text
stringlengths 1
51k
| label
int64 0
15
| label_text
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
How about this description: "An object that is, at one time, both a
Euclidean square and a Euclidean circle"? I hold that no object satisfying
this description could exist. The description is inconsistent, and hence
describes an object that could not exist.
Now, suppose someone pointed to a bicycle, and said, "That object is,
at one time, both a Euclidean square and a Euclidean circle." This does
not mean that the bicycle does not exist, it measn that the description
was incorrectly applied.
The atheist says, "The descriptions of God that I have been presented with
are contradictory, and hence describe something that cannot exist."
Now, your position (so far as I can gather) is that God exists, but the
descriptions atheists have been presented with are simply bad descriptions
of It.
This is roughly analogous to someone who has never seen a bicycle, and,
when they ask for a description from people who claim to have seen one,
are told that it is a "Euclidean circle-square". Can they be blamed for
doubting rather strongly that this 'bicycle' exists at all?
No kidding. :->
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles [email protected] | 0 | alt.atheism |
More info please. I'm not well exposed to these ideas.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine [email protected]
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea. | 0 | alt.atheism |
You could take my wrongly spelled surname :-).
Cheers,
Kent Sandvik | 0 | alt.atheism |
Poor Matthew. A million posters to call "you car drivers" and he
chooses me, a non car owner. | 0 | alt.atheism |
No wonder in the light of that you are a probably a theist who tries
to pass as an agnostic. I still remember your post about your daughter
singing Chrismas Carols and your feelings of it well. | 0 | alt.atheism |
7. Massacre of Jews in WWII: 6.3 million
8. Massacre of other 'inferior races' in WWII: 10 million
9. Communist purges: 20-30 million? [Socialism is more or less a religion]
10. Catholics V Protestants : quite a few I'd imagine
11. Recent goings on in Bombay/Iodia (sp?) area: ??
12. Disease introduced to Brazilian * oher S.Am. tribes: x million
The Desert Brat | 0 | alt.atheism |
Hi,
Does anyone know anything about this group and what they
do? Any info would be appreciated. Thanks!
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Oh yea? Which version of the Bible is the perfectly preserved one? And
why are there so many translations that are not perfectly preserved? Is
God trying to confuse us?
But that is exactly what happend. There are so many branches of
denominations of Christianity and deviations of doctrine portruding
from varying translations of biblical texts by "serious students" that
are much too numerous to begin to count. If there is a Perfect Bible,
then there would be no possible misinterpretation and there would be
no need for anyone here to be debating it. On the other hand, maybe
the Bible is perfect, but no one on this planet is perfect enough to
read it correctly, but then there would be no point in God giving us
something we cannot use correctly.
IMHO, if you trust your salvation on the reliability of a single book,
you are on weak ground. Remember, In the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This Word existed BEFORE
the Bible was written. (Note: Word <==> God). This Word that John is
trying to describe cannot be fully described in any written language,
all languages being IMPERFECT. Realization comes only from contemplation
of the Word, and is outside the boundaries of language. I use the Bible
as a guide, a stepping stone, but in no way is it my final authority.
God alone is the final authority. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
More correctly: when people die, they cease to exist.
The idea I've gotten is that to christians, Hell is -- like Heaven --
afterlife; i.e, you don't cease to exist, but are subjected to eternal
torture (well, that's the orthodox idea anyway; "eternal death" if you
prefer that). Atheists don't believe in any sort of afterlife.
I think it's safe to say that Hell was never intended metaphorical. Certainly
not the equivalent of ceasing to exist. Some christian concepts are indeed
metaphors, but your idea of Hell is a 20th century interpretation. It is, of
course, nice to see that even christianity might evolve to fit the worldview
of modern age, but I fear the church will not accept it. Understandably, per-
haps, because if you accept that Hell is a metaphor, then you're one step
closer to turning God into a metaphor as well. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the
kingdom of heaven. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
J> YOU BLASHEPHEMERS!!! YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL FOR NOT BELIEVING IN GOD!!!! BE
J> PREPARED FOR YOUR ETERNAL DAMNATION!!!
Hmm, I've got my MST3K lunch box, my travel scrabble, and a couple of
kegs of Bass Ale. I'm all set! Let's go everybody! | 0 | alt.atheism |
: [ The discussion begins: why does the universe exist at all? ]
: One of the Laws of Nature, specifying cause and effect seems to dictate
: (at least to this layman's mind) there must be a causal event. No
: reasonable alternative exists.
I would argue that causality is actually a property of spacetime;
causes precede their effects. But if you claim that there must be
an answer to "how" did the universe (our spacetime) emerge from
"nothing", science has some good candidates for an answer.
I have always wondered why Christians use the "There are questions
science (or atheism) cannot answer" argument; I hope this is the
appropriate group to ask this question.
The most popular question is the question of origins. Why does the
universe exist, or anything, for that matter?
I think this question should actually be split into two parts, namely
1) Why is there existence? Why anything exists?
and
2) How did the universe emerge from nothing?
It is clear science has nothing to say about the first question. However,
is it a meaningful question, after all?
I would say it isn't. Consider the following:
A die-hard skeptic being (be it human or whatever) attempts to doubt
one's very existence. Since it is so easy to doubt everything else -
I cannot be _sure_ the world exists, it may be my mind fooling me -
can I ever be sure I exist?
However, it is only possible to exist or not to exist. (Someone
insert an appropriate Shakespeare quote here ;-) )
A being that does not exist cannot doubt one's existence.
A being that does exist can doubt one's existence, but this would be
pointless - the being would exist anyway.
Let us return to the original question: why? A being that does not
exist does not need any reasons for its non-existence. This being
is not _sure_ whether anything else exists but his mind, but let
us assume that the world exists independent of the mind (the objectivity
postulate). The question "why anything exists" can be countered by
demanding answer to a question "why there is nothing in nothingness,
or in non-existence". Actually, both questions turn out to be
devoid of meaning. Things that exist do, and things that don't exist
don't exist. Tautology at its best.
I seriously doubt God could have an answer to this question.
Some Christians I have talked to have said that actually, God is
Himself the existence. However, I see several problems with this
answer. First, it inevitably leads to the conclusion that God is
actually _all_ existence, good and evil, devils and angels, us and
them. This is pantheism, not Christianity.
Another answer is that God is the _source_ of all existence.
This sounds much better, but I am tempted to ask: Does God
Himself exist, then? If God is the source of His own existence,
it can only mean that He has, in terms of human time, always
existed. But this is not the same as the source of all existence.
This argument sounds like God does not exist, but meta-exists,
and from His meta-existent perspective, He created existence.
I think this is actually a nonsolution, a mere twist of words.
The best answer I have heard is that human reasoning is incapable
of understanding such questions. Being an atheist myself, I do not
accept such answers, since I do not have any other methods.
The second question: How did the universe emerge from nothing?
belongs to the domain of science, and I, for one, do not doubt the
question can be answered by its methods. Many cosmologists have
suggested that it is entirely possible for universes to emerge
from vacuum (this possibility has been suggested in a recent
Hawking biography; see also Lizhi & Shuxian: Creation of the Universe,
World Scientific, 1989). However, I think the sci groups are more
appropriate for discussions like this.
: As far as I can tell, the very laws of nature demand a "why". That isn't
: true of something outside of nature (i.e., *super*natural).
This is not true. Science is a collection of models telling us "how",
not why, something happens. I cannot see any good reason why the "why"
questions would be bound only to natural things, assuming that the
supernatural domain exists. If supernatural beings exist, it is
as appropriate to ask why they do so as it is to ask why we exist.
: I believe the "genetic code" will be entirely deciphered in our lifetimes,
: but we will not see man convert entirely inert material into self sustaining,
: reproducing life, *ever*. (I've never been much of a prophet, though. I
: can't even *picture* New York in my mind 8^] ). I don't believe *any*
: technology would be able to produce that necessary *spark* of life, despite
: having all of the parts available. Just my opinion.
This opinion is also called vitalism; namely, that living systems are
somehow _fundamentally_ different from inanimate systems. Do Christians
in general adopt this position? What would happen when scientists announce
they have created primitive life (say, small bacteria) in a lab?
There is a problem with your prophecy: artificial life has been created,
although not yet in a chemical form. Computer simulations of evolution
contain systems that are as much alive as any bacterium, although
their code is electronic, as well as their metabolism. See a recent book
Steven Levy: Artificial life - The Quest for a New Creation. Jonathan
Cape, London 1992.
Artificial chemical life is just around the corner - after all, no
spark of life has been found to be necessary; living systems do not
violate any physical laws as we know them.
: You don't mind if a few of us send up a prayer on your behalf during your
: research, do you? After all, if we of Christ are deluding ourselves, you
: really have nothing to worry about, eh?
Exactly. This is why I think atheists should _not_ post any evangelical
atheist arguments to soc.religion groups, since people who seek to
find peace in religions must be allowed to gather together. I would
normally have asked these questions in alt.atheism or talk.religion.misc,
but it seems many Christians do not read these groups.
Petri
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
On the question, "Does God hear the prayers of sinners?" we need to
distinguish.
If we say that He never hears the prayers of any who have sinned, we
make pointless all prayers by anyone born less than 19 centuries
ago.
But if we consider the prayers of the impenitent sinner, of someone
who says, "Lord, I want you to do this for me, but don't expect me
to change my way of life," that is a different matter. Even here, I
would not venture to say that God never grants such petitions (just
as He sends sun and rain on the evil and on the good). However, if
someone we know well is praying to God in that spirit, we might have
the responsibility to say, "Remember, if God's help is real, then so
are His commands." | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
No the members of the first group are not necessarily
arrogant. But when I ask them if they are absolutely certain
that the volcano will erupt, I expect them to say so "No,
but I've chosen to believe some knowledgable people who have
determined that the volcano will erupt," rather than, "Yes, I am
absolutely certain." When it comes to religious discussions,
arrogance or at best naivete is reflected in the latter type of
statement.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
So does that mean that anyone who is a Christian to avoid Hell isn't really
a Christian at all? It sounds like it to me.
Mit Liebe in Christus,
Martyn R. Mellodew. ([email protected])
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martyn R. Mellodew, | E-mail: [email protected]
Department of Applied Mathematics | ARPA/Internet: [email protected]
and Theoretical Physics, | JANET: [email protected]
The University of Liverpool, |
P.O. Box 147, |
Liverpool, |
England, |
L69 9BX. | `Dubito ergo Deus est.' | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I dreamed that the great judgment morning had dawned,
and the trumpet had blown.
