybe i should have used a
different title. i did need to get this off my chest, however.
peace (shalom),
vera shanti
_______________________________________________________________________________
Hand over hand [email protected]
Doesn't seem so much (Vera Noyes)
Hand over hand
Is the strength of the common touch drop me a line if you're in the mood
- Rush, "Hand Over Fist"
_______________________________________________________________________________
[I am also worried about this issue. I've made a posting under my own
name earlier today. I do not much want to discuss Moslem beliefs
here. This isn't the right group for it. Their beliefs about Jesus
appear to come as much from the Koran as the Bible. This means that
while they honor him, what they think he did and stood for differs in
many ways from Christian beliefs about him. But Moslem beliefs are
an appropriate topic for soc.religion.islam.
As I'm sure you know, many Christians believe that you must accept
Christ in order to be saved. While Stanley's comment appears to be
anti-Moslem, I would assume he would say the same thing about all
religions other than Christianity. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Why is it that we have this notion that God takes some sort of pleasure
from punishing people? The purpose of hell is to destroy the devil and
his angels.
To the earlier poster who tried to support the eternal hell theory with
the fact that the fallen angels were not destroyed, remember the Bible
teaches that God has reserved them until the day of judgement. Their
judgement is soon to come.
Let me suggest this. Maybe those who believe in the eternal hell theory
should provide all the biblical evidence they can find for it. Stay away
from human theories, and only take into account references in the bible. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I agree fully with the above statement and is *precisely* what I meant
by my previous statements about Islam not being anarchist and the
law not being _enforcible_ despite the _law_ being applicable.
I disagree with this conclusion about the _applicability_ of the
Islamic law to all muslims, wherever they may be. The above conclusion
does not strictly follow from the foregoing, but only the conclusion
that the fatwa cannot be *enforced* according to Islamic law. However,
I do agree that the punishment cannot be applied to Rushdie even *were*
it well founded.
Certainly putting a price on the head of Rushdie in Britain is a criminal
act according to Islamic law.
Yes.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Could you explain what any of the above pertains to? Is this a position
statement on something or typing practice?
--
"Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.
They do what god tells them to do. " | 0 | alt.atheism |
I will answer this as I find time.
Notice what I said about this book. I called it "Easy reading." The reason I
dropped philosphy as my major was because I ran into too many pharisaical
Simon's. I don't know how many walking encyclopedia's I ran across in
philosphy classes. The problem isn't in knowing sooooo much more than your
average lay person, the problem comes when you become puffed up about it.
Schaeffer is just fine for the average lay person. That was who he was
writting to. I suppose that you would have criticised John that his gospel was
to simple. I've talked with Schaeffer one on one. I've been in lectures with
the man when he was being drilled by philosphy students and prof's from secular
as well as Christian universities. (ND alone would fill both those catagories)
His answers were enough that the prof's themselves often were taken back and
caused to re-think what their question was. I saw this time and time again at
different open forums. So yes, Schaeffers books are by in large, well,
simplistic. It certainly isn't grad level reading. But we must get off our
high horses when it comes to recommended reading. Do you seriously think most
people would get through the first chapter of Wittgenstein? I may have more to
say about this secular scientist at another time.
Also, one must finally get beyond the doubt caused by *insistent*
inquisitiveness. One cannot live his life constantly from a cartisian doubt
base.
Look, the Christian wholeheartedly supports genuine rationality. But we must
add a qualification to give this balance. Christianity is second to none in
keeping reason in its place. We never know the value of a thing until we know
its limits. Put unlimited value on something and in the end you will exhaust
it of all value!
THis is why Xianity is thoroughly rational but not the least bit rationalistic.
It also explains the curious fact that it is rationalism, and not Christian
faith, which leads to irrationality. If we forget the limits of a thing, we
fly in the face of reality and condem ourselves to learn the simple ironic
lesson of life:
"More without limits is less; less with limits is more."
Or as I have so often stated it, freedom without form soon becomes form w/o
freedom.
Let's put it another way. The rationality of faith is implacably opposed to
absurdity but has no quarrel with mystery. Think about that. It can tell the
difference between the two if you will let it. Christianity's contention with
rationalism is not that it has too much reason in it, but that it has very
little else. When a Christian comes to faith his understanding and his trust
go hand in hand, but as he continues in faith his trust may sometimes be called
to go on by itself without his understanding.
