text
stringlengths 1
51k
| label
int64 0
15
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
There is no notion of heliocentric, or even galacticentric either.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 0 | alt.atheism |
"So after 1000 years of sightseeing and roaming around its
ok to come back, kill Palastinians, and get their land back,
right?"
Yes, that's casual antisemitism. I can think of plenty of ways
to criticize Israeli policy without insulting Jews or Jewish history.
Can't you? | 0 | alt.atheism |
It is interesting that you posted those lyrics, because just the
other day I was thinking of doing the same. I like those lyrics,
since whenever I am approached by judgemental, pharisitical,
evangelical fundamentalists who throw the Bible at me because
I have long hair, wear a black leather jacket, and listen to Black
Sabbath, I have something to throw back. Usually their chins drop
and they come up speechless over those not very satanic lyrics.
It just goes to show that there are more important evils in the
world to battle than rock lyrics...........
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Note: I am cross-posting (actually, emailing) this to
bit.listserv.catholic while main posting goes to
soc.religion.christian.
[Quotations omitted. This is in response to a question about
the Immaculate Conception. I explained it, but left justification
up to our Catholic readers. --clh]
There is no direct reference in the Holy Scripture except for the
mention of Mary's _blessedness_/full of grace in the "Annunciation" by
Angel Gabriel in Luke 1:26-28
And in the 6th month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto
a city of Galilee, named Nazareth. To a virgin espoused to a
man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's
name was Mary. And the angel came unto her and said, _"Hail,
thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed
art thou among women."_
Now, now, hold that line of thought - "the Lord is with Mary &
blessed art thou among women" - while you read on....
In the book, "First Lady of the World, A Popular History of
Devotion to Mary" by Peter Lappin:
The _Immaculate Conception_ matter is really far more complicated
than the _Assumption_. This arose in 430 AD. It is quite possible
that the feast of _Mary's Conception_ under the title "The Conception
of Saint Anne", originally commemorated the _physical miracle_ of
a woman _beyond the age_ of child bearing, conceiving a daughter,
just as Elizabeth had conceived John the Baptist. A transfer in
emphasis from the physical miracle wrought in Anne to the miracle
of grace wrought by God in the soul of Mary was _logical_. Mary
is the incorruptible timber "out of which was hewn the _tabernacle_
of Christ's sinless body"; she is "God's Eden, in whom there is
no tree of knowledge, and no serpent that harms." Her perfect
beauty and spotlessness find their exemplar in Christ, her
purity in that of the Father. At the time of the Council of Ephesus,
she was hailed as "innocent, without blemish, immaculate, inviolate,
spotless, holy in soul and body, who was blessed as a lily from
among thorns, unlearned in the evil ways of Eve".
...
At the end of the thirteenth century, an Irish Franciscan,
John Duns Scotus (1266-1308),...God maintained that it was a
greater thing for Him to preserve His (the Son) mother from all
sin _than to use His power to clease her from it later_.
...
Now let's go to the discussion of baptism and original sin.
From "Pocket Catholic Cathechism" by John A. Hardon:
Baptism -
Concupiscence Remains after Baptism.
Concupiscence or the tendency to sin remains in the baptized
but since it is left to provide trial, it has no power to
injure those who do not consent and who by the grace of
Christ Jesus, manfully resist (Canon 5).
Original gifts of Adam and Eve before their fall:
In the light of the foregoing, we see that our first
parents were originally gifted three times over:
-They had the natural gifts of human beings especially the
power to think and to choose freely.
-The had the _preternatural_ gifts of bodily immortality
and of integrity, or the internal power to control desires.
-They had the _supernatural_ gifts of sanctifying grace,
the virtues of faith, hope, and charity and the corresponding
title to enter heaven.
By their disobedience, they lost the _supernatural and
preternatural_ gifts entirely, and were weakened (without
losing) their natural capacity to reason and to choose
freely.
Baptism restores the _supernatural_ life lost by Adam's
sin. It _does not_ restore the _preternatural_ gifts
but gifts as a title to a glorified restoration of our
bodies on the last day...
Going back to _Immaculate Conception_
(I am not sure if this interpretation is in any other
books but it may be another contribution to the 'puzzle'):
Given the miracle of St. Anne bearing a child at a
non-childbearing age, AND Christ was not yet born
AND _there was no baptism yet_ on Mary's birth but
STILL, the Angel Gabriel's greetings was:
"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.
Blessed art thou amongst women".
Even Mary was confused about this greeting.
Mary could very well have possessed all of the
_treefold original gifts above_ given to our first
parents (Adam and Eve before their sin):
Hail Mary (Example of praise given by the Angel Gabriel)
Full of grace (natural, preternatural, supernatural)
The Lord is with you (At those times, God would
definitely want to be with those He
has made _blessed_)
Blessed art thou amongst women (that says it all)
At the conception, God made Mary _full of grace
and blessed_ as the 'tabernacle' for the coming body
of Christ and so,
Immaculate Conception of Mary is true and Mary still
has maintained her Immaculate Heart. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Nope, I've answered each question posed, and most were answered multiple
times. | 0 | alt.atheism |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As a muslim (spelled sometimes as Moslem) I must say that Muslims strong
ly believe in Jesus. Refered in islamic text as eesau(as)
Jesus ==> J - esu - s ===> esu (pronounced eee-saw)
Yah we knew him well. Ideally, this war should not even be. And even in
a time of war, our goal is peace. We should try to refrain from viloating
the peace of others as then if we do violate, we will not have peace in
ourselves. I don't like this war eaither, It is a conflict of territory.
Croats, Muslims, and Serbs lived together before in peace. The rallying
point is 'race'. And Im sure that there is a General out there who wouldn't
mind being a president.
--
Mohammad R. Khan / [email protected]
After July '93, please send mail to [email protected] | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
All of the arguments concerning the Sabbath ought to make the point
pretty clear - anyone outside of the Catholic or Orthodox orAnglican or
Monophysite churches ourght to worship on Saturday if they are really
sola scriptura. Otherwise, they are following a law put into effect by
the Church, and only the above Chruches really recognize any power of
the Chruch to do so.
Andy Byler
[You will note that nothing in the FAQ said anything about the Church
establishing or changing a law. The argument against the Sabbath is
that it is part of the ceremonial law, and like the rest of the
ceremonial law is not binding on Christians. This argument is based
on Paul's letters, Acts, and in a more general sense, Jesus'
teachings. Further, most people argue that Scripture shows worship
occuring on Sunday, and Paul endorsing it. I understand that these
points are disputed, and do not want to go around the dispute one more
time. The point I'm making here is not that these arguments are
right, but that the backing they claim is Scripture.
Accepting the principle of "sola scriptura" does not commit us to
obeying the entire Jewish Law. Acts 15 and Paul's letters are quite
clear on that. I think even the SDA's accept it. The disagreement is
on where the Bible would have us place the line.
By the way, Protestants do give authority to the church, in matters
that are not dictated by God. That's why churches are free to
determine their own liturgies, church polity, etc. If you accept that
the Sabbath is not binding on Christians, then the day of worship
falls into the category of items on which individual Christians or
(since worship is by its nature a group activity) churches are free to
decide. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Are you making a meta-argument here? In any case, you are wrong.
Think of those invisible pink unicorns.
I was responding to the "historical accuracy... of Biblical claims",
of which the existence of Jesus is only one, and one that was not even
mentioned in my post.
Wrong. That was exactly the issue. Go back and read the context
included within my post, and you'll see what I mean.
Now that I've done you the kindness of responding to your questions,
please do the same for me. Answer the Charley Challenges. Your claim
that they are of the "did not!/ did so!" variety is a dishonest dodge
that I feel certain fools only one person. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Hi Christian friends,
My name is Joel, I have a sister who's 25th birthday is tomorrow.....She
used to be on fire for the Lord, but somehow, for some reason, she
became cold....she don't want to associate anymore with her old
christian friends.........so I thought maybe some of you could help her
out again by sending her a postcard or card with a little message of
encouragement.....hand written is okay....her address is 3150 Hobart
Ave. San Jose Ca. 95127...........
Thank you and God Bless.
PS: Jesus Christ is LORD!!!!!!!! | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Well, most hangings are very quick and, I imagine, painless.
And, hangings and firing squads are allowed today, too. And, if these
things were not considered cruel, then surely a medical execution
(painless) would not be, either. | 0 | alt.atheism |
If you're talking about this intellectual engagement of revelation, well,
it's obviously a risk one takes.
I'm not an objectivist, so I'm not particularly impressed with problems of
conceptualization. The problem in this case is at least as bad as that of
trying to explain quantum mechanics and relativity in the terms of ordinary
experience. One can get some rough understanding, but the language is, from
the perspective of ordinary phenomena, inconsistent, and from the
perspective of what's being described, rather inexact (to be charitable).
An analogous situation (supposedly) obtains in metaphysics; the problem is
that the "better" descriptive language is not available.
This word "reliable" is essentially meaningless in the context-- unless you
can show how reliability can be determined. | 0 | alt.atheism |
"Thinking if I could see, I would believe. Then someone said | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap
a harvest if we do not give up. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Is life a pass/fail course, and does God grade on a
curve?
I'm new here, and only vaguely religious, but I want to
know what some of you people think. Specifically, are there an
infinite number of Heavens, and a person goes to the one that
he/she deserves? Or is it simply Heaven or nothing (Hell?)
Also, are we "graded" by those around us, or has there always
been some unchanging method? Is the person's childhood taken
into account?
I'm sure these must sound like over-simplifications to
most of you, but I figure that you're the experts.
-Quinn
[Eschatology is an area on which Christians do not agree. I suspect
that's because our primary source of information is prophets and
visionaries, and their writings tend to be highly symbolic. However
both Jesus' teachings in the Gospels and books such as the Revelation
to John talk primarily about the difference between eternal life and
eternal death. On a number of occasions Jesus does say things that
imply some sort of differentiation, e.g. Lk 10:14 and a number of
similar passages where Jesus says things like "even XXX will be better
off than you in the judgement." Also, I Cor 3 talks about someone who
gets into heaven, but by the skin of his teeth, as it were. But these
passages are not normally interpreted as suggesting separate heavens,
so much as differing levels of prestige or punishment in heaven or
hell (and not all Christians would even go as far as that). The only
Christian group I know of that believes in multiple heavens is the
Mormons, and they are very far from mainstream Christianity (far
enough that many of our readers would not call them Christian). Their
ideas in this area involve specific Mormon revelations, in addition
to the Bible and "Holy Tradition" of a more generic Christian sort.
Note that many Christians will cringe at the very thought of
associating grading with God. The whole point of Christ was to free
us from the results of a test that we couldn't possibly pass. If you
like test analogies, God grades on a very strict and unbending scale,
but he also cheats -- he replaces our test papers with an exam that
was prepared by the teacher, before actually doing the grading.
Because some people end up in heaven and others in hell, it's easy to
see why you'd be inclined to think of it as grading. While there are
differences among branches of Christianity on details, I think we all
agree that in one way or another, God cheats.
I am personally very sceptical about anyone who claims to know exactly
how far God's cheating extends. Will he accept people who don't
explicitly acknowledge Christ, but somehow still follow him in their
hearts? Many Christians believe that this is possible, at least in
principle, but certainly not all do. Jesus provided us with a clear
description of how to be saved, but it's not clear to me that he
provided an exact description of how he's going to place the dividing
line. Certainly he made it clear that we can't expect to know whether
other individuals are saved or not. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
: > I'm a commited Christian that is battling with a problem. I know
: > that romans talks about how we are saved by our faith not our deeds, yet
: > hebrews and james say that faith without deeds is useless, saying' You fools,
: > do you still think that just believing is enough?'
:
: [Stuff deleted]
:
: > Now I am of the opinion that you a saved through faith alone (not what you do)
: > as taught in Romans, but how can I square up in my mind the teachings of James
: > in conjunction with the lukewarm Christian being 'spat-out'
: >
: > Can anyone help me, this really bothers me.
:
I have received tons of mail from people replying to this article I wrote, and
I would just like to thank everyone who took the time to give me a hand. It
has indeed helped me and re-affirmed alot of theories that I held but was a
little unsure about.
God bless you all
Will | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[deletions]
People with advanced science degrees use state of the art equipment
and spend millions of dollars to simulate tornadoes. But tornadoes
do not require intelligence to exist.
Not only that, the equipment needed is not really 'state of the art.'
To study the *products*, yes, but not to generate them.
Oh, I will. :->
Sincerely, | 0 | alt.atheism |
Which Version of the Bible do you consider to be the most
accurate translation?
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
> If you know the Latin, one really beautiful way to hear the
> Passion is its being chanted by three deacons: the Narrator
> chants in the middle baritone range, Jesus chants in the bass,
> and others directly quoted are handled by a high tenor.
This is done in English (same music as the traditional Latin) in
many Anglican parishes. I should expect that many RCC parishes would
do likewise. The ST MATTHEW PASSION and ST JOHN PASSION of J S Bach
are direct offshoots of this tradition | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Stuff deleted
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.............................................
I can put the same question to followers of any religion. How do you
Moslems resolve differences of opinion ?? Don't tell me that there
is one interpretation of the Quran. Read the soc.culture.* newsgroups.
You will zillions of different interpretations.
-- Naren
[email protected] | 0 | alt.atheism |
It amazes me that you have the audacity to say that human creation was not
the result of the natural process of evolution (but rather an "act of God")
and then in the same post say that these other processes (volcanos et al.)
are natural occurrences. Who gave YOU the right to choose what things are
natural processes and what are direct acts of God? How do you know that
God doesn't cause each and every natural disaster with a specific purpose
in mind? It would certainly go along with the sadistic nature I've seen in
the bible.
Adam & Eve (TWO PEOPLE), even tho they had the honor (or so you christians
claim) of being the first two, definitely do NOT represent a majority in
the billions and trillions (probably more) of people that have come after
them. Perhaps they were the majority then, but *I* (and YOU) weren't
around to vote, and perhaps we might have voted differently about what to
do with that tree. But your god never asked us. He just assumes that if
you have two bad people then they ALL must be bad. Hmm. Sounds like the
same kind of false generalization that I see many of the theists posting
here resorting to. So THAT's where they get it... shoulda known.
Nanci | 0 | alt.atheism |
Do you honestly hold to that tripe Charley? For a start there are enough
current versions of the Bible to make comparisons to show that what you write
above is utter garbage. Witness JW, Mormon, Catholic, Anglican, and Greek
Orthodox Bibles. But to really convince you I'd have to take you to a good
old library. In our local library we had a 1804 King James which I compared
to a brand new, hot of God's tongue Good News Bible. Genesis was almost
unrecognisable, many of the discrepencies between the four gospels had been
edited from the Good News Bible. In fact the God of Good News was a much
more congenial fellow I must say.
If you like I'll get the 1804 King James out again and actually give you
some quotes. At least the headings haven't changed much. | 0 | alt.atheism |
I believe this is a just another of way of expressing the basic truth
"All things were created by him and FOR him." (emphasis mine)
Col. 1:16 , Rev. 4:11. If you and I have been created for God, naturally
there will be a vacuum if God is not our all and all. In fact,
the first chapter of Collosians brings out this status of Christ, that
He should have the preeminence. When you life is alligned with Him,
and you do His will, then the vacuum is filled. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Regarding the moral question Jen ([email protected]) asked: "Is it
okay to create a child if you aren't able to be a good parent?", I
am reminded of a "speech" by one of the characters (I can't remember
which) in the movie "Parenthood". [I am WAY to liberal with my
quotation marks tonight...]
In this so-called (by me) speech, the character is expressing what
a lousy father he had and he made an interesting point. He said
something to the effect of:
"You have to have a license to drive a car. You have to have a
license to own a dog. You even have to have a license to fish.
But, they'll anyone have a kid." [Keep in mind that I am, in NO
way, trying to pass this off as a quote. It is probably GROSSLY
distorted but I think you get the point...] | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
IMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM;
: T H E W I T N E S S & P R O O F O F :
: :
: J E S U S C H R I S T ' S R E S U R R E C T I O N :
: :
: F R O M T H E D E A D :
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM<
* The WITNESS Of The LORD JESUS CHRIST:
Mark 8:31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer
many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests
and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Mark 9:31 For He was teaching His disciples and telling them, "The Son
of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will
kill Him; and when He has been killed, He will rise three days
later." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^
Mark 10:34 "And they will mock Him and spit upon Him, and scourge Him,
and kill Him, and three days later He will rise again."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Mark 12:26 "But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you
not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning
bush, how God spoke to him, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, and
the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'?
Luke 18:33 and after they have scourged Him, they will kill Him; and
the third day He will rise again. "
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Luke 24:46 and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ
should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day;^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
John 11:25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he
who believes in Me shall live even if he dies,
John 20:9 For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He
must rise again from the dead. ^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Acts 17:3 ...explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to
suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom
I am proclaiming to you is the Christ."
* The WITNESS Of The APOSTLE PAUL: 1 Corinthians 15:1-26
1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to
you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I
preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day
according to the Scriptures, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one
time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;
8 and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me
also.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called an
apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did
not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I,
but the grace of God with me.
11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead,
how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has
been raised;
14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your
faith also is vain.
15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we
witnessed against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise,
if in fact the dead are not raised.
16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;
17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are
still in your sins.
18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most
to be pitied.
20 BUT NOW CHRIST HAS BEEN RAISED FROM THE DEAD, the first fruits of
those who are asleep.
21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection
of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.
23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those
who are Christ's at His coming,
24 then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and
Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.
25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
LOGICAL PROOFS OF JESUS CHRIST'S RESURRECTION
1. Jesus's enemies *would not* have stolen His
body because that would have perpetrated the
resurrection--the very opposite of what they
desired.
2. Jesus' disciples *could not* have stolen His
body because Pontius Pilate established guards
to stand watch over the tomb lest His body be
stolen.
3. Sadly (and ironically), many of Jesus' disciples
did not believe in the Resurrection until Jesus
had risen from the dead.
4. In nearly 20 centuries, no body has ever been
produced to refute Jesus' assertion that He
*would indeed* rise from the dead. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The Illiad contains more than one word. Ergo: it can not be
the Word of God.
But, if you will humbly agree that it is the WORDS of God, I
will conceed.
:-D
---
"One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that
say "Mom", because of the love of their mom. It makes for more
virile men."
Bobby Mozumder ( [email protected] )
April 4, 1993 | 0 | alt.atheism |
}>For several years I've periodically asked Charley Wingate to explain this
}>mythical alternative to rationality which he propounds so enthusiastically
}>when he pops up every few months. His reluctance to explain indicates to me
}>that it's not so hot.
}
}I've said enough times that there is no "alternative" that should think you
}might have caught on by now. And there is no "alternative", but the point
}is, "rationality" isn't an alternative either. The problems of metaphysical
}and religious knowledge are unsolvable-- or I should say, humans cannot
}solve them.
If there is truly no alternative, then you have no basis whatsoever
for your claim. The usual line here, which you call "a prejudgment of
atheism", and dispute, is that reason is all we have. Here you admit
that you have no alternative, no possible basis for the claim that
there is anything other than reason or that reason is inapplicable in
religious knowledge, except possibly that reason conflicts with
"religious knowledge".
This sounds very much like "I can't provide a rational defense for my
belief, but prefer to discard rationality rather than accept that it
may be false". I hope it makes you happy, but your repeated and
unfounded assertions to this effect don't advance your cause. | 0 | alt.atheism |
This is an excellent question and I'll be anxious to see if there are
any such cases. I doubt it. In the medieval period (esp. 10th-cent.
when Aquinas flourished) argument was a useful tool because everyone
"knew the rules." Today, when you can't count on people knowing even
the basics of logic or seeing through rhetoric, a good argument is
often indistinguishable from a poor one.
Sorry; just one of my perennial gripes...<:->
Ken | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
As far as I know, tigers are not sentient. If I were pushed into a pool with
some dolphins and they attacked me, I might be inclined to blame the dolphins
rather than the person doing the pushing, as (a) dolphins are not usually
aggressive and (b) they seem to have well-developed brains and a capacity for
abstract thought.
As a matter of fact, tigers rarely attack humans unless the human provokes
them. Of course, if they are in a cage which is far too small, that might
count as provocation...
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm afraid your friendship is in danger.
Perhaps you should examine in yourself why as such a good friend, you
are unwilling to accept this imortant part of your friends life? Why
do you call into question his faith? Your friend has changed, he has
found something that fills a need in his life. You need to decide if
you are still his friend, whether you can accommodate his new life.
It sounds as if you are criticizing him for a fundamental belief in
the Bible, yet you are quick to reveal that your fundamental belief
that it is superstition. Perhaps if he knew you at least took him
seriously, that you at least took an interest in the light he has found,
that you at least tried to understand what has become a special part of
his life, you could together decide to become fundamentalists, respect
each others differences and remain friends, or part ways. Maybe even if
you stuck it out with him, you could help him to un-convert. Of course,
if you go in with that attitude he will surely see through your intentions
and begin to resent you.
I happen to be a person very tolerant of fundamentalists, because I know
that the idea of a simple black and white approach to life is appealing.
I don't happen to share the beliefs of fundamentalists, but I am not
offended by their prosyletizing. I had a few good conversations with
some Witnesses who came to my door. I didn't switch my beliefs, but for
those at home who maybe need a friendly face to invite them somewhere,
the Witnesses provide a wonderful service. You may have been conditioned
to believe that religion is unimportant and witnessing is obnoxious, but
why? Are you afraid you might be converted and become one of them, that
you will be swept up in fundamentalism, that you will become a weirdo.
Friendship's a two-way street. You must respect your friend, ALL of him,
including his beliefs, if you want the friendship to continue. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The "System" refered to a "moral system". You havn't shown any
reason that chimps "must" have a moral system.
Except if you would like to redefine everything.
---
" Whatever promises that have been made can than be broken. " | 0 | alt.atheism |
Do you count yourself as one who is weak in the faith?
Is there any doubt in your mind about what is right and what is missing
the mark?
Are they clear or do you have doubts?
An important first step; the realization that Paul was human.
Yes, and he was writing and speaking for an audience that was at best,
very weak in the faith; most could not read, most were unfamiliar with
the Hebrew Scriptures in even the Septuagint form. Paul adapted the
message of the Bible to a largely uneducated market. Granted, this
market still exists today, but do you count yourself as part of it? To
be "weak in the faith" is not missing the mark (hamartia) if you do the
best that your education allows. Are you doing the best?
Let me make clear that the "Law" is none other than the Pentateuch of
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. What did Jesus say
about the "Law" in Matt5:14-19? Where did Jesus say that the "Law" only
applies to Jews and that Gentiles are above the "Law"?
Who acknowledged this fact? On what basis? Are we extra-biblical at this
point? Why not also acknowledge that the Bhagavad-Gita is the only
relevant text for Gentiles, after all we see in the Bible that it was
Magus from the east who observed the star-signs of Jesus? Why bother
with any texts at all? Why not just follow whatever the Church has to
say?
I don't see how you can say this with a straight face. Are you a
follower of Christ, or do you follow someone else? Are you saying that
the words of Jesus only apply to Jews?
How Jewish was Paul after he changed his name from Saul?
Who says Gentile Christians are not covered by the first five books? Who
says that Gentile Christians are above the Ten Commandments?
You're implying that Jesus' words are valid only for Jews. Is this
really what you mean to say? You do realize that you are gutting rather
large portions of the Bible? When you read Jesus' words, did you ever
consider that maybe, just maybe Jesus is talking to you, no matter what
your race or sex? If the Hebrew Scriptures and the Gospel accounts of
Jesus are only directed to Jews, why were they translated into English?
As Paul would call him, one who was weak in the faith.
Which is more important: 1) The recorded word of Jesus or 2) Indications
that you can deduce from the Bible? Was Jesus God only of the Jews, or
God of all humankind of all race and sex?
This is your understanding of Paul. Compare this to the word of Jesus.
Are you Christian or Pauline?
Again, this is your understanding of Paul. Did Jesus say that the Law
was an "impossible standard?" Did Jesus say that He superceded the Law?
Are you Christian or Pauline?
You acknowledge that it is *your* reading of Paul. What did Jesus say?
Can you deny that Matt5:14-19 is quite clear in its meaning? Are you
Christian or Pauline?
When did Jesus say that the purpose of the Law was conviction of sin?
Please reread Matt5:14-19. Are you Christian or Pauline?
Are you saying that the Ten Commandments are ceremonial details?
You call observance of the Sabbath, the day on which the Lord rested,
ceremonial? Has circumcision been superceded for Christians?
....
Are you Christian or Pauline?
[Both. There is no doubt in my mind about what is sin and what is
not, at least not in this case. Jesus did not deal explicitly with
the question of whether the Law was binding on Gentiles. That's why I
have to cite evidence such as the way Jesus dealt with the Centurion.
As to general Jewish views on this, I am dependent largely on studies
of Pauline theology, one by H.J. Schoeps, and one whose author I can't
come up with at the moment. Both authors are Jews. Also, various
Christian and non-Christian Jews have discussed the issue here and in
other newsgroups.
Mat 5:19 is clear that the Law is still valid. It does not say that
it applies to Gentiles.
And yes, I say that the specific requirement for worship on the
Sabbath in the Ten Commandments is a ceremonial detail, when you're
looking at the obligations of Gentiles. Similarly circumcision.
I'm not sure quite what else I can say on this subject. Again, it's
unfortunate the Jesus didn't answer the question directly. However we
do know (1) what the 1st Cent. Jewish approach was, (2) how Jesus
dealt with at least one Gentile, and (3) how Jesus' disciples dealt
with the issue when it became more acute (I'm referring to Acts 15
more than Paul). Given that these are all in agreement, I don't see
that there's a big problem. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
: 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.
The way I read Scripture, a couple becomes married when they are *physically*
married, i.e. when they first have sexual intercourse.
e.g. the end of Genesis 2 (quoted from memory) ``for this reason, a man shall
leave his parents and be joined to his wife, and they will become one flesh''
(Jesus also quotes this scripture referring to marriage).
If you read through Genesis in particular, you will often come across the
phraseology: ``[man] lay with [woman], and she became his wife''. This
implies that she became his wife when they lay together, i.e. at the
point of intercourse.
Compare this with Jewish tradition: Joseph, when he heard that Mary
was pregnant, had it in mind to divorce her quietly -- but Mary and Joseph were
*betrothed*, not married. i.e., they were in a binding relationship (which
required a divorce to get out of), but *marriage* would not occur until Mary
and Joseph went to bed together.
Compare with Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5, Revelation 19): the church is
described as the ``bride'' of Christ, but the *marriage* of the Lamb takes
place when Jesus returns. i.e., we are in a binding love-relationship with
Jesus, but we are still looking forward to the time when the marriage will
take place. I see this as the spiritual equivalent of sexual intercourse,
because it represents the most intimate fellowship possible between man and God.
In summary, engagement should be honoured as a binding relationship, but it is
not marriage. A civil ceremony is not marriage either. Marriage occurs at the
point when the betrothed couple go to bed together. (I don't mean to demean the
civil or church ceremony -- ours was great! I don't mean to be too pedantic.)
Historically, I think I am correct in stating that the civil ceremony (i.e. a
marriage recognised by the state), has only been around in the West since
Napoleon, who introduced it to keep tabs on the people (although I'm ready to be
corrected on that point!)
This view obviously raises some questions:
What about those who have had sex with one or more partners, without considering
marriage. Are those people also ``married''?
If it is true that marriage occurs at the point of intercourse, is it necessary
to be married in the eyes of the state? (I would say Yes, because this honours
the laws of our nations in the West. Although it is not illegal to sleep
together though unmarried in most Western countries, I believe that it is God-
honouring to proclaim our marriage to the state and to our friends before
actually consummating our marriage. Its to do with our being salt and light, and
also to do with how people will perceive us; i.e. it is culturally insensitive
to declare yourself married without going through a civil ceremony.)
--
-----
Michael Davis ([email protected]) | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I have been told that I seem to be very smug in my post. I appoligize
if anyone felt this way. I did not at all desire to come across in
that way. I was trying to express that I didn't understand his logic
and that I wished him the best in his life. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Here are some notes about what the church is to be like and some helpful
ideas about how to choose a church:
Colossians 1:15-18
A. Jesus is the head of the body, the church
B. You cannot say "yes" to Jesus, but "no" to the church
Ephesians 2:19-22
A. The church is the family of God
B. The church is based on the Word of God only
Cornerstone=Christ
Foundation= Apostles=New Testament
Prophets=Old Testament (see Revelation 21:9-14)
1 Corinthians 12:12-13
A. Baptism is when we become a member of the church
As for the question of denominations:
A. The Bible teaches that there is only ONE church from Ephesians
4:4-6, Romans 12:4-5, 1 Corinthians 12:12-13
B. 1 Corinthians 1:10-13 says that there should be no divisions in
the church. There should be no following of personalities in the church
(and in time, their writings)
C. There are so many churches today because of a problem. 2 Timothy
4:1-4 says that people will turn away from the truth and try to find a
church that teaches a doctrine that suits their lifestyle
Hebrews 10:24-25
A. Do not miss church
B. Purpose is to encourage each other, so we will remain faithful.
Involved on a relationship level in the church
C. Must come to ALL services
Another verse which is helpful is Hebrews 3:12-15. The church should be
encouraging daily, as it is their duty to do.
Of course, more standards apply:
1 Timothy 4:16 People in the church should be watching their lives
and doctrines to make sure they both live up to the Word entirely (ie,
disciples).
Acts 17:10-12 The pastor does not come close to the Apostle Paul
(natural conclusion since the Apostle Paul talked with Jesus directly
face to face), so if the Bereans, who were considered noble, didn't take
Paul at his word but checked out what he said with Scripture to verify
his statements, then church members are to do the same and verify the
pastor's statements. If they are not verifiable or valid in light of
other verses, then that group should be avoided as a church (would've
made a wonderful suggestion to the Waco group, especially in light of
Matthew 24). | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I always thought that the Pope was a bear.
You know, because of that little saying:
Does a bear shit in the woods?
Is the Pope Catholic? | 0 | alt.atheism |
My turn to jump in! :)
I think you mean circular, not recursive, but that is semantics.
Recursiveness has no problems, it is just horribly inefficient (just ask
any assembly programmer.)
The oft-quoted line that says people should be guaranteed life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness as inalienable rights, is a complete lie
and deception, as the very authors of that line were in the process of
proving. Liberty is never free, it is always purchased at some cost,
almost always at the cost to another. Whos liberty is more inalienable?
Similarly for right of life. When one person must die if he is to save
another, or even a group of others, whos life is more inalienable?
That leads into the classic question of the value of the death penalty,
especially for serial killers. Whos life and liberty is more valuable,
the serial killer, or the victim? According to that beautiful line,
those two rights should be completely inviolate, that is, noone should be
able to remove them. This _includes_ government. Admittedly the serial
killer has restricted some people's life and/or liberty, but is not his
own life/liberty inviolate also? According to the declaration of independence,
it is.
Oooh, I like that. It means that killing an infant is not murder because
it cannot be against its will. Reason, an infant has no will as such.
Similarly for people who are brain dead (easier to see), in a coma, etc.
Also, under current law, accidental killing is still murder. How will you
include that?
The only real golden rule in life is, he who has the gold, makes the
rules. I.e. Might Makes Right. That is survival. Now what is wrong
with that?
If you mean the golden rule as I stated, yes, almost every system as
implemented has used that in reality. Sorry, I don't deal as much in
fiction, as I do in reality.
WELCOME TO OZLAND!!!!!!! :)
What is NOT arbitrary? If you can find some part of society, some societal
rules, morals, etc. that are not arbitrary, please tell me. I don't think
there are any.
Sounds like euphemisms to me. The difference seems to be, that objective
is some reasoning that I like, while arbitrary is some reasoning that
I don't like OR don't understand. | 0 | alt.atheism |
I'll pose a question here that's got me thinking: what distinguishes
"true" religion from cults (I'm speaking generally here, not specifially
about Christianity)? Jerry Falwell was on Good Morning America on
Tuesday ostensibly to answer this question. Basically, he said that
true religion follows a message whereas a cult follows a person.
But, then, Christianity is a cult because the message of Christianity
IS the person of Jesus. So what distinguishes, for example, the
Branch Davidian "cult" from the Presbyterian "church"? Doctrinal
differences don't answer the question, IMHO, so don't use them as
an answer.
-- Scott at Brandeis
"But God demonstrates His "The Lord bless you, and keep you;
own love for us, in that the Lord make His face shine on you,
while we were yet sinners, and be gracious to you;
Christ died for us." the Lord lift up His countenance on you,
and give you peace."
-- Romans 5:8 [NASB] -- Numbers 6:24-26 [NASB] | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The two historic facts that I think the most important are these:
(1) If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then he must have done something
else equally impressive, in order to create the observed amount of impact.
(2) Nobody ever displayed the dead body of Jesus, even though both the
Jewish and the Roman authorities would have gained a lot by doing so
(it would have discredited the Christians).
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
: I wonder how many atheists out there care to speculate on the face of
: the world if atheists were the majority rather than the minority group
: of the population.
I've been thinking about this every now and then since I cut my ties
with Christianity. It is surprising to note that a large majority of
people, at least in Finland, seem to be apatheists - even though
90 % of the population are members of the Lutheran Church of Finland,
religious people are actually a minority.
Could it be possible that many people believe in god "just in case"?
It seems people do not want to seek the truth; they fall prey to Pascal's
Wager or other poor arguments. A small minority of those who do believe
reads the Bible regularly. The majority doesn't care - it believes,
but doesn't know what or how.
People don't usually allow their beliefs to change their lifestyle,
they only want to keep the virtual gate open. A Christian would say
that they are not "born in the Spirit", but this does not disturb them.
Religion is not something to think about.
I'm afraid a society with a true atheist majority is an impossible
dream. Religions have a strong appeal to people, nevertheless -
a promise of life after death is something humans eagerly listen to.
Coupled with threats of eternal torture and the idea that our
morality is under constant scrutiny of some cosmic cop, too many
people take the poison with a smile. Or just pretend to swallow
(and unconsciously hope god wouldn't notice ;-) )
: Also, how many atheists out there would actually take the stance and accor a
: higher value to their way of thinking over the theistic way of thinking. The
: typical selfish argument would be that both lines of thinking evolved from the
: same inherent motivation, so one is not, intrinsically, different from the
: other, qualitatively. But then again a measuring stick must be drawn
: somewhere, and if we cannot assign value to a system of beliefs at its core,
: than the only other alternative is to apply it to its periphery; ie, how it
: expresses its own selfishness.
If logic and reason are valued, then I would claim that atheistic thinking
is of higher value than the theistic exposition. Theists make unnecessary
assumptions they believe in - I've yet to see good reasons to believe
in gods, or to take a leap of faith at all. A revelation would do.
However, why do we value logic and reasoning? This questions bears
some resemblance to a long-disputed problem in science: why mathematics
works? Strong deep structuralists, like Atkins, have proposed that
perhaps, after all, everything _is_ mathematics.
Is usefulness any criterion?
Petri
| 0 | alt.atheism |
It sounds to me like it's just SCREAMING OUT for parody. Give a copy to your
friendly neighbourhood SubGenius preacher; with luck, he'll run it through the
mental mincer and hand you back an outrageously offensive and gut-bustingly
funny parody you can paste over the originals.
I can see it now:
The Stool Scroll
Thoughts on Religion, Spirituality, and Matters of the Colon
(You can use this text to wipe)
| 0 | alt.atheism |
[ -and many others mailed me. Here is a reply to one of the letters. Seems to
me that atheist do not like the doctrine of hell!]
Your using 20th century concepts to interprete 1st century writers. Of course,
in your termonology, God could not "cease to exist." However, that is not what
death ever means in the Scriptures. If you will study the word, you will see
that it signifies "separation." Death is separation, not ceastation. This is
the reason for the agony of the cross. For the first time in eternity, one
member of the Godhead was separated from the other two.
I once met a young lady that was as beautiful as any model that ever lived.
She was as personable as any saint ever imagined. She was to become my
"girlfriend" for several years. However, having been drafted, we were
separated by distance. To me that was a form of death. Later, she decided
that she couldn't wait for me to come home and bid me adue. That to me was
death. It was separation from that which had made me whole. Death is
separation and eternal death is eternal separation from His fellowship, not
because He chose to send you into outer darkness, but because you chose to go
there.
When I rebelled against my earthly father, he spanked me. I found no wisdom in
that until I had grown older and especially until I had my own children. He
was trying to guide me away from hurt that would enter my life if I continued
on my suicidal course. He did it in love though I interpreted it as harsh and
unloving. If God warns of impending danger, that is love. If choose to let us
do as we please, and then at the end tell us the rules, that would be harsh.
You have a conscience, no matter how calused or fallen it is, that witnesses to
you that a thing is wrong and that there is cause for fear.
This may give light to the error of your understanding. One must have correct
knowledge in order to have correct faith. Faith and knowledge are inseparable.
Jesus most certainly felt the "pinpricks" of life. As the Scripture say:
Heb. 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our
weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without
sin.
The kenosis passage of Phil 2 states that He gave up His Godhead attributes
when He took upon Himself humanity. It has been a favorite meditation of mine
to think about this. It was to be my PhD thesis. "The Consciousness of
Christ." I have talked at length with a great many people about this
interesting study, including clh.
It is my conclussion that as Jesus, the 2nd member of the Trinity, actually
suffered as we do. He became part of the human race and experienced it as we
do. He "grew in knowledge." He chose not to grasp His omniscience, but chose
to be taught. It is my understanding that He was "led of the Spirit" to such
an extent that sometimes it is hard to distinquish between Jesus the man and
Jesus as God. But in Jn 8 where the adulterous women was thrown before Him,
the tenses are quite clear in that the whole situation took Him by surprise.
That is, He was not aware that this event was to take place in time. He was
living sequential history as you or I.
Maybe some other time we can discuss this, but it is a very lengthy discussion
and one that causes the curcuit breakers of the brain to pop more often than
not.
I was once a member of that club. THe "free thinker" is a glorious ideal. By
contrast, of course, you believe that the believer is the unforunate repository
of everything that is dogmatic, inhibited, reactionary and repressive. I find
such a stance to be as amusing as it is absurd. If the liberal humanist
wishes to criticize a Christian or a Buddhist or a Marxist, that is his right.
But what he must not pretend is that he was led to this solely by his "rational
doubt" when in fact he was led to it by his "faith". He must acknowledge that
while it is rational doubt for him as a "free thinker" to criticize the
Christian, it might equally be a rational doubt for the Christian to criticize
him as a humanist. If there is no faith, there can be no dout. There is no
faith which cannot choose to cast doubt on some other faith.
Pascal pointed out that "sceptical arguments allow the positive to be positive.
Few. . .speak dubiously of scepticism." The fact that skeptics are not
skeptical about skepticism is further evidence that to doubt anything we must
believe in something else! THe person who is skeptical toward one faith or
even most faiths, will be the devoted adherent of another. In fact, it is a
measure of his poverty both that he is unaware of it and that he can define
himself only in negative terms, hence the term "a"-theist.
Some people claim otherwise and argue vociferously for complete skepticism. In
my campus ministry I ran across this more times than I care to remember.
However, they disproved their own argument with every thought, every word,
every point of logic that they used. Every moment of shared communication
speaks against their total skepticism. Their very insistence of trying to make
sense is eloquent testimony to assumptions that are powerful though silent.
That is to say, that complete skepticism is impossible and limited skepticism
is arbitrary. Next time you're in a room of skeptics, yell out "Look, your fly
is undone!" Each person chooses what he is skeptical about and what he
believes without skepticism. To stress this is to belabor the obvious, but it
underlines the point that no one can know exhaustively how he knows what he
knows. Pure objectivism is a myth and complete skepticism an impossiblity.
The answer to this impasse lies in a 3rd way of knowing, one which is based on
presuppositions. But if knowledge proceeds on what must be presupposed before
it is proved, the cover is blown on the pretentions of critical doubt, and
critical doubt depends on the idea that human knowledge is totally objective
and neutral. In other words, another myth.
Presuppositions my friend. It is impossible to doubt anything unless there is
something we do not doubt -our own assumptions/presuppostions. Even these can
be criticezed only upon the basis of other assumptions. Presuppostitons are
our silent partners in thought but their silence must not be mistaken for
absence.
Of course that is hardly an original statement. Milton coined it but it had
been in use for millenia. It was even used in the first "Highlander" movie.
But again, your presuption is based on a faulty knowledge of the character of
God. You are operating off of a presuppositional premise of humanistic
theology, not what He has revealed of Himself through history, through His
prophets, through His Word, and lastly, but most of all, thru His Son. If you
are to reject God's annointed savior, then reject Him from a correct
understanding of Himself. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Yep. There's truth in all those religions, even in science.
Christianity doesn't claim to know it all. It does claim certain
things are true though that contradict other religions' truth claims.
So they can't all be true.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[ deleted ]
[ deleted ]
If your science teacher tells you glass is a liquid, try to get a different
science teacher B^). Glass is a supercooled fluid, it is not a liquid (except
at very high temperatures). The definition of liquid includes "readily takes
the form of its container". Let's try to be more accurate here. We don't want
people to think we're creationists now do we?
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Just a quick question. If Mary was Immaculately concieved, so she
could be a pure vessel, does this mean that she was without sin
and, therefore, the perfect (meaning sinless) female human being?
Is this why she is held so highly in the Catholic Church despite
it's basically patriarchical structure?
She was immaculately conceived, and so never subject to Original Sin,
but also never committed a personal sin in her whole life. This was
possible because of the special degree of grace granted to her by God.
She is regarded so highly because of her special relationship to God,
and everything that flows from that relationship.
The Catholic Church sees her as the new Eve. (The Fathers in the
early Church use this particular figure a lot.) | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of
sins. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
a) I think that he has a rather witty .sig file. It sums up a great
deal of atheistic thought (IMO) in one simple sentence.
b) Atheism isn't an "other religion".
| 0 | alt.atheism |
I finished reading a very good book, "The Will of God", Weatherhead.
This was very helpful to me in applying thought to the subject of the
will of God.
Weatherhead broke the will of God into three distinct parts;
intentional will, circumstancial will, and ultimate will. He
(Weatherhead) also refuted the last statement (above) by Michael
Parkin above quite nicely.
Summarizing; _despite_ the failures of humankind, God's ultimate will
is never to be defeated. God's intentions may be interfered with,
even temporarily defeated by the will of humankind, brought down by
circumstance. His ultimate will (the reconcilication of all
humankind) will never be stopped.
Time after time, Weatherhead used the Cross as the best description of
this process at work. His points, paraphrased, were 1) God's
intentional will was for Jesus, the Christ, to live out a full life
and perform the work of the Living God. 2) The failures, sins, and
deviousness of humankind frustrated God's intent for His Son. 3)
Despite the circumstance, God's ultimate will was revealed in the
Cross, as Jesus willingly ("not my will, Lord, but yours") died for
the redemption of all humankind. The Cross was utterly triumphant,
overcoming even the most cruel of circumstances.
It was not the intentional will of God. It was the circumstancial
will, thus enabling the victory of the ultimate will.
Right, intentional will.
(Just like the Jewish people
We know neither the time nor the place. He will return as a thief in the night.
Peace.
Rob
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
(excess stuff deleted...)
I know of a similar incident about 3 years ago. A climatologist( Ithink
that was his profession) named Iben Browning predicted that an earthquake
would hit the New Madrid fault on Dec.3. Some schools in Missouri that were
on the fault line actually cancelled school for the day. Many people
evacuated New Madrid and other towns in teh are. I wouldn't be suprised if
there were more journalists in the area than residents. Of course, teh
earthquake never occured. HOw do I know about his? I used to live in
Southern Illinois and the lican middle school was built directly on the
fault line. No we still had school... We laughed at the poor idiots who
believed the prediction. :):):):)
Bob, if you're wanting an excuse to convert to Christianity, you gonna have
to look elsewhere. | 0 | alt.atheism |
I would be happy to discuss the issue of the 12 Imams with you, although
my preference would be to move the discussion to another
newsgroup. I feel a philosophy
or religion group would be more appropriate. The topic is deeply
embedded in the world view of Islam and the
esoteric teachings of the Prophet (S.A.). Heresy does not enter
into it at all except for those who see Islam only as an exoteric
religion that is only nominally (if at all) concerned with the metaphysical
substance of man's being and nature.
A good introductory book (in fact one of the best introductory
books to Islam in general) is Murtaza Mutahhari's "Fundamental's
of Islamic Thought - God, Man, and the Universe" - Mizan Press,
translated by R. Campbell. Truly a beautiful book. A follow-up book
(if you can find a decent translation) is "Wilaya - The Station
of the Master" by the same author. I think it also goes under the
title of "Master and Mastership" - It's a very small book - really
just a transcription of a lecture by the author.
The introduction to the beautiful "Psalms of Islam" - translated
by William C. Chittick (available through Muhammadi Trust of
Great Britain) is also an excellent introduction to the subject. We
have these books in our University library - I imagine any well
stocked University library will have them.
From your posts, you seem fairly well versed in Sunni thought. You
should seek to know Shi'ite thought through knowledgeable
Shi'ite authors as well - at least that much respect is due before the
charge of heresy is levelled. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Perhaps because you just made it up? | 0 | alt.atheism |
The quick answer: Revelation 12:7-9
"And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against
the dragon and his angels who fought back. But he [the dragon] was
not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great
dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent, called the devil and
Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled down to the
earth, and his angels with him."
The earlier part of chapter 12 deals (very symbolically) with why
Satan rose up in battle against Michael and the good angels in the
first place. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
First, off I'd say that the impact if right before your eyes! 8-) That we are
even discussing this is a major impact in and of itself. Further, the early
church bears testimony to the impact.
Of course they knew where it was. Don't forget that Jesus was seen by both
the Jews and the Romans as a troublemaker. Pilate was no fool and didn't
need the additional headaches of some fishermen stealing Jesus' body to
make it appear He had arisen. Since Jesus was buried in the grave of a
man well know to the Sanhedrin, to say that they didn't know where He was
buried begs the question.
Now, you say that you think that the disciples stole the body. But think on
this a moment. Would you die to maintain something you KNEW to be a
deliberate lie!? If not, then why do you think the disciples would!? Now, I'm
not talking about dying for something you firmly believe to be the truth,
but unbeknown to you, it is a lie. Many have done this. No, I'm talking about
dying, by beheading, stoning, crucifixion, etc., for something you know to
be a lie! Thus, you position with regards to the disciples stealing the
body seems rather lightweight to me.
As for graverobbers, why risk the severe penalties for grave robbing over
the body of Jesus? He wasn't buried with great riches. So, again, this is
an argument that can be discounted.
That leaves you back on square one. What happened to the body!?
IHL, Gene
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80 | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
There is a certain truth to this statement. Only I would use the word
"medicine" instead of drug. With regard to the condition of the human
soul, Christianity is first and foremost a healing medicine. It also
strengthens and enables one, as healing takes hold, to grow in new
strength and health to live and be and to do that for which God created
us.
Christ's medicine, rightly allowed to work, brings one nearer to
reality and offers the clarity of understanding and the strength
of spirit with which to meet it in a healthy human way.
(small spelling correction added) | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
From time to time I have made reference to a book called "The Two Babylons"
which is a book written by Alexander Hislop (mid 1800's) about the Babylonian
mystery religion and its flight through history. I was unable to put it down
the first time I read it, but others have found it dry. It has numberable
references and illustrations. If you are interested in purchasing your own
copy, you can call Moody Book Store @ (312)329-4352 and order it for $16.99 and
they will ship it to you.
It is a good book just to get the reference titles for your own digs into the
mystery religions. I have found it invaluable for that purpose alone. But for
those who only want to skim the subject, it comes highly recommended.
Just a note to my RC brothers and sisters. You may find this to be a
diatribe or you may find it to be a test to the origin and true nature of the
origin of RCism. If you are offended by anything that asks hard questions
about your denomination (as to whether or not it is "Christian") then perhaps
you should just passover this offer. To those who are a little more
adventurous, go for it and later, please contact me with you reasons pro or con
on the scholorship of this book. I really would be interested. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Dear Defiant (or Unfaithful or Pixie):
I will take up the challenge to reply, as I am a theist.
The foundation for faith in God is reason, without which the existence
of God could not be proven. That His existence can be proven by reason
is indisputable (cf. my short treatise, "Traditional Proofs for the
Existence of God," and Summa Theologica).
Now, given that God exists, and that His existence can be proven by reason,
I assert that His commands must be followed blindly, although in our fallen
condition we must always have some measure of doubt about our faith. Why?
Because God is the First Cause of all things, the First Mover of matter,
the Independent Thing that requires nothing else for its existence, the
Measure of all that is perfect, and the essential Being who gives order
to the universe (logos).
I next assert that God is all good. If this is so, then that which is
contrary to the will of God is evil; i.e., the absence of the good. And,
since God can never contradict Himself, then by His promise of a Savior
as early as the Protoevangelium of Genesis 3:5, God instructs that because
a human (Adam) was first responsible for man's alienation from the Source
of all good, a man would be required to act to restore the friendship.
Thus God became incarnate in the person of the Messiah.
Now this Messiah claimed that He is the Truth (John 14:6). If this claim
is true, then we are bound by reason to follow Him, who is truth incarnate.
You next seem to have a problem with authority. Have you tried the United
States Marine Corps yet? I can tell you first-hand that it is an excellent
instructor in authority. If you have not yet had the privilege, I will
reply that the authority which is Truth Incarnate may never be questioned,
and thus must be followed blindly. One may NOT deny the truth. For
example, when the proverbial apple fell on Isaac Newton's head, he could
have denied that it happened, but he did not. The laws of physics must
be obeyed whether a human likes them or not. They are true.
Therefore, the Authority which is Truth may not be denied.
QED
--
boundary | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Yes, worshipping Jesus as the super-saver is indeed hero-worshipping
of the grand scale. Worshipping Lenin that will make life pleasant
for the working people is, eh, somehow similar, or what.
The notion of Lenin was on the borderline of supernatural insights
into how to change the world, he wasn't a communist God, but he was
the man who gave presents to kids during Christmas.
Don't know what they were, but they were fanatics indeed.
Cheers,
Kent | 0 | alt.atheism |
One interpretation I've heard of this verse is that it refers to the sin
of physically abusing one's wife. The husband is usually physically
stronger than his wife but is not permitted to use this to dominate her.
He must honor her as his sister in Christ. This would therefore be an
example of a specific sin that blocks prayer.
This verse also makes me think of the kind of husband who decides what
is God's will for his family without consulting his wife. God reveals
His will to both the husband and the wife. There needs to be some
degree of mutuality in decision making. Even those whose understanding
of the Bible leads to a belief in an authoritarian headship of the
husband need to incorporate this in order to have a functional family.
One way to look at it is that God speaks to the wife through the husband
and to the husband through the wife.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
(Deletion)
Read a history book, Fred. And tell me why so many religions command to
commit genocide when it has got nothing to do with religion. Or why so many
religions say that not living up to the standards of the religion is worse
than dieing? Coincidence, I assume. Or ist part of the absolute morality
you describe so often? | 0 | alt.atheism |
If you want to live with someone, you can.
If you don't want to have a civil marriage, don't.
If you don't want to have a wedding in a church, don't.
If you want to call that a marriage, go right ahead.
I hope that the young people that are around you, don't follow your example.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The book is called "27 basic fundamental beliefs" or something very close to
that. the number *IS* 27, not 30. I have a copy at home (i'm away at
school.) | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
: When the object of their belief is said to be perfect and make the believers
: act in a certain way and we observe that they don't, we have a contradiction.
: Something defined contradictorily cannot exist. That what the believe in does
: not exist. Secondly, there are better explanations for why they believe than
: the existence of the object of their belief.
:
:
: Have you read the FAQ already?
: Benedikt
Benedikt,
I can't recall anyone claiming that God -makes- anyone act a particlar
way, I think that you're attempting to manufacture a contradiction.
God is said to require certain behavior, but the only compulsion is
the believer's sense of duty. A standard of conduct does exist, but we
are free to ignore it or misunderstand it or distort it in whatever
ways we find convenient, but our response to God's edicts can in no
way be used to question God's existence. The behavior of believers is
a completely separate question from that of God's existence; there is
nothing contradictory here.
To say that something defined contadictorily cannot exist, is really
asking too much; you would have existence depend on grammar. All you
can really say is that something is poorly defined, but that in itself
is insufficient to decide anything (other than confusion of course).
Your point that there are better reasons for the phenomenon of belief
than the object of belief may lead to a rat's nest of unnecessary
complexity. I think I know what you're implying, but I'd like to see
your version of this better alternative just the same. | 0 | alt.atheism |
As to what that headpiece is....
(by [email protected])
SOURCE: AP NEWSWIRE
The Vatican, Home Of Genetic Misfits?
Michael A. Gillow, noted geneticist, has revealed some unusual data
after working undercover in the Vatican for the past 18 years. "The
Popehat(tm) is actually an advanced bone spur.", reveals Gillow in his
groundshaking report. Gillow, who had secretly studied the innermost
workings of the Vatican since returning from Vietnam in a wheel chair,
first approached the scientific community with his theory in the late
1950's.
"The whole hat thing, that was just a cover up. The Vatican didn't
want the Catholic Community(tm) to realize their leader was hefting
nearly 8 kilograms of extraneous bone tissue on the top of his
skull.", notes Gillow in his report. "There are whole laboratories in
the Vatican that experiment with tissue transplants and bone marrow
experiments. What started as a genetic fluke in the mid 1400's is now
scientifically engineered and bred for. The whole bone transplant idea
started in the mid sixties inspired by doctor Timothy Leary
transplanting deer bone cells into small white rats." Gillow is quick
to point out the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II and the
disappearance of Dr. Leary from the public eye.
"When it becomes time to replace the pope", says Gillow, "The old pope
and the replacement pope are locked in a padded chamber. They butt
heads much like male yaks fighting for dominance of the herd. The
victor emerges and has earned the privilege of inseminating the choir
boys."
P. | 0 | alt.atheism |
There are a lot of people running around saying "God told me this" and
"God told me that" these days. Some people really have heard God, and others
heard their glands. Mario Murrillo mentioned this in a sermon once. He
said someone told him, "The Lord gave me a song." He said that it was
the worst song he had ever heard.
"I know why he gave you that song," Murillo said, "He didn't want it anymore."
But God does still speak to His people today, and the idea is contrary to the
idea of a closed cannon. Ireneaus wrote about all the gifts of the Spirit
in the church of His day (2nd and 3rd century) and he was one of the first
to put forth a New Testament cannon, which was almost identical to the one
we have today. He believed in a closed cannon.
Many prophets prophesied prophecies which were not recorded in the Scriptures.
For example, one prophet in Kings, whose name starts with an "M" who
prophecied that the king would lose a battle. That is the only prophecy
he gave recorded in Scripture, and we no that he had given other prophecies
because the king complained before he heard the prophecy, "He never prophesies
anything good about me." Yet only one little paragraph of all of his
lifetime of prophecies are recorded in Scripture. There are numerous examples.
Barnabas was a prophet, Acts says, before he was even sent out as an
apostle. Yet his writings are not recorded in Scripture. Only two of
Agabus prophecies are mentioned in Scripture. He was already a prophet
before he gave them.
So prophecy may be genuine and from God, but that does not make it
Scripture.
I don't know about translations of Scripture, but I am familiar with
prophecies that give applications for Scripture. There are also
similar examples in the Bible. Several times Peter interprets prophecies
in a seemingly prophetic way, for example, "And his bishoprick let another
take" concerning Judas office.
A clearer example can be found in Matthew 24. Jesus is prophesying about
what will happen before His return and He quotes a passage out of Joel
about the sun being darkened and the moon turning to blood. So Scriptural
prophecy can be used in later prophecy.
Sometimes this sort of thing can cross over into being a word of knowledge,
but gifts of the Spirit seem to overlap. Words of knowledge and wisdom
can overlap. The word of knowledge and prophecy can overlap.
Interpretation of tounges is very similar to prophecy. Healings are often
considered miracles. So sometimes the distinction between gifts is a
bit hazy. Imho, it doesn't usually matter that much if we are able to
label a phenomenon, as long as we recognize them as the work of the
Spirit, and use them according to His leading. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
(Deletion)
No cookies, Charlie. The claims that Jesus have been seen are discredited
as extraordinary claims that don't match their evidence. In this case, it
is for one that the gospels cannot even agree if it was Jesus who has been
seen. Further, there are zillions of other spook stories, and one would
hardly consider others even in a religious context to be some evidence of
a resurrection.
There have been more elaborate arguments made, but it looks as if they have
not passed your post filtering.
It is no evidence in the strict meaning. If there was actual evidence it would
probably be part of it, but the says nothing about the claims.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
> I realize I'm entering this discussion rather late, but I do
>have one question. Wasn't it a Reagan appointee, James Watt, a
>pentacostal christian (I think) who was the secretary of the interior
>who saw no problem with deforestation since we were "living in the
>last days" and ours would be the last generation to see the redwoods
>anyway?
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 |
Where in the Bible is there *any* teaching about an immaterial afterlife?
I was always taught that both the O.T. Jews and the N.T. Christians would
have found the notion incomprehensible--as do I.
Don't we christians believe in the resurrection of the body?
Or do you mean by material simply the stuff made of the 100+ elements
that we know and love too much?
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
: Having met Peter Kingston (of WBT) some years back, he struck me
: as an exemplery and dedicated Christian whose main concern was with
: translation of the Word of God and the welfare of the people
: group he was serving.
: WBT literature is concerned mainly with providing Scripture
: in minority languages.
Yes, in fact Peter is now at Wycliffe HQ in the U.K., and is a member of my
church. I would fully endorse the above -- Peter is a very Godly man, with a
passion for serving Christ.
On one occasion he specifically addressed the issue of ``cultural
interference'' in a sermon, presumably from his experience of allegations
directed at Wycliffe. (Perhaps I could find the tape...?) | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Yes.
Please describe these "number of ways" in detail. Then explain the any
contradictions that may arise.
Define "difficult".
Explain the laws in America stating that you have to drive on the right-
hand side of the road.
So if every member of the species was homosexual, this wouldn't be destructive
to the survival of the species?
The whole "theory" needs to be reexamined... | 0 | alt.atheism |
Hi Xian Netters, God bless you
CONTENTS
1. intro
2. love your neighbor
3. reaction to posts
a. purpose
b. eternal life
I've been reading this news group religiously =) for about a month.
Sometimes It really gives me what I need, spiritually. At other times I
get a little IRATE.
There are all kinds of people in every group and I take offense at
intolerance. It's awfully hard to tolerate such people. =) ( OOPS! I've
gone over my smiley quota already and it's only the second paragraph =(.
IMHO they should follow the commandment to love thy neighbor and leave
the judging up to GOD.
SPECIFICALLY:
one's sexual orientation is part of one's self
love the sinner hate the sin DOES NOT APPLY
Pay attention fundaligionists. Love your neighbor wether you like it
or not. I'd be happy to get flamed endlessly and loose scripture
quotation contests galore to defend this point. I beleive this is
correct.
BTW Love the sinner hate the sin is a slippery slope, with hatred at the
bottom.
INCREDIBLY CHOPPED UP POST
I won't even try to tell you where the deletions came out
I find that I am dissatisfied with the little purposes that we can
manufacture for ourselves. Little in the cosmic sense. Even the
greatest of the great pharos are long gone, the pyramids historical
oddities being worn down by the wind, eventually to be turned into dust.
Mankind itself will one day perish. Without some interconnectedness
that transcends the physical, without God, it is all pointless in the
end. Most people are able to live with that, and for them little
purposes (success, money, power, effecting change, helping others)
suffice. I suppose they never think about the cosmic scale, or are at
least able to put it out of their minds.
To me, it is comforting to know that reality is an illusion. That the
true reality underneath the the physical is spirit. That this world is
a school of sorts, where we learn and grow, and our souls mature. That
gives a purpose to my little purposes, and takes some of the pressure
off. It's not so necessary to make this life a success in human terms
if you're really just here to learn. It's more important to progress,
grow, persist, to learn to love yourself and others and to express your
love, especially when it's dificult to do so. Honest effort is rewarded
by God, he knows our limitations.
Interesting theological question. I have a feeling that most common
perception of eternal life is WAY off base. If I were to be imprisoned
in the limited ego/mind I am in now I doubt I would choose imortality.
It would get awfully boring.
TWO SERIOUS QUESTIONS/INVITATIONS TO DISCUSSION
1. What is the nature of eternal life?
2. How can we as mortals locked into space time conceive of it? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
In 12-step programs (like Alcoholics Anonymous), one of the steps
involves acknowleding a "higher power". AA and other 12-step abuse-
recovery programs are acknowledged as being among the most effective.
Unfortunately, as evidence for God, this can be dismissed by stating
that the same defect of personality makes substance abusers as makes
people 'religious', and the debunker could perhaps acknowledge that
being religious is a better crutch than being a drug addict, but
still maintain that both are escapism. (And I suspect that there
are some atheists who would find the substance abuse preferable to
Christianity.)
I think that an essential problem with communication between Christ-
ians and atheists is that as Christians we necessarily see ourselves
as incomplete, and needing God (the 'God-shaped hole'), while atheists
necessarily see themselves as self-sufficient. If the atheists are
right, Christians are guilty of being morally weak, and too cowardly
to stand up for themselves; if the Christians are right, the atheists
are guilty of considerable arrogance. (I use the term atheist to
refer to a person who has a definite conviction that there is no God,
as opposed to one who does not know and/or does not care about God.)
==
Seanna Watson Bell-Northern Research, | Pray that at the end of living,
([email protected]) Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Of philosophies and creeds,
| God will find his people busy
Opinion, what opinions? Oh *these* opinions. | Planting trees and sowing seeds.
No, they're not BNR's, they're mine. |
I knew I'd left them somewhere. | --Fred Kaan | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Hello, I am about to embark on a bible study on ACTS. I have online
bible software with me. I would like to know the the background of the
authors of its various topics articles and about the author of the
People's New Testament. I need to know how realible is the articles in
the Online Bible software. Specifically (for your convenience) I want to
know about the :
1. Darby Translation ( I have never heard of this one)
2. Young's Literal Translation (I have also never heard
of)
3. The realiability of the Hebrew/Greek Lexicon
4. The authors (from which denomination etc) of the
articles in the TOPICS modules.
5. The realiability of the Treasury of Scripture
Knowlege ( as I have never heard of too)
6. Who are the commentators, Scofield and B.W. Johnson
who wrote the Scofield Reference Bible and the People's New Testament respectively
7. The realiability of the Strong numbers.
I will be most happy to receive a reply of any of you who knows about
the above. Also, please 'qualify' yourself so that I may know that I am
not receiving a 'rubbish' letter. I just want to make sure.
Wilfred Ling
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Reading newspapers to learn about this kind of stuff is not the best idea in
the world. Newspaper reporters are notoriously ignorant on the subject of
religion, and are prone to exaggeration in the interests of having a "real"
story (that is, a bigger headline).
Let's back up to 1935. At this point, we have the Masoretic text, the
various targums (translations/commentaries in aramaic, etc.), and the
Septuagint, the ancient greek translation. The Masoretic text is the
standard Jewish text and essentially does not vary. In some places it has
obvious corruptions, all of which are copied faithfully from copy to copy.
These passages in the past were interpreted by reference to the targums and
to the Septuagint.
Now, the septuagint differs from the masoretic text in two particulars:
first, it includes additional texts, and second, in some passages there are
variant readings from the masoretic text (in addition to "fixing"/predating
the various corrupted passages). It must be emphasized that, to the best of
my knowledge, these variations are only signifcant to bible scholars, and
have little theological import.
The dead sea scroll materials add to this an ancient *copy* of almost all of
Isaiah and fragments of various sizes of almost all other OT books. There
is also an abundance of other material, but as far as I know, there is no
sign there of any hebrew antecdent to the apocrypha (the extra texts in the
septuagint). As far as analysis has proceeded, there are also variations
between the DSS texts and the masoretic versions. These tend to reflect the
septuagint, where the latter isn't obviously in error. Again, though, the
differences (thus far) are not significant theologically. There is this big
expectation that there are great theological surprises lurking in the
material, but so far this hasn't happened.
The DSS *are* important because there is almost no textual tradition in the
OT, unlike for the NT. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Two follow up's to Mark's last posting:
1. As far as current investigations, the Church recently declared the
crying statue and corresponding messages from Mary at Akita,
Japan as approved (I found this out about a month ago.)
2. Again in the proof department, start with the appearances of Mary
at Fatima. Among other things, there were pictures taken of the
"miracle of the sun" that appeared in some major American newspaper
(The New York Times, I believe) as well as most of the major
European newspapers.
I could talk (or post) for hours on this topic, but...
(I have a thesis to write).
God Bless,
- Mike Walker | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Rick has nailed the problem down pretty well.
As I can find no Scripture (have I missed it ?) that details
when you are married, I have to make some assumptions based
on the PRINCIPLES of Scripture.
It seems to me that it takes 3 parties to make a marriage:
husband-to-be, wife-to-be, and God. If you promise before
each other and God that you will convenant together to be
married, then...you are (IMO).
So why do we have the ceremonial part ? That seems to be
there for "connectedness" in the Body of Christ. My brothers
and sisters ought to be involved so that there can be some
accountability on both our parts. That's part of the concept
from Hebrews about "not forsaking the assembling of yourselves
together as is the custom of some." We need each other because
Lone Ranger Christians and Lone Ranger Marriages smack of a
self sufficiency that the I don't see in the NT. Does anyone
see the Paul Simon "I am a rock, I am an island..." model anywhere
in Christianity. (Song lyrics show your age :-) ) ?
Further, since marriage is a legal matter/institution in the USA
and many other places, and such laws do not specifically go
crosswise to the clear teachings of Scripture, we ought to
obey them to avoid even the appearance of "evil" (I Thess 5:22)
So this would imply at least a civil ceremony before marriage,
but keep in mind we are at least doing all of this for the
conscience of others because back to the beginning...you are
married when you and your intended promise each other and God
to be in convenant. (IMO)
What ch'all think ?
Bobby - akgua!rjb | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Biblical basis for the Immaculate Conception:
1) "I will put enmity between you [the Serpent] and the woman, and
between your seed and her seed, she [can also be read he] shall crush
your head and you shall bruise her [or his] heel."
-Genesis 3.15
2) "He who commits sin is of the devil ..."
-1 John 3.8
3) "Hail, full of grace [greek - kecharitomene], the Lord is with thee ..."
-Luke 1.28
From the above, we prove the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
First, God has given the proto-evangel in Genesis 3.15, which is the
first promise of a savior, who will redeem mankind from the wiles of
Satan. "[Satan] was a murderer from the beginning, and has not stood in
the truth because there is no truth in him." John 8.44. Now the
proto-evangel promises several things, enmity between Satan and "the
woman", and enmity between Satan and "her seed." Now the woman is both
Eve (who is the immediate point of reference) and Mary, the second Eve.
"Her seed" is Jesus Christ, and He is also at enmity with Satan in the
same way as Mary is said to be at enmity with Satan. Thus, knowing as
we do that Jesus Christ is sinless (Hebrews 7.26), we can conclude that
Mary is also sinless because if she wasn't she would 1) not be at enmity
with the devil, as 1 John 3.8 tells us, and 2) the relation of her
sinlessness to Christ's sinlessness would be called into question, as
would God's veracity. For God promised an enmity between Mary and the
serpent, and it is not possible for God to lie or be decieved.
Second, we have the Angelic Greeting where Mary is called by the
Archangle Gabriel "full of grace." As I pointed out above this is from
the Greek word "Kecharitomene" which means not just full of grace, but a
plenitude or perfection of grace. The sense of it is best grasped by
the footnote to the Jerusalem Bible, "Hail you who have been and reamin
filled with grace." But that is a little to long to say, so it is
reduced to full of grace. And as it says, "you who have been" Mary had
always been filled with grace, from the moment of her conception, which
was also the moment of her salvation, until her death some years later.
It must be admitted that it is possible that God could have done
what the doctrine of the Immaclute Conception says He did do. And if
God could keep himself free from any contact with sin, through his
Mother, He would have, and the Bible records this fact, to which the
Fathers of the Church such as St. John Damascus, St. Augustine of Hippo
, St. Ambrose and others are in complete agreement with, as is all of
Christian tradition, and as is the infallible declaration of the Pope on
the matter in "Ineffibilus Deus." | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Hi,
I'd like to subscribe to Leadership Magazine but wonder if there is one on
disk instead of on paper. Having it on disk would save me retyping
illustrations, etc into a word processor. It's just cut and paste.
If there are other good Christian magazines like Leadership on disk media,
I'd appreciate any info. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Which listsev was this and is the discussion still current? My questioning
is based on some information presented from the Essene NT that challenges
some of my eating choices. As the info came from a biased (opposed to my
preferences) third party I am looking for info as to whether I should
dismiss this work or put some consideration into it. Thanks again for info! | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
An interesting interpretation of Revelation 17 and 18 has been given by
evangelist David Wilkerson. I am not saying that I totally agree with his
interpretation, but it is certainly believable and good food for thought. He
interprets the Babylon of Revelation 17-18 as being none other than the good
old U. S. of A. That's right, America. He supports his claim in several ways.
The Babylon of Revelation is THE world leader in trade and commerce, and the
WHOLE WORLD wept when Babylon fell. The American dollar, despite the Japanese
success of the 20th century, is STILL the most sought after currency in the
world. If the U.S. were destroyed, wouldn't the whole world mourn? The bible
also talks about Babylon being a home of harlots, sin, and adultery (I am
paraphrasing, of course). Babylon's sin affected, or should I say, infected,
the whole world. It doesn't take much looking to see that the U.S. is in a
state of moral decay. Hasn't the American culture and Hollywood spread the "do
it if it feels good" mentality all over the world. I think, though, that what
Mr. Wilkerson uses as his strongest argument is the fact that Revelation calls
Babylon "Babylon the Great" and portrays it as the most powerful nation on
earth. No matter how dissatisfied you are with the state of our country, I
don't think you would have too much trouble agreeing that the U.S. is STILL the
most powerful nation on earth.
Again, this interpretation is not NECESSARILY my own, but I do find it worthy
of consideration. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
This is a classic example of excessive faith in reason. The fact that we
have trouble talking about something doesn't imply that it is impossible; it
simply implies that it is hard to talk about. There is a very good chance
that God *can* flibble glop ork groink. Charlie Wingate can flibble glop
ork groink, and he isn't even God. | 0 | alt.atheism |
But of course YOUR version of YOUR position has been included in the
Charley Challenges, so your claim above is a flat-out lie. Further,
only last week you claimed that you "might not" answer the Challenges
because you were turned off by "included text". So which is it, do
you want your context included in my articles or not? Come to think
of it, this contradiction has the makings of a new entry in the next
Challenges post.
By the way, I've kept every bloody thing that you've written related
to this thread, and will be only too pleased to re-post any of it to
back my position. You seem to have forgotten that you leave an
electronic paper trail on the net.
Now, now, let's not change the subject. Wouldn't it be best to finish
up the thread in question before you begin new ones? | 0 | alt.atheism |
One book I have which presents a fairly unbiased account of many religions
is called _Man's Religions_ by John B. Noss. It was a textbook in a class
I had on comparative religion or some such thing. It has some decent
bibliographies on each chapter as a jumping off point for further reading.
It doesn't "compare" religions directly but describes each one individually
and notes a few similarities. But nothing I have read in it could be even
remotely described as preachy or Christian based. In fact, Christianity
mercifully consumes only 90 or so of its nearly 600 pages. The book is
divided according to major regions of the world where the biggies began
(India, East Asia, Near East). There is nothing about New World religions
from the Aztecs, Mayas, Incas, etc. Just the stuff people kill each
other over nowadays. And a few of the older religions snuffed out along
the way. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Sorry for bothering with a request almost irrelevant to anyone except for me:
Could some kind soul provide me with the phone number of
wycliffe center
horsley green high wycomb
bucks hp 14 3 xl
I want to surprise a friend of mine staying there, but I don't have the number.
thanks a lot in advance
Gerhard | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Well, that's the question, isn't it? The goals are probably not all that
obvious. We can set up a few goals, like happiness and liberty and
the golden rule, etc. But these goals aren't inherent. They have to
be defined before an objective system is possible.
It is not too difficult, one you have goals in mind, and absolute
knoweldge of everyone's intent, etc.
Omniscience is fine, as long as information is not given away. Isn't
this the resolution of the free will problem? An interactive omniscient
being changes the situation.
Well, I was speaking about an objective system in general. I didn't
mention a specific goal, which would be necessary to determine the
morality of an action. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Let me tell you my story.
I grew up catholic. Up until I was 14, it wasn't an issue for me. Then I met
a born-again christian, a very sweet person, not proseletyzing(sp?), not
imposing. I tried to get into being as christian as I could, as I felt I
'should'.
But the more I tried, the more depressed I got. I felt guilty for some of my
own personal, honest feelings. I tried so hard to reconcile this conflict.
until I was 23.
Then I taught myself to think rationally. I read a lot of books, pro and con
religion in general and, specifically, catholicism. I came to a crisis point,
then it finally clicked and now I am a staunch atheist.
This is a very loose explanation, but it's the gist of it.
Now, (at 26) I feel better about myself, better self-esteem, a generally
stronger person. I have well-defined goals. I have a strong and stable sense
of morals and values. I am not a neo-nazi or a corrupt politicain, etc. I
believe in human rights and 'live and let live' among other things. I am very
anti-violent and anti-hatred. (This is to debunk the myth that atheists are
depraved.)
Religion has no place in my system.
Tough.
Bertrand Russell said that we cannot *know* god doesn't exist, we can't prove
it. So, in that sense, we can only truly be agnostic. But, for all practical
purposes there is no god. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
If the Anne Frank exhibit makes it to your small little world,
take an afternoon to go see it.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine [email protected]
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea. | 0 | alt.atheism |
The only reason for the death penalty is revenge?? If you are going to
try to refute a position, try to refute the whole position or acknosledge
that you are only speaking to small piece of the problem. Broad sweeping
"the only reason, " etc on as tough nut to crack as the death penalty
reallly doesn't help much.
Every year the FBI releases crime stats showing an overwhelming amount of
crime is committed by repeat offenders. People are killed by folks who
have killed (who knows how many times) before. How aobut folks who are for
the death penalty, not for revenge, but to cut down on recidivism?
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The story I related is one of the seven apparitions
approved by our Church as worthy of belief. It happened
in La Salle, France.
The moral lesson of the story is:
The Lamb of God has been sacrificed and His blood has
been used to cleanse us of our sins every moment as God perceives
worthy of being done in Heaven. Mary weeps for The Lamb and
for the rest of her offsprings. This will continue while we
disobey God or sin against Him. Mary, as a messenger,
has been given the task to make us be 'aware' of the evil
serpent (communism, wars, famine, unfaithful, disobedience
to God, etc.) running after the rest of her offsprings.
The children who went astray by disobedience led by the dragon is
brought back by her peace and loving messages, reparations for sins,
to obey God's commandments and be more worthy to be in the presence
of The Lamb.
As she was conceived without sin to be worthy of bearing the
Son of God in her womb, Mary has been preparing us, the Church,
the Body of Christ, for His second coming (making sure we are
protected from the dragon). Also, she has been preparing the new
Eden, by reversing the deed of the ancient Eve. The new Eden will be
the sanctuary of the righteous as judged by Christ in His
next coming.
I relate the story again:
I believe this and Mary, in one of her apparitions
in 19th or 20th century, she appeared to these
two children who tends goats and cows (I forgot
the exact place). She was weeping and telling the
children that she is afraid she's "going to lose her
Son's arm". She is mourning too for these
townfolks because it was their fault that there
would be drought in their harvest; not much good
food again this year as it was last year.
Mary tells the children:
* Most of the townfolks in this place worked whole *
* week even on Sundays when they should be in church *
* honoring God. These townfolks swears and *
* uses her Son's name in bad words. That is *
why her Son's arm is so heavy in pain.
Then she asked them if they pray. The children
said "hardly". She asked them to pray every
morning and night. When the children went back
from work they had to tell somebody about this.
When the news was spred and after thorough
* investigation of the incident, the townfolks *
* were converted and faith and obedience to God *
* were restored in their community. *
Once again, the Lamb succeeds. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The N A T I O N A L D A Y
o f
P R A Y E R
6 M A Y 1 9 9 3
IMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM;
: :
: JOIN AMERICA IN PRAYER TO: :
: :
: * Acknowledge our dependence upon God; :
: :
: * Give thanks for His many blessings; :
: :
: * Ask God to guide our leaders and to :
: bring healing, reconciliation and whole- :
: ness to our nation and all its people. :
: :
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM<
OUR FOUNDING FATHERS SAID...
George Washington: "I now make it my earnest prayer that God...
(A.D. 1783) would be pleased to dispose us all to do
justice, to love mercy, and to demean
ourselves with charity and humility, and a pacific temper of mind,
which were characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed
Religion, and without an humble imitation of Whose example in
these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation."
John Adams: "It must be felt that there is no national security
(A.D. 1853) but in the nation's humble, acknowledged dependence
upon God and His overruling providence."
Abraham Lincoln: "It is the duty of nations, as well as of men,
(A.D. 1863) to own their dependence upon the overruling
power of God, to confess their sins and
transgressions...and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in
the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations
only are blessed whose God is the Lord..."
NOTE: You can join with people in your area in observing the
NATIONAL DAY Of PRAYER. To learn who is affiliated with
the Concerts Of Prayer group in your area, contact: | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Is it just me, or has this part gotten beyond useful?
Gregg is not, as I understand his posts, giving any support to the bounty
on Rushdie's life. If that's correct, end of one point...
Gregg is using the concept of legal in a way most Westerners don't accept.
His comments about Islamic Law I think make a great deal of sense to him,
and are even making a _little_ sense to me now - if a person is a member
of a group (religion or whatever) they bind themselves to follow the ways
of the group within the bounds of what the group requires as a minimum.
The big bone of contention here that I'm picking up is that in the West
we have secular governments that maintain, more or less, a level of control
and of requirements outside the requirements of optional groups. I think
the majority of us reading this thread are in tune (note - I didn't say
"in agreement") with the idea that you are finally responsible to the
secular government, and within that to the group or groups a person may
have chosen.
With that in mind, it not possible under secular law ("legally" as most
people would define the term) to hold a person to a particular group once
they decide to separate from it. Only if the secular authorities agree
that there is a requirement of some sort (contractual, etc) is there
any secular _enforcement_ allowed by a group to a group member or past
group member.
A religion can, and often does, believe in and require additional duties
of a group member. And it can enforce the fulfillment of those duties
in many ways - ostracism is common for example. But the limit comes when
the enforcement would impose unwanted and/or unaccepted onus on a person
_in conflict with secular law_.
This is the difference. In a theocracy, the requirements of the secular
authorities are, by definition, congruent with the religious authorities.
Outside a theocracy, this is not _necessarily_ true. Religious requirements
_may_ coincide or may not. Similiarly, religious consequences _may_ or
may not coincide with secular consequences (if any).
Regards,
Dew | 0 | alt.atheism |
Fred Rice answered this already in an early posting:
"The problem with your argument is that you do not _know_ who is a _real_
believer and who may be "faking it". This is something known only by
the person him/herself (and God). Your assumption that anyone who
_claims_ to be a "believer" _is_ a "believer" is not necessarily true."
In other words it seems that nobody could define who is a true and
false Muslim. We are back to square one, Khomeini and Hussein are
still innocent and can't be defined as evil or good Islamic
worshippers.
Cheers,
Kent
| 0 | alt.atheism |
I agree we need sleep & etc, but I disagree we are _just_ animals.
That statement is a categorical negative; it's like saying there are
_no_ polkadoted elephants. It may be true but one would have to be
omniscient to know for sure.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I think this is a misnomer.
But, this just shows then that painful execution is not considered
"cruel" and unusual punishment. This shows that "cruel" as used in the
constitution does NOT refer to whether or not the punishment causes physical
pain.
Rather, it must be a different meaning.
---
" I'd Cheat on Hillary Too." | 0 | alt.atheism |
Some variant is quite popular. This, and other arguments, are
discussed in John Leslie Mackie's "The Miracle of Theism: arguments
for and against the existence of God". Although Mackie ultimately
sides with "against", his arguments are, I think, quite fair to both
sides. Brief discussions can be found in the alt.atheism FAQs. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
That's not true. I gave you two examples. One was the rather
pevasive anti-semitism in German Christianity well before Hitler
arrived. The other was the system of social ranks that were used
in Imperail Germany and Austria to distinguish Jews from the rest
of the population.
Neither of these were very terrible in themselves, but both helped
to set a psychology in which the gradual disenfranchisement of Jews
was made easier. | 0 | alt.atheism |
I apologize for the long delay in getting a response to this posted.
I've been working reduced hours the past couple of weeks because I had
a son born (the day after Umar's article was posted, btw). I did
respond within a couple of days, but it turns out that a a
coincidental news software rearrangement caused postings from this
site to silently disappear rather than going out into the world. This
is a revision of that original response.
[this was in response to the claim that "Rushdie made false statements
about the life of Mohammed", with the disclaimer "(fiction, I know,
but where is the line between fact and fiction?) - I stand by this
distinction between fiction and "false statements"]
I had not seen that claim, or I might have been less sweeping. You
have made what I consider factual misstatements about events in the
book, which I have raised in the past, in the "ISLAM: a clearer view"
thread as well as the root of the "Yet more Rushdie [Re: ISLAMIC LAW]"
thread. My statement was not that you had not read the book, but that
you had not convinced me that you [inter alia] had. As I said before,
if you want to defend your position, then produce evidence, and
respond to the evidence I have posted; so far you have not. Of
course, my statement was not directly aimed at you, but broadly at a
number of Muslim posters who have repeated propaganda about the book,
indicating that they haven't read it, and narrowly at Gregg Jaeger,
who subsequently admitted that he hadn't in fact read the book,
vindicating my skepticism in at least that one case.
So far, the only things I have to go on regarding your own case are a)
the statements you made concerning the book in the "a clearer view"
posting, which I have challenged (not interpretation, but statements
of fact, for instance "Rushdie depicts the women of the most
respected family in all of Islam as whores"), and b) your claim (which
I had not seen before this) that you have indeed read it cover to
cover. I am willing to try to resolve this down to a disagreement on
critical interpretation, but you'll have to support your end, by
responding to my criticism. I have no doubt as to the ability of a
particular Muslim to go through this book with a highlighter finding
passages to take personal offense at, but you have upheld the view
that "TSV *is* intended as an attack on Islam and upon Muslims". This
view must be defended by more than mere assertion, if you want anyone
to take it seriously.
And I appreciate it, but welcome to the club. I am defending my
honest opinion that this book should not be construed as a calculated
(or otherwise) insulting attack on Islam, and the parallel opinion
that most of the criticism of the book I have seen is baseless
propaganda. I have supported my statements and critical
interpretationa with in-context quotes from the book and Rushdie's
essays, which is more than my correspondents have done. Of course,
you are more than welcome to do so. | 0 | alt.atheism |
No, that's praying on the young. Preying on the young comes
later, when the bright eyed little altar boy finds out what the
priest really wears under that chasible.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine [email protected]
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea. | 0 | alt.atheism |
(Deletion)
(Deletion)
An universe it has created. By the way, can you tell me why it is less
tyrannic to let one of one's own creatures do what it likes to others?
By your definitions, your god has created Satan with full knowledge what
would happen - including every choice of Satan.
Can you explain us what Free Will is, and how it goes along with omniscience?
Didn't your god know everything that would happen even before it created the
world? Why is it concerned about being a tyrant when noone would care if
everything was fine for them? That the whole idea comes from the possibility
to abuse power, something your god introduced according to your description?
| 0 | alt.atheism |
At the cost of repudiating the FAQ, I think too much is made of the
strong vs weak atheism issue, although in the context of alt.atheism,
where we're continually attacked on the basis that strong atheists
"believe" in the non-existence of god, I think the separation is a
valid one.
To cover my arse, what I'm trying to say is that there is an
infinitely grey area between weak and strong, as well as between
strong and the unattainable mathematical atheism (I wish!). Whereas I
_logically_ can only support the weak atheist position, in effect I am
a strong atheist (and wish I could be a mathematical one). To
justify my strong atheist position I believe I need only show that
the evidence presented in favour of any of the gods under scrutiny
is faulty.
If I read the FAQ correctly, no argument for the existence of god
(generic, as represented by mainstream theologians) has ever been
found to be unassailable. To me this is adequate evidence that the
_real_god_ is undefinable (or at least no definition has yet been
found to be watertight), which in turn I accept as sufficient to
base a disbelief in each and every conceivable god.
I'm a little fuzzy on the edges, though, so opinions are welcome
(but perhaps we should change the thread subject). | 0 | alt.atheism |
Our Lord and Savior David Keresh has risen!
He has been seen alive!
Spread the word!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 0 | alt.atheism |
Correction:
|The story I related is one of the seven apparitions
|approved by our Church as worthy of belief. It happened
|in La Salle, France.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That should be La Salette, France, 1846.
I must admit, geography is not my forte.
|[...]
|Once again, the Lamb succeeds. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.