I dreamed that the sinners had gathered for judgment
before the white throne.
Oh what weeping and wailing as the lost were told of their fate.
They cried for the rock and the mountains.
They prayed, but their prayers were too late.
The soul that had put off salvation,
"Not tonight I'll get saved by and by.
No time now to think of ....... religion,"
Alas, he had found time to die.
And I saw a Great White Throne.
Now, some have protest by saying that the fear of hell is not good for
motivation, yet Jesus thought it was. Paul thought it was. Paul said,
"Knowing therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men."
Today, too much of our evangelism is nothing but soft soap and some of
it is nothing but evangelical salesmanship. We don't tell people anymore, that
there's such a thing as sin or that there's such a place as hell.
As Jayne has said, this doesn't mean we have to come on so strong so as to hit
people over the head with a baseball bat. Yet the fact remains, there is a
place called hell. A place so fearful that God died to save us from having to
experience it. Whatever you or I, as Christians, do, we should do whatever we
can to win people to the Lord, if for no other reason, to keep them from going
to "outer darkness.".
Jesus, in Mt. 25, tells us that He didn't prepare hell for people. He prepared
it for the Devil and his angels. No where in the Bible do I read -anywhere,
that God predestined anybody to go to hell. D.L. Moody use to say that the
elect are the "whosoever will" and the nonelect are the "whosoever wont's."
Whether or not that's theologically sound, I couldn't defend, but its
practical. Jesus said to the people of Israel, "Ye would not."
Now, some of you may not be students of the Bible, heck -some of you may not be
Christians. Have you ever said to somebody, "I don't believe in hell. I
believe in the religion of Jesus." But did you know that Jesus talked more
about hell than He did about heaven! "Oh I believe in the religion of the
sermon on the mount." You find hell taught by Jesus in the sermon on the
mount. You'll read that Jesus talked about the tree being cast into the fire.
Several times he talks about hell and about judgment. In fact, over and over
in the synoptics, Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus talks about hell. Not Isaiah.
Not Moses. Not John the Baptist, though he did, but Jesus, the Son of God.
The great Beloved One preached about hell because He loved people and didn't
want to see them go there.
Now, if there is no hell then Jesus preached in vain. It was our Lord Jesus,
not some angry Baptist preacher, that said, "where the worm never dies, and
where the fire never goes out." Jesus said that. It was Jesus who called hell
a "furnace of fire." It was Jesus that used the word, "condemnation." "And
this is the condemnation, that men love darkness rather than light because
their deeds are evil. Jesus said that.
How can we get it across to you that a loving, dying Jesus preached about hell?
Not only that, but He went through hell. That's what Calgary was all about.
When my Lord was on the cross, darkness fell. He called hell, "outer
darkness."
Do you have this idea that hell is a place where the gamblers are gambling over
here, the drunks are getting drunk over there, and the prostitutes are
prostituting their bodies over there? That's not what hell is. Hell's not a
party. There's no fellowship there. He called it "outer darkness." "Outer"
-away from God. "Darkness" -God is light.
No when He was on the cross, He was made sin for you and for me. God treated
Jesus the way sinners have to be treated. That's is a sobering thought. As my
son would say, an "awesome" thought.
"My God, My God why hast Thou forsaken me?" Hell is isolation. There's no
fellowship in hell. There's no friendship in hell. There's no loving embrace
in hell. There's no hand shake in hell. There's no word of encouragement in
hell.
"I thirst." It goes much deeper than physical thirst. Hell is eternal craving
with no satisfaction. The man whose life was lived for drugs, will crave it
eternally. The man whose life was lived for the lust of a woman's body, will
crave it eternally -and not be satisfied. One theologian has put it this way
and I think it deserves merit. What is hell? Hell is just the kind of
environment that matches the internal condition of the lost.
In a recent post, I was trying to remember the founder of The Word of Life
ministries. I've remembered his name, Jack Wertzen, and found that the
illustration that I gave wasn't his. His illustration was that he was talking
to his barber and his barber's wife and daughter had just recently been saved
and he was commenting about it to Jack. "They sing these songs and read Bible
verses, and their praising this and that -I can't stand it! Jack, do you think
God would send me to hell?" Jack answered by saying, "Yes I think he would!"
Of course the barber said, "What do you mean by that." "Well if you can't
stand living at home with your wife and daughter who sing hymns and praises to
God now, what would you do in heaven where they'll do it for eternity? You'd
be miserable. Because God loves you, He'd put you where it would match what
you really are." It makes a man think.
The crucifixion of Jesus Christ is a fact that necessitates the eternal
existence of hell because on the cross He performed an eternal act. Don't ask
me how, I don't know. But He is God and He is the infinite/eternal and when He
died, He died an infinite/eternal death. It is by that eternal act that He
purchased eternal life for the "whosoever wills." He suffered eternal
judgment.
A lot of people would like to detour around hell by saying "Everybody is going
to be saved eventually." -universalism. My Bible says no, He'll separate
them. The sheep from the goats. ".After you die there's a probationary period
in which God prepares you for heaven." No, my Bible says that "It is appointed
unto men once to die and then comes judgment." Some of the cultist believe in
annihilation. After you die, sssswish. Just like a mosquito you're squished
out. No, in Rev we are told that their is eternal existence in hell just as
there is in heaven.
I don't enjoy making these kind of statements and maybe you don't enjoy
listening to them, but we have to preach the entire Word of God. -There is a
place called hell. If I could give one verse of Scripture that could give any
hope that people aren't going there, I'd give it to you, but I haven't found
it. That fact that there is a place called hell, the fact that our God is a
God of holiness and must judge sin, the fact that He has made us the kind of
creatures we are and therefore we're responsible, the fact that He has placed
us in a "uni"verse that has purpose and design behind it, the fact that sin is
such an awful thing and the fact that God Himself went through hell to save us
from hell leads us to two applications.
1) As I've already mentioned. If you are a Christian, you must worn others.
Its not good enough to stop and fix their flat tire and not tell them that just
around the bend the bridge is out. "Knowing therefore the terror of Lord, we
persuade men."
2) If you haven't accepted Jesus are your Savior, you're taking an awful
chance. As I say to the Jehovah Witnesses (who no longer frequent my door), if
you are right and I am wrong, then I will have lived a good life and will die
and cease to exist, but if I am right and you are wrong, then you will die and
suffer eternal damnation. I don't mean to make fun at this point, but its like
Dirty Harry said, "You've got to ask yourself, 'Do I feel lucky?' Well do
you?" "A man's got to know his limitations." Don't be one of the "whosoever
wont's." | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
If the emphasis is on the "in general", then of course you're
correct, since you haven't really said anything. If we restrict
our observations to practiced religions, there are lots of
examples of god mandated genocide. Just ask the Canaanites. The
point is that if you believe in a god, and if you believe he has
ordered you to eliminate an entire race, you will likely make the
attempt. After all, if it was OK in the past, it could surely be
OK in the present.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Bob Beauchaine [email protected]
They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away,
and sank Manhattan out at sea. | 0 | alt.atheism |
Hi I am a Sociology student and I am currently researching into
young offenders. I am looking at the way various groups of
children are raised at home. At the moment I am formlulating
information on discipline within the Christian home.
Please, if you are a parent in this catagory can you email me
your response to the following questionaire. All responses
will be treated confidentially and will only be used to prepare
stats.
1. Ages & sexes of children
2. Do you spank your kids?
3. If so how often?
4. Do you use an implement to spank with?
5. If you do not spank, what method of discipline do you use?
6. Your age?
7. Your location
8. While under the age of 16 did you ever commit a criminal
offence?
9. How ere you disciplined as a kid
Thank you in advance for any reply you can make. Please e-mail
your replies rather than post them on the newsgroup | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Yes, and everyone thinks as you do. No one thinks that he is going to cause
or be involved in a fatal accident, but the likelihood is surprisingly high.
Just because you are the man on the firing squad whose gun is shooting
blanks does not mean that you are less guilty.
You mean that killing is wrong in all but one situtation? And, you should
note that that situation will never occur. There are always other options
thank killing. Why don't you just say that all killing is wrong. This
is basically what you are saying.
Are you attempting to be condescending?
But, most people have found the risk to be acceptable. You are probably
much more likely to die in a plane crash, or even using an electric
blender, than you are to be executed as an innocent. I personally think
that the risk is acceptable, but in an ideal moral system, no such risk
is acceptable. "Acceptable" is the fudge factor necessary in such an
approximation to the ideal. | 0 | alt.atheism |
In <[email protected]> "David R. Sacco" <[email protected]>
Yes.
MAC
--
****************************************************************
Michael A. Cobb
"...and I won't raise taxes on the middle University of Illinois
class to pay for my programs." Champaign-Urbana
-Bill Clinton 3rd Debate [email protected] | 0 | alt.atheism |
[it has to do with honoring the laws of the state, and]
I would go further: if a couple are unwilling to have their commitment
publicly witnessed and recorded, that's prima facie evidence that the
commitment isn't really there.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
How does that saying go: Those who say it can't be done shouldn't interrupt
those who are doing it.
Jim | 0 | alt.atheism |
Well, it wasn't that way for Enoch and Elijah, both of whom were
translated directly into heaven. It's beyond my grasp why some object
that Mary, who was far greater than either Enoch or Elijah, should not
benefit from the same privelege they recieved. She was after all,
Mother of God, full of grace, and immaculate.
And in St. Germain of Constantinople and St. John of Damascus, and in
St. Andrew of Crete, among others.
And it should be noted that the Monophysite Chruches of Egypt and Syria
also hold to this belief as part of divine revelation, even though they
broke away from the unity of the Chruch in 451 AD by rejecting the
Council of Chalcedon. It might be argued by some Protestants that the
Catholics and Orthodox made this belief up, but the Monophysites, put a
big hole in that notion, as they also hold the belief, and they split
from the Chruch before the belief was first annunciated in writing (as
far as is known, much has been lost from the time of the Fathers). | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[why are atheists atheists/ believes it could be the result of
"brokenness"]
i agree -- if you are going to find out anything from people who don't
share your beliefs, do not attack them or condescend to them and hope
to get a neutral picture of them. come to them with an open mind.
well, you do believe in something, as i see it, even if it is a sort
of "anti-belief" (no negative connotation meant; i mean simply that
you believe that God _does not_ exist). christians can also feel that
sense of "difference", however, when they are associated with "those
weird televangelists who always talk about satan". if you'll excuse
the cliched sound of this, everyone has to deal with his/ her
differences from other people. i can understand how being an atheist
could be hard for you; being a christian is sometimes hard for me.
you should not have to repress how you feel -- you should be able to
discuss it without fear. i think there are admirable things to learn
from any belief, which can enrich your own -- by asking myself the
questions that atheists may ask me, i can learn the answers and become
stronger in my faith. if my faith can't support knowing the answers
to those questions, it is weak and untrue.
in some way the pressures were different, of course, because you
"chose" your beliefs -- or are you saying that they were not your
choice, but born of necessity? [please, no flames about whether or
not gay people "choose" their lifestyle -- that's elsewhere in this
newsgroup]
i'm not sure i understand this sentence -- could you explain?
[moderator points out that many/ most atheists aren't "hostile", they
just cease believiing in xiantiy/ religion]
ouch, yes. part of being a christian is accepting _everyone_ with an
open heart -- including people of "our own camp" with whom we
completely disagree. by the same token, i believe that accusation and
suspicion are not the best way to reach out to those not of our faith,
nor is it effective to try to browbeat people into accepting our
religion. i have a different idea of mission: be what i am, a
christian who is happy in her faith, and if others see that and want
to know about either the happiness or the religion, i'll share what i
know without pressure and let them make their own decisions. at some
point you just have to agree to disagree -- acceptance of diversity,
not uniformity, is the way to sow peace....
vera noyes | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[The following is my comment on an article by Desiree Bradley. --clh]
Koresh did originally claim to be the Christ, but then backed off and
said he was a prophet. The latest news at 8:00 CDT from Waco is that
the feds broke through a wall of the compound with a tank. No news
besides that at this time. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Tail-recursive functions in Scheme are at least as efficient as iterative
loops. Anyone who doesn't program in assembler will have heard of optimizing
compilers.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
I originally wrote to the person who asked this question
personally, but decided to post the information I had on the topic.
I spoke to the pastor of my parish (Catholic) recently,
by coincidence, on this subject. His explaination was that
while it is possible for a couple to marry without the presence
of a priest, it is important to have it recognized by the
Church as soon as it is possible. Because the Church
recoginizes itself as a community of believers, members
of the church, to some degree, are to be held accountable
to each other. To be less hypothetical than that mythical
couple on the desert island, there are many places in the
world that do not have priests availible for marriages
on a regular basis. Therefore, couples get married without
the priest being present, but get the priest to testify to
their marriage when one comes through the area.
I remember a religion teacher in high school saying
that the marriage ceremony is not for the benefit of the couple
as much as it is for the benefit of the community. Thus,
married couples have some responsibility to the community
to stay married, as divorce sets a bad example for the
community. Also, the couple has vowed to become one with
one another--the community should be able to rely on that
couple to be as one.
While couples may marry without witnesses, they
may NOT get anulments without a priest present. An
anulment is simply an admission of the church that what
they had declared a marriage was not, in fact, a marriage
at all, for whatever reason. So don't start getting married
in the back seat of a station wagon and giving yourselves
anulments a half-hour later!!
I tend to agree with the response back there that
said couples become married as soon as they consumate their
marriage, but I would add that couples should consider their
marriage consumated if they have sex, whether or not they
intended to be married, assuming they were both willing
partners to the sexual act. The couple must be prepared
to raise any children they may have as a result of that
sexual act with the benefit of both parents. Sex IS a
commitment, I believe, in God's eyes.
But I'm digressing....
God be with you, | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Of course, if you're planning to pull a Rushdie then declaring one's
leaving the religion is little to be concerned about compared to one's
other plans.
In Rushdie's case, the one under discussion, one can. It is tragic that
in _some_ "Islamic" countries this is so. There are, however, Islamic
countries (whose constitutions contains statements that Islamic law is
to be incorporated), e.g. Kuwait, where one can freely make such
statements without fear.
This story has become tiresome. The conditions are clear. If you care to
make your point clear then make a chronology and show that he had made
public statements about leaving Islam prior to his writing of _TSV_. If
he did make such statements then he should have made _that_ clear rather
than trying to rejoin Islam or go on talking about his personal
feelings.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Please define "morally straight".
And, don't even try saying that "straight", as it is used here,
implies only hetersexual behavior. [ eg: "straight" as in the slang word
opposite to "gay" ]
This is alot like "family values". Everyone is talking about them,
but misteriously, no one knows what they are.
---
"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 |
[More stuff deleted]
This seems to be a pretty arogant definition of belief. My beliefs
are those things which I find to be true based on my experience of the
world. This experience includes study of things that I may not have
experienced directly. But even then, I can only understand the
studies to the extent to which I can relate what I study back to what
I have experienced.
Which means that by beliefs about God are directly related to my
experience of God. Having experienced God, I try to make sense of
that experience. I study religion and read the Bible. I find things
that echo what I have already experienced. Out of this I build my
beliefs. I also find things that don't match my experience. That
doesn't make them false. They just don't match my experience. Maybe
I will understand that stuff later. I don't know. Maybe all of my
beliefs are wrong. I can change my beliefs.
If someone else has beliefs that are different from mine, so what.
Neither of us are necessarily wrong. Someone else is making sense out
of a different set of experiences. Even though we have different
explanations and beliefs, if we talk we might even discover that the
underlying experiences are similar.
Some people approach religion as a truth that can only exist in one
form, and usually has a single revelation. The more dogmatic and
inflexible the belief system, the more arrogant it will appear to an
outsider. There is another approach possible, however. God is a
mystery. I am trying to solve the mystery, so I look at the evidence
available to me. I try to arrive at the best understanding that I can
based on the evidence. New evidence may cause me to change my
understanding. When I encounter someone with a different belief than
my own, it isn't a threat, it is an opportunity to perhaps discover
something new about this mystery I can never fully comprehend.
Peace
Will Taber
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I think it was Lewis who said that in a wedding, it's the principals
that marry each other; the church and the state are present merely as
witnesses.
------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Steele In coming to understand anything
MIT Lincoln Laboratory we are rejecting the facts as they
244 Wood St., M-203 are for us in favour of the facts
Lexington, MA 02173 as they are.
617/981-2575 C.S. Lewis | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Hey...
I may be wrong, but wasn't Jeff Fenholt part of Black Sabbath? He's a
MAJOR brother in Christ now. He totally changed his life around, and
he and his wife go on tours singing, witnessing, and spreading the
gospel for Christ. I may be wrong about Black Sabbath, but I know he
was in a similar band if it wasn't that particular group...
HOW GREAT IS TH LOVE THE FATHER HAS LAVISHED ON US, THAT WE SHOULD BE
CALLED CHILDREN OF GOD! AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE! (1 JOHN 3:1) | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I don't feel that I'm preaching. I'm just trying to answer people's
questions and talking about my religion, my beliefs.
When it comes to what I post, I don't do it with the intent of converting
anyone. I don't expect for the atheists in this newsgroup to take what I
say with a grain of salt if they so wish.
I just state what I beleve, they ask me how I believeit and why and we all
go on.
If that's preaching, then I'm soory and I'll get off the soapbox. | 0 | alt.atheism |
I question the implications of this statement; namely, that there are certain
physical acts which are limited to God and that attempting to replicate these
acts is blasphemy against God. God caused a bush to burn without being
consumed--if I do the same thing, am I usurping God's role?
Religious people are threatened by science because it has been systematically
removing the physical "proofs" of God's existence. As time goes on we have to
rely more and more on faith and the spiritual world to relate to God becuase
science is removing our props. I don't think this is a bad thing. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
: There are a couple of things about your post and others in this thread
: that are a little confusing. An atheist is one for whom all things can
: be understood as processes of nature - exclusively.
This definition does not include all atheists (see the FAQ). However,
I (for one) do think there is no need to invoke any divine or
spiritual explanations.
It makes a big difference to claim that all things can be understood
as natural processes, and to claim that our observations do not
require us to postulate any divine intervention, or anything spiritual,
for that matter. Humans are not omnipotent, and neither is science.
However, science has one advantage theology doesn't: it is self-
correcting, with nature as its judge.
It is delightful to see how scientific inquiry is revealing a self-
consistent, simple picture of our universe. Science is no longer
a bunch of separate branches, it is one. From particle physics to
psychology. And no aspect of our life, or our universe, is safe
from its stern and stony eye. Not even our consciousness.
There is no need
: for any recourse to Divnity to describe or explain anything. There is
: no purpose or direction for any event beyond those required by
: physics, chemistry, biology, etc.; everything is random, nothing is
: determnined.
Actually, determinism vs. indeterminism is a philosophical question,
and science cannot say whether the whole thing is actually somehow
superdeterministic or not. I think the question does not have
any meaning, as far as individual human beings go. If their apparent
free will is an illusion, it does not appear to be so from their
perspective. Bill, can you say _for sure_ whether you have a free
will or not?
: This would also have to include human intelligence of course and all
: its products. There is nothing requiring that life evolve or that it
: acquire intelligence, it's just a happy accident.
Maybe. Who are we to tell? It seems intelligence is useful - when
during the history of Earth has _one species_ been able to control
one third of the whole biosphere? This can still be a result of
numerous happy accidents our genetic machinery blindly replicates
and preserves. Even that machinery can be result of the same
principle - only the systems that can start replicating will
survive, those which don't don't make it. (Recommended reading: t.o)
: For an atheist, no
: event can be preferred to another or be said to have more or less
: value than another in any naturalistic sense, and no thought -about-
: an event can have value.
From whose perspective? I value events and things subjectively, from
my perspective. Nature does not have values, because it does not have
a perspective - values arise from awareness. If I have a subjective
perspective, it is easy to assume that other people also do, and if
I think about what it would it be like in their position, I will
eventually discover the Golden Rule. Morality is not necessarily
a gift from heavens, in fact, it may be a product of evolution.
Perhaps we are aware of ourselves because a sense of identity
is helpful, allows us to play the roles of others and make us respect
others who seem to have identity, too.
