Datasets:

dojo

/

newsgroups7_balanced

like 0

Follow

Galileo Internal Hub 1

I would say only to the extent that the Roman Catholic Church neither approves nor disapproves of capital punishment, as confirmed in the recent catechism, though there are many RCs who were rather surprised and upset that capital punishment was not explicitly condemned. For myself, as a Catholic, I see my own opposition to capital punishment as much the same as my opposition to abortion - a reverence for life. Here in the UK, the anti-abortion case is often let down by the explicit link which those on the political left make with anti-abortionists and pro-executionists. There is a tendency to condemn people who hold both views as hypocrites. I feel that if there were many more anti-abortionists who were also vocal in their opposition to capital punishment on a pro-life line, it would end this kneejerk association of anti-abortion as a right-wing thing, and get many to think seriously about the issue (there are plenty who are pro-abortion equally for a kneejerk left-wing reason). I do not think your biblical quote can automatically be taken as support for capital punishment. I take it that as a Roman Catholic you are opposed to abortion, and would still onsider it wrong, and something to be objected to even if legalised by "authority".

I recently watched a an episode of "The Old West" a TV show on the Discovery Channel (or perhaps the A&E Network), the one hosted by Kenny Rogers. This episode was all about the Mormons and how they settled Utah, etc. A large portion of the broadcast was about the "Mountain Meadows Massacre". The program very specifically pointed out that Brigham Young knew nothing about the incident until long after it had happened (before telegraph), and it occured as a result of several men inciting a bunch of paronoid Moromn settlers into what amounted to a mob. All participants in the incident were prosecuted and eccomunicated from the LDS Church. I suggest you watch a rerun of that episode (they play them over and over) and see what they (non-Mormons) have to say about it. Lance

Dishonest money dwindles away, but he who gathers money little by little makes it grow. Proverbs 13:11

: |> Let me begin by saying I think this is the world's first religion to use : |> the net as its major recruitment medium. Therefore, even if this : |> religion does not take off, its founding members will be very important : |> historically as this method of soliciting membership will eventually become : |> common. : : So what is Kibology? Chopped liver? Kibo Himself summed it up by saying "Kibology is not just a religion, it is also a candy mint ... and a floor wax." I personally think that it is more like Spam Clear. : : You really should check out alt.religion.kibology, as Kibo's religion is : slightly older than yours, makes more sense and has more slack. Yes! Why send money to B0B when Kibo will pay you to worship him. (Funny, he doesn't seem to have paid me...) : ------------------------------------------------------------------ : __ Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State... : ___/ | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA : /____ *| "I understand the causes, and sympathize your motivations, : \_| But all the details of this war are just your self-infatuation." : ==== e-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

Perhaps one other thing I should have added is that Jeremiah's prophesies about the coming destruction of Jerusalem would have been understood by the people of that time to be a full frontal assault on their understanding of their relationship with the Lord. Today the if the general populace hears "prophesies" like the Portland earthquake or New York will burn ones, they are unlikely to see it in the context of their relationship (or lack of it) with the Lord. They are far more likely to think that they are just the result of the fevered imaginations of a religious nutter. That is one reason why I am always deep;y suspicious of bald judgement prophesies without any explanation of the reasons for the judgement. This doesn't have to be long winded. To see a relatively modern example look at Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural speech. The relevant section is below. It is this type of spiritual insight which was missing in both prophesies posted here. --- Excerpt from Abraham Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural speech---- Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not he answered that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. ''Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the provdence of God, must needs come but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein an departure from those divine attribute which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him ? Fondly do we hope - fervently do we pray - that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether" With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan - to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations. -- ___ Bill Rea (o o) -------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w---

alt.religion.spam?

Before you finalize your file in the FAQs (or after), you might want to correct the typo in the following: It seems one or the other end of the rating scale should be identified with "homosexual". As a personal note, I guess I differ with you on the question of work entering human life as a result of sin. Before the fall (Gen 2:15) "And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it." which I would call "work". For me, the difference introduced by sin is the painful aspects of work added at the fall (I take the cursing of the ground in vs.17-19 to apply to the work for sustenance). In a way, some view "work" as a blessing (Ecclesiastes is a fun book! - for melancholies). I hope I do not sound caustic, maybe you can enlighten me further. Well, this is certainly a delicate subject, and I guess you accomplished what you state as your purpose "It summarizes arguments for allowing Christian homosexuality", not for me the most noble goal, but you are writing a FAQ. I wonder if you might temporize the apparent "sentence" of the specific homosexual you propose (arguably tenuously define). Perhaps that would be true of "celibacy from homosexual relations", or refrainng from their choice relationships, but that does not forbid heterosexual. Could they not have/enjoy heterosexual relations "for what it was worth"?

I found this on the net at my college. It sounds pretty good to me. What do you folks think? >This are the tenets of Stan as handed down and set within the Holy Book >of Stan. > >1: Thou shalt not spill thine drinks or waste thine food, for all that >is is sacred, and to waste is the denizen of Luc, the Infidel. All who >waste today shall have not tomorrow. > >2: Thou shalt pay heed to those who know the higher calling of Stan so >that they may teach you the way, and that thou shalt become one with >Stan and the universe shall be in your hands. > >3: Thou shalt honor thy loved ones and cherish those near you, for they >are the true path to happiness, and happiness is a devine gift of thy >lord Stan. > >4: Stan is the one true God and shall be taken before all others so >that the false gods will know that he is the one, and all who oppose >him shall forever be banished to the form of the sheep and be sent to >the flocks of Luc for all eternity. > >5: The word is the law, and the law is the word. The word is within >thine own heart, follow the path and be true to thine own self and thou >shalt be blessed by Stan, thy lord and saviour. > >6: Thou shalt honor the faiths of others, for it is their choice to >follow this path, and do not think less of others for being of a >different faith, yet even in the face of these false gods, do not >waiver in thine faith in Stan, and hope that the unbeliever will see >the light that is Stan. > >7: Thou shalt not wrong others for being different, for Stan cherishes >the different, and holds freedom in the highest regard, for to do less >would be to fall in with Luc, the Infidel, for Stan does not control, >he merely guides, and lets the choice lie within thine own heart. > >8: Thou shalt know that thy lord Stan has many names and is called >differently by many people, but know also that Stan is the true name, >and all those of the faith shall know that Stan is God and God is Stan. > >9: Thou shalt be to the world what thou art to thineself, for to be >false to others is to be false to yourself. Thy lord Stan asks not that >you be like him, he asks only that you be like yourself for that is all >you were ever meant to be. > >10: Thou shalt not kill the innocent nor spill blood unnecessarily, for >those who are deserving of death shall be dealt with by Stan and sent >for all eternity to the flocks of Luc, and those who harm the children >of Stan, being born of Woman, shall be judged as the sheep of >Luc and spend all of time within his flocks. > >These commandments are the words of Stan. Heed them and he shall be >happy, and if thy lord Stan is happy, his happiness shall be passed >down to his followers. > >Hail Stan! It seems like a pretty good set of tenets to me. -=V=- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I like kittens... | E-Mail: | Robert Voss | DIE!! Especially with | [email protected] | 25 Andrews Memorial Dr | DIE!! a side order of | [email protected] | CPU# 01479 | DIE!! french fries... | [email protected] | Rochester NY 14623 | DIE!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------| DIE!! I AM DARKNESS ETERNAL! CALL ME! MY PHONE NUMBER IS (716) 475-4197 | DIE!!

My girlfriend is a smoker. She has been addicted to it for quite some time. She has been tried a couple of times, but then always get back to it. Her background is non-Christian, but she's interested in Christianity. I'm a Christian and non-smoker. I would like to collect any personal stories from Christians who managed to quit. I hope that this will encourage her to keep on trying. If anybody ever had a similar problem or knows a good book on it, pls reply by email. I appreciate any kinds of helps. Thanks a lot.

[I'm going to cut "Rex"'s ramblings down a bit.] [...] Rex, there are literally hundreds of thousands of 32nd degree Masons in this country, and thousands of 33rds. If nasty stuff was really going on, don't you think you'd have more than a couple of disgruntled members "exposing" it? Heck, if what you say is true, then Rev. Norman Vincent Peale is an Osiris worshiper. [... Long quote from someone named Hislop (source not given) deleted. I'm attempting to extract from it the relevent points: * Osiris is actually Nimrod, a Babylonian Deity. * "It is admitted that the secret system of Free Masonry was originally founded on the Mysteries of the Egyptian Isis, the goddess-mother, or wife of Osiris." * The Babylonian Nimrod and Osiris are both connected with the building trade, ie, with Masonry. * Nimrod, as the son of Cush, was a negro. [isn't this refering to a Biblical Nimrod, rather than the Babylonian god?] * ...there was a tradition in Egypt, recorded by Plutarch, that 'Osiris was black'. ...] There is a long tradition in Masonry of claiming ancient lineage for the order, on the flimsiest of grounds. This dates right back to the Constitutions of 1738, which cite Adam as the first Mason. I've seen other claims which place Masonry among the Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians, and Atlanteans. I even have a book which claims to prove that Stonehenge was originally a Masonic temple. Claims prove nothing. Where's the beef, Rex? [...Claims ex-Mason showed him leopard skin he wore in lodge] I'd have to check this. The tomb paintings I remember don't show this. Can you give ancient citations for this? The druids were suppressed over 2000 years ago. What's your point? This whole "leopard skin" business sounds bizarre. I have not yet gone through the Scottish Rite (which contains all of those "higher degrees" anti-Masons get so excited about, and which was invented in the 1750's), but I know enough people who have (and who are good Christians), that I reject your claim. Not so much a 'slap in the face' as 'a weary feeling of deja vu'. I'm going through a very similar argument over on soc.culture.african.american. Why don't you try reading some serious books on Masonic history, such as Hamill's "The Craft"? Because we got honest. If you can come up with actual evidence that Masonry existed prior to 1390, I'd be VERY impressed (actually, anything earlier than 1630 would be pretty good.) Peter Trei [email protected]

I'd like to field this one, if I may. Although I am a believer in and follower of Christ, my experiences with religion haven't been all that positive. In fact, there was one point in my life when, for about three days, I simply _couldn't_ believe in the existence of God. Anyway, when I look back upon the troubles I've had, they seem to fall into two categories -- impulses to unbelief that resulted from logical contradictions, and impulses to unbelief that resulted from frustration with God. The first category doesn't occur to me much anymore, as I have worked through most of the arguments for the non-existence of God. But way back when, these would cause me some problems, and I would have to struggle with my faith to continue to believe. I can see where others less stubborn than I (and I do mean stubborn. Stubborness has often been the only thing standing between me an atheism from time to time) would fail. The second category arises out of some long-term personal difficulties and the struggle to live my life as God would have me live it WITHOUT living my life as others would tell me how God would have me live it. A good example of this is my struggle with the more radical Christians I meet. I am not, nor have I ever been, "on fire for Chirst," and I don't think I ever want to be. Nevertheless, I am not "lukewarm" about my faith, so I don't really fit in with the mainstream either. Quite naturally, I feel a lot of anxiety about my dislocation within Christian society, and it can lead to a lot of internal tension, when I want to do what I _know_ is right, but when another part of me believes that what I want to do is wrong because all the other Christians think so to. Quite naturally, this tension has a destructive effect on my relationship with God, and during all of this internal strife, there's atheism sitting there like the promised land -- no rules, no responsibilities, no need to live up to anyone's expectations but my own. Complete freedom. Of course, it's all an illusion, but nevertheless, it's a very appealing illusion, especially when the so-called "people of God" are behaving like total twits. I can easily understand why someone would go that route, and would be hostile to ever coming back. IMHO, many of the former-Christians-turned-atheists-who-are-now-actively- hostile-to-Christianity are so because their experience with Christ and God wasn't a very peaceful one, but one of mind-control and "shut-up-and-do-what- you're-told-because-we-know-what's-best-for-you-because-it's-God's-will-and- you're-to-young-to-know-what-God's-will-is-yet" courtesy of some of Christ's more overzealous followers. A final reason why people become atheists is because Christians do not have a very good reputation right now. One of the things that attracted people to Christianity in the ancient days was the love that Christians obviously had for one another and the world around them. Unlike the rest of the world, Christian communities actively cared for their poor, and the Christian rich did not trod on the backs of their poorer brothers, but bent down to help them. Christians were known for living exemplary lives, even if they were thought to be traitors to the state because they wouldn't sacrifice to the emporer. Nowadays, courtesy of the media and some Christian leaders who lost Christ on their way to power, people see Christians as sexually-repressed hippocritical busibodies who want to remake society into a facist version of their own moral view. There are a lot more reasons why people become atheists, but I don't have time to go into them right now.

I have some articles available on the Church and gay people, from a pro-gay viewpoint, which might interest some of the people participating in this thread. Please email me if you would like to have me send them to you (warning, about 70k worth of material. Make sure you have mailbox and/or disk space available.) There are no short answers to the questions we've been seeing here ("how do you explain these verses?", "How do you justify your actions?") If you've been asking and you really want an idea of the other people's thinking, I encourage you to do some serious reading. --

#In article <[email protected]> # #(Deletion) #># Point: Morals are, in essence, personal opinions. Usually #>#(ideally) well-founded, motivated such, but nonetheless personal. The #>#fact that a real large lot of people agree on some moral question, #>#sometimes even for the same reason, does not make morals objective; it #>#makes humans somewhat alike in their opinions on that moral question, #>#which can be good for the evolution of a social species. #> #>And if a "real large lot" (nice phrase) of people agree that there is a #>football on a desk, I'm supposed to see a logical difference between the two? #>Perhaps you can explain the difference to me, since you seem to see it #>so clearly. #> #(rest deleted) # #That's a fallacy, and it is not the first time it is pointed out. It's not a fallacy - note the IF. IF a supermajority of disinterested people agree on a fundamantal value (we're not doing ethics YET Benedikt), then what is the difference between that and those people agreeing on a trivial observation? #For one, you have never given a set of morals people agree upon. Unlike #a football. Further, you conveniently ignore here that there are #many who would not agree on tghe morality of something. The analogy #does not hold. I have, however, given an example of a VALUE people agree on, and explained why. People will agree that their freedom is valuable. I have also stated that such a value is a necessary condition for doing objective ethics - the IF assertion above. And that is what I'm talking about, there isn't a point in talking about ethics if this can't be agreed. #One can expect sufficiently many people to agree on its being a football, #while YOU have to give the evidence that only vanishing number disagrees #with a set of morals YOU have to give. I'm not doing morals (ethics) if we can't get past values. As I say, the only cogent objection to my 'freedom' example is that maybe people aren't talking about the same thing when they answer that it is valuable. Maybe not, and I want to think about this some, especially the implications of its being true. #Further, the above is evidence, not proof. Proof would evolve out of testing #your theory of absolute morals against competing theories. Garbage. That's not proof either. #The above is one of the arguments you reiterate while you never answer #the objections. Evidence that you are a preacher. Name that fallacy.

My feeling on baptism is this: parents baptize their baby so that the baby has the sanctifying grace of baptism (and thus removal of original sin) on its soul in the event of an unexpected death. That is, the parents speak on behalf of the child which is too young to speak on its own. This should not surprise anyone: don't parents *always* do what they believe is the best for their baby? Why would that apply to the baby's physical needs only but not his/her spiritual needs to have God's grace? The purpose of confirmation is for the baby (now young adult) to decide to re-affirm for himself/herself the promises that his/her parents made at baptism. That is where accepting Jesus into your heart comes in. In baptism, the parents ask Jesus to come into their baby's heart; at confirmation the child repeats that request independently.

Hello everyone. I just wanted to let everyone know that I have just been selected as part of the Reduction In Force here at Amdahl. For all that are currently in a dialog with me, or are waiting letters from me, I have saved your letters on floppy and will continue when I get back on the net from another account in the future. For those who are on the GEnie network, my email address there is: T.ROSE1 God Bless and Goodbye until then. If you want to continue dialogs with me via US MAIL, I can be contacted at:

I think we should just let Bhagwans be Bhagwans.

That's funny, I thought you were making a statement about what people think. In fact, I see it quoted up there.

Gaining entry into heaven cannot be done without first being cleansed by the blood of Jesus. Sin cannot dwell in heaven. It is against the natural laws of God. Being converted to christianity means being baptized by the Holy Spirit. You cannot get to heaven by good works only. Because of the union with the holy spirit, the man's behavior will change. If there is true union he will not desire to be homosexual. Fornication and homosexuality will leave your life if you are truly baptized by the holy spirit. It's not to say that we don't stumble now and then.

You are quite confident that essences do not exist. How do propose to define beings? Can a thing can be *one* without definition? Can a being have a definition and know essence? What about properties? Do beings have properties? Does God have properties? Does numbers exist in reality as abstract entities or do we invent them? See my post in alt.messianic about the possibilities of tri-theism from a phiolosophical point of view.

Paul Fortmann submitted a sermon by Peter Hammond on PRAYING FOR JUSTICE that spoke of the positive value of the Imprecatory (Cursing) Psalms. In this connection, I recommend to the membership the book REFLECTIONS ON THE PSALMS, by C S Lewis, with special reference to the chapter on "Cursing in the Psalms."

but whoever listens to me will live in safety and be at ease, without fear of harm." Proverbs 1:33

To big for a .sig? No way! Keith " Home of the billdboard .sig files " Ryan =) --- Private note to Jennifer Fakult. "This post may contain one or more of the following: sarcasm, cycnicism, irony, or humor. Please be aware of this possibility and do not allow yourself to be confused and/or thrown for a loop. If in doubt, assume all of the above.

: : So in conclusion it can be shown that there is essentially no : : logical argument which clearly differentiates a "cult" from a : : "religion". I challenge anyone to produce a distinction which : : is clear and can't be easily knocked down. : How about this one: a religion is a cult which has stood the test : of time. Just like history is written by the `winners' and not the `losers.' From what I've seen of religions, a religion is just a cult that was so vile and corrupt it was able to exert it's doctrine using political and military measures. Perhaps if Koresh withstood the onslaught for another couple of months he would have started attracting more converts due to his `strength,' hence becoming a full religion and not just a cult.

I know that "must" is a verb in some languages. I'm complaining about the assertion containing the word must.

[reply to [email protected] (Todd Kelley)] Agreed. It is hard for me to understand, but quite a few professional scientists and philosophers are theists. But also intolerance and superstition. I'm not sure that in the balance it is not detrimental. Sure would!

[a lot of stuff deleted -- i'm focusing on just one point] i'm a little confused about the difference between this "weak atheism", as you put it, and agnosticism. is agnosticism not believing or necessarily disbelieving in anything, or what is it? i used to be agnostic (by this definition) -- but if weak atheism includes not necessarily believing in God, then i guess i was one of those. ??? actually what i have a hard time understanding is people who do not ever decide what they believe. i am constantly in a state of self-examination, as it would appear many others are as well (including the atheists, of course -- i'd assume that's why they're here!). i guess some people don't really consider it important to think about the answers to "life, the universe and everything" -- any comment? just wondering.... tough call, as these things seem to be based on faith -- wish i could help you, but i already tried once with someone who was a self-professed agnostic-thinking-of-becoming-a -christian, and it didn't work too well! especially tough as i'm still mulling over whether or not i believe in miracles (looks like another email to my chaplain is coming up....). all i can do is wish you the best of luck, and please do post what you find. hmm, how so? i guess i really don't understand. there are times, of course, when i say to myself "of course i have absolutely no way of knowing that what i believe in is true except the satisfaction and sense of peace i get from it -- which of course could just be psychological". somehow i live with this anyway -- is this what you mean? the only "proof" i have is that i believe God spoke to me once -- which could of course be my own imagination. the odd thing is, though, that if you don't at some point start believing in something, after a while it all gets sort of ridiculous. maybe it's just a question of where you draw the line. i'll only add one question -- have you read pascal? what did you think of him if you did? also you may (or may not) be interested by cslewis/ _surprised by joy_. i'd be interested in knowing what you think of him, no sarcasm at all intended. (i just say this because one can never know how one's written words will be interpreted. i am not interested in converting you, since i don't seem to have whatever it would take -- proof -- to do so. i'm just interested in learning.) i like this.

Yes, as a philosophy weak atheism is worthless. This is true in exactly the same sense that as a philosophy Christians' disbelief in Zeus is worthless. Atheists construct their personal philosophies from many different sources, building non-god-based ideas in the same way as Christians build non-Zeus-based ideas of thunderbolts. Atheists no more *base* their philosophy on atheism than Christians base theirs on the nonexistence of Zeus. The "weak atheist" position is logically extremely assailable -- any logical demonstration of the existence of a god completely destroys it as soon as the demonstration is made in the presence of a given weak atheist. Atheists in this newsgroup are barraged regularly with attempts to provide such a logical demonstration, and they all fail miserably. In fact, most of the people around here who claim the "strong (as opposed to mathematical) atheist" position do so on this basis: not only do we not believe in a god, but also all the arguments presented in favor of particular gods have to date proven unsound; therefore, one can say that those gods as argued by those arguments do not exist. This doesn't apply to such philosophers' gods as are defined to be logically undemonstrable, but these are not the gods of popular religion, and the coherence of such claims is quite questionable.

Note the difference here. One is saying, if *Christ* disagrees with a Christian being gay, *Christ* can change that. The other is saying, if *I* think being gay is wrong, that a Christian cannot be gay, *I* need to tell them to change. As Lois said, and as before her Paul wrote to the believers in Rome, WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE ANOTHER'S SERVANT? -jen --

Ouch. I guess I didn't. Sorry. But my comment was just more 'irony' into the fire. Cheers, Kent

#|> #|> #And in that area, what you care about is whether someone is sceptical, #|> #critical and autonomous on the one hand, or gullible, excitable and #|> #easily led on the other. #|> #|> Indeed I may. And one may be an atheist and also be gullible, excitable #|> and easily led. #|> #|> #I would say that a tendency to worship tyrants and ideologies indicates #|> #that a person is easily led. Whether they have a worship or belief #|> #in a supernatural hero rather than an earthly one seems to me to be #|> #beside the point. #|> #|> Sure. But whether or not they are atheists is what we are discussing, #|> not whether they are easily led. # #Not if you show that these hypothetical atheists are gullible, excitable #and easily led from some concrete cause. In that case we would also #have to discuss if that concrete cause, rather than atheism, was the #factor that caused their subsequent behaviour. I'm not arguing that atheism causes such behaviour - merely that it is not relevant to the definition of atheism, which is 'lack of belief in gods'.

WOW! Are you serious! So not everyone who calls themself a Christian is a Christian? WOW! That does make things a bit more complicated doesn't it? That seems like very good advice, given the above revelation. Like for example Matthew 5:14-19 right? Um, where did Jesus say that he wanted people to worship him?

Although simplistic I have always liked the fact that "a Christian is one who not only believes in God, but believes God." After all the name was first given externally to identify those who "preached Christ and Him crucified" to pay the price of their rebeliion and shortcomings before God. God said this was His son -- I belive Him. -- Scott Dittman email: [email protected] University Registrar talk: (703)463-8455 fax: (703)463-8024 Washington and Lee University snail mail: Lexington Virginia 24450

> Mary at that time appeared to a girl named Bernadette at > Lourdes. She referred to herself as the Immaculate Conception. > Since a nine year old would have no way of knowing about the > doctrine, the apparition was deemed to be true and it sealed > the case for the doctrine. Bernadette was 14 years old when she had her visions, in 1858, four years after the dogma had been officially proclaimed by the Pope.

::DATE: Sun, 25 Apr 1993 10:13:30 GMT ::FROM: Fred Rice <[email protected]: :: :: ::The Qur'an talks about those who take their lusts and worldly desires for ::their "god". :: ::I think this probably encompasses most atheists. :: :: Fred Rice :: [email protected] : :As well as all the Muslim men screwing fourteen year old prostitutes in :Thailand. Got a better quote? :

Well I agree with you in the sense that they have no "moral" right to inflict these rules, but there is one thing I might add: at the very least, almost everybody wants to avoid pain, and if that means sacrificing some stuff for a herd morality, then so be it. Right, and since they grew up and learned around us, they have some idea of our right and wrong, which I think must, in part, be incorporated. Very rarely do you see criminal behaviour for "philosophical reasons" (stuff deleted) -- best regards, --Adam

Dear netters I am wondering about the accident of Koresh. I have heard different explanations. Without any explanation about your opinions and believes, please kindly tell me: 1)- What was Koresh talking about?. (Or what was his message) 2)- What was the main reason that Government went in war with Koresh? (Some say that due to Tax payment, ....) Thanks in advance for your historical explanation.

This is something I've always found a little curious. I've never quite understood the trinity thing. On the one hand, Jesus is supposed to be God incarnate. But, at the same time, he is God's son "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son". First question is, if Jesus was God in human form, how could he really be God's son? If the Holy Ghost "planted the seed" in Mary, so to speak, then it seems that Jesus' relationship to God would be the equivalent to the human father/son relationship. While a son might inherit alot of the father's qualities, he is not the father. They are still two separite entities. To try and say that a son is the same person as the father is obviously wrong. In that case, Jesus and God aren't the same. On the other hand, if their relationship isn't the same as the human father/son relationship, but Jesus is actually God incarnate, then he's not really God's son and he never was. He's just God manifesting himself as Jesus. At least, this is how I'm seeing it. Can someone who is more knowledgeable about the trinity enlighten us? Getting back to the original question, what is the great price that Jesus paid to redeem our sins? Was it dying on the cross? Since Jesus knew that he would rise again in 3 days and then ascend back to heaven, I have a hard time seeing how this is considered paying such a great price for humanity. His earthly body may have been killed, but then, so what? He suffered a few hours of physical pain, but then, there has been many a human who has suffered a great deal more. The fact that Jesus was God's only begotten son doesn't seem to me to have much meaning since God can beget as many sons as he wants to. Jesus being the only one was simply a matter of choice. I suspect that these questions will be very offensive to many Christians on this net. To those people, please accept my sincere apologies. It is not my intention to offend or to trivialize Christ. But, I do believe these are legitimate questions and I am genuinely curious. [Note that the Trinity and Incarnation have to be looked at together. First, your reading of the Virgin Birth is an uncommon one. (In this group, it's dangerous to say that no one believes something.) You seem to be suggesting the Jesus is God's son in a physical sense, with the Holy Spirit as Father and Mary as Mother. I consider that terrible heresy, though some people react less violently. The Virgin Birth says that Jesus' birth is God's responsibility. But it doesn't imply that God's sperm was involved. Indeed one (though by no means the only) speculation is that God used Joseph's genetic material. Second, Jesus is in some sense doubly indirect from the Father. In a Trinitarian context, the term Son refers to the eternal Logos, who is a part of God. The Son didn't come into existence with Jesus' birth. Jesus is the incarnation of the Son. So his sonness isn't specifically a result of being incarnated. Rather, it's the Son who was incarnated.

Surprise, surprise. I sure didn't lose any sleep over it, and I live there. Suppose someone said that he was sure that he would return from death, in glory and power, flying in the clouds with the host of heaven,soon, within the lifetimes of those then standing with him - and 2000 years went by without any such event. [He also asserted, so they say, himself to be God.] 2 questions: 1) Is that one of those "false prophecies" you were talking about? 2) Does that make the speaker a false prophet? Uhh, Has it occurred to you that there is no way to know any of these things, for certain, "without the tiniest shadow of a doubt"? That people who thought they did have also been deluded? Those of us who believe in actually being able to _CHECK_ our opinions have an out - we can check against some external reality. Those who assert that beliefs entertained without evidence, or even despite evidence have a special virtue (ie. "faith") are out of luck -- and this is the result. You want to demonstrate Christian honesty? Great. Start with the prophecy above - what can we conclude about the speaker?

=>I don't necessarily agree with Pat Robertson. Every one will be placed before =>the judgement seat eventually and judged on what we have done or failed to do =>on this earth. God allows people to choose who and what they want to worship. = =I'm sorry, but He does not! Ever read the FIRST commandment? I have. Apparently you haven't. The first commandment doesn't appear to forbid worshipping other gods. Yahweh's got to be at the top of the totem pole, though. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: [email protected] | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

But hanging is certainly painful. Or, do you not let the condemned know they are going to die? Hanging is not supposed to be very pleasant. I believe that in actuality, it is not "quick and clean". However, gas chambers can be quite non-painful. Heck, why not give them a good time? Suffication by Nitrious Oxide! =) --- Private note to Jennifer Fakult. "This post may contain one or more of the following: sarcasm, cycnicism, irony, or humor. Please be aware of this possibility and do not allow yourself to be confused and/or thrown for a loop. If in doubt, assume all of the above.

Considering what you quoted and refered to was blank, I must say: touche! Of course, you are correct, there is no atheistic mythology employed on this board. Or, if there is, it is null and void. --- Private note to Jennifer Fakult. "This post may contain one or more of the following: sarcasm, cycnicism, irony, or humor. Please be aware of this possibility and do not allow yourself to be confused and/or thrown for a loop. If in doubt, assume all of the above.

Then we all live happily ever after. :-) Seriously, if we all agreed on the circumstances we're in, I suspect we'd all agree on the best course of action. Unfortunately, I have no confidence that such a situation will ever arise. Some of us think there's a big God in the sky, some don't. Some think they've been chosen by God, others disagree. Some think they are infallible, others think otherwise. Until those disagreements over circumstances can be ironed out, there's little hope of everyone agreeing. Yes. I think that, for example, only a vanishingly small number of people would hold that there's a frame of reference in which gassing six million Jews is good. So that's probably about as close to an objective moral value as I've encountered in my life so far. Well, I think your example's poor. If the bomb's in Iraq, for example, and was dropped by an American plane, many people would hold that it was a moral act. Hmm. So these moral values have a perceptible physical presence? Right, and the chain ends right there. The buck stops with me. It's not an infinite regress. Right. The key point, however, is that there are vanishingly few of these moral issues where we can get 99.9% of people to agree on the outcome for all frames of reference (and agree on the frames of reference...) I can't manage either. Killing Hitler using a car bomb would have been a terrorist act, but I have to admit that I couldn't exactly condemn it. Although there are tricky philosophical issues to do with hindsight... I think that circumstances have already arisen where terrorism would have been better than peace. Better in terms of numbers of innocent people killed. Assuming it was successful terrorism, of course.

Diplomatic :-) I realize I'm fighting Occam's razor in this argument, so I'll try to explain why I feel a mind is necessary. Firstly, I'm not impressed with the ability of algorithms. They're great at solving problems once the method has been worked out, but not at working out the method itself. As a specific example, I like to solve numerical crosswords (not the simple do-the-sums-and-insert-the-answers type, the hard ones.) To do these with any efficiency, you need to figure out a variety of tricks. Now, I know that you can program a computer to do these puzzles, but in doing so you have to work out the tricks _yourself_, and program them into the computer. You can, of course, 'obfuscate' the trick, and write the program so that it is uncovered, but as far as I can see, the trick still has to be there in some form to be discovered. Does this mean that all the ideas we will ever have are already pre-programmed into our brains? This is somewhat unlikely, given that our brains ultimately are encoded in 46 chromosomes worth of genetic material, much of which isn't used. One way around this is to bring the environment into the equation, but (again, as far as I can see) this still has an air of 'if you see object X, then perform action Y,' and we don't seem to get anywhere. The algorithm has to anticipate what it might see, and what conclusions to draw from it's experience. The other problem with algorithms is their instability. Not many algorithms survive if you take out a large portion of their code, yet people survive strokes without going completely haywire (there are side-effects, but patients still seem remarkably stable.) Also, neurons in perfectly healthy people are dying at an alarming rate - can an algorithm survive if I randomly corrupt various bits of it's code? The next problem is the sticky question of "What is colour?" (replace 'colour' with the sensation of your choice.) Presumably, the materialist viewpoint is that it's the product of some kind of chemical reaction. The usual products of such a reaction are energy + different chemicals. Is colour a mixture of these? If this is so, a computer won't see colour, because the chemistry is different. Does an algorithm that sees colour have a selective advantage over an equivalent that doesn't? It shouldn't, because the outputs of each algorithm ought to be the same in equivalent circumstances. So why do we see colour? A bit of idle speculation... If I remember correctly, quantum mechanics consists of a wavefunction, with two processes acting on it. The first process has been called 'Unitary Evolution' (or 'U'), is governed by Schroedinger's equation and is well known. The second process, called various things such as 'collapse of the wavefunction' or 'state vector reduction' (or 'R'), and is more mysterious. It is usually said to occur when a 'measurement' takes place, although nobody seems to know precisely when that occurs. When it does occur, the effect of R is to abruptly change the wavefunction. I envisage R as an interaction between the wavefunction and 'something else,' which I shall imaginitively call 'part X.' It seems reasonable to assume that _something_ causes R, although that something might be the wavefunction itself (in which case, part X is simply the wavefunction. Note, though, that we'd need more than U to explain R.) Anyway, I'm speculating that minds would be in part X. There seems to be some link between consciousness and R, in that we never see linear superpositions of anything, although there are alternative explainations for this. I've no idea how a brain is supposed to access part X, but since this is only speculation, that won't matter too much :-) My main point is that there might be a place for minds in physics. I'll go back to my nice padded cell now, if that's OK with you :-) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Kevin Anthoney [email protected] Don't believe anything you read in .sig files.

Interesting point. The Bible doesn't say "hate the sin". It tells to avoid sin, resist sin, even, when necessary, denounce sin. But not hate. -- :- Michael A. Covington, Associate Research Scientist : ***** :- Artificial Intelligence Programs [email protected] : ********* :- The University of Georgia phone 706 542-0358 : * * * :- Athens, Georgia 30602-7415 U.S.A. amateur radio N4TMI : ** *** ** <>< [The following passages all talk about God or people God approves of hating sin or some other action. Ps 119:113 also talks about hating the sinner. I believe there are other passages that would talk about hating someone who is evil, but I didn't turn them up in this search (which was on the word "hate" in the KJV, though I've crosschecked each passage in the NRSV). Ps 97:10, 101:3, 105:25, 119:104, 113, 128, 163, , 139:21-22 Prov 6:16, 8:13 Isa 61:8 Amos 5:15 Zec 8:17 Rev 2:6

No. It is very relevant. Homosexual acts and acts of beastiality are topically aranged together in the law. This is very important. Anyone who would want to say that this command against homosexuality deals with temple prostitution (and I think you would agree that there is no proof for this.) If the Law reveals the character of God, and is "holy, just, and good" as is written in the New Testament, then those who consider we who are against commiting homosexuals acts to be biggots have to address this passage of Scripture. Why must we only discuss Scriptures that involve consensual human adult relationships? Isn't that bordering on sophistry? The point we are making is that God did not ordain certain kinds of sex acts. Not everyone who brings up these Scriptures is just trying to use and emotional argument that compares homosexuals to beastophiles and child molestors. The issue we are dealing with is that some sex acts are ungodly. I do not have problem with a loving, nonlustful relationship with a member of the same sex. I have them, and we all do. The issue at hand is the sinfulness having sex with members of the same sex, or lusting after. So other forbidden sex acts are a valid topic for conversation. And the idea that these relationships may be emotional relationships between adult humans is red herring. We all agree that it is okay for adults to have caring relationships with one another.

: Consequently, : this verse indicates that she was without sin. Also, as was observed at : the very top of this post, Mary had to be free from sin in order to be the : mother of Jesus, who was definitely without sin. If the mother of Jesus had to be without sin in order to give birth to God, then why didn't Mary's mother have to be without sin in order to give birth to the perfect vessel for Jesus? For that matter, why didn't Mary's grandmother have to be without sin either? Seems to me that with all the original sin flowing through each person, the need for the last one (Mary) to have none puts God in a box, where we say that He couldn't have incarnated Himself through a normal human being. My God is an all powerful God, Who can do whatever suits His purpose. This includes creating a solar system and planet earth with the appearance of great age; providing a path through the Red Sea for the children of Israel that does not depend on the existence of a ridge of high ground and a wind blowing at the right speed and direction; and the birth of Himself from a normal sinful person without being tainted by her original sin. I see far too much focus on the "objects" of religion and not nearly enough on the personal relationship that is available to all believers with the Author of our existence, without the necessity of having this relationship channeled through conduits to God in the form of Mary, Apostles and a Pope. : Note that the idea of Mary being conceived without Original Sin, i.e. the : Immaculate Conception, is distinct from the idea of Mary not having sinned : during her lifetime, which is a separate doctrine and, I believe, also : held by the Catholic Church. If Mary was born without original sin, and didn't sin during her lifetime, how is she any different from Jesus? This means the world has had two perfect humans: one died to take away the sins of the world; the other gave birth to Him? I would certainly want to see some scriptural support for this before I would start praying to anyone other than God. Everything I have ever read from the bible teaches me that Jesus was and is the only sinless Lamb of God, not His mother, grandmother........ : Hope this is useful to you. Very useful in helping me understand some of the RC beliefs. Thank you.

It seems you lived a fairly 'wild life'-- my background is far more traditional, mostly working, working, working. Maybe there's a clear indication that the way you lived your life produced a certain amount of anxiety that needed to be released. Religion was one possible medicine. While my more stable environment didn't and still does not produce the situation where I feel such guilt. This is just one possible explanation why you feel this burden, while I haven't felt it so far. Regards, Kent

After reading this story about St. Maria Goretti (posted two weeks ago), I am a bit confused. While it is clear that her daily life is one of probity and sanctity, I am afraid I don't quite understand the final episode of her life. I am reading it correctly, she (and the Church apparently) felt that being raped was a sin on _her_ part, one so perfidious that she would rather die than commit it. If this is the case I'm afraid that I disagree rather strongly. Can anyone out there explain this one to me? Yours in Christ,

Curiously enough, this subject has occupied a good bit of my prayer life recently. God's experience of time is so completely different from our own, since He is both within and without it. Using words like "foreknowledge" and "predestination" are semantically incorrect when it comes to describing God's perception of our action, because, for God, the beginning, living, and ending of our lives are all the same. Sort of. For God, there is no "before" when He did not know, so he could not have "foreknowledge" of our lives or a time when he could have "predestined" our actions. In fact, since our understanding of things is so tied to our linear experience of time, I would say that it is impossible for us to understand completely how our free will interacts with God's control of the universe.

Society is the collection of individuals which will fall under self-defined rules. In terms of UN decisions all the sets of peoples who are represented at the UN are considered part of that society. If we then look at US federal laws provided by representatives of purely US citizens then the society for that case would be the citizens of the US and so on. "Acceptable" are those behaviours which are either legislated for the society by representatives of that society or those behaviours which are non-verbally and, in effect, non-consciously, such as picking your nose on the Oprah Winfrey show, no-one does it, but there is no explicit law against doing it. In many cases there are is no definition of whether or not a behaviour is "acceptable", but one can deduce these behaviours by observation. In an increasingly litigation mad society, this trap is becoming exceedingly difficult to avoid. With the infusion and strengthening of ethnic cultures in American (and Australian, to bring in my local perspective) culture the boundaries of acceptable behaviour are ever widening and legislation may eventually become the definition of moral behaviour. For instance, some cultures' dominant religion call for live sacrifice of domesticated animals. Most fundamental christians would find this practice abhorrent. However, is it moral, according to the multicultural american society? This kind of problem may only be definable by legislation. Obviously within any society there will be differences in opinion in what is acceptable behaviour or not, and much of this will be due to different environmental circumstances rather than merely different opinions. One thing is for sure, there is no universal moral code which will suit all cultures in all situations. There may, however, be some globally accepted mores which can be agreed upon and instantiated as a globally enforcable concept. The majority of mores will not be common until all peoples upon this earth are living in a similar environment (if that ever happens).

#I find myself unable to put these two statements together in a #sensible way: # #>Abortion is done because the mother can not afford the *pregnancy*. # #[...] # #>If we refused to pay for the more expensive choice of birth, *then* #>your statement would make sense. But that is not the case, so it doesn't. # #Are we paying for the birth or not, Mr. Parker? If so, why can't the #mother afford the pregnancy? If not, what is the meaning of the #latter objection? You can't have it both ways. Birth != pregnancy. If they were the same, the topic of abortion would hardly arise, would it, Mr. Skinner?

He is God. He is God. God granted you the gift of life whether you were sinner or saint. The scientist creates the living creature to examine it, poke and prod it and learn about its behaviour. He will kill it if it becomes a threat. For example, let's say the scientist creates a Tyrannosaurus Rex and it breaks free of its confines and starts devouring the population. The scientist would not hesitate in killing it. God creates us to be His loving companions. He knows whether we are true in our love for Him or not. And He lets us know the consequences of rejecting Him. God cannot abide by sin. By rejecting God, a person becomes an enemy of God, one that must be killed by Him. Note: I say that God and God alone is worthy to be Judge, Jury and Executioner. We are not called to carry out such duties because we are not worthy. God is God. Who are we to question the Creator? If you doubt God's doing in certain situations, do you claim to know a better solution? Would you be playing the role of God?

My sentiments exactly... which is why I'm unsubbing from this group. This is the 3rd 'christian' discussion list I have ever belonged to and once again I'm being chased away by the strife, anger, discontent, lies, et al . As Paul (Saul) said, 'I come to preach Christ, and Him crucified' Don't let the simple beauty of faith in God get overshadowed by heady theological discussions or thousands of lines of post-incarnation trappings of some church. As for the atheists/agnostics who read this list: if you aren't christian and if you have no intention of ever becoming one why on earth do you waste your time and mine by participating on a christian discussion list ? I will continue to search for christian discussion (prayerful, spirit-filled, kind, humble, patient, etc.) in other circles. -- Sheila Patterson, CIT CR-Technical Support Group 315 CCC - Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 (607) 255-5388

I find this remark to be awfully arrogant. I would venture to say that there are many people who are Christians now, who at one point in their lives had no intention of ever becoming a Christian. I was certainly one such person. I am quite thankful that there were Christians who were willing to continue to talk to me, despite the appearance that it might have been a waste of their time and mine. (I even married one of them.)

: I agree, I had a hard feeling not believing my grand-grand mother : who told me of elves dancing outside barns in the early mornings. : I preferred not to accept it, even if her statement provided : the truth itself. Life is hard. Kent, Truly a brilliant rebuttal. Apparently you are of the opinion that ridicule is a suitable substitute for reason; you'll find plenty of company a.a

... The so-called Athanasian Creed has never been a recognized standard of faith in the Orthodox Church. It was introduced (without the Filioque) in certain service-books in the 17th and 18th centuries at a time when there was a strong Western influence on Orhtodoxy.

That is an assumption on your part. Where is your proof that one always will degenerate into hating the sinner, because he hates the sin. I am reminded of the Civil Rights movement in America. It is true that many individuals hated the proponents of racism. It is also true that many individuals hated segregation and discrimination with their whole heart and never degenerated into hating the individuals who practiced it. Dr. King's message was this. Love the individual, the loving of the individual would transform him into a friend. However, this did not take away his hatred for segregation. His hatred for injustice. I would ask, "Did John the Baptist practice love when he criticized the Jewish Leaders of his day?" Did Jesus Practice love when he threw the moneychangers out of the temple? We must have at least a distase for sin. We must in order to fight it in ourselves. Also we must be ready for the call from God to call sin by its right name. Jesus loved everyone, but he called sin by its right name. It is true that love for others is to guide every step of our walk, but it is also true that sometimes the love for God calls us to stand up for truth. -- "Competition is the law of the jungle. Cooperation is the law of civilization." -- Eldridge Cleaver

This is always an option: when the sect is causing harm, re-label the cult to something else. Cheers, Kent

This might be better directed to s.r.c.bible-study, which I have begun reading, but since my earlier notes were posted to this forum, I will conclude here as well. A week ago, I managed to find time to consult a Septuagint Concordance and a LXX text with apparatus at the library, and I can now usefully conclude my look at the Greek words for love as used in the Christian background of the Septuagintal translation of the Jewish scriptures. The principal result is that there is a cluster of uses of the verbal noun from _erao:_, _eraste:s_ meaning "lover." This cluster occurs just where one might most expect it, in the propethic image (and accusation) of Israel as faithless spouse to YHWH. The verses in question are Hosea 2:5,7 & 10; Jeremiah 4:30, 22:20 & 22; Lamentations 1:19; and Ezekiel 16:33, 36 &37 and 23:5, 9 & 22. [ Hosea seems to have originated this usage, which Jeremiah and Ezekiel picked up; Lamentations is dependent on, though not likely written by, Jeremiah. ] The "erotic" meaning (in its allegorical use, not at all literally) is evident. So too in English, unless you complement it with a phrase like "of the arts" the word "lover" is going to have an overtone of sexual relationship. There is no surprise here, but it is worthwhile to see that standard Greek usage *does* show up in the translations from the Hebrew! :-) More interestingly, and some confirmation of my guess that later Koine usage avoided the verb _erao:_ because of its homonymy to _ero:_ (say), _eromai_ (ask), there is an error in Codex Vaticanus (normally, a very valuable witness) where a form of _erao:_ is used in a completely absurd context -- 2 Samuel 20:18, where the meaning *must* be "say." In addition to the above (and the uses I have already mentioned in Proverbs), Esther 2:17 uses the verb in its most natural application, kai e:rasthe" ho basileus Esthe:r -- and the King loved Esther and, rather more interestingly, 1 Samuel 19:2 supplies a modest degree of support to the gay appraisal of the relationship of David and Jonathan: kai Io:nathan huios Saoul e:[i]reito ton Dauid sphodra -- and Jonathan, Saul's son, loved David intensely [ I'm using the bracketed [i] for io:ta subscript, which I don't yet have a reasonable ASCII convention for. ] (The relevance of this to the gay issue is not anything implicit about the "historical" facts, but just that a quasi-official translation of the Hebrew text in the Hellenistic period makes no bones about using the "erotic" verb in this context. Given the quite general usage of _agapao:_ for erotic senses, this need not mean anything "more" than _agapao:_ alone would mean, but it DOES disambiguate the relationship, as far as this translator goes!)

Indeed, the immediate context [NASB] is: 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this comes judgement; 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, not to bear sin, tro those who eagerly await him. The first point is that this verse is part of an even larger context, the subject of which is not the destiny of the individual human soul but rather the singular nature of Christ's sacrifice, "once", and the fulfillment of the law for all of fallen mankind. Rudolf Frieling elaborates this in detail in his "Christianity and Reincarnation". The thrust of the passage in its context is to liken the one time incarnation and sacrifice of Christ for all mankind to the individual experience of the human being after death. The "once" is repeated and emphasized, and it highlights the singularity of Christ's deed. One thing for certain it does is to refute the claims of some that Christ incarnates more than once. But the comparison to the human experience - die once, then judgement (note: not "the judgement", but just "judgement". The word for judgement is "krisis". Hebrews 9:27 is the one passage most often quoted in defense of the doctrine that the Bible denies reincarnation. At this point, I would just emphasize again that the passages that (arguably) speak against it are few, and that invariably they are talking about something eles, and the apparent denial of reincarnation is either inferred, or, as in the case of Hebrews, taken literally and deposited into an implied context, namely a doctrine of the destiny of the human being after death. What should be considered seriously is that the Bible is essentially silent about the fate of the individual human being between death and the Last Day. If you take the few passages that could possibly be interpreted to mean a single earth life, they are arguable. And there are other passages that point, arguably, in the other direc- tion. such as Matthew 11:14 and John 9:2. We can continue to debate the individual scraps of scripture that might have a bearinig on this, and indeed we should discuss them. But what I wanted to introduce into the discussion was an approach to the idea of repeated earth lives that, unlike Hindu, Buddhist and "new age" teachings, takes full cognizance of the divinity, singular incarnation, death, burial, resurrection, and second coming of Christ as the savior of mankind; the accountability of each individual for his deeds and the reality of the Fall and of sin and its consequences; the redemption of man from sin through Christ; the resurrection of the body, and the Last Judgement. Taken in this larger sense, many serious questions take on an entirely different perspective. E.g. the destiny of those who died in their sins before Christ came. the relationship of faith and grace to works, the meaning of "deathbed conversion", the meaning of the sacraments, and many other things. Not that I propose to answer all those questions by a simple doctrine of convenience, but only that the discussion takes on a different dimension, and in my opinion one that is truly worthy of both man, the earth, and their Creator and Redeemer. There are many deep questions that continue to be deep, such as the meaning of the second death, and how the whole of Christian doctrine would apply to this larger perspective of human existence. There are those who deeply believe that the things of which the Bible does not speak are not things we should be concerned with. But Christ also indicated that there were other things that we would come to know in the future, including things that his disciples (and therefore others) could not bear yet. This idea that the human capacity for growth in knowledge, not only of the individual in one lifetime, but of the whole of humanity, also takes on great meaning when we realize that our growth in the spirit is a long term process. The Bible was not meant to codify all spiritual knowledge in one place forever, but to proclaim the gospel of the incarnation and redeeming deed of Christ - taking the gospel in the greater context, from Genesis to Revelation. Now, salvation (healing) becomes, not the end of man's sojourn but its beginning. And the Last Judgement and the New Heaven and Earth that follow it become its fulfullment.

Right. The Branch Dividians were. They believed and trusted so much that it became impossible to turn back to reality. What you are advocating is total irreversible brainwashing.

: >Prove it. I have a source that says that to date, the civilian death count : >(er, excuse me, I mean "collateral damage") is about 200,000. : : I have _never_ seen any source that was claiming such a figure. Please : post the source so its reliability can be judged. This figure would not simply be deaths by bombing, but also death later from disease (the sewer system of Baghdad was deliberately targeted) and starvation. I believe (but when I get a copy of the latest research in June or July) that this was the figure proposed in the Census Bureau report on the matter. The report was suppressed and the CB attempted to sack the author of the report, but failed due to procedural technicality. The author is now on permanent leave.

Larry - Thanks for the reply, but this isn't quite the same thing. Like I said before, I can understand why non-Christians would be denied *access* to holy ceremonies, but the ceremony itself (communion) was not secret. In fact, all four gospels record the first "breaking of the bread" in some detail. Communion was a fellowship meal, and it was (and still should be, in my opinion) inappropriate to invite those who did not share in the fellowship of the Body of Christ. The fact that unbelievers, denied access to these communal meals, began to imagine all sorts of secret and debased rituals during communion does not by any means imply that the early Christians were in fact hiding shameful things from the general public. In fact, I think if you read some of the early church fathers, you will find that they were not at all bashful about describing what went on during communion. That's why it seems funny to me when Mormons, who claim to be the only true restoration of 1st century Christianity, insist on hiding certain rituals on the grounds that they are "too sacred." - Mark

No smiley on the part about atheism, I see. Do you realize that your statement says that I was mentioning "nonsense" about atheism? This is hard for me to defend against if this is the claim you are making, as you have only included the last two sentences of my post and mentioned the first. Please address the substance of my post rather than rejecting it out of hand. But, because of the sometimes ambiguous nature of English, I may be misinterpreting your wording here. Please clarify: did you or did you not mean to call my statements about atheism "nonsense"? If so, care to back up that claim? OK, then. Start up the amatuer psycology again. How am I "broken"? *YAWN* Excuse me, I don't recall any portion of my post in which I called Christians arrogant quote me, if I did. I do remember calling Christianity "silly" and then following that up with information that I was nine years old when I thought that. I also said that I find faith to be intellectually dishonest and I would like to see some sort of proof of your god's existence. I define "faith" as "belief in the absense of any proof", BTW. Also, I subscribe to a.a as I mentioned and we see fundies of all types there, so in answer to your question: "no." Finally, I'd hardly call Christianity "beseiged" in this country. I seldom see Christians ridiculed for merely practising their religion or wearing crosses or having Christian bumper stickers. I don't know for sure, of course, I only say I haven't seen it happening. What I have seen happening is my homosexual and/or friends being beat up, or preached at by people who claim to be Christ's followers. I know that this sort of thing isn't practiced by the majority of Christians, but it is a very vocal minority who are doing it and I don't see comperable victimization of Christians. The implication being that I am not self-respecting, of course. I'm not a student of psychology, BTW, but I am a student of Creative Writing and Linguistics, so literary analysis _is_ my forte. Also, if the implications I see are improper, please let me know. I'm here because I'm not sequestered in my own little atheist cubbyhole as you seem to think atheists should be. Did it occur to you that I _don't_ think I know everything and that maybe someone will say something that will change my life? Have you read my other posts here or did you see "atheist" and decide it was time to poke at someone who doesn't deserve your respect? Aw, geez. I'm sorry, I probably am getting my back up a little too high, here. It's just that the "nonsense" thing really annoys me. I figure you should see my first reactions, though, since they are my true reactions to your question. Now, the smoothed feather version: I seek all sorts of knowledge. That's why I came to my university. Yes, I am looking at your religion (well, sorta, I have no idea what *kind* of Christian you are) from the outside, and hopefully with an objective view. I've been trying to ask reasoned questions here, because I genuinely don't know the answers to them, but when I saw the question directed at atheists I figured I would answer. After all, you can speculate about atheist motives here all you want (hence the "amatuer" psychology crack), but without an atheist, you can't be sure of even one atheist's motive. I'm hoping people really want to know and I was trying to show that I actually checked out several religions and I actually read all the pamphlets people have to offer and I actually think about these things. Instead, I'm still faced with the implication that atheism is some kind of aberration and that only "broken" people are atheist. Try it from the flip side: I posit that atheism is the natural state and only broken people are theists. I offer as proof that so many people witness from horrible lives which picked up as soon as they discovered their religion, that religion is regional (if people didn't follow the religion of their areas, there would be a more homogenous mix), so many terrorists claim theistic motives, and that theists tend to be so pushy and angry when challenged on alt.atheism. Why are religions so successful? Because there is so much suffering in the world, which "breaks" people. It's an uncomfortable situation whichever way you look at it, which is another reason I'm here, to try to see the flip side of my thinking (and also as a watchdog for logical fallacies :). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The implication here being that atheists can't possibly know anything about Christianity. Probably jumping at shadows again, but I think my reaction is somewhat justified. After all, the first post suggested that atheists are "broken", hostile people. This post confirms that someone else believes it. ^^^^^^^^^^ Well, he got me there. I am a strong atheist, because I feel that lack of evidence, especially about something like an omnipotent being, implies lack of existence. However, I haven't met the strong atheist yet who said that nothing could ever persuade him. Call me a "seeker" if you like, I don't. _Weak_ atheism is being ignore here, though. Some atheists simply say "I don't believe in any god" rather than my position: "I believe that no god(s) exist." For the weak atheist, the is no atheism to disbelieve, because they don't actively believe in atheism. (If you think this is confusing, try figuring out the difference between Protestants and Methodists from an atheist point of view :). This is another fallacy many theists seem to have, that everyone believes in something (followed up by "everyone has faith in something"). Guess what? My atheism ends the moment I'm shown a proof of some god's existence. Is that really too much to ask? Well, I guess you won't succeed in converting him or me. Why the supposition that you will fail to convince him? (amatuer psycology on) Is it because you yourself are unconvinced? :) And I told you that I find faith to be intellectually dishonest. Note that I can only speak for myself. If you find faith to be honest, show me how. I have been unable to reconcile it so far. Maybe that's how I'm "broken"? I tell you that I have invisible fairies living in my garden and that you should just take my word for it. If you accept that, you are of a fundamentally different mind than I and I really would like to know how you think. All I ask for is proof of the assertion "God exists". Logical or physical proofs only, please. Then we'll discuss the nature of "God". Prayer?! Uh, oh, we'll have to revoke his atheist club card and beanie! :) Good luck to you, as well. And, again, I apologize if the inferences I made were inaccurate. Muppets and garlic toast forever, Max (Bob) Muir