This is where the principle of suspended judgment applies. At such time if the
Christian faith is to be itself and let God be God, it must suspend judgment
and say, "Father I do not understand you but I trust you." Now don't read all
your objections of me into that statement. I wasn't saying I do not understand
you at all, but I trust you anyway." It means that "I do not understand You *in
this situation* but I do understand *why I trust You* anyway" Therefore I can
trust that you understand even though I do not. The former is a mystery
unrelieved by rationality and indistinguishable from absurdity. The latter is
a statement of rationality of faith walking hand in hand with the mystery of
Faith. So.... the principle of suspended judgment is not irrational. It is
not a leap of faith but a walk of faith. As believers we cannot always know
why, but we canalways know why we trust God who knows why and this makes all
the difference.
Now, there is one obvious snag to all this and this is where I have parted
company with philosophy- what is eminently reasonable in theory is a rather bit
more difficult in practice. In practice the pressure of mystery acts on faith
like the insistent "whying" of a 3 year old. It isn't just that we would like
to know what we do not know but that we feel we *must* know what we cannot
know. The one produces frustration because curiosity is denied; the other
leads to genuine anguish. More specifically the poorer our understanding is in
coming to faith the more necessary it will be to understand everything after
coming to faith. If we do not know why we trust God, then we will always need
to know exactly what God is doing in order to trust him. Failing to grasp
that, we may not be able to trust him, for anything we do not understand may
count decisevely against what we are able to trust.
If, on the other hand, we do know why we trust God, we will be able to trust
him in situations where we do not understand what He is doing. (Too many Xian
leaders teach as if the Christian had a window in the back of his head which
allows for understanding at every foot fall) For what God is doing may be
ambiguous, but it will not be inherently contradictory! It may be mystery to
us, but mystery is only inscrutable; what would be insufferable is absurdity.
And that my friend, was the conclusion of Nietzche both in theory and in
practice. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I agree, I had a hard feeling not believing my grand-grand mother
who told me of elves dancing outside barns in the early mornings.
I preferred not to accept it, even if her statement provided
the truth itself. Life is hard.
Cheers,
Kent | 0 | alt.atheism |
Concerning Christians praying for coporate forgiveness of national sins,
Michael Covington claims the following of C.S. Lewis:
<><
I was surprised when I heard this same kind of remark from a fellow grad.
student I know, especially since he had seminary training. I have read the
same essay and do not find Lewis making any such claim. Rather, Lewis is
condemning the use of such coporate prayer efforts as platforms to make
political jabs at opponents, feigned as confessions of guilt (ie., Lord please
forgive us for allowing "insert political issue/idea/platform" to exist in our
country, it is wrong and we ask your forgiveness.). I would be interested in
knowing what part of the essay you feel condemns national repentance (please
quote). | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I agree that there is truth in scripture. There are principles to be
learned from it. Claiming that that truth is absolute, though, seems
to imply a literal reading of the Bible. If it were absolute truth
(constant across time, culture, etc.) then no interpretation would be
necessary.
It may be that the lessons gleaned from various passages are different
from person to person. To me, that doesn't mean that one person is
right and the other is wrong. I believe that God transcends our simple
minds, and that scripture may very well have been crafted with exactly
this intent. God knows me, and knows that my needs are different
from yours or anyone else's. By claiming that scripture is absolute,
then at least one person in every disputed interpretation must be wrong.
I just don't believe that God is that rigid.
This is where the arrogance comes in to play. Since these principles
are crystal clear to evangelicals, maybe the rest of us should just take
their word for it? Maybe it isn't at all crystal clear to *me* that
their fundamental principles are either fundamental *or* principles.
I think we've established that figuring out Biblical truth is a matter
of human interpretation and therefore error-prone. Yet you can still
claim that some of them may be crystal clear? Maybe to a certain
segment of Christianity, but to all.
Not at all. I think it supports my position much more effectively
than yours. :-)
So, I think that your position is:
The Bible is absolute truth, but as we are prone to error in our
interpretation, we cannot reliably determine if we have figured out
what that truth is.
Did I get that right?
What's the point of spending all this time claiming and defending
absolute truth, when we can never know what those truths are, and we
can never (or at least shouldn't) act upon them? What practical
difference can this make? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |