text
stringlengths 1
51k
| label
int64 0
15
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
Okay... I argued this thoroughly about 3-4 weeks ago. Men and women are
different ... physically, physiologically, and psychologically. Much
recent evidence for this statement is present in the book "Brainsex" by
Anne Moir and David Jessel. I recommend you find a copy and read it.
Their book is an overview of recent scientific research on this topic
and is well referenced.
Now, if women and men are different in some ways, the law can only
adequately take into account their needs in these areas where they are
different by also taking into account the ways in which men and women
are different. Maternity leave is an example of this -- it takes into
account that women get pregnant. It does not give women the same rules
it would give to men, because to treat women like it treats men in this
instance would be unjust. This is just simply an obvious example of
where men and women are intrinsically different!!!!!
Now, people make the _naive_ argument that sexism = oppression.
However, maternity leave is sexist because MEN DO NOT GET PREGNANT.
Men do not have the same access to leave that women do (not to the same
extent or degree), and therefore IT IS SEXIST. No matter however much a
man _wants_ to get pregnant and have maternity leave, HE NEVER CAN. And
therefore the law IS SEXIST. No man can have access to maternity leave,
NO MATTER HOW HARD HE TRIES TO GET PREGNANT. I hope this is clear.
Maternity leave is an example where a sexist law is just, because the
sexism here just reflects the "sexism" of nature in making men and women
different. There are many other differences between men and women which
are far more subtle than pregnancy, and to find out more of these I
recommend you have a look at the book "Brainsex".
Your point that perhaps some day men can also be pregnant is fallacious.
If men can one day become pregnant it will be by having biologically
become women! To have a womb and the other factors required for
pregnancy is usually wrapped up in the definition of what a woman is --
so your argument, when it is examined, is seen to be fallacious. You
are saying that men can have the sexist maternity leave privilege that
women can have if they also become women -- which actually just supports
my statement that maternity leave is sexist.
There is no official priesthood in Islam -- much of this function is
taken by Islamic scholars. There are female Islamic scholars and
female Islamic scholars have always existed in Islam. An example from
early Islamic history is the Prophet's widow, Aisha, who was recognized
in her time and is recognized in our time as an Islamic scholar.
You have no evidence for your blanket statement about all religions, and
I dispute it. I could go on and on about women in Islam, etc., but I
recently reposted something here under the heading "Islam and Women" --
if it is still at your news-site I suggest you read it. It is reposted
from soc.religion.islam, so if it has disappeared from alt.atheism it
still might be in soc.religion.islam (I forgot what its original title
was though). I will email it to you if you like.
Your statement that "other religions are no different" is, I think, a
statement based simply on lack of knowledge about religions other than
Christianity and perhaps Judaism.
Aisha, who I mentioned earlier, was not only an Islamic scholar but also
was, at one stage, a military leader.
The Prophet's first wife, who died just before the "Hijra" (the
Prophet's journey from Mecca to Medina) was a successful businesswoman.
Lucio, you cannot make a strong case for your viewpoint when your
viewpoint is based on ignorance about world religions. | 0 | alt.atheism |
So long as we think that good things are what we *have* to do rather than
what we come to *want* to do, we miss the point. The more we love God; the
more we come to love what and whom He loves.
When I find that what I am doing is not good, it is not a sign to try
even harder (Romans 7:14-8:2); it is a sign to seek God. When I am aware
of Jesus' presence, I usually want what He wants. It is His strenth, His love
that empowers my weakness. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Leonard, I'll give you an example of this....
My father recently bought a business, the business price was 150,000 pounds
and my father approached the people in the community for help, he raised
60,000 pounds in interest free loans from friends and relatives and
Muslims he knew, 50,000 had cash and the rest he got a business loan, after
paying off the Muslim lenders many of them helped him with further loans
to help him clear the bank debt and save him from further intrest, this
is an example of a Muslim community helping one another, why did they help
because of their common identity as Muslims. In turn my father has helped
with people buying houses to minimise the amount of intrest they pay
and in some cases buy houses intrest free with the help of those more
fortunate in the community.
The fact is Leonard it DOES work without a fluffy bunny in sight!
iThat is the beauty of Islam.
Mas
| 0 | alt.atheism |
[insert huge deletion of all following material since it had little
relevance to what I've found]
OK. The people before Jesus didn't have Jesus, right (so far, I've
announced that space is a vacuum)? The people who lived during the time
Jesus lived (especially disciples) were taught this: "I tell you the
truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He
will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the
Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may
bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and
I will do it." (John 14:12-14)
So, Jesus asked them to pray for things in his name. Since that time,
the request has been the same, not to ask for intercession from other
beings, but from Jesus. Remember that "there is one God and one
mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as
a ransom for all men--the testimony given in its proper time." (1
Timothy 2:5-6. Also, "there have been many of those priests [talking
about priests among the Hebrews], since death prevented them from
continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a
permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who
come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them."
(Hebrews 7:23-25). Hebrews is also full of areas talking about Jesus
being our mediator rather than any other man.
Joe Fisher | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Since when does atheism mean trashing other religions?There must be a God
of inbreeding to which you are his only son. | 0 | alt.atheism |
For the Lord Himself will descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice
of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will
rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together
to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
No, I say religious law applies to those who are categorized as
belonging to the religion when event being judged applies. This
prevents situations in which someone is a member of a religion
who, when charged, claims that he/she was _not_ a member of the
religion so they are free to go on as if nothing had happened.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
I just about closed this once before. I'm now doing so for real, after
tonight's posting.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
No one was ever flogged, beaten, burned, fed to the lions, or killed in any
other way because of a belief in the resurrection - sorry to disappoint you.
The idea of resurrection is one which can be found in a host of different
forms in the religions of antiquity. The problem was not the resurrection
which was a mediorce issue for a tiny fragment of the Jewish population
(the Saducees) but was a non issues for everyone else. The real problem was
that Christians were pacifist and preached there was only one god. When the
state operates by a system of divinitation of the emperor - monotheism
becomes a capital offense. The Jews were able to get exemption from this,
and were also not evangelistic. Christians were far more vocal, and gentile,
and hence dangerous and were therefore targets of persecution. Also since
Christians were a relatively powerless group, they made good scapegoats as is
seen by Nero's blaming them for the burning of Rome. Let's not cloud the
issues with the resurrection.
randy | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
How do we come up with this setup? Is this subjective, if enough people agreed
we could switch the order? Isn't this defining one unknown thing by another?
That is, good is that which is better than bad, and bad is that which is worse
than good? Circular?
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 |
In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Frank O'Dwyer)
How do we measure truth, beauty, goodness, love, friendship, trust, honesty,
etc.? If things have no basis in objective fact then aren't we limited in what
we know to be true? Can't we say that we can examples or instances of reason,
but cannot measure reason, or is that semantics?
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 |
Reply-To: [email protected]
Here in America people tend to think of choosing a church much like they
think of choosing a car or a country club. What I mean is that our
culture is such that we tend towards satisfying our own wants rather
than considering things with others in mind and not making prayer
an initial and primary part of the decision process. People tend to
treat church as they would a club and when something is less than to
their liking, off they go to another one.
I think that scripture presents the idea that God takes a different
perspective on the "church choosing process". It seems to me from 1Cor 12
that God doesn't subscribe to the idea of us choosing a church at all
but that he places us in the body as he wants us. So, I think a better
question is not how do I choose a church but how do I figure out where
God is trying to place me.
If a person was instrumental in leading you to Christ, the church they
go to is a logical first choice. You have been born into the family of
God. People should hop around from church to church as often as they
hop from natural family to family.
If you met the Lord on your own (so to speak) there may not be an
easily identifiable church to try for starters. Here you are more
like an orphan. Prayerfully go and "leave yourself on a few doorsteps"
and see if anyplace feels like home.
I wouldn't expect that God want to place you in a church where you
have difficulty fitting in with the people, but on the other hand
there are no perfect churches. If you have an attitude of looking
for problems you will both find them and make them. On the other hand
if you have an attitude of love and committment, you will spread that
wherever you go.
In general, I think that God will try to place you in a church that
talks about the Lord in the way that you have come to know him and is
expanding on that base. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Maybe cyclical is not the best word. That is one aspect of it. In the
case of the virgin birth prophecy, it applied to the then and there, and
also prophetically to Christ. The army that threatened the king would
cease to be a threat in a very short time. Yet it also prophecied of
Christ.
Several prophecies that refered to Christ also had application at the
time they were made. "Out of Egypt have I called my Son" refers both
to Israel, and prophetically to Christ. "Why do the heathen rage"
was said of David and also of Christ.
Another example would be the Scripture quoted of Judas, "and his bishoprick
let another take." Another example is something that Isaiah said of His
disciples which is also applied to Christ in Hebrews, "the children thou
hast given me."
How does the preterist view account for this phenomenon.
Link
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Sorry, but I think this interpretation of the Matthew 13 parables is
nonsense. I.e.,
Matthew 16:12 explains that by "leaven of the Pharisees" Jesus was simply
referring to their teaching; not sin/corruption/heresy.
Jesus gaves His apostles the keys of the kingdom and said that
the gates of hell would not prevail against His church.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Hmmm. Here's food for thought: " ...but rather be in fear of him
who can destroy both soul and body in gehenna." Math 10:28 | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Both Christians and non-Christians laugh at this quote because
it exaggerates something we all feel, but know is not true. Us
Christians just KNOW that a little better! :)
In God we trust!
-Christopher
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Who does the categorizing?
---
" I'd Cheat on Hillary Too." | 0 | alt.atheism |
: [I have some qualms about postings like this. You might want to
: engage in a bit more conversation with Joel before deluging
: someone who doesn't expect it with cards. --clh]
I'd suggest that more than _some_ qualms are in order. Without knowing
anything about the situation, it is impossible to evaluate the
appropriateness of writing. Some folks will check, others with more
zeal than time may not.
IMHO, requests of this nature should be made only for oneself or for someone
who knows and approves of the idea. Otherwise, it is intrusive and
disrespectful of the individual. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
True.
Also read 2 Peter 3:16
Peter warns that the scriptures are often hard to understand by those who
are not learned on the subject. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Unfortunately your phrasing is ambiguous. Re-writing more carefully, we have
(at least) two possibilities. The first:
Things called "Mercedes" are cars
That girl is called "Mercedes"
Therefore that girl is a car
That is entirely valid as a piece of logical deduction. It is not sound,
because the first statement is false. Similarly, I would hold that Jim's
example is valid but not sound.
Another possible interpretation of what you wrote is:
There exists at least one car called "Mercedes"
That girl is called "Mercedes"
Therefore that girl is a car
-- which isn't valid.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
(deletion) | 0 | alt.atheism |
This is a ridiculous argument for being a Christian. So then, you might
consider switching from Christianity to another religion if you were
offered an even more frightening description of another hell? How many
Christians do think there are who view it strictly as an insurance policy?
Not many I know; they believe in a message of love and compassion for
others. A faith based on fear of hell sounds like a dysfunctional
relationship with God. Like a child who cringes in fear of a parent's
physical violence.
Many religions have concrete views of heaven and hell, with various
threats and persuasions regarding who will go where. Competition over
who can envison the worst hell can hardly nurture the idea of loving
your neighbor as yourself.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I'm not saying this at all - it requires no faith on my part to
say the car drives because I've seen it drive - I've done more
than at in fact - I've actually driven it. (now what does require
some faith is the belief that my senses give an accurate representation
of what's out there....) But there is NO evidence - pro or con -
for the existence or non-existence of God (see what I have to
say below on this).
Sorry if I remain skeptical - I don't believe it's entirely a
conclusion. That you have seen no evidence that there IS a God
is correct - neither have I. But lack of evidence for the existence
of something is in NO WAY evidence for the non-existence of something
(the creationist have a similar mode of argumentation in which if they
disprove evolution the establish creation). You (personally) have never
seen a neutrino before, but they exist. The "pink unicorn" analogy breaks
down and is rather naive. I have a scientific theory that explains the
appearance of animal life - evolution. When I draw the conclusion that
"pink unicorns" don't exist because I haven't seen them, this conclusion
has it's foundation in observation and theory. A "pink unicorn", if
it did exist, would be qualitatively similar to other known entities.
That is to say, since there is good evidence that all life on earth has
evolved from "more primitive" ancestors these pink unicorns would share
a common anscestory with horses and zebras and such. God, however,
has no such correspondence with anything (IMO). There is no physical
frame work of observation to draw ANY conclusions FROM.
I disagree with you profoundly on this. I haven't defined God as
existence - in fact, I haven't defined God. But this might be
getting off the subject - although if you think it's relevant
we can come back to it.
You are using wrong categories here - or perhaps you misunderstand
what I'm saying. I'm making no argument what so ever and offering no
definition so there is no fallacy. I'm not trying to convince you of
anything. *I* Believe - and that rests upon Faith. And it is inappropriate
to apply the category of logic in this realm (unless someone tells you
that they can logically prove God or that they have "evidence" or ...,
then the use of logic to disprove their claims if fine and necessary).
BTW, an incomplete argument is not a fallacy - some things are not
EVEN wrong.
I don't follow you here. Certainly one can make observations of
things that they didn't know existed. I still maintain that one
cannot use observation to infer that "God does not exist". Such
a positive assertion requires a leap.
Once again you seem to completely misunderstand me. I have no
EVIDENCE that "'god is' is meaningful" at ANY level. Maybe such
a response as you gave just comes naturally to you because so
many people try to run their own private conception of God down
your throat. I, however, am not doing this. I am arguing one, and
only one, thing - that to make a positive assertion about something
for which there can in principle be no evidence for or against
requires a leap - it requires faith. I am, as you would say, a
"theist"; however, there is a form of atheism that I can respect -
but it must be founded upon honesty.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Perhaps not in Christianity, but in Islam the choice of religious
leaders is to be made by the people. So much for your superiority
argument.
Democracy is a basic element of Islam. Learn that one!
Ever notice that the so-called "fundamentalists" in Algeria
who are being repressed by the secular government won in
free and democratic elections.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Can someone cite Biblical references to homosexuality being immoral, other
than Leviticus? So far, when I ask, around here, I get the verses from
Leviticus spouted at me, but the whole rest of that book tends to be
ignored by Christians (haven't seen any stonings in a _long_ time :-).
Later,
Max (Bob) Muir
[The list was posted not long ago, as I recall, aside from Lev, commonly
cited passages are:
the story of Sodom. Note however that this was a homosexual rape, and
there's no disagreement that that is wrong. I take an intermediate
position on this: note that Sodom is referred to elsewhere in the
Bible for its sinfulness. It doesn't seem to have been known
specifically for homosexuality. Rather, I think it was considered a
cesspool of all sins. However from what we know of Jewish attitudes,
homosexuality would have contributed to the horror of the action
described. (It almost seems to have been contrived to combine about
as many forms of evil in one act as possible: homosexual rape of
guests, who were actually angels.) But this story is not specifically
about homosexuality.
In the NT, the clear references are all from Paul's letters. In Rom
1, there is a passage that presupposes that homosexuality is an evil.
Note that the passage isn't about homosexuality -- it's about
idolatry. Homosexuality is visited on people as a punishment, or at
least result, of idolatry. There are a number of arguments over this
passage. It does not use the word "homosexuality", and it is referring
to people who are by nature heterosexual practicing homosexuality.
So it's not what I'd call an explicit teaching against all homosexuality.
But it does seem to support what would be a natural assumption anyway,
that Paul shares the general negative Jewish attitude towards
homosexuality.
The other passages occur in lists of sins, in I Cor 6:9, and I Tim
1:10. Unfortunately it's not entirely clear what the words used here
mean. There have been suggestions that one has a broader meaning,
such as "wanton", and that another may be specifically "male
prostitute". Again, we don't have here a precise teaching about
homosexuality, but it is at least weak supportive evidence that Paul
shared the OT's negative judgement on homosexuality.
Jude 1:7 is sometimes cited, however it's probably not relevant. The
context in Jude involves angels. Since those who were almost raped in
Sodom were angels, it seems likely that "strange flesh" refers to
intercourse with angels.
As you can see, the NT evidence is such that people's conclusion is
determined by their approach to the Bible. Conservatives note that
the passages from Paul's letters imply that he accepted the OT
prohibition. This is enough for them to regard it as having NT
endorsement. Liberals note that there's no specific teaching, and no
clear definition of what is being prohibited or why (is the concern in
Rom 1 the connection of homosexuality to pagan worship? what exactly
do the words in the lists of sins mean?). Thus some believe it is
legitimate to regard this as a attitude Paul took with him from his
background and not a specific teaching of the Gospel.
This is an explosive topic, which tends to result in long
dissertations on the exact meaning of various Greek words. But it's
clear to me that that's mostly irrelevant. What it really comes down
to is whether people are looking to the Bible for law or whether they
believe that such as approach is inconsistent with the Gospel. This
appears to depend upon one's reaction to the message of the Bible as a
whole, as well as one's perception of the needs of the church today.
This is a difference of approach at least as serious as the difference
between Protestant and Catholic in the 16th Cent, and one where both
sides believe that the Bible is so obviously on their side that they
keep thinking all they have to do is quote a few more passages and the
other side will finally come to their senses. That makes things
very frustrating for a moderator, who realizes that such an optimistic
outcome is not very likely... | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Dan Johnson-
You don't know me, but take this hand anyway. Bravo for GO(DS) = 0.
Beautiful! Simply beautiful! | 0 | alt.atheism |
You and Mr. bobby really need to sit down and decide what
exactly Islam *is* before posting here.
According to 'Zlumber, one is NOT a muslim when one is doing evil.
[ A muslin can do no evil ] According to him, one who does evil is suffering
from "temporary athiesm."
Now, would the members who claim to be "Muslims" get their stories
straight????
--
"Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.
They do what god tells them to do. " | 0 | alt.atheism |
: >> The death penalty was conceived as a deterrent to crime, but the legal
: >> shenanigans that have been added (automatic appeals, lengthy court
: >> battles, etc.) have relegated that purpose to a very small part of what
: >> it should be. Hence the question is, do we instate the death penalty as
: >> it was meant to be, and see if that deters crime, or do we get rid of
: >> it entirely?
I doubt the death penalty was supposed to be a "deterrent" to crime. If so,
why doesn't every crime carry a death penalty ? That would be effictive
wouldn't it ???
The death penalty is a punishment, much like a $50 fine for speeding is
a punishment. Anyway, somebody with murder on the mind doesn't much care
about the consequences. I think another problem is that people dont think
they will get caught. If I wanted to kill another person, I wouldn't
care what the penalty was if I didn't think I would get caught.
If it was to be strictly a deterrent, it should have been more along
the lines of torture. | 0 | alt.atheism |
General question: Since the world was discovered to be
round, the definition of Saturday is, if not ambiguous,
at least arbitrary. How would someone answer this?
Also, when the calendar was changed (Gregorian to Julian?)
was the day of the week changed or just the date? Once again
this points to the arbitrariness of the days.
Chris Mussack | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I agree. Where in the Gospels does Jesus advocate any of the actions
you mention?
I couldn't find "witch" or "sorceress" in my concordance. Is there
something in the Epistles about witches? (I'm still working my way
through the Gospels.)
JJ | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
(Atheist drivel deleted . . .)
Untitled
========
A seed is such a miraculous thing,
It can sit on a shelf forever.
But how it knows what to do, when it's stuck in the ground,
Is what makes it so clever.
It draws nutrients from the soil through it's roots,
And gathers its force from the sun
It puts forth a whole lot of blossoms and fruit,
Then recedes itself when it is done.
Who programmed the seed to know just what to do?
And who put the sun in the sky?
And who put the food in the dirt for the roots?
And who told the bees to come by?
And who makes the water to fall from above,
To refresh and make everything pure?
Perhaps all of this is a product of love,
And perhaps it happened by chance.
Yeah, sure.
-Johnny Hart, cartoonist for _B.C._ | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I am not so sure of Jewish proselytism then, but I would like to relate
an account of a recent dinner I had with Jews a few months ago.
The dinner was instigated by the aunt of the hostess, whom I had met while
visiting my wife in Galveston last October. The dear old aunt (now
deceased) was very proud of her Jewish heritage, although not especially
devout. Her parents were both murdered in Nazi concentration camps in
Austria during WWII because they were Jewish. While conversing with her
about politics, world affairs and religion, she remarked that it would
be a good idea for me to visit her niece on my return to Atlanta.
Within two days of returning to Atlanta, her niece called to invite
me over for dinner with her husband. I went, not knowing really what to
expect, other than stimulating conversation and fellowship. What I got,
however, was rather unexpected. The thrust of the evening's discussion
was to condemn the Reagan-Bush policies prohibiting abortion counseling
in federally funded family planning clinics, prohibiting the sterilization
of minorities on welfare here and in Puerto Rico, on
the ban on fetal tissue research, and against the Mexico City policy,
"which denies U.S. foreign aid to programs overseas that promote abortion."
The crux of their position was to place the blame for the problems of
"overpopulation," rampant domestic crime, African starvation, unwed
mothers, etc., on Christianity, rather on the fall of Adam. Now, this
is not what I had to come to talk about. But every time I tried to
bring up the subject of Judaism, they would condemn Jews for Jesus
and admonish me against converting to Judaism, "because it involves
too much study and effort." And I did not even raise the prospect, nor
try to convert them to the truth of Christ! There was certainly no
Jewish proselytism going on there.
And again, last November I toured a "traditional" Jewish synagogue and was
subjected to a 30-minute harangue against Jesus and Christianity in
general. I realize that these are two isolated incidents, and that the
best supervisor I ever had at work is Jewish, but from my experience,
the modern Jew is not known for his proselytism.
--
boundary | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I just started reading the group. I was wondering if someone
could re-post exactly what the Prophetic Warning to NYC was.
Thanks
-jh | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
15 | soc.religion.christian |
|
Perhaps we have different definitions of absolute then. To me,
an absolute is something that is constant across time, culture,
situations, etc. True in every instance possible. Do you agree
with this definition? I think you do:
A simple example:
In the New Testament (sorry I don't have a Bible at work, and can't
provide a reference), women are instructed to be silent and cover
their heads in church. Now, this is scripture. By your definition,
this is truth and therefore absolute.
Do women in your church speak? Do they cover their heads? If all
scripture is absolute truth, it seems to me that women speaking in and
coming to church with bare heads should be intolerable to evangelicals.
Yet, clearly, women do speak in evangelical churches and come with bare
heads. (At least this was the case in the evangelical churches I grew
up in.)
Evangelicals are clearly not taking this particular part of scripture
to be absolute truth. (And there are plenty of other examples.)
Can you reconcile this?
I don't claim that there are *no* absolutes. I think there are very
few, though, and determining absolutes is difficult.
But you are claiming that all of Scripture is absolute. How can you
determine absolutes derived from Scripture when you can't agree how
to interpret the Scripture?
It's very difficult to see how you can claim something which is based
on your own *interpretation* is absolute. Do you deny that your own
background, education, prejudices, etc. come into play when you read the
Bible, and determine how to interpret a passsage? Do you deny that
you in fact interpret? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I'll take a try at this...
From the discussions I have been in, and from how *I* have interpreted
the bible, I feel that one can pray either way. BUT remember this,
before Jesus, the people talked to God (no other way) and he talked
back. (audible and dreams, etc.) Today we have the bible to know
Gods will, and we have his son you died for US. He was given as our
savior, and while we still do things according to Gods will, we pray
THROUGH his son. In the bible it says that if we are not known to
Jesus, we are not known to God. (sorry I do not have the verses
with me) So, if we are to be granted eternal life, we must present
ourselves to Jesus first, who will then present us to God.
Leonard
-- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I'd like to remind people of the withering of the fig tree and Jesus
driving the money changers et. al. out of the temple. I think those
were two instances of Christ showing anger (as part of His human side). | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
This thread seems to be arguing the validity of a religious viewpoint
according to some utilitarian principle, i.e. atheism/religion is
wrong because it causes death. The underlying `moral' is that death
is `wrong'. This is a rather arbitrary measure of validity.
Get some epistemology. | 0 | alt.atheism |
0 | alt.atheism |
|
> repeated lives on earth. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Yes, but whose freedom? The world in general doesn't seem to value the
freedom of Tibetans, for example.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
THE EMPTY TOMB: CAN WE TRUST IT?
by the late Wilbur M. Smith, D.D.
(1894-1977)
When Jesus was on Earth, He made an amazing prediction about
Himself, and frequently repeated it. Let me quote it for you:
Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son
of Man shall be betrayed unto the chief
priests and unto the scribes, and they shall
condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him
to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and
to crucify Him; and the third day He shall
rise again" (Matthew 20:18-19).
Wholly different from the normal experience of men, Jesus,
who had *never* done anything worthy of death, even deserving
reproval, knew He would die before He was 40 years of age. He
knew the very city where He would die. He knew that the religious
leaders of His own race would condemn Him to death. He knew that
one of His own would betray Him. He knew that before His actual
death took place He would be mocked and scourged. He knew exactly
how He would die--*by crucifixion.*
All this is in itself remarkable. But more amazing than the
minute particulars of His foreknowledge was what He predicted
would follow shortly after He was buried--*that He would rise
again.* He even designated the time--on the third day.
But since it is on this central fact--the death and resurrec-
tion of Jesus Christ--that the whole truth or untruth of Chris-
tianity turns, let us examine it more closely.
The body of Jesus was embalmed in long sheets of cloth
between the layers of which a great abundance of spices and
ointments was distributed. The body was placed in a tomb which
had never before been used, and a great stone was rolled against
the entrance. The Jewish authorities, fully aware that Jesus had
predicted He would rise again, had the stone officially sealed and
on Saturday placed a guard before the tomb to prevent the
disciples from carrying away the body. Early Sunday morning some
of the women who were faithful followers of Christ went out to the
tomb to further anoint the body. To their utter astonishment,
they found the stone rolled away, the body gone. They rushed back
to tell the disciples. Shortly two of Jesus' friends, Peter and
John, utterly skeptical about the whole affair, came and found the
tomb empty, just as the women had said. Even the guards came
hurrying into the city to tell the Sanhedrin that had hired them
to guard the tomb that the body was gone (Matthew 28:11).
How did this tomb become empty?
One of the most famous New Testament scholars in America--
professor of New Testament literature in a large theological
seminary--wrote to the author in answer to my question of *how*
the tomb became empty, and wrote it in a letter *not* marked by
bitterness or sarcasm, that he could no more explain how the tomb
became empty than he could explain how Santa Claus comes down the
chimney at Christmas time.
But he didn't realize that Santa Clause never did come down
any chimney at Christmas time, *because there never was a Santa
Claus!* ...And there *is* a Jesus. He died; He was buried in the
tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, and on Sunday the body was gone.
Those are facts of history. No one can escape the responsi-
bility of coming to some conclusion about what really happened by
mentioning a myth we all abandoned before we were eight years old.
Another professor, Dr. Kirsopp Lake of Harvard University,
tried to explain the empty tomb by saying (what no other scholar
in the field of New Testament criticism has ventured to adopt)
that the women went to the wrong tomb.
The facts are these:
First, so far as we know, there was no other tomb nearby to
which by mistake they could have gone.
Second, it is contrary to all similar experience for three or
more people to forget the place where they have buried their
dearest loved one within less than three days. Even if the women
did miss the tomb, when Peter and John came, did they too go to
the wrong tomb?
Third, were the soldiers *guarding* the wrong tomb?
There is, of course, a record of an attempt to escape the
evidence of the empty tomb in the New Testament itself.
Now when they were going, behold, some
of the watch came into the city and showed
unto the chief priests all the things that
were done. And when they were assembled
with the leaders and had taken counsel, they
gave large money unto the soldiers, Saying,
Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole
Him away while we slept. And if this come to
the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and
secure you. So they took the money, and did
as they were taught: and this saying is com-
monly reported among the Jews until this day
(Matthew 28:11-15).
This is a good illustration of many later attempts to escape the
fact that the tomb was empty.
You will notice at once that the chief priests and the elders never
questioned but that the tomb *was* empty. They never even went out to
see if what the guards had reported was true--they *knew* it was true.
Another fact about this story makes it ridiculous to maintain that
the tomb was empty--the soldiers were told to say that Jesus' disciples
came and stole the body away *while they* (the soldiers) *were asleep!*
How could they know what was going on while they were asleep?
Obviously, such testimony would be valueless in any court.
Even aside from the shallowness and sordidness that make us reject
the explanation, the very character and the later history of the
disciples compel us to believe they did not steal and secretly carry away
the body of Jesus.
First, as Professor Heffern points out, the leaders of Judaism in
Jerusalem, who had put the Lord Jesus to death, had nothing to offer to
contradict these disciples as they continued to preach Jesus and His
resurrection--because all Jerusalem knew the tomb was empty. If there
had been trickery here, sooner or later it would have been suspected,
then proved.
Second, surely *one* of the disciples, even *most* of them, would
have confessed the fraud under the terrific persecution they underwent.
It may be possible to live a lie, but men seldom die for a lie--and most
of these men did.
The result ultimately would have been that the message that Christ
had risen would have suffered the fate of all such unfounded stories--it
would have lost it *power.* Instead, this truth swept the world, closed
pagan temples, won millions of disciples, brought hope to a despairing
humanity, was the very foundation truth of the early church, and is today
as believable and as freshly glorious as ever.
But not only did Jesus come alive again, He did not disappear to
leave the disciples speculating through all the subsequent days as to
what had happened to Him.
Instead, He appeared to them--literally, visibly, frequently.
He appeared to the women at the tomb on Resurrection morning
(Matthew 28:1-10); later that day to Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:11-
18); and to Simon Peter, also alone (Luke 24:34). In the afternoon He
walked with two of His followers toward Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35); and that
night He appeared to ten of the apostles gathered together in an upper
room at Jerusalem (Mark 16:14-16; Luke 24:36-40; etc.).
A week later He appeared to all eleven of the apostles, probably at
the same place (John 20:26-28). Once He was seen by above 500 brethren
on a mountain in Galilee (I Corinthians 15:6); and finally to the
apostles just before His ascension (Mark 16:19; Luke 24:50-52; Acts 1:3-
8).
As with the fact of the empty tomb, so in regard to these histor-
ically recorded appearances, all kinds of theories have been proposed
attempting to deny their literalness. But these theories are
unreasonable, without supporting evidence. None has ever won the
unanimous approval of those who refuse to believe in the reality of the
appearances.
Moreover, while it is true we are living in an age when may of our
leading scientists and agnostics and many of our philosophers are
antisuperanaturalistic, let us not forget that some of the greatest
thinkers of the ages have firmly believed in this great miracle.
Increase Mather, president of Harvard; Timothy Dwight, president of Yale;
Nathan Lord, president of Dartmouth; Edward Hitchcock, president of
Amherst; Mark Hopkins, president of Williams; John Witherspoon, president
of Princeton--these men and countless others have believed it.
But suppose Christ *did* rise from the dead, what of it? What has
it to do with *my* life? What has it to do with *your* life? Just this:
it seals with certitude the teachings of Christ.
Jesus taught many great truths--especially many about Himself. He
claimed to have come down *from* God.
He said He was the way *to* God.
He said He was the Son of God, who alone knew God perfectly.
He said that whoever believed on Him had eternal life, and no one
else had it.
He said that whatever we ask God in His name, He would grant it to
us.
Thus when He did rise from the grave on the third day, He revealed
that in these amazing, unparalleled predictions, *He spoke the truth!*
Do you know any reason, *any good reason,* why we should not believe
that His words are all true?
The point is, does not the truth of the Resurrection convince us
that He is none other than the One He claimed to be--the Son of God?
And then, of course, the fact that Christ rose from the dead
testifies that He has broken the power of death, and that He will some
day raise us also up from the grave, as He promised.
In other words, if this Person, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, in all
this, He should be the cornerstone of the foundation of your life. For
He said a life built on Him would know forgiveness of sins, His compan-
ionship and help, a joy that no circumstances can ever take away, and a
hope that shineth more and more unto a perfect day. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Fine... THE ILLIAD IS THE WORD OF GOD(tm) (disputed or not, it is)
Dispute that. It won't matter. Prove me wrong.
Brian West | 0 | alt.atheism |
I posted this a couple of weeks ago, and it doesn't seem to have appeared
on the newsgroup, and I haven't had a reply from the moderator. We were
having intermittent problems with our mail at the time. Please excuse me
if you have seen this before...
Should Christians fight?
Last week Alastair posted some questions about fighting, and whether there
are such things as "justifiable wars". I have started looking into these
things and have jotted down my findings as I go. I haven't answered all
his questions yet, and I know what I have here is on a slightly different
tack, but possibly I'll be able to get into it more deeply later, and post
some more info soon.
Our duty to our neighbour:
Do good to all men (Gal 6:10)
Love our neighbour as ourselves (Matt 22:39)
Act the part of the good Samaritan (Luke 10) toward any who may be in
trouble. We will therefore render every possible assistance to an injured
man, and therefore should not be part of any organisation which causes
people harm (even medical corps of the army etc).
Christians are by faith "citizens of the commonwealth of Israel"
(Ephesians 2:11-12), and also recognise that "God rules in the kingdoms of
men", and therefore we should not be taking part in any of the struggles
of those nations which we are not part of due to our faith.
We are to be "strangers and pilgrims" amongst the nations, so we are just
passing through, and not part of any nation or any national aspirations
(this can also be applied to politics etc, but that's another story). We
are not supposed to "strive" or "resist evil" (even "suffer yourselves to
be defrauded") it is therefore incosistent for us to strive to assist in
preserving a state which Christ will destroy when he returns to set up
God's kingdom.
Our duty to the state.
"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's and unto God
the things which be God's" (Luke 20:25).
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power
but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever resisteth
the power, resisteth the ordinance of God" (Rom 13:1-2).
"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake; whether
it be to king as supreme... for so is the will of God that with well doing
ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men" (1 Pet 2:13-15)
These scriptures make it clear that submission to the powers that be is a
divine command, but it is equally clear from Acts 5:19-29 that when any
ordinance of man runs counter to God's law, we must refuse submission to
it. The reason for this is that we are God's "bond servants" and His
service is our life's task. An example of the type of thing is in Col
3:22-23 where bondservants were to "work heartily as unto the Lord" - so
also we should work as if our boss was God - i.e. "Pressed down, shaken
together, and running over"... oops - a bit of a side track there...
In the contests between the nations, we are on God's side - a side that is
not fighting in the battle, but is "testifying" to the truth.
When we believe in God and embrace His promises, we become "fellow
citizens with the Saints and of the Household of God", and are no longer
interested in associations of the world. Think of this in relation to
unions etc as well. Paul tells us to "lay aside every weight" that we may
run "the race that is set before us", and if we are wise, we will discard
any association which would retard our progress - "Thou therefore endure
hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. No man that warreth entangleth
himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who hath
chosen him to be a soldier" (2 Tim 2:3-4).
One of these entanglements he warns about is "be ye not unequally yoked
together with unbelievers". One of the obvious applications of this is
marriage with unbelievers, but it also covers things like business
partnerships and any other position where we may form a close association
with any person or persons not believing the truth about God (in this case
the army). The principle comes from Deut 22:10 - remember that as well as
them being different animals of different strengths, one was clean and one
unclean under the law. These ideas are strongly stressed in 2 Cor 6:13-18
- I suggest you read this. The yoking also has another aspect - that of
servitude, and Jesus says "take my yoke upon you", so we are then yoked
with Christ and cannot be yoked with unbelievers. We have already seen
that we are bondservants of Christ, and Paul says "become not ye the
bondservants of men (1 Cor 7:23 RV).
An example from the Old Testament: the question is asked in 2 Chr 19:2
"Shouldest thou help the ungodly...?". The situation here is a good
example of what happens when you are yoked together with unbelievers.
Jehoshaphat was lucky to escape with his life. Here are the facts:
1. He had made an affinity with Ahab, who had "sold himself to work
wickedness before the Lord" (1 Kings 21:25).
2. When asked by Ahab to form a military alliance, he had agreed and said
"I am as thou art, my people as thy people" (1 Kings 22:4) - an unequal
yoking.
3. He sttod firm in refusing the advice of the false prophets and insisted
on hearing the prophet of the Lord (trying to do the right thing), he
found that he was yoked and therefore couldn't break away from the evil
association he had made.
God says to us "Come out from among them and be ye separate, and touch not
the unclean thing, and I will receive you and ye shall be my sons and
daughters" (2 Cor 6:17).
This is more or less what I have found out so far - I'm still looking into
it, as I don't think I've answered all the questions raised by Alastair
yet. Heres a summary and a few things to think about:
The Christian in under command. Obedience to this command is an essential
factor in his relationship with Christ (John 15:10,14).
Total dedication to this course of action is required (Romans 12:1-2).
Disobedience compromises the close relationship between Christ and his
followers (1 Pet 2:7-8).
We are to be separated to God (Rom 6:4). This involves a master-servant
relationship (Rom 6:12,16).
No man can serve two masters (Matt 6:24,13,14).
All that is in the 'Kosmos' is lust and pride - quite opposed to Gos (1
John 2:16). Christs kingdom is not of this world (i.e. not worldly in
nature) - if it was, his servants would fight to deliver him. If Christ is
our master and he was not delivered by his servants because his kingdom
was not of this world, then his servants cannot possibly fight for another
master.
Strangers and pilgrims have no rights, and we cannot swear allegiance to
anyone but God.
The servant of the Lord must not war but be gentle to all (2 Tim 2:24) -
this does not just apply to war, but also to avoiding strife throughout
our lives. There is a war to be waged, not with man's weapons (2 Cor
10:3-4), but with God's armour (Eph6:13-20).
I'll probably post some more when I've had time to look into things a bit
further.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
excellent question timothy. i hpoe the answers you get will be satisfactory
as we can not understand the mind of god. but to attempt to answer you
clearly. GOD of the Bible has given us humans relativly little about how he
intends to judge mankind. the first test is those who have beleived that Jesus
Christ is the Son of GOD and that his death and resurrection was sufficent to
serve justice for all the acts we commit that are wrong in the eyes of god,
the bible calls this sin. for those who die before the end of the world/have
already died it is more complicated to explain without lapsing in to cliche.
God must judge people on the baasis of their works in this world. however
there is no plus and minus system for GOD. he has declared that he can not
tolerate spiritual imperfection, thus he can only based your worthiness to
live with him on the wrong in your life.
Good people, yes even Christians are going to constantly sin before GOD, The
Christian hoever thanks GOD that Christ has given his life for his sin's
penalty. the proscribed punishment for sin is death, just as the proscribed
punishment for robbery is time in jail. God then cannot ask for anything but
punishement for those sins. He does not want to condem. the Bible says in John
3:17, that God did not send his son in to the word to condem it but that
through him it might be saved." when i realize that i have sinned, and i do
with painful regularity, i must approach GOD and ask him to not hold thew sin
against me, i have that right and privlige only because of Christ. as for Jews
they are promised that they must believe on the Messiah who would come, and
dis come in Jesus of Nazereth. Muslims, i fear have been given a lie from the
fater of lies, Satan. They need Christ as do us all.
for those who don't have that right, in the view of the bible they stand
olone in their defense. are you going to hell? i can not answer that for you.
i can only say that perhaps it is eaiser to ask and answer how can i not go to
Hell? that step is much more rewarding.
stan toney [email protected]
my opinions are my own, you may borrow them | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Well, from an Islamic viewpoint, homosexuality is not the norm for
society. I cannot really say much about the Islamic viewpoint on homosexuality
as it is not something I have done much research on. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Good point. The New Testament does not quote Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther,
Ruth, Job, Ecclesiastes, or Song of Songs, just as it does not quote
from the Deuterocanon. But if the non-quotation of the former does not
disqualify them, neither does the non-quotation of the later. And the
Wisodm of Solomon was quite clearly an influence on St. Paul, especially
in the letter to the Romans (cf especially Romans 1.18-32 and Wisdom
13-14).
[stuff deleted]
True. Not all accepted them as Scripture, though niether were all the
books of the New Testament so accepted, which puts to the lie the whole
argument of the books being excluded because they were debated and not
universally accepted. Hebrews, the Apocalypse, 2 Peter, Esther, and
others were debated at various times, but eventually retained. As for
the Codexes you mention, both Vaticanus and Sinaitcus include the
Deuterocanon, bothe of the New and Old Testaments, and Vaticanus (I
think) inlcudes 1 Clement, the Shepard of Hermas, and the Epistle of
Baranabas. As for the Muratorian Canon, it deals with the New Testament
only, though it is very valuable in its witness to those books.
You're not wrong! It is a `tradition of men' to exlcude them, as I
will explain below.