Bill, have you ever read Aristotle? Try his Ethica Nikomakhea (sp.)
for starters.
: How then can an atheist judge value? What is the basis for criticizing
: the values ennumerated in the Bible or the purposes imputed to God? On
: what grounds can the the behavior of the reliogious be condemned? It
: seems that, in judging the values that motivate others to action, you
: have to have some standard against which conduct is measured, but what
: in nature can serve that purpose? What law of nature can you invoke to
: establish your values.
C.S. Lewis tells us that this argument was the main reason why
he abandoned his atheism and became Christian. The argument is
severely flawed.
Some values, such as the Golden Rule, can have a rational basis. Some
others, like the basic idea of wanting to live, has probably its
roots in the way our brains are wired. Lewis ignored the very real
possiblity that natural selection could also favour altruistic
behaviour, and morality as well. Indeed, as humans evolved better
and better in building and using tools, they also became better
at killing each other. It is a logical necessity that evolution could
only favour those who knew how to use tools, but not against one's
own people.
The Bible reveals quite nicely that the morality of the early Jews
was not beyond this. A simple set of rules to hold the people
together, under one god. Their god did not care much about people
of other nations.
At the time of the NT, things were quite different - the Jews
were under rule of an _empire_, and could no longer simply ignore
the Gentiles. A new situation required a new morality, and along
with it a new religion was born. (A mutation in a meme pool.)
: Since every event is entirely and exclusively a physical event, what
: difference could it possibly make what -anyone- does, religious or
: otherwise, there can be no -meaning- or gradation of value. The only
: way an atheist can object to -any- behaviour is to admit that the
: objection is entirely subjective and that he(she) just doesn't like it
: - that's it. Any value judgement must be prefaced by the disclaimer
: that it is nothing more than a matter of personal opinion and carries
: no weight in any "absolute" sense.
It looks like you haven't bothered to read philosophy. Whenever there
is an observer, there is a subjective point of view, which may
value its existence and happiness (even if that were just a result
of some physical event), and other's happiness, too, if the observer
comes to think about it. In an absolutely objective sense, that is,
without any observers or subjects, moral judgments lose their
meaning.
It is not possible for a value to simply exist without a point of
view. This includes gods, too, their values are only _their_
personal judgments, not absolute truths, since such truths
do not exist.
The fact that most people do not deliberately want to hurt others
is a manifestation of the way we have fought for our existence
by becoming social beings who can think and value others'
existence.
Morality is not property of humans alone - chimps, dolphins and
many other species show great care for each other. Dolphins have
sometimes saved humans from drowning, a good deed indeed.
: That you don't like what God told people to do says nothing about God
: or God's commands, it says only that there was an electrical event in your
: nervous system that created an emotional state that your mind coupled
: with a pre-existing thought-set to form that reaction. That your
: objections -seem- well founded is due to the way you've been
: conditioned; there is no "truth" content. The whole of your
: intellectual landscape is an illusion, a virtual reality.
The last statement does not logically follow. In fact, there is
every reason to believe our thoughts can model reality very
well, and our senses can convey reliable information. Solipsism
is still a logical possibility, but not a very likely one.
You are continuously mixing two different views: the subjective
point of view (which we all share) and an objective point of view,
_which does not exist_. Any observer or thinker, any personal being,
has its own point of view. It does not matter whether this point
of view is a result of some physical events or not, it does not
cease to be subjective.
From a non-observers non-point of view, values do not exist. Neither
does pain, or pleasure, or beauty, or love. Such things are
inherently subjective.
Once again, if god wants wives to submit to their husbands, or even
to make a leap of faith into the unknown, or wants to punish us if
we don't, I disagree with his morals. I do not think my morals come
from any supreme being - to remove my morals means the same than
to make me a zombie, a machine without a single thought. If god
gave us morality to judge, but I disagree with him, it is not my
fault. He is free to replace my morals. I cannot see what is the
point of giving someone a moral system which disagrees with one's
own and then to get mad at this.
God must be schizophrenic.
: All of this being so, you have excluded
: yourself from any discussion of values, right, wrong, goood, evil,
: etc. and cannot participate. Your opinion about the Bible can have no
: weight whatsoever.
Neither can the opinion of any god, for that matter. I cannot understand
why a subjective opinion of a thing made of matter is in any way
less credible than an opinion of a thing made of something else.
Bill, take note: Absolute values must be independent of _any_ being,
_including_ gods. If god has a subjective viewpoint, it is his
own point of view, and his morals are his own.
Petri
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Hi Adda,
Most Bible scholars agree that there was one copy of each book at a certain
time -- the time when the author wrote it. Unfortunately, like all works
from this time period and earlier, all that exists today are copies.
There are parts of books, scraps really, that date from around the
mid second century (A.D. 130+). There are some complete books, letters,
etc. from the middle third century. The first complete collection of
the New Testament dates from the early 4th century (A.D. 325). Throughout
this period are writings of various early church fathers/leaders who
quoted various scriptures in their writings.
If you mean that someone discovered thousands of "Bibles" which were all
perfect copies dating from the last part of the 1st century...No!
If you mean that there are thousands of early manuscripts (within the
dates given above, but not letter perfect) and that the most probable
text can be reconstructed from these documents and that the earliest
original autographs (now lost) probably were written starting sometime
shortly after A.D. 50, then yes.
From the original authors. We call them Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter,
Paul, James, and one other not identified.
As long as you make it.
Regards, | 0 | alt.atheism |
Was it Pascal, or maybe Descartes, who first used this figure of speech?
I seem to have some vague recollections from reading some of their essays,
but I certainly couldn't say it was one of them for sure.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone,
able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in
the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the
truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the
devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
IITimothy 2:24-26
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Really>`?
No, gravity is an inherent system. You don't need any excess information
other than observations to determine anything. It is possible to objectively
determine someone's guilt or innocence within an non-inherent system.
I agree that morality is not necessarily inherent (unless you state that
everything we do has an evolutionary basis), but this does not mean that
it cannot be objective in theory.
Perhaps it can be objective, but not inherent. Anyway, as I noted before,
the practices related to mating rituals, etc. among the animals are likely
the only ones to be considered "immoral" under the previous "definitions"
of the natural law. Therefore, some revisions are in order, since the
class of activities surrounding mating seem to pose some general problems.
It seens that you are objecting to the notion of an objective system
because perhaps you think that it would imply inherence, which would
necessitate some sort of grand design?
I think I have. It is a code of ethics which basically defines undesired
behaviors, etc. An immoral behavior could be unwanted, unproductive,
or destructive, etc., depending on the goal of the system (that is,
immoral to what end?). | 0 | alt.atheism |
If possible (last I heard, it was out of print but they were considering
reprinting) read Barbara Hambly's _Search the Seven Hills_. It is
historical fiction, set in Rome at the time of the early Church. She
captures the weirdness of the early Christians and yet gives glimpses of
the holiness too. Some of their odd views make a lot more sense in the
context of the society they lived in. I found it a remarkably positive
view of Christianity considering that the author is not a Christian
herself. Another plus is that each chapter begins with an
original-source quote so that it makes a good starting point for serious
research. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Grumblegrumble...
unfortunately the logic falls apart quick: all-perfect > insulted or
threatened by the actions of a lesser creature > actually by offspring >
???????????????????
How/why shuold any all-powerful all-perfect feel either proud or offended?
Anything capable of being aware of the relationship of every aspect of every
particle in the universe during every moment of time simultaneously should
be able to understand the cause of every action of every 'cell globule' on
each tniy planet...
"All-powerful, Owner Of Everything in the Universe Makes Great Sacrifices"
makes a great headline but it doesn't make any sense. What did he
sacrifice? Where did it go that he couldn't get it back? If he gave
something up, who'd he give it up to?
-chris | 0 | alt.atheism |
Could anyone enlighten me on how the Mormon church views
children born out of wedlock? In particular I'm interested to know if any
stigma is attached to the children as opposed to the parents. I'm especially
keen to learn if there is or is not any prohibition in the Mormon faith on
bastards entering heaven or having their names entered in the big genealogical
book the Mormons keep in Salt Lake City. If this is an issue on which the
"official" position has changed over time, I'm interested in learning both old
and new beliefs. E-mail or posting is fine. All information or pointers are
appreciated. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
This is fascinating. Atheists argue for abortion, defend homosexuality
as a means of population control, insist that the only values are
biological and condemn war and capital punishment. According to
Benedikt, if something is contardictory, it cannot exist, which in
this case means atheists I suppose.
I would like to understand how an atheist can object to war (an
excellent means of controlling population growth), or to capital
punishment, I'm sorry but the logic escapes me.
And why just capital punishment, what is being questioned here, the
propriety of killing or of punishment? What is the basis of the
ecomplaint? | 0 | alt.atheism |
This is one of the differences between OT prophecy and NT prophecy. In the
NT, it is expected that when believers gather,
- people will prophesy
- the prophecy must be judged (1 Cor 14:29)
There is nothing about killing someone who makes a mistake.
Scripture is scripture; there is no "gift of scripture". And I don't know
about you, but I know that _I_ have made mistakes while filled with the
spirit. If you don't give grace to allow people to make mistakes, they
will never grow in the use of the spiritual gifts!
When we minister in my small group, I encourage people to speak out any
impressions or images they think might be from the Lord. Only by trying
will they know whether they were right or wrong -- and in either case,
they'll have a better handle on it the next time.
Didn't you fall when you were learning to ride a bicycle? But you kept on
trying, and you learned both from your failures and your successes.
Spiritual gifts are no different -- you get better with experience.
The canon of Scripture is complete. Does this mean that God no longer
speaks? I have heard his voice -- not audibly (though some have), but
clearly nonetheless. Is what I heard equivalent to Scripture? No. I have
never heard contemporary prophets claim that what they receive from the
Lord is on the same level as Scripture; on the contrary, those who are
mature obey the Scriptures by submitting their prophecies to fellow
believers for judgement. And the most reliable yardstick for judging
prophecies is, certainly, the Scriptures themselves. The canon is closed
-- but God is not silent!
Does it matter what it is called? The question is not how to label it, but
how to receive it. Words of knowledge, incidentally, are similar to
prophecy (and sometimes the two overlap), but generally it is supernatural
knowledge of some fact that could not be known otherwise. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
When he came near the place where the road goes down the Mount of Olives,
the whole crowd of disciples began joyfully to praise God in loud voices for
all the miracles they had seen:
Luke 19:37
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Romans 8:28 (RSV) We know that in everything God works for good with those
who love him, who are called according to his purpose.
Murphy's Law: If anything can go wrong, it will.
We are all quite familiar with the amplifications and commentary on
Murphy's Law. But how do we harmonize that with Romans 8:28? For that
matter, how appropriate is humor contradicted by Scripture? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Darren> In an earlier article, I explained that what many people find
Darren> arrogant about Christians is that some Christians profess
Darren> absolute certainty about their beliefs and doctrines.
and
Darren> In short, the problem is that no matter how good your sources
Darren> are, if any part of your doctrines or beliefs rest on your own
Darren> thinking and reasoning, then those doctrines are suspect.
The point that Darren raises is a very Lutheran viewpoint.
While reason is a gift from God, it is also infected by sin.
Yet we do not reject reason entirely--and neither, I think,
does Darren. We need reason, as Darren himself has pointed
out, to comprehend God's revelation of himself in the Bible.
But reason alone is not sufficient to comprehend and believe
the Word. We need, first and foremost, faith. For "the sinful
mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law,
*nor can it do so*" (Romans 8:7).
Luther accepted Scripture as the sole means of revelation
("Sola Scriptura"), but accepted the necessity of the use
of reason (with faith) in comprehending that revelation.
Yet Luther also said, regarding baptism, "But mad reason
rushes forth, and, because Baptism is not dazzling like
the works which we do, regards it as worthless." (Large
Catechism, Fourth part, Baptism). To make matters more
complicated, Luther was the sort of theologian that many
people would describe as an `absolutist'. I've seen him
described as a `take no prisoners' theologian.
We might conclude, given these observations, that Luther
was inconsistent or mad. And surely at least some have
come to that conclusion. But it might be useful to
recall that Jesus was also called mad. And Peter felt
compelled to defend himself and the apostles against
a charge of drunkenness on Pentecost. So we as Christians
ought to be careful about rejecting Luther (or others)
as mad. Rather, we should imitate the Bereans, who
examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul
said was true (Acts 17:11).
The basis for the confidence with which Luther, Peter, Paul, and many
others preached the gospel was not just reason, but faith and the Holy
Spirit. This is not faith divorced from reason, but a faith that
guides, informs, and uses reason. The Spirit enables us to know the
truth and to proclaim it boldly. God does not want us to preach the
message that "I think that Jesus might have risen from the dead" but
rather "I know that my redeemer lives!" (Job 19:25). The Christian
does not side with Pilate in saying "What is truth?" but rather
follows Christ, who said, "In fact, for this reason I was born, and
for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on
the side of truth listens to me" (John 18:37).
We can know the truth because God has promised us that we can
know the truth. Jesus said, "If you hold to my teachings,
you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth,
and the truth will set you free" (John 8:31,32). The Proverbs
urge us "Buy the truth, and do not sell it." (Pr 23:23).
The Psalmist prayed "Do not snatch to word of truth from my mouth"
(Ps 119:43). Evidently he believed that the word of truth
was in fact `in his mouth'.
Yet we do indeed appear arrogant if our claim to the truth
is motivated by self-glorification. But if we present the
truth as the teachings of Scripture, revealed by the
Spirit, and not our own invention, and if we stand ready
to be proved wrong on the basis of Scripture, as Luther
did, then we are not arrogant, but humble. We should humbly
trust in God's promise of truth, just as we trust in his
promise of forgiveness.
REXLEX> It is only because of God's own revelation that we can be
REXLEX> absolute about a thing.
Darren> But how far does that get you? Once God's revelation stops,
Darren> and your own reasoning begins, possibility for error appears.
I agree that we must make a distinction between the clear teachings
of Scripture, and the products of our own reason--even when such
reasoning is based on Scripture. However I think I would draw
the line of distinction more `reasonably' :-) and less `academically'
than you would.
Darren> For example, let's suppose that our modern Bible translations
Darren> include a perfect rendering of Jesus words at the Last Supper,
Darren> and that Jesus said, exactly, "This is my body."
Darren> We'll presume that what he said was totally without error and
Darren> absolutely true. What can we be certain of? Not much.
Darren> At the moment he stops speaking, and people start
Darren> interpreting, the possibility of error appears. Did he mean
Darren> that literally or not? We do not have any record that he
Darren> elaborated on the words. Was he thinking of Tran- or Con-
Darren> substantiation? He didn't say.
Darren is almost at the point of making a very Lutheran statement
about the Lord's supper. The Lutheran approach is to say
that if Jesus said, "This is my body," then that is what we
should believe. Other interpretations are rejected simply because
they are not taught in Scripture.
Recall that Jesus' words do not stand alone on this subject. We also
have Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34,--in which he passed on to
us, what he received from the Lord. In particular he said, "For
whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the
Lord's death until he comes." By these words we should believe that
the bread that we eat in the Lord's Supper really is bread (as well as
the Lord's body)--as our senses in fact tell us. Does this *prove*
that tran-substantiation is false? I suppose someone could say that
Paul spoke metaphorically of the Lord's body as bread, simply because
that is the way the body appears when we eat it. But this thought is
found nowhere in Scripture. So we reject it. Thus the primary
reason for rejecting tran-substantiation is not that we can
prove it false, but that it is simply not found in Scripture.
[side remark]
I've been told that the Lutheran doctrine on real presence is
con-substantiation. But it has been non-Lutherans who have told
me this. We tend not to use the word. I almost think that this
is used more by professors of comparative religion, who need labels
to compare Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed teachings on the Lord's
Supper. But almost every church wants to call their own teaching
"real presence" because that was the traditional teaching of
the church.
[end side remark]
Darren> When Christians speak as if they believe their own reasoning
Darren> can never lead them astray -- when we implicitly claim that we
Darren> are infallible -- the non- Christians around us rarely believe
Darren> that implicit claim. Witnessing is hardly going to work when
Darren> the person you are talking to believes that you are either too
Darren> foolish to recognise your own limits, or intentionally trying
Darren> to cover them up.
This is precisely why Christians should not rely on rationalizations
in their witnessing. It is far better to take the approach,
"I'd like to show you what Scripture says. You decide for
yourself whether to believe it or not."
Darren> `REXLEX' suggested that people read _He is There and He is Not
Darren> Silent_, by Francis Schaeffer. I didn't think very highly of
Darren> it, but I think that Mr Schaeffer is grossly overrated by many
Darren> Evangelical Christians. Somebody else might like it, though,
Darren> so don't let my opinion stop you from reading it.
Darren> If someone is interested in my opinion, I'd suggest _On
Darren> Certainty_, by Ludwig Wittgenstein.
As long as we're trading references, I'd like to suggest Dr. Siegbert
Becker's paperback, "The Foolishness of God: The place of reason
in Lutheran theology," published by Northwestern Publishing House.
This book was based on Becker's doctoral thesis at the University
of Chicago. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[most of post deleted]
There is an easy way out....
Post the flyers on the stall doors, but add at the bottom, in nice large
capitals,
EMERGENCY TOILET PAPER
:)
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Yeah, right.
So, let's see. If some guy writes a piece with a title that implies
something is the case then it must be so, is that it?
This supports nothing. I have no reason to believe that this is
piece is anything other than another anti-Islamic slander job.
I have no respect for titles, only for real content. I can look
up this article if I want, true. But I can tell you BCCI was _not_
an Islamic bank. Seeing as I'm spending my time responding to
propaganda (in responding to this little sub-thread) I really
don't feel a deep need to do more than make statements to the
effect that the propaganda is false. If someone wants to discuss
the issue more seriously then I'd be glad to have a real discussion,
providing references, etc.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Ok boys & girls, hang on; here we go!
Christ's Eternal Gospel Robinson & Robinson
The Dead Sea Scrolls & the NT WS LaSor
James the Just in Habakkuk Pesher RH Eisenman
Maccabees ... Quamran RH Eisenman
Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered Eisenman & Wise
Dead Sea Scrolls Deception Baigent & Leigh
Jesus & Riddle of Dead Sea Scrolls B Thiering
Jesus Scroll D Joyce
Happy Reading & welcome aboard
A poor Wayfaring Stranger [some say, a Strange One] in a strange land,
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Disclaimer: Not my employer's opinion; probably |
| not your's either; and |
| only mine, when authorized! |
| |
| Try: [email protected] |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
To all a.a readers:
I have been asked be several of you to post a list of the SDA Church's
27 Fundamental beliefs. I warn you now, it's a long list. However, I'll
post it on Sunday. Sabbath is coming up soon so I won't be reading on
Saturday. And I don't have time to do it now.
I would GREATLY appreciate it if you would keep me in touch with what's
going on.
I hope all of you have a reastful and relaxing weekend. I hope it's
the best one so far!! | 0 | alt.atheism |
+Last night, while watching the 2a.m. rebroadcast of Jerry Springer (a
+talk show) I heard this Jewel of a thought from a 12 year old racist.
+The focus of this show was on these kids and their hatred for the Jewish
+religion, and why.
[some stuff deleted]
+Interesting (and scary) no? They went on to say how the Jews had
+killed their god, and how in the end of time that all the races would
+go to their homelands (of course, they would remain in America, which
+is New Jeruselem, as it says in Gen 2??? (what another kid said) but
+the rest of the races would go home) and then the great battle or plague
+or whatever Revel. says would happen, and the jews would be killed.
+
+The most interesting thing about this was that my roomate is Catholic,
+and had the KJV of the Bible on his desk. He immediatly opened it up
+and began to search for the quoted passages (Gen, Rev, and John) to
+look for himself, and couldn't find what they said they saw. I don't
+know
I saw this show a while back, and when I heard these kids
quote the Bible to justify their racist claims, I looked up
that quote about Jesus hating Jews (since Jesus himself was a
Jew, my curiousity had been piqued by such a claim).
The jist of the passage (and I am sorry but I can't recall
which passage it was exactly) was that Jesus was condemning
the Pharisees for being corrupt.
Of course, the Pharisees were Jewish too, but it wasn't Jews
as a whole that Jesus was condemning, just the powers that be.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Sure, but Robert "Koresh-Fetesh" (sic) Knowles seems good, too. :)
Though I wasn't there, at least I can rely on you now to keep me posted on what
what he's doing.
Have you any other fetishes besides those for beef jerky and David Koresh?
--
Bake Timmons, III | 0 | alt.atheism |
I have discussed this with my girlfriend often. I consider myself married,
though legally I am not. Neither of us have been with other people sexually,
although we have been with each other. We did not have sexual relations
until we decided to marry eventually. For financial and distance reasons,
we will not be legally married for another year and a half. Until then,
I consider myself married for life in God's eyes. I have faith that we
have a strong relationship, and have had for over 4 years, and will be
full of joy when we marry in a church. First, however, we must find a
church( we will be living in a new area when we marry, and will need to
find a new church community).
Anyway, I feel that if two people commit to marriage before God, they are
married and are bound by that commitment.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
There are definitely quite a few horrible deaths as the result of both
atheists AND theists. I'm sure Bobby can list quite a few for the atheist
side but fails to recognize that the theists are equally proficient at
genocide. Perhaps, since I'm a bit weak on history, somone here would like
to give a list of wars caused/led by theists? I can think of a few (Hitler
claimed to be a Christian for example) but a more complete list would
probably be more effective in showing Bobby just how absurd his statement
is.
On a side note, I notice you always sign your posts "Peace". Perhaps you
should take your own advice and leave the atheists in peace with their
beliefs?
Nanci | 0 | alt.atheism |
: Logic alert - argument from incredulity. Just because it is hard for you
: to believe this doesn't mean that it isn't true. Liars can be very pursuasive
: just look at Koresh that you yourself cite.
This is whole basis of a great many here rejecting the Christian
account of things. In the words of St. Madalyn Murrey-O'Hair, "Face it
folks, it's just silly ...". Why is it okay to disbelieve because of
your incredulity if you admit that it's a fallacy? | 0 | alt.atheism |
I'm waiting for an RC to speak up ! 8-)
Nobody has, so I will...
Those with Bibles on hand can give the exact chapter & verse...
At the time Jesus told Peter that he was the "rock", He said
whatever you hold true on earth is held true in heaven, and
whatever you don't hold true won't be true in heaven.
Therefore, with respect to marriage, the ceremony has to be
done by an RC priest. No big parties required. Just the priest,
the couple and witnesses. "Divorce" is not allowed. But anullments
are granted upon approval by either the bishop or the Pope
(not sure if the Pope delegates this function).
-- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Ideologies also split, giving more to disagree upon, and may also lead
to intolerance. So do you also oppose all ideologies?
I don't think your argument is an argument against religion at all, but
just points out the weaknesses of human nature.
I would like a reference if you have got one, for this is news to me.
One must approach the Qur'an with intelligence. Any thinking approach
to the Qur'an cannot but interpret the above verse and others like it
that women and men are spiritual equals.
I think that the above verse does clearly imply that women have
souls. Does it make any sense for something without a soul to be
forgiven? Or to have a great reward (understood to be in the
after-life)? I think the usual answer would be no -- in which case, the
part saying "For them has God prepared forgiveness and a great reward"
says they have souls.
(If it makes sense to say that things without souls can be forgiven, then
I have no idea _what_ a soul is.)
As for your saying that the quote above may not be given a high priority
in all interpretations, any thinking approach to the Qur'an has to give
all verses of the Qur'an equal priority. That is because, according to
Muslim belief, the _whole_ Qur'an is the revelation of God -- in fact,
denying the truth of any part of the Qur'an is sufficient to be
considered a disbeliever in Islam.
Look, any approach to the Qur'an must be done with intelligence and
thought. It is in this fashion that one can try to understand the
Quran's message. In a book of finite length, it cannot explicitly
answer every question you want to put to it, but through its teachings
it can guide you. I think, however, that women are the spiritual equals
of men is clearly and unambiguously implied in the above verse, and that
since women can clearly be "forgiven" and "rewarded" they _must_ have
souls (from the above verse).
Let's try to understand what the Qur'an is trying to teach, rather than
try to see how many ways it can be misinterpreted by ignoring this
passage or that passage. The misinterpretations of the Qur'an based on
ignoring this verse or that verse are infinite, but the interpretations
fully consistent are more limited. Let's try to discuss these
interpretations consistent with the text rather than how people can
ignore this bit or that bit, for that is just showing how people can try
to twist Islam for their own ends -- something I do not deny -- but
provides no reflection on the true teachings of Islam whatsoever. | 0 | alt.atheism |
If a person gives a well-balanced reasoned argument, Tammy, then all are
happy to discuss it with him. If he makes astounding claims, which are not
backed up with any evidence then he must be expected to substantiate them.
If the original author had said that everything was his own opinion and not
supportable then people would have simply ignored him. He did not. He
claimed many things and his logic was seriously flawed. His argument was for
christianity in an effort to try to convince atheists like myself to believe
him and his message. I for one will not take things as read. If you told me
that pink fluffy elephants did the dance of the sugar plum fairy on the dark
side of Jupiter then I would demand evidence!
Adda
| 0 | alt.atheism |
[my previous posting deleted]
The poster casually trashed two thousand years of Jewish history, and
Ken replied that there had previously been people like him in Germany.
That's right. There have been. There have also been people who
were formally Nazis. But the Nazi party would have gone nowhere
without the active and tacit support of the ordinary man in the
street who behaved as though casual anti-semitism was perfectly
acceptable.
Now what exactly don't you understand about what I wrote, and why
don't you see what it has to do with the matter at hand? | 0 | alt.atheism |
..stuff deleted...
...more stuff deleted...
Hmm, USENET got it's collective hooks into me around 1987 or so right after I
switched to engineering. I'd say I started reading alt.atheism around 1988-89.
I've probably not posted more than 50 messages in the time since then though.
I'll never understand how people can find the time to write so much. I
can barely keep up as it is.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Praise God! I'm writing everyone to inform you that I have been
accepted to the Doctor of Psychology program at Fuller Theological
Seminary in Pasadena, CA. I've been working long and hard to try to
get in there and have said many hours of prayer. I'm very excited for
this opportunity, but also very nervous about it.
I'd appreciate the prayers of the readers of this group for my preparation
for school this summer and for my career as a graduate student. I'd also
appreciate any information any of the readers of this group might have
about Fuller, Pasadena, or California in general, like good places to
have fun, good churches to check out, or anything else that might be
good for me to know. Also, if anyone knows of any foundations that
might have funding or scholarship money available, please let me know!
Of course, if you wish to make a personal contribution.....:)
The contract for my current job is over at the end of April. I'll be
taking a couple classes at UT this summer and then I'll be moving to
Pasadena. Hopefully, I'll be able to get net.access next fall, although
Fuller doesn't have it itself.
I've enjoyed the interesting discussions and I commend everyone for their
earnest search to please God. Thanks to our moderator for providing
such a wonderful service and in doing a great job of running this news
group.
May God bless you all. Vaya con Dios, mi amigas y amigos.
Paul
===============================================================================
Paul Conditt Internet: [email protected]
Applied Research Phone: (512) 835-3422 FAX: (512) 835-3416/3259
Laboratories Fedex: 10000 Burnet Road, Austin, Texas 78758-4423
University of Texas Postal: P.O. Box 8029, Austin, Texas 78713-8029
Austin, Texas <----- the most wonderful place in Texas to live
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Hi All
Hope you all had a Blessed Easter. I have a document which I believe
refutes the notion that the SSPX (Society of Saint Pius X) is in
schism, or that there has been any legitimate excommunication. If
anyone is interested in reading the truth about this matter please
email me and I'll send them the document via email. Its 26 pages long,
so I wont be posting it on the news group.
Its titled
NEITHER SCHISMATIC NOR EXCOMMUNICATED
This article was originally an English translation, by the
Society of Saint Pius X in Ireland, from the French Journal
'Courrier de Rome'. The French article, in its turn, was a
translation from the Italian of the Roman Newsletter 'Si Si No
No'.
This booklet contains the transcription, with some minor editing,
of the Irish article, and was transcribed and produced by John
Clay, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
(There is no copyright attached. Simon Shields)
CONTENTS
NEITHER SCHISMATIC NOR EXCOMMUNICATED.......................1
CATHOLICS ON THE RACK.......................................1
THE CHOICE OF THE 'SENSUS FIDEI'............................3
AMBIGUITY...................................................4
THE CHURCH IS NOT BICEPHALOUS (TWO-HEADED)..................6
THE PERSON AND THE FUNCTION OF THE POPE.....................6
UNITY OF FAITH AND UNITY OF COMMUNION.......................8
THE CRITERIA OF CHOICE.....................................10
ECUMENISM - AN ATTACK ON THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH...........10
THE EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION WITHIN THE CHURCH..............11
EXTRAORDINARY DUTIES OF LAY PEOPLE.........................12
DUTIES AND POWERS OF BISHOPS...............................14
FROM THE FACT OF THEIR GREATER DUTIES......................14
FROM THE FACT OF THEIR GREATER POWER.......................14
THE POWER AND THE DUTY OF THE PAPACY.......................15
THE ELECTION OF BISHOPS....................................15
STATE AND RIGHT OF NECESSITY...............................16
1. THERE IS IN THE CHURCH A REAL STATE OF NECESSITY........17
FOR SOULS..................................................18
FOR SEMINARIANS............................................18
2. ALL THE ORDINARY MEANS HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED..............19
3. THE ACT ITSELF IS NOT INTRINSICALLY EVIL AND THERE RESUL..........21
4. IN THE LIMITS OF EFFECTIVE REQUIREMENTS.................22
5. THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE IS NOT PUT INTO QUESTION......23
THE EXCOMMUNICATION........................................24
CONCLUSION.................................................25
BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................26-31
God Bless ye all,
An Irish Fairwell
may the road rise to meet you
may the wind be always at your back
may the sun shine warm upon your face,
the rains fall soft upon your fields,
and until we meet again,
may God hold you in the palm of his hand.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I may be interesting to see some brief selections posted to the net.
My understanding is that SSPX does not consider ITSELF in schism
or legitimately excommunicated. But that's really beside the point.
What does the Roman Catholic church say? Excommunication can be
real apart from formal excommunication, as provided for in canon law.
After all we Orthodox don't cinsider ourselves schismatic or
excommunicated. But the Catholic Church considers us dissident.
If this is inappropriate for this group or beyond the charter,
I'm sure OFM will let us know.
Larry Overacker ([email protected])
--
-------
Lawrence Overacker
Shell Oil Company, Information Center Houston, TX (713) 245-2965
[email protected] | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
[email protected] (Peter White) relates a story about a person who
gives a message in tongues which consists entirely of the words pu'
ka. He was asked to refrain from doing that.
Nice story but it sets off my urban legend (or is it charismatic
legend?) alarms. Can the linguists on the net identify the language
from the description? Or can they even attest that such a language
exists. It seems to be odd enough (at least by the standards of
European languages) that if it exists, it should be reasonably well
known to linguists as an extreme case of something or other.
Or have I just overreacted to your basic shaggy dog story?
Will
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
]The "corrupted over and over" theory is pretty weak. Comparison of the
]current hebrew text with old versions and translations shows that the text
]has in fact changed very little over a space of some two millennia. This
]shouldn't be all that suprising; people who believe in a text in this manner
]are likely to makes some pains to make good copies.
Tell it to King James, mate.
]C. Wingate + "The peace of God, it is no peace,
] + but strife closed in the sod.
][email protected] + Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing:
]tove!mangoe + the marv'lous peace of God."
| 0 | alt.atheism |
The people who post to this particular newsgroup are either too cowardly,
too arrogant, or too apathetic to discuss this issue since I have yet to
see any discussion grace my computer screen. While it holds PARTICULAR
interest to the African-American community, everyone has something to gain
from discussing it. As any knowledgable person should know, Christianity
has been used in this country to tighten the spiritual, emotional, & mental
hold slavery placed on the minds, souls & hearts of African-Americans.
This was most effectively done by the display of white icons of Jesus in
slave churches to encourage the godly superiority of slaveowners. It
wasn't enough that the slaveowner was your provider, but he was also your
GOD, to be looked upon with unconditional love & loyalty and to be
worshipped with great pride. But how culturally & biblically accurate are
these icons? Pictures & statues of a Black Jesus have been found in
European countries, as that of a Black Madonna. But what about Biblical
physical descriptions of Jesus, His hair being compared to that of wool,
His feet to that of brass? And think about the area of the world where all
Biblical actions took place. I welcome all intelligent commentary on this
important topic; flamers need not reply.
Sherlette
P.S. I expect at least THIS type of response: "It doesn't matter what
color His skin was; His actions & what He did for mankind are what counts."
This is true; I am not questioning this. But He walked the earth for 3
decades as a HUMAN; this part of His existence intrigues me. And as for
saying that "it doesn't matter..." to a member of a physically emancipated
people who is still struggling for MENTAL emancipation, believe me: IT
MATTERS. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.
The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.
Romans 16:20
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
{Dan Johnson asked for evidence that the most effective abuse
recovery programs involve meeting people's spiritual needs.
I responded:
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.}
Dan Johnson clarified: | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I realize I'm entering this discussion rather late, but I do
have one question. Wasn't it a Reagan appointee, James Watt, a
pentacostal christian (I think) who was the secretary of the interior
who saw no problem with deforestation since we were "living in the
last days" and ours would be the last generation to see the redwoods
anyway?
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Cannot? Try, will not.
---
"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 |
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.
It is rather a ridiculous question in some ways, I know, but my newsreader is
down so I am not getting any new postings for a bit, so I figure I might as
well post something new myself.
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.
Idle thoughts...
Adam | 0 | alt.atheism |
: Nice cop out bill.
I'm sure you're right, but I have no idea to what you refer. Would you
mind explaining how I copped out? | 0 | alt.atheism |
Does anyone know any good decipleship trainning program during min August
to end of Sept. Or any missionary programs.
I currently belong to the Missionary Alliance Church in Oregon.
Please reply by mail.
thanks. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Oh, Your Highness? And exactly why "should" the quotation
marks enclose "laws," not "must."
In case you didn't notice, it's the function of the "must"
that I wish to ironicise.
Perhaps the chimps that failed to evolve cooperative behaviour
died out, and we are left with the ones that did evolve such
behaviour, entirely by chance.
Are you going to proclaim a natural morality every time an
organism evolves cooperative behaviour?
What about the natural morality of bee dance? | 0 | alt.atheism |
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.
The sort of criticism leveled at an organisation such as this
along the lines of "ideological manipulation and cultural
interference" is probably no more than Christianising and
education - in this WBT will stand alongside the early Christian
missionaries to parts of Africa, or those groups who worked
among native Americans a couple hundred years ago.
I think you need to substantiate these attacks as being a
legitimate criticism of priorities other than spreading the
gospel among underdeveloped people. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I have a simple test. I take several people who can speak
only one language (e.g. chinese, russian, german, english).
Then I let the "gifted one" start "speaking in toungues".
The audience should understand the "gifted one" clearly
in their native language. However, the "gifted one" can
only hear himself speaking in his own language.
Works everytime. 8-)
Perhaps I would believe the "gifted ones" more if they were
glorifying God rather than themselves. Then perhaps we'd
witness a real miracle.
-- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
So what's your point? Mark's comment still is valid. To suggest that
AIDS is "deserved" IS ludicrous. I sin. I can resolve to abstain from
sin, and do weekly (more often, actually). Yet I routinely fail.
I surely do deserve what I get, yet God compassionately provided
the Incarnate Logos, Jesus, as a rememdy and a way out of our situation.
If AIDS is deserved, I surely deserve instant death just as much, as do
we all, as St. Paul so cogently remids us.
To willingly judge "others" as deserving punishment seems to me
to be the height of arrogance and lack of humility.
So what's the point here? I can get AIDS and NEVER engage in
"deviant" sexual behavior. In fact, I could engage in LOTS
of deviant sexual behavior with HIV+ people and never be
infected. AIDS is a consequence of particular behaviors,
many of which are not sexual. And not all sexual behaviors
carry the risk of transmission.
The end of all things is to know, love and serve God, growing
daily closer through prayer, meditation and discipline. Even so
I could get AIDS. Anyone could, unless they remain forever celibate,
IV-drug-free, and transfusion free.
Larry Overacker ([email protected])
-- | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
: >EVER HEAR OF
: >BAPTISM AT BIRTH? If that isn't preying on the young, I don't know what
: >is...
: >
: RB>
: RB> No, that's praying on the young. Preying on the young comes
: RB> later, when the bright eyed little altar boy finds out what the
: RB> priest really wears under that chasible.
Does this statement further the atheist cause in some way, surely it's
not intended as wit ... | 0 | alt.atheism |
If you would bother to check in any good dictioanry or thesaurus, I think
you will find that "arrogance" has to do with an offensive exhibition of
presumed or real superiority (a paraphrase from my own Webster's).
Arrognace is about pride and haughtiness. A person can believe in absolute
truth, even blindly (whatever that means) without being obnoxious about it.
Just as a person can be a "humble," authority-questioning,
defying-any-theist-to-reply athiest and be quite arrogant. Arrogance is not
about what you believe, it is about how you relate to what you believe and
how you present it to others. If your overwhelming experience of Christians
has been that they are arrogant, I apologozing both for myself and on the
behalf of those who have offfended you. But my own experience, at least in
forums like Usenet where you see a good mix of people, is that arrogant
Christians and athiests seems to occur in about equal numbers.
- Phil - | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Agreed.
--
"Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.
They do what god tells them to do. " | 0 | alt.atheism |
Years ago I grabbed the following from the net - maybe from this
newsgroup. Does anyone know of a source for whether this is an
accurate quote? Thanks! Bartletts leaves out the homosexual lines,
but they were one of the groups the Nazis tried to exterminate.
===
In Germany, they first came for the communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the homosexuals, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a homosexual.
Then they came for the catholics, and I didn't speak up
because I was a protestant.
Then they came for me ---
but by that time there was no one left to speak up. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
If all of those are "is"'s of identity, both syllogisms are valid.
If, however, B is a predicate, then the second syllogism is invalid.
(The first syllogism, as you have pointed out, is valid--whether B
is a predicate or designates an individual.) | 0 | alt.atheism |
I love it, I love it, I love it!! Wish I could fit all that into a .sig
file! (If someone is keeping a list of Bobby quotes, be sure to include
this one!)
The Flat-Earthers state that "the Earth is flat" is a fact. I don't accept
this, I think it's an unproven opinion, and I think the Round-Earthers are
right because they have better evidence than the Flat-Earthers do.
Although I can't prove that a god doesn't exist, the arguments used to
support a god's existence are weak and often self-contradictory, and I'm not
going to believe in a god unless someone comes over to me and gives me a
reason to believe in a god that I absolutely can't ignore.
A while ago, I read an interesting book by a fellow called Von Daenicken,
in which he proved some of the wildest things, and on the last page, he
wrote something like "Can you prove it isn't so?" I certainly can't, but
I'm not going to believe him, because he based his "proof" on some really
questionable stuff, such as old myths (he called it "circumstancial
evidence" :] ).
So far, atheism hasn't made me kill anyone, and I'm regarded as quite an
agreeable fellow, really. :) | 0 | alt.atheism |
I see, it is not rational, but it is intellectual. Does madness qualify
as intellectual engagement, too?
Exactly why science uses mathematics. QM representation in natural language
is not supposed to replace the elaborate representation in mathematical
terminology. Nor is it supposed to be the truth, as opposed to the
representation of gods or religions in ordinary language. Admittedly,
not every religion says so, but a fancy side effect of their inept
representations are the eternal hassles between religions.
And QM allows for making experiments that will lead to results that will
be agreed upon as being similar. Show me something similar in religion.
With the effect that the models presented are useless. And one can argue
that the other way around, namely that the only reason metaphysics still
flourish is because it makes no statements that can be verified or falsified -
showing that it is bogus.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
Jeff Fenholt claims to have once been a roadie for Black Sabbath.
He was never ever a musician in the band. He was in St. Louis several
months back. The poster I saw at the Christian bookstore I frequent
really turned me off. It was addressed to all "Homosexuals, prostitutes,
drug addicts, alcoholics, and headbangers..." or something like that.
Well, if I showed up with my long hair and black leather jacket I
would have felt a little pre-judged. As a Orthodox Christian, and
a "headbanger" I was slightly insulted at being lumped together with
drug addicts and alcoholics. Oh yes, I suppose since I drink a good
German beer now and then that makes me an alcoholic. NOT!
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
There seem to be many points to the speaking in tongues thing which
are problematic. It's use as prayer language seems especially troubling
to me. I understand that when you pray in tongues, the spirit is doing
the talking. And when you pray, you pray to God. And the Spirit is
God. So, the Spirit is talking to Himself. Which is why I only go
by the Pentecost use where it's an actual language.
Moreover, the phrase "though I speak with the tongues of men and angels"
used by Paul in I Cor. is misleading out of context. Some would then
assume that there is some angelic tongue, and if when they speak, it
is no KNOWN language, then it is an angelic tongue.
Hmmm...in the old testament story about the tower of Babel, we see how
God PUNISHED by giving us different language. Can we assume then that
if angels have their own language at all, that they have the SAME one
amongst other angels? After all, THEY were not punished in any manner.
So why do these supposed angelic tongues all sound different FROM ONE
ANOTHER? It's disturbing to think that some people find ways to
justify jabbering.
But I'll buy the idea that someone could talk in a language never learned.
Trouble is, while such stories abound, any and all attempts at
verification (and we are to test the spirit...) either show that
the witness had no real idea of the circumstances, or that outright
fabrication was involved. The Brother Puka story in a previous post
seems like a "friend of a friend" thing. And linguistically, a two
syllable word hardly qualifies as language, inflection or no. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I'm concerned about a recent posting about WBT/SIL. I thought they'd
pretty much been denounced as a right-wing organization involved in
ideological manipulation and cultural interference, including Vietnam
and South America. A commission from Mexican Academia denounced them in
1979 as " a covert political and ideological institution used by the
U.S. govt as an instrument of control, regulation, penetration, espionage and
repression."
My concern is that this group may be seen as acceptable and even
praiseworthy by readers of soc.religion.christian. It's important that
Christians don't immediately accept every "Christian" organization as
automatically above reproach. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
_MY ADVOCATE_
I sinned. And straightway, posthaste, Satan flew
Before the presence of the Most High God
And made a railing accusation there.
He said, "This soul, this thing of clay and sod,
Has sinned. 'Tis true that he has named Thy name;
But I demand his death, for Thou hast said,
'The soul that sinneth, it shall die.' Shall not
Thy sentence be fulfilled? Is justice dead?
Send now this wretched sinner to his doom!
What other thing can righteous ruler do?"
Thus Satan did accuse me day and night;
And every word he spoke, O God, was true!
Then quickly One rose up from God's right hand,
Before whose glory angels veiled their eyes;
He spoke, "Each jot and tittle of the law
Must be fulfilled; the guilty sinner dies!
But wait -- suppose his guilt were all transferred
To Me and that I paid his penalty!
Behold My hands, My side, My feet! One day
I was made sin for him and died that he
Might be presented, faultless, at Thy throne!"
And Satan flew away. Full well he knew
That he could not prevail against such love,
for every word my dear Lord spoke was true!
by Martha Snell Nicholson
+++++++++++++++++++++++
I heard this poem read last night and wanted to share it with other
subscribers of this newsgroup. It's such a wonderful blessing to see how
secure our salvation is because the Lord Jesus paid for what He did not owe
because we had a debt which we were not capable to pay.
Thanks and praise be to the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is seated at
the right hand of the Majesty on High, making intercession for us.
++++++++++++++++++++++++ | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
On 12-Apr-93 in Environmentalism and paganism
And what of those of us who already have answers to their questions without
turning to christianity (or, in my case, any religion)? Whay RIGHT do you
have to presume to lecture me about what I should believe?? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
John 1:1 says (NKJV - the little green gideon someone forced on me one day)
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God." The Word refers to Jesus Christ so from this John declares that God
and Jesus are one. Therefore, "The Lord" refers to both. Also, David in the
Psalms refers to both God in heaven and the coming messiah as his Lord. Once
again this refers to God and Jesus.
swear/curse? Does it say anything about this in the bible?
Some of the most "truly religious" people I've known have not been Christians
and some of the greatest Christians I've known have been truly irreligious.
However, to answer your question:
The bible speaks of this in many places, A previous post to James is a good
one. Another is Psalm 15:
"Lord, who may abide in your tabernacle? Who may dwell in your holy hill? He
who walks uprightly, and works righteousness, and speaks the truth in his heart
He who does not backbite with his tongue, nor does evil to his neighbor, nor
does he take up a reproach against his friend; I whose eyes a vile person is
despised, but he honors those who fear the Lord; he who swears to his own hurt
and does not change; He who does not put out money at usury, nor does he take
a bribe aginst the innocent. He who does these things shall never be moved."
------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Coffey "Indeed the safest road to
[email protected] Hell is the gradual one- the
(if you send mail to cptc2 gentle slope, soft underfoot,
I'll never read it) without sudden turnings,
without milestones, without
signposts." -- Screwtape | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Gregg, so would you consider that Rushdie would now be left alone,
and he could have a normal life? In other words, does Islam support
the notion of forgiving?
Cheers,
Kent | 0 | alt.atheism |
[reply to [email protected] (Frank O'Dwyer)]
From A Dictionary of Philosophy, by Anthony Flew:
"Objectivism: The belief that there are certain moral truths that would
remain true whatever anyone or everyone thought or desired. For
instance, 'No one should ever deliberately inflict pain on another
simply to take pleasure in his suffering' might be thought of as a
plausible example. Even in a world of sadists who all rejected it, the
contention remains true, just as '5 + 7 = 12' remains correct even if
there is no one left to count. The problem for the objectivist is to
determine the status of moral truths and the method by which they can be
established. If we accept that such judgements are not reports of what
is but only relate to what ought to be (see naturalistic fallacy) then
they cannot be proved by any facts about the nature of the world. Nor
can they be analytic, since this would involve lack of action-guiding
content; 'One ought always to do the right thing' is plainly true in
virtue of the vords involved but it is unhelpful as a practical guide to
action (see analytic and synthetic). At this point the objectivist may
talk of 'self-evident truths', but can he deny the subjectivist's claim
that self-evidence is in the mind of the beholder? If not, what is left
of the claim that some moral judgements are true? THe subjectivist may
well feel that all that remains is that there are some moral judgements
with which he would wish to associate himself. To hold a moral opinion
is, he suggests, not to know something to be true but to have
preferences regarding human activity." | 0 | alt.atheism |
I just thought I'd share a nice experience before my exam today.
I was walking down the streets on our campus, and a beggar came up and asked
me for any spare change I might have. I had a dollar or so that I gave her,
and - not wanting to give away all my money to strangers (I generally give
a dollar as that will buy a little food at McDonalds or something) - I offered
her some "spiritual gifts," as I called them, rather than gifts of money.
I talked of how great I felt that God had made such a pretty day, and how
nice it was to give to people - she then said she was getting married soon.
She talked about how she and her husband had very little (they may not have
even had a house, for all I know), but that they felt a very special love in
the Lord, an unselfish kind of caring. It warmed my heart to know that 2
people can have so little monetarily, and realize that spiritually they are
indeed very rich. A good lesson for all of us who say we want more, more,
more; what we really need cannot be counted, or sold, or bought. | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Well, this particular thread of vituperation slopped its venom over
into alt.atheism, where we spend most of our time entertaining
arguments against our belief system, without resorting to accusing
others of bigotry. It's somewhat ironic that our exposure to bigotry
happens in this instance to have originated in rec.scouting, since I
always understood scouting to teach tolerance and diversity. I
understand bigotry to be irrational prejudice against other people who
happen to be of a different race, religion, ethnic background, sex, or
other inconsequential characteristics. All the evidence I've seen
indicates that sexual orientation and lack of belief in gods are
exactly such inconsequential characteristics. Thus, pending further
evidence, I conclude that those who show prejudice against such people
are bigots, and organizations that exclude such people are
discriminatory. | 0 | alt.atheism |
I used to be a marriage commissioner for the Alaska Court
System (sort of a justice of the peace). I had great difficulty
with that duty. I used to pray earnestly in the courthouse
bathroom before the ceremonies, mostly asking that the couples
would come to appreciate and fulfill the true holiness and
divine purpose in marriage--couples who obviously didn't realize
that marriage is God's institution, not the state's. Gradually,
however, I came to conclude that because I was acting in a
strictly secular, public capacity, established as such by both
the state and the expectations of the couples involved, I was
really conducting a purely secular, legal civil event, with no
greater moral or religious implications than if I had been
conducting a civil trial (the couple who told me, mid-ceremony,
to "please hurry it up" may have helped me to this conclusion).
I thought I had neatly rationalized a clear and sharp
distinction between marriage before God, and "marriage" before
the state, until I had to deal with my own divorce. Keeping
Matthew 19:6 in mind, I felt that the state had no business
dissolving my marriage established before God, but of course it
assumed jurisdiction nonetheless.
I would ask those of you proposing answers to this
question to consider this issue's logical extension: If
intercourse, or the mental intent of the parties, or the
ceremony of the church, or any combination thereof, establishes
marriage, then at what moment is it dissolved? | 15 | soc.religion.christian |
I am not Mathew (Mantis) but any (successful) first year logic student will see that you are logically correct, the other poster is logically incorrect.
| 0 | alt.atheism |
This is not strickly correct. Only by incorrect application of the
rules of language, does it seem to work.
The Mercedes in the first premis, and the one in the second are NOT
the same Mercedes.
In your case,
A = B
C = D
A and D are NOT equal. One is a name of a person, the other the
name of a object. You can not simply extract a word without taking the
context into account.
Of course, your case doesn't imply that A = D.
In his case, A does equal D.
Try again...
---
"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 |
I agree, we spend too much energy on the nonexistance of God.
--
"Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.
They do what god tells them to do. " | 0 | alt.atheism |
Well, knowing Greek and Hebrew, I'm probably not as picky about translations
as I would be if English translations were my only source of information.
BUT...
(1) Any verse that comes out substantially different in different trans-
lations is almost certainly unclear in the original.
(2) It is very bad practice to "shop" for a translation that fits your own
doctrinal positions.
Personally, I still like the RSV. NRSV and NASV are also very good.
I have a strong preference for editions that do _not_ indent the beginning
of each verse as if verses were paragraphs. The verse numbering is a
relatively modern addition and should not be given undue prominence.
| 15 | soc.religion.christian |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.