"That nothing be read in the Church under the nmae of Divine Scripture,
except the canonical Scriptures, and the canoncial Scriptures are -
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth,
Four books of Kingdoms [being 1&2 Samuel and 1&2 Kings], Two books of
Paralpomenon [being 1&2 Chronicles], Job, the Psalter of David, the Five
books of Solomon [being Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of
Solomon, and [misatributed to him] the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach],
The books of the Twelve (Minor) Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah [being
Jeremiah, the Lamentations, Baruch, and the Letter, all of which were
formerly counted as one], Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Two
books of Ezra [being Ezra and Nehemiah], Two books of Maccabees. And of
the New Testament: Four books of the Gospel, One book of the Acts of the
Apostles, Thirteen letters of Paul the Apostle, One Letter of the same
to the Hebrews, two of Peter the Apostle, Three of John, One of the
Apostle Jude, One of the Apostle James, One book of the Apocalypse of
John."
-Council of Hippo, Statute 36, (393 AD)
This same list was promulgated again at the Third Council of Carthage
(397 AD), and at the Sixth Council of Carthage (419 AD) - at which
council the same list was enumerated with the words "Because we have
recieved from the Fathers that these are the books to be read in the
Church." Which ought to quiet those who assert "in the name of Holy
Scripture we do understand those books of whose authority there was
never any doubt in the Church," as the Episcopal Church does in removing
the Deuterocanon from the realm of Scripture. (Though the Episcopalians
hold them in high regard and read them in the Church, they are not
counted as Scripture by them, and may not be used to prove dogma. The
Lutherans hold out similarly.)
Earlier mention of the so-called Apocrypha as divine scripture can also
be found, and below I inlcude only a portion of the quotes calling it
divine scripture that could be found among the writings of the Fathers.
"And this is the reason why the Law of the old Testament is reckoned as
consisting of twenty-two books: so that they may correspond to the
number of letters [in the Hebrew alphabet].... It is to be noted also
that by adding to these Tobias and Judith, there are twenty-four books,
corresponding to the number of letters used by the Greeks."
-St. Hillary of Poitiers, "Commentaries on the Psalms," prologue, 15 (365 AD)
"The twenty-two books according to the Hebrews are .... Jeremiah, with
Lamentations and the Letter, reckoned as one .... and [also] there is
Maccabees."
-Origen, "Commentaries on the Psalms," Psalm 1 (245 AD)
"Divine Scripture, addressing itself to those who love themselves and to
the boastful .... says most excellently [Baruch 3.16-19 follows]."
-St. Clement of Alexandria, "The Instuctor of Children," 2, 3, 36, 3, (203 AD)
"....I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament ... Proverbs of
Solomon, and also Wisdom ..."
-St. Melito of Sardes, fragment found in Eusebius' "History of the
Church," and dating from crica 177 AD, Book 4, 26, 14
"It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine
Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must
shun. The list of the Old Testament .... Wisdom, one book;
Ecclesiasticus, one book .... Tobit, one book .... Judith, one book; of
Maccabees, two books."
-St. Damasus I, Pope, "The Decree of Damsus," section 2 (382 AD) | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Another guess to your salvation riddle would be "saved". | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
One can feel physical pain by having a body, which, if you know the
doctrine of the resurrection of the body, is what people will have after
the great judgement. "We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the
life of the world to come." - Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. You
will have both body and soul in hell - eventually. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Actually, my atheism is based on ignorance. Ignorance of the
existence of any god. Don't fall into the "atheists don't believe
because of their pride" mistake.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine [email protected]
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Much of the OT prophecies have a double application: to the Jewish
captivity, and to the end of time. But if Rev. is dated at AD96 its
prophecies could not apply to the AD70 destructioin of Jerusalem. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I apologize for posting this. I thought it was only going to talk.origins.
I also took my definitions from a 1938 Websters.
Nonetheless, the apparent past arguments over these words imply that like
'bimonthly' and 'biweekly' they have no commonly accepted definitions and
should be used with care. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Strictly speaking, you're right - we can't repent _for_ somebody else,
for what they've done. I guess I don't think it's out of line to talk
about a generalized repentence for our contribution to or participation
in "The sins of society" , or for our tacit approval (by our silence) of
sinful attitudes or practices....it may be that we're also just plain
begging for mercy, hoping God will withhold his hand of judgement on
our whole country for the sake of a few, much as Abraham sought to do
for the sake of Lot. (Hmmm, the results there were pretty cautionary...)
A few times lately when I've observed some either out-and-out sinful
activity, or just some self-destructive activity, I've gotten a strong
impression that many folks really don't know any better. Christ's pity
on the crowds as being "like sheep without a shepherd" rings true to me.
If these folks don't have a clue, do I bear _any_ responsibility for my
not having communicated a better way? Worse still; have I expressed
judgement and disgust at their doings, and thus alienated them from any
positive relationship whereby I might pass along anything positive?
I _know_ I've got something to repent about on that score.
Anyway, it's a real interesting question. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Well, I could use the argument that some here use about "nature" and claim
that you cannot have superhuman powers because you are a human; superhuman
powers are beyond what a human has, and since you are a human, any powers
you have are not beyond those of a human. Hence, you cannot have superhuman
powers. Sound good to you?
Anyway, to the evidence question: it depends on the context. In this group,
since you are posting from a american college site, I'm willing to take it
as given that you have a pair of blue jeans. And, assuming there is some
coherency in your position, I will take it as a given that you do not have
superhuman powers. Arguments are evidence in themselves, in some respects.
Yep.
Good.
"Extra" evidence? Why don't we start with evidence at all?
I cannot see any evidence for the V. B. which the cynics in this group would
ever accept. As for the second, it is the foundation of the religion.
Anyone who claims to have seen the risen Jesus (back in the 40 day period)
is a believer, and therefore is discounted by those in this group; since
these are all ancients anyway, one again to choose to dismiss the whole
thing. The third is as much a metaphysical relationship as anything else--
even those who agree to it have argued at length over what it *means*, so
again I don't see how evidence is possible.
I thus interpret the "extraordinary claims" claim as a statement that the
speaker will not accept *any* evidence on the matter. | 0 | alt.atheism |
This is not true. The athiest's position is that there is no PROOF of the
existence of God. As much as some people accept their Church, their priests
or straight from their own scriptures as the "proof", this does not
satisfy atheists.
Atheists DO believe in recognisable authorities. If they were as dogmatic as
you claim they are, they would be trying to prove 1 + 1 =2 every time they
got up. What they dispute is that Churches, priests, scriptures etc.
represent true authorities and know the TRUTH.
Are you asking us to believe blindly? You are trying to deny that part of
us that makes us ask the question "Does God exist?" i.e. self-awareness and
reason. If we do not use our ability to reason we become as ignorant
as the other animals on this earth. Does God want us to be like that?
You are right that science and reason cannot PROVE anything. However, if
we do not use them we can only then believe on FAITH alone. And since
we can only use faith, why is one picture of "God" (e.g. Hinduism) any less
valid than another (e.g. Christianity)?
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
09 Apr 93, Jill Anne Daley writes to All:
JAD> What exactly is a definition of sin and what are some examples. How does
JAD> a person know when they are committing sin?
To answer briefly: sin is falling short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)
Steve | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Subject: Re: Seeking Christian opinion, all sorts.
From: Rob Steele, [email protected]
Date: 5 May 93 06:52:54 GMT
One day a few years ago Franky Schaeffer walked into a Greek Orthodox
Church. He is now an Orthodox Christian. So is his mother and if his
father, Fransis Schaeffer, had not passed away he too would have come
into the church.
Franky, like many Americans who have recently found the Orthodox church,
described the experience as finally coming home after a long jouney
through a desert. You should also read the book "Becoming Orthodox" by
Peter Gillquist. It describes the long journey of some 2000 weary
Evangelical Protestants to the Orthodox church. Come taste and see how
good the Lord is. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[rest deleted...]
You were a liberal arts major, weren'tcha?
Guess you never saw that photo of the smallest logo in the world--
"IBM" made with noble gas atoms (krypton? xenon? I forget the
specifics).
Atoms, trees, electrons are all independently observable and
verifiable. Morals aren't. See the difference?
Tep | 0 | alt.atheism |
So that still leaves the door totally open for Khomeini, Hussein
et rest. They could still be considered true Muslims, and you can't
judge them, because this is something between God and the person.
You have to apply your rule as well with atheists/agnostics, you
don't know their belief, this is something between them and God.
So why the hoopla about Khomeini not being a real Muslim, and the
hoopla about atheists being not real human beings?
Cheers,
Kent | 0 | alt.atheism |
I agree entirely. Speaking as an atheist (heterosexual, for what it's
worth), this is one of the least attractive parts of some varieties of
Christianity. Although I'm sure it's possible to argue theologically
that we shouldn't make analogies between discrimination on the basis
of sex and race and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,
morally the case looks unanswerable (for those outside religion): the
three forms _are_ analogous; we shouldn't discriminate on the basis of
sex, race or sexual orientation.
I found the moderator's FAQs on the subject instructive, and recommend
everyone to read them.
There seem to be three different levels of acceptance:
1) Regard homosexual orientation as a sin (or evil, whatever)
2) Regard homosexual behaviour as a sin, but accept orientation
(though presumably orientation is unfortunate) and dislike people who
indulge
3) As 2, but "love the sinner"
4) Accept homosexuality altogether.
My experience is that 3 is the most common attitude (I imagine 1 and 2
are limited to a few fundamentalist sects).
I suppose I can go along with 3, except that I have this feeling that
a 14--15 year old living in a community with this attitude, on
discovering that they were more attracted to members of the same sex,
would not feel the love of the community, but would rather feel the
pressure not to exhibit their feelings. I'm not saying that the
community (in particular the parents) would not love the child, but I
suspect the child would not feel loved. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Why "must"?
---
" Whatever promises that have been made can than be broken. " | 0 | alt.atheism |
I heard the same thing, but without confirmation that he actually said it.
It was just as alarming to us as to you; the Bible says that nobody knows
when the second coming will take place.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Were the early Christians weird? Yes! So were their non-Christian
contemporaries (the more familiar you are with late Republican Rome
or the Pricipate, the weirder those people will seem -- forget the
creative filtering done by Renaissance and Eighteenth Century hero
worship.) So are modern non-Christians. And Christians.
You are pretty weird, yourself, with your rather acid dismissal of
Luther and of Protestantism -- and in apparently buying into a
simplistic propaganda model about Catholicism *not* being faddish.
Sure, it's so large that global fads take longer cycles than they
do in smaller denominations (and local ones are not usually visible
unless you do a lot of traveling to exotic lands :-)). May I recom-
mend, as a salutary antidote to this nonsense Philippe Aries' book
_The Hour of our Death_, a longitudinal study of death customs in
Western [specifically Catholic] Christendom?
And it won't help to escape into the obscurity of the first Christian
century. Paul was pretty weird, too; as were Peter and the others in
the (apparently quite weird) circle around Jesus.
What I think you might find helpful is a bit more charity -- try to
understand these weirdos and nutcases with the same respect and love
you would expect others to show YOUR notions. We *are* commanded to
love one another, after all. And Brown's book is, in fact, a heroic
attempt to SEE the groupings he talks about as motivated in love and
the gospel and their social contexts. (If anything, Brown is *too*
heroic here -- he manages to overstrain himself at times :-))
I don't suggest that we *follow* any of these old cult paths -- and
it raises hard questions from the skeptic inside me that so much of
early Christianity *was* like the weird (Christian and non-Christian)
cults we see today. To that extent, I think you raise a serious
problem (and perhaps your phrasing is implicitly self-deprecatory
and ironic.)
But the first principle for *answering* these questions is respect and
love for those we do not understand. And it helps to *work* at under-
standing (as long as we do not get overwhelmed by revulsion and begin
to withdraw our respect for them as people.) I would advise, in other
words, MORE historical reading (Brown's other books are also good, most
especially his bio. of Augustine; also try Robin Lane Fox's _Christians
and Pagans_, maybe the Paul Veyne ed. _History of Private Life_, some
of Foucault's books on sexuality in the ancient world ...)
Humanity *is* weird -- we have known ONE sane person, and we killed Him.
Fortunately for us, this has proved a Comedy rather than a Tragedy.
Easter, 1993.
(yes; this is a tad early -- our Vigil service here has been moved forward
because so many churches in the area have taken to doing their own Vigils,
and the seminarians must therefore worship-and-run if they are to do it
here and there as well. Think of this as an Anglican fad. :-)) | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The "so sacred it's secret" explanation is a bit misleading. While
there is a profound reverence for the temple endowment, there is no
injunction against discussing the ceremony itself in public. But
since public discussion is often irreverent, most Mormons would rather
keep silent than have a cherished practice maligned.
But there are certain elements of the ceremony which participants
explicitly covenant not to reveal except in conjunction with the
ceremony itself.
There are other interpretations to Christian history in this matter.
One must recall that most of what we know about the Gnostics was
written by their enemies. Eusebius claims that Jesus imparted secret
information to Peter, James, and John after His resurrection, and that
those apostles transmitted that information to the rest of the Twelve
(Eusebius, _Historia Ecclesiastica_ II 1:3-4).
Irenaeus claims this information was passed on to the priests and
bishops (_Against Heresies_ IV 33:8), but Eusebius disagrees. He
claims the secret ceremonies of the Christian church perished with the
apostles. Interestingly enough, Eusebius refers to the groups which
we today call Gnostics as promulgators of a false gnosis (Eusebius,
op. cit., III, 32:7-8). His gripe was not that thay professed *a*
gnosis, but that they had the *wrong* one.
Writings dealing with Jesus' post-resurrection teachings emphasize
secrecy -- not so much a concealment as a policy of not teaching
certain things indiscriminately. In one story, Simon Magus opens a
dialog with Peter on the nature of God. Peter's response is "You seem
to me not to know what a father and a God is: But I could tell you
both whence souls are, and when and how they were made; but it is not
permitted to me now to disclose these things to you" (_Clementine
Recognitions_ II, 60). If any one theme underlies the _Recognitions_
it is the idea that certain doctrines are not to be idly taught, but
can be had after a certain level of spiritual maturity is reached.
Now one can approach this and other such evidence in many ways. I
don't intend that everyone interpret Christian history as I do, but I
believe that evidence exists (favorably interpreted, of course) of
early Christian rites analogous to those practiced by Mormons today.
But if Judaism and Christianity had such ceremonies, would you expect
to read about them in public documents? One can search the Book of
Mormon and other Mormon scripture and find almost no information on
temple worship. Yes, you could establish that Mormons worship in
temples, but you would probably be hard pressed to characterize that
worship. On that basis, can we conclude that the Bible explains *all*
practices which might have taken place, and that absence of such
descriptions proves they did not exist?
Mormon scholar Dr. Hugh Nibley offers us a list of scriptures from
which I have taken a few:
1. "It is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of
heaven, but to them it is not given" (Matt. 13:11).
2. "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given"
(Matt. 19:11).
3. "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them
now" (John 16:12).
4. "The time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs,
but I shall shew you plainly of the Father" (John 16:25).
5. "... unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter"
(1 Cor. 3:1-2).
6. "Many things ... I would not write with paper and ink; but I ...
come unto you and speak face to face" (2 Jn. 1:12).
(Nibley, _Since Cumorah_, pp. 92-94)
Again, these can also be interpreted many different ways. I believe
they serve to show that not all doctrines which could have been taught
were actually taught openly.
Historically, Joseph Smith had been adiministering the temple
endowment ceremony for nearly a year before joining the Freemasons.
There is diary evidence which supports a claim that the rite did not
change after Smith became a Mason. It can be argued that Smith had
ample exposure to Masonic proceedings through the burlesque of his
time and through his brother Hyrum (a Mason), though no specific
connection has yet been established.
My conversations with Masons (with respect to temple rite
transcriptions which have appeared on the net) have led me to believe
that the connection from Masonry to Mormonism is fairly tenuous. As
our moderator notes, most of what was similar was removed in the
recent revisions to the temple ceremony. I believe that critics who
charge that Mormon rites were lifted from Freemasonry do not have
adequate knowledge of the rites in question.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Windley * University of Utah * Salt Lake City
[email protected] | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
note: i am not the original poster, i am just answering because i
think this is important.
[evil result of human sinfulness, rather than the will of God]
whoo. i'm going to have to be very careful with my language here. i
think God is voluntarily giving up his omniscience in this world so
that we can decide on our own where we go -- free will. in this sense
God allows evil to occur, and in this sense can be "held responsible"
as my chaplain says. however, his will is, of course, that all be
saved. he's not going to save us "by himself" -- we have to take a
step in his direction before he will save us. read that last sentence
carefully -- i'm not saying we save ourselves. i'm saying we have to
ACCEPT our salvation. i do not believe in predestination -- it would
appear from what you say further down that you do.
[stuff deleted]
ok -- i have trouble with that, but i guess that's one of those things
that can't be resolved by argument. i accept your interpretation.
[more deleted]
^^^^^^^^^
this is what indicates to me that you may believe in predestination.
am i correct? i do not believe in predestination -- i believe we all
choose whether or not we will accept God's gift of salvation to us.
again, fundamental difference which can't really be resolved.
[yet more deleted]
yes, it is up to God to judge. but he will only mete out that
punishment at the last judgement. as for now, evil can be done by
human beings that is NOT God's will -- and the best we can do is see
taht some good comes out of it somehow. the thing that most worries
me about the "it is the will of God" argument is that this will
convince people that we should not STOP the rape and killing when i
think that it is most christ-like to do just that. if jesus stopped
the stoning of an adulterous woman (perhaps this is not a good
parallel, but i'm going to go with it anyway), why should we not stop
the murder and violation of people who may (or may not) be more
innocent?
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Remember the OT doctrine of 2 witnesses? Perhaps the prophets
testified He is coming. The Apostles, testified He came. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Look up "irony", Keith.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
How about the nickname Bake "Flamethrower" Timmons?
You weren't at the Koresh compound around noon today by any chance, were you?
Remember, Koresh "dried" for your sins. | 0 | alt.atheism |
So now we're judging the Qur'an by what's not in it?
How many mutton headed arguments am I going to have to wade
through today?
One would hope.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine [email protected]
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea. | 0 | alt.atheism |
: I may be wrong, but wasn't Jeff Fenholt part of Black Sabbath? He's a
: MAJOR brother in Christ now. He totally changed his life around, and
: he and his wife go on tours singing, witnessing, and spreading the
: gospel for Christ. I may be wrong about Black Sabbath, but I know he
: was in a similar band if it wasn't that particular group...
Yes, but Jeff also speaks out against listening to bands like Black
Sabbath. He says they're into all sorts of satanic stuff. I don't know. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I don't think we need to argue about this.
Yes, but also many people who are not trying to make government recognize
Christianity as the dominant religion in this country do no think
the motto infringes upon the rights of others who do not share their
beliefs.
And actually, I think that the government already does recognize that
Christianity is the dominant religion in this country. I mean, it is.
Don't you realize/recognize this?
This isn't to say that we are supposed to believe the teachings of
Christianity, just that most people do.
If you agree with me, then what are we discussing?
No, but I hear quite a bit about Christmas, and little if anything about
Jesus. Wouldn't this figure be more prominent if the holiday were really
associated to a high degree with him? Or are you saying that the
association with Jesus is on a personal level, and that everyone thinks
about it but just never talks about it?
That is, can *you* prove that most people *do* associate Christmas
most importantly with Jesus?
I think the numbers *do* matter. It takes a majority, or at least a
majority of those in power, to discriminate. Doesn't it? | 0 | alt.atheism |
I would like to get your opinions on this: when exactly does an engaged
couple become "married" in God's eyes? Some say that if the two have
publically announced their plans to marry, have made their vows to God, and
are unswervingly committed to one another (I realize this is a subjective
qualifier) they are married/joined in God's sight.
Suppose they are unable to get before the altar right at the current time
because of purely logistical reasons beyond their control. What do you
think about this?
Post or e-mail me with general responses. If you need clarification as to
what I am asking, please e-mail.
Thanks and God bless! | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
My point is that you set up your views as the only way to believe. Saying
that all eveil in this world is caused by atheism is ridiculous and
counterproductive to dialogue in this newsgroups. I see in your posts a
spirit of condemnation of the atheists in this newsgroup bacause they don'
t believe exactly as you do. If you're here to try to convert the atheists
here, you're failing miserably. Who wants to be in position of constantly
defending themselves agaist insulting attacks, like you seem to like to do?!
I'm sorry you're so blind that you didn't get the messgae in the quote,
everyone else has seemed to. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Read the FAQ first, watch the list fr some weeks, and come back then. | 0 | alt.atheism |
It's not really their _decision_ to be tried. The rulings _do_ have
legal consequences, but only in Islamic law and not in UK law (this
should be obvious). Enforcing a judgment is distinct from the making
of a judgment. Take for example the judgments of the World Court. This
is an internationally recognized tribunal whose judgments often have no
physical or economic effect but which _are_ important despite the fact
that their judgments cannot be enforced
Of course, have you read any of this thread before this post?
Of course, it is a sort of anarchism. Anarchism is explicitly against
Islam. Thank you for your well reasoned response, but it is beside the
points I've been making in this thread.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Oh?
What is wrong with *this* motto, now? If you wouldn't approve of
even that one, I am beginning to think that you just have something
against mottos in general. What do you think of "E plurbis unum?" | 0 | alt.atheism |
The amount of energy being spent on ONE LOUSY SYLLOGISM says volumes for the
true position of reason in this group. | 0 | alt.atheism |
You might visit some congregations of Christians, who happen to be homosexuals,
that are spirit-filled believers, not MCC'rs; before you go lumping us all
together with Troy Perry.
The Lord IS working in our community (the homosexual community, that is). He's
not asking us to change our sexual nature, but He is calling us to practice
the morality that He established from the beginning.
Isn't Satan having a hayday pitting Christian against Christian over any issue
he can, especially homosexuality. Let's reach the homosexuals for Christ.
Let's not try to change them, just need to bring them to Christ. If He
doesn't want them to be gay, He can change that. If they are living a moral
life, committed to someone of the same sex, and God is moving in their lives,
who are we to tell them they have to change?
That's my two cent. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Did I claim that there was an absolute morality, or just an objective one? | 0 | alt.atheism |
Heres a story of a Saint that people might like to read. I got it from
a The Morning Star, and am posting it with the permission of the
editor.
Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
The Patron of Youth
The marquis Gonzaga had high aspirations for his son, the Prince
Gonzage. He wanted him to become a famous, brave and honoured
soldier. After all, he must carry on the great family name of
Gonzaga. Of course, he was to become far more famous, brave and
honoured than his father could ever have imagined; though not in
the manner expected.
Saint Aloysius' mother was a woman who received immense joy from
praying to God and meditating on the divine mysteries and the
life of Our Lord. She had little time for the pleasures of this
life. As Saint Aloysius grew, he began to resemble his mother
more than his father.
Saint Aloysius had learned numerous expressions from his father's
soldiers, but the moment he discovered that they were vulgar, he
fainted from shock. This shows his immense hatred of sin (What an
example for us of the contempt we must have for sin).
About the time of his First Holy Communion (which he received
from the Archbishop of Milan, Charles Borromeo, whom himself
became a great Saint), he con-secrated his purity to God and
asked the Blessed Virgin to protect his innocence for life.
He wanted to share Our Lord's suffering to show his reciprocal
love. He started by denying his passions; he avoided eating the
finest foods, wearing the best clothes, and would put pieces of
wood in his bed in order to mortify himself for the love of God.
While he was in his early teens his father sent him (and his
younger brother) to the court of the Spanish King, Phillip 11.
Obediently, he set out to make the best of it. He mixed in well
with the people of the royal court, for he was handsome, polite,
intelligent and always had something interesting to say.
Not long before this time, the great soldier-saint, Saint Igna-
tius of Loyola, had founded the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits)
towards which Saint Aloysius
-12-
began to have a yearning. When he finally told his father, the
marquis flew into a rage and forbade his son to become a priest.
After a short time, his father sent him to the great cities in
order that he be tempted away from the priesthood, but even
through these trials, Saint Aloysius grew in his desire for the
religious life and was strengthened in the virtue of purity.
The Marquis' plans were obviously failing, so he con-fronted his
son: "Will you or will you not obey me and forget this foolish-
ness?" "I will not, father," was the in-evitable reply. "Then
leave from my sight and don't return until you change your mind!"
With tears clouding his eyes, the Saint left the room to pray:
"Tell me Lord, what am I to do? Tell me! Tell me!" He knelt down
to flagellate himself as he had done several times before, but
this time he was seen. The onlooker rushed to the marquis. This
at last brought the proud man to his senses. "The Lord wants him,
the Lord can have him." He gave his consent for his son to become
a Jesuit.
After some years (at the end of the sixteenth century), a terri-
ble epidemic broke out in Rome. All the hospitals were full and
could house no more, so the Jesuits opened their own. Saint Aloy-
sius did all he could in the hospitals, particularly to prepare
the dying for a holy death.
Saint Aloysius himself contracted the plague from carrying and
nursing the sick. For three months he lay with a burning fever
and finally, on June 21st, 1591, he gave his soul to the Lord
while gazing at a crucifix.
Let us invoke Saint Aloysius as our patron and imitate him in his
humility, purity and confidence in prayer.
Saint Aloysius Gonzaga, pray for us.
- Brendan Arthur
Prayer is as necessary to a person consecrated to the service of
others as a sword is to a soldier
God Bless
From Simon
Lines: 106 | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Correction: _hard_ atheism is a faith.
Get a grip, man. The Stalin example was brought up not as an
indictment of atheism, but merely as another example of how people will
kill others under any name that's fit for the occasion.
So hard atheism has nothing to prove? Then how does it justify that
God does not exist? I know, there's the FAQ, etc. But guess what -- if
those justifications were so compelling why aren't people flocking to
_hard_ atheism? They're not, and they won't. I for one will discourage
people from hard atheism by pointing out those very sources as reliable
statements on hard atheism.
Second, what makes you think I'm defending any given religion? I'm merely
recognizing hard atheism for what it is, a faith.
And yes, by "we" I am referring to every reader of the post. Where is the
evidence that the poster stated that he relied upon?
^^^^
Bzzt! By virtue of your innocent little pronoun, "they", you've just issued
a blanket statement. At least I will apologize by qualifying my original
statement with "hard atheist" in place of atheist. Would you call John the
Baptist arrogant, who boasted of one greater than he? That's what many
Christians do today. How is that _in itself_ arrogant?
With your sophisticated put-down of "they", the theists, _your_ serious
misinformation shines through.
--
Bake Timmons, III | 0 | alt.atheism |
I heard he had asked the FBI to provide him with a word processor. Does
anyone know if Koresh has requested that it be WordPerfect5.0? WP5.0 was
written (and is owned) by Mormons, so the theological implications of
requesting (or refusing) WP5.0 are profound! | 0 | alt.atheism |
Coming from a long line of "hot tempered" people, I know temper when I see
it. One of the tell tale signs/fruits that give non-christians away - is
when their net replies are acrid, angry and sarcastic.
We in the net village do have a laugh or two when professed, born again
christians verbally attack people who might otherwise have been won to
christianity and had originally joined the discussions because they were
"spiritually hungry." Instead of answering questions with sweetness and
sincerity, these chrisitan net-warriors, "flame" the queries.
You don't need any enemies. You already do yourselves the greatest harm. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Good statement! Should we apply empirical measurements to define exact
social morals? Should morals be based on social rules? On ancient
religious doctrines? It seems there will *NEVER* be a common and single
denominator for defining morals, and as such defining absolute
and objective morals is doomed to fail as long as humans have
this incredible talent of creative thinking.
Cheers,
Kent | 0 | alt.atheism |
I recently had to move and forgot to update my address to the Orthodox
mailing list. Can anyone e-mail me the address for changes and what
exactly I have to put in caps, etc? (please send the original
subscription address also). Thanks ahead of time! -Ed. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Deletions...
So, you consider the german poster's remark anti-semitic? Perhaps you
imply that anyone in Germany who doesn't agree with israely policy in a
nazi? Pray tell, how does it even qualify as "casual anti-semitism"?
If the term doesn't apply, why then bring it up?
Your own bigotry is shining through.
-- | 0 | alt.atheism |
How much better to get wisdom than gold, to choose understanding rather
than silver! | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Are 'Moody Monthly' and 'Moody' the same magazine (name change in recent
years)?
If not: Could someone post the address to 'Moody Monthly'?
:)avid
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
No, IMO, Mr. Stowell missed the point.
Mr. Stowell seems to have jumped rather strangely from truth to absolutes.
I don't see how that necessarily follows.
Are all truths also absolutes?
Is all of scripture truths (and therefore absolutes)?
If the answer to either of these questions is no, then perhaps you can
explain to me how you determine which parts of Scripture are truths, and
which truths are absolutes. And, who is qualified to make these
determinations? There is hardly consensus, even in evangelical
Christianity (not to mention the rest of Christianity) regarding
Biblical interpretation.
I find Mr. Stowell's statement terribly simple-minded. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Golgotha the whole process of the fall of man
This was precisely my point. From a theological bent, those who lived
immediately after the flood, such as Noah, Ham, his son Cush, and his son
Nimrod had a much stronger appreciation of Divine wrath. They also had a
stronger understanding of the True God. In fact, this immediacy was a cause of
hardship for some, so much so that Atlas, who is seen with heavens resting on
his shoulders. But this is not merely the physical heavens that he is lifting.
It is to put God and the strict spirituality of His law at a distance, and
thus he became the "Elevator of the heavens." This "god" made men able to
"feel" as if heaven were afar off and "as if either the God of Heaven could not
see through the dark cloud, or did not regard with displeasure the breakers of
His laws." It is interesting to see that it was that was titled "Emancipator"
or "Deliverer" or Phoroneus. It was Nimrod who invaded the patriarchal system
and abridged the liberties of mankind, yet was worship for having given many
benefits. He was a deliverer all right but not as we think of Christ as a
Deliverer. One delivered from a conscious feeling of God's wrath, the other
actually performed a delivery from Gods wrath and it is up to us to accept it
as true.
I don't see the problem. From the time of Adam, those who looked forward to
the coming "Anointed One" and put their faith in the fact that it was God who
was to do the provision, were accounted as righteous. But up to the
Crucifixion, their sins were only covered, not taken away. Therefore, the
dispensation of the Church views the accountability of sin the same, but see it
as a completed action. Rom's makes it clear that it has always been salvation
via faith and nothing else.
I understand what you're trying to convey, but I don't think I'd lay hold of it
because the scriptures do equate the eternality of the second death with the
eternality of, say the Church ruling with Christ. Jn 17 tells us what eternal
life is exactly, as you are correct that it is much more than non-cessation of
consciousness.
It depends upon your def of "lost." The elect were lost only in time as
outside of time they had been chosen from the foundation of the world.
Existentially we were all born "lost", but the "righteous" were "in Christ" and
therefore never *assuredly* lost.
Maybe this summer I could find time to put together a paper on it. I simply
have to buy more books for myself, and these older books are very expensive.
Either that or countless trips to the oriental museum.
Couldn't agree with you more. Our understanding, of say eschatology, is
clearly clearer than that of, say Isaiah. But that is not what I was referring
to.
No, I understand it as you have said. This was my point.
Ah! This is it. This is the big question. However, I would say, again I
think, that the best lie is one that has an appreciable amount of truth to it.
Look at Satan's twist of God's Word when he coerced Eve. That is a very
interesting study.
>The similarity in the midst of great variety of
Yes, that is my point. But it is a two edged sword. For some do not want the
underlying reality to be revealed. They were not known as "mystery" religions
for no reason. There was the public side of them and there was the private
side, that was so protected that the initiates to an oath of death if they
revealed that private side. That is why it is so hard to bring their teachings
to light. The "Mystery of Iniquity" that we find in the Bible, correlates to
this I think. The primary object of the mysteries was to introduce privately,
little by little, under the seal of secrecy and sanction of oath, what it would
not have been safe to openly profess was the true religion. Case in point
today might be the Masons. (Just a note, that they too worshipped Osiris in
Egypt, who can be traced to Nimrod, the "husband son.")
No, I disagree with you here Gerry. I know what you're alluding to in that the
church, primarily the RCC, did endorse Aristotelian philosophy into their
worldview, but I would disagree with you that it originated in Greece. If you
are a student of history, you will come to see that much of what Greece came to
expound to the world as their original, was just an adulteration of that which
they had taken from conquered countries. The soul is clearly mentioned and
discussed at length in the Egyptian religions. As was the unity of God and also
the trinity of God. See if you can find Wilkinson's "Egyptians." He really
does a number on what the Greeks did to what they "pilfered" from the
Egyptians.
I'm not knocking Aristotle or Plato or any other Greek thinker. Its just that
"there is nothing new under the sun."
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
So why do I read in the papers that the Qumram texts had "different
versions" of some OT texts. Did I misunderstand? | 0 | alt.atheism |
Unfortunatly, this seems to be how Christians are taught to think when
it comes to their religion. Some take it to the extreme and say that
their religion is the ONLY one and if you don't accept their teachings
then you won't be "saved". It takes quite a bit of arrogance to claim
to know what God thinks/wants. Especially when it's based upon your
interpretation of a book. The logic in the above statement is faulty
in that it assumes two people with differing beliefs can't both be
correct. It's all about perception. No two people are exactly alike.
No two people perceive everything in the same way. I believe that
there is one truth. Call it God's truth, a universal truth, or call it
what you will. I don't believe God presents this truth. I think it is
just there and it's up to you to look for and see it, through prayer,
meditation, inspir- ation, dreams or whatever. Just because people may
perceive this truth differently, it doesn't mean one is wrong and the
other is right. As an example, take the question, "Is the glass half
empty or half full"? You can have two different answers which are
contradictory and yet both are correct. So, for your belief to be
true, does not require everyone else's belief to be wrong. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Hi... I'm not a religious guy so dont take this as some kinda flame (thanx
in advance)
I want to know why there are so many different versions of the bible? There
"....contains inaccurate data and inconsistencies."
Thanx in advance... Shaz....
[I'm not sure quite what you mean by many different versions.
The primary distinction in versions you see today is in the style
of the translation. It's pretty unusual to see significant
differences in meaning. There are a few differences in the underlying
text. That's because before printing, manuscripts were copied by
hand. Slight differences resulted. There are enough manuscripts
around that scholars can do a pretty good job of recreating the
original, but there are some uncertainties. Fortunately, they are
generally at the level of minor differences in wording. There are
something like 3 or 4 places where whole sentences are involved,
but with recent discoveries of older manuscripts, I don't think there's
much uncertainly about those cases. As far as I know, no Christians
believe that the process of copying manuscripts or the process of
translating is free of error. But I also don't think there's
enough uncertainty in establishing the text or translating it that
it has much practical effect.
Whether the Bible contains inaccurate data and inconsistences is a hot
topic of debate here. Many Christians deny it. Some accept it
(though most would say that the inaccuracies involved are on details
that don't affect the faith). But this has nothing to do with there
being multiple versions. The supposed inconsistences can be found in
all the versions. I'm surprised to find a reference to this on the
title page though. What version are you talking about? I've been
referring to major scholarly translations. These are what get
referenced in postings here and elsewhere. There have certainly been
editions that are (to be kind) less widely accepted. This includes
everything from reconstructions that combine parallel accounts into
single narrations, to editions that omit material that the editor
objects to for some reason or the other. The copyright on the Bible
has long since expired, so there nothing to stop people from making
editions that do whatever wierd thing they want. However the editions
that are widely used are carefully prepared by groups of scholars from
a variety of backgrounds, with lots of crosschecks. I could imagine
one of the lesser-known editions claiming to have fixed up all
inaccurate data and inconsistencies. But if so, it's not any edition
that's widely used. The widely used ones leave the text as is.
(Weeeeelllllll, almost as is. It's been alleged that a few
translations have fudged a word or two here and there to minimize
inconsistencies. Because translation is not an exact science, there
are always going to be differences in opinion over which word is best,
I'm afraid.) | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Bobby-
A few posts ago you said that Lucifer had no free will. From the above
it seems the JW believes the contrary.
Are you talking about the same Lucifer?
If so, can you suggest an experiment to determine which of you is wrong?
Or do you claim that you are both right? | 0 | alt.atheism |
I would like to see Christians devote a bit less effort to _bashing_
paganism and more to figuring out how to present the Gospel to pagans.
Christ is the answer; the pagans have a lot of the right questions.
Unlike materialists, who deny the need for any spirituality.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
This is a good point. Christ was hardly the only person who claimed to be
the Messiah--in fact, a number of "Messiahs" were active in the area from the
time of the Roman conquest to after the fall of Masada.
Many of the statements made by the apostles--especially their repeated
attempts to give Jesus a sword (give him military power) point to the fact that
they didn't realize the true nature of his reign until after the fact. Many of
the statements in the Bible can be seen as being oriented toward explaining
this new definition of "Messiah" to the Jews who were being preached to. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Hello, I'm back..
I would first like to thank each and every person who sent me a response (be
it a positive or negative one). I read EVERY letter and thought about
each one!!
I got all sorts of responses, from "marry her" to "have nothing ever to
do with her again"
Through reading the Bible and through a lot of prayer, here is what I have
decided to do.
I sent her a letter today. First, i told her that if she was really serious
about moving away from home to another state that "I would do anything to
get you here in NC." I told her that I tried to find out if there were
any new stores planning to be built---but they wouldn't tell me.
About her marraige comment (I'm not gonna call it a proposal, cause
I still don't know if it was a total joke or not) I more or less said
that "Marry me?? Well, get transferred to NC first and then we'll talk :) :)"
Hopefully, what i said could be interpreted either way.
Needless to say, there has been a lot of praying over this...I
have done a lot of reading about marraige from the Bible. If
she was dead serious about getting married---I wouldn't do it
yet simply b/c she is not (as far as I know to this point) a Christian.
It just wouldn't work w/o God in the marraige as well. I figure
that if God wanrs this to go through--he's kept us in touch for 10
years now---he can handle one more. If God wants it to happen, it
will happen!
She will be in NC in June meetinf some relatives so I'll get to
see her...and I'll get a letter from her befoe then so I know
more of what to look forward to.
I guess all I can do now is wait and pray. I have decided not to tell
my folks until I'm totally sure what is going on.
I do ask that everyone that wrote me to please keep this situation
in your prayers..
Finally, I would like to thank EVERYONE who wrote in...
If you have anything else for me...I will be at this email address
for one week. Please tell me anyhting you want...I'm curious
how folks think about what i did.
Thanx | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Yes, he was. He also played Jesus in "Jesus Christ Superstar" before
he became a Christian. He played in Black Sabbath right after he first
got saved, but then left it. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Yes I fully agree with that, but is it "I don't believe gods exist", or
"I believe no gods exist"? As [email protected] (Mats Andtbacka)
pointed out, it all hinges on what you take the word "believe" to mean.
Unfortunately this is bound up in the definitions of strong and weak
atheism, at least according to the FAQ:
# Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of God.
# Some atheists go further, and believe that God does not exist. The former is
# often referred to as the "weak atheist" position, and the latter as "strong
# atheism".
#
# It is important to note the difference between these two positions. "Weak
# atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong
# atheism" is a positive belief that God does not exist. Please do not
# fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists".
(From mathew's "An Introduction to Atheism" version 1.2 last modified 5-Apr-93)
Should the FAQ be clarified to try to pin down this notion of "belief"?
Can it?
| 0 | alt.atheism |
[email protected] (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
While I'll agree that these are generally held to be "good things", I
question whether they come very close to being objective values.
Especially considering that at one time or another each has been
viewed as being undesirable. I doubt you could even come up with
anything that could be said to be universally "good" or "bad".
And when I referred to "the truth" I was using the term
hypothetically, realizing full well that there may not even be such a
thing.
True enough. But they cannot be said to be anything more than
personal morals. One thing notably lacking in most extremists is any
sense of _personal_ accountability - the justification for any
socially unacceptable behaviour is invariably some "higher authority"
(aka, absolute moral truth).
An objective truth that says one cannot know the objective truth?
Interesting notion. :-)
Certainly one can have as one's morals a belief that compromise is
good. But to compromise on the absolute truth is not something most
people do very successfully. I suppose one could hold compromise as
being an absolute moral, but then what happens when someone else
insists on no compromise? How do you compromise on compromising?
Almost invariably when considering the relative value of one thing
over another, be it morals or consequences, people only consider those
aspects which justify a desired action or belief. In justifying a
commitement to peace I might argue that it lets people live long &
healthy and peaceful lives. While that much may well be true, it is
incomplete in ignoring the benefits of war - killing off the most
agressive member of society, trimming down the population, stimulating
production. The equation is always more complex than presented.
To characterize relative morals as merely following one's own
conscience / desires is to unduly simplify it.
| 0 | alt.atheism |