I think that if a theist were truly objective and throws out the notion that God definitely exists and starts from scratch to prove to themselves that the scriptures are the whole truth then that person would no longer be a theist. You're missing something here. There are people who convert from non-theism to theism after being brought up in a non-theist household. (I don't have any statistics as to how many though. That would be an interesting thing to know.) I think that religion is a crutch. People are naturally afraid of the unknown and the unexplainable. People don't want to believe that when they die, they are dead, finished. That there is nothing else after that. And so religion is kind of a nice fantasy. Religion also describes things we don't know about the universe (things science has not yet described) and it also gives people a feeling of security... that if they just do this one thing and everything will be ok. That they are being watched over by a higher power and its minions. This has a very high psychological attraction for quite a few people and these people are willing to put up with a few discrepancies and holes in their belief system for what it gains them. This is why I think it's kind of useless to try too hard to convert theists to atheism. They are happy with their fantasy and they feel that other people will be happy with it too (they can't accept the fact that there are people who would rather accept the harsh reality that they are running from). Anyway, I'm getting kind of carried away here. But my point is that theism doesn't have to be ingrained into a child's mindset for that person to grow up as a theist (although this happens far too often). Theism is designed to have its own attractions.

They looked unto him, and were lightened: and their faces were not ashamed.

You asked me to look over here, but I was on my way back anyway :-) #[reply to [email protected] (Mike Cobb)] # #>If morals come from what is societally accepted, why follow that? What #>right do we have to expect others to follow our notion of societally #>mandated morality? Pardon the extremism, but couldn't I murder your #>"brother" and say that I was exercising my rights as I saw them, was #>doing what felt good, didn't want anyone forcing their morality on me, #>or I don't follow your "morality" ? # #I believe that morality is subjective. Each person is entitled to his #own moral attitudes. Mine are not a priori more correct than someone #elses. This does not mean however that I must judge another on the #basis of his rather than my moral standards. While he is entitled to #believe what his own moral sense tells him, the rest of society is #entitled to pass laws spelling out punishments for behavior that is #offensive to the majority. Why? Your last statement. Why? By which authority? #Most criminals do not see their behavior as moral. The may realize that #it is immoral and not care. They are thus not following their own moral #system but being immoral. For someone to lay claim to an alternative #moral system, he must be sincere in his belief in it and it must be #internally consistent. Why? Your last statement. Why are these things necessary? And believe me, a belief in terrorism can be both sincere and frighteningly consistent. #Some sociopaths lack an innate moral sense and #thus may be incapable of behaving morally. While someone like Hitler #may have believed that his actions were moral, we may judge him immoral #by our standards. Holding that morality is subjective does not mean #that we must excuse the murderer. Trouble is, this would sound just fine coming from someone like Hitler, too. (I do *not* mean any comparison or offence, David.) Try substituting the social minority of your choice for 'sociopath', 'Hitler', and 'murderer'. No logical difference. Someone like you, vs. someone like Hitler. Zero sum.

Wow! You got me thinking now! This is an interesting question in that recently there has been a move in society to classify previously "socially unacceptable" yet legal activities as OK. In the past it seems to me there were always two coexisting methods of social control. First (and most explicit) is legal control. That is the set of actions we define as currently illegal and having a specifically defined set of punishments. Secondly (and somewhat more hidden) is social control. These are the actions which are considered socially unacceptable and while not covered by legal control, are scrictly controled by social censure. Ideally (if socialization is working as it should) legal control is hardly ever needed since most people voluntarilly control their actions due to the pressure of social censure. The control manifests itself in day-to-day life as "guilt" and "morality". I've heard it said (and fully believe) that if it weren't for the VAST majority of people policing themselves, legal control would be absolutely impossible. Lately (last 50, 100 years?) however there has been a move to attempt to dissengage the individual from societal control (ie. if it ain't illegal, then don't pick on me). I'm not saying this is wrong, merely that it is a byproduct of a society which has: 1) A high education level, 2) A high exposure to alternative ideas via the popular media, 3) A high level of institutionalized individual rights, and 4) A "me" oriented culture. I guess what I'm saying is that we appear to be in a state of transition, here in the western world in that we still have many ideas about what we can\ can't allow people to do based entirely on personal squeamishness, yet we are fully bent on maximizing individual freedoms to the max as long as those freedoms don't impinge on another's. IMHO society is trying to persue two mutually exclusive ends here. While we appreciate and persue individual rights (these satisfy the old territoriality and dominance instincts), the removal of socialized, inherent fears based on ignorance will result in the continued destabilization of society. I got no quick fix. I have no idea how we can get ourselves out of this mess. I know I would never consent to the roll-back of personal freedoms in order to "stabilize" society. Yet I believe development of societies follow a Darwinian process which selects for stability. Can we find a social model which maximizes indiv. freed.'s yet is stable? Perhaps it is possible to live with a "non-stable" society? Anybody see a way out? Comments? PS. Therefore answer to question #3: We don't. Do we want to? Phil Trodwell

Brian Ceccarelli presents us with the fallacy of False Dichotomy in stating that we must accept every thing in the books attributed to Peter, or we must discount every other book of antiquity: Mr Ceccarelli, you seem to be stating that we must accept accept everything written in every "historical" document. Somehow I doubt do that yourself that. Thus since I doubt you accept everything written in every historical document, I would ask how you can thereby objectively justify complete faith in the words of the books attributed to Peter. I shall now give an example of a document from antiquity, which I am sure you reject; it dates from the time of Ramses II (This was first presented here by Matthew Wiener). These inscriptions were carved soon after a battle, and were carved with the Pharoah's specific approval so we have true originals, rather than mere copies. This account records the the battle of Kadesh (circa 1285 BC), which occurred on the river Orontes, (about 100 miles south of Aleppo). The Egyptians won this battle with the Hittites, and Ramses had his victory inscribed all over the place. A few of of these inscriptions have survived in near perfect form. It is a record of how the Pharoah pretty much single-handedly defeated the Hittites, after being separated from his troops. Note that the Egyptian wavers back and forth between first and third person. The following is from Miriam Lichtheim`s _Ancient Egyptian Literature_ volume II. My majesty caused the forces of the foes from Hitti to fall on their faces, one upon the other, as crocodiles fall, into the water of the Orontes. I was after them like a griffin; I attacked all the countries, I alone. For my infantry and my chariotry had deserted me; not one of them stood looking back. As I live, as Ra loves me, as my father Atum favors me, everything that my majesty has told I did it in truth, in the presence of my infantry and my chariotry. (Note: This paragraph records not only Ramses "divine word," but also that there were thousands of witnesses to the event. Now from the heart of battle.) Then his majesty drove at a gallop and charged the forces of the Foe from Hitti, being alone by himself, none other with him. His majesty proceeded to look about him and found 2500 chariots ringing him on his way out ... No officer was with me, no charioteer, No soldier of the army, no shield-bearer; My infantry, my chariotry yielded before them, Not one of them stood firm to fight with them. His majesty spoke: "What is this, father Amun? Is it right for a father to ignore his son? Are my deeds a matter for you to ignore? Do I not walk and stand at your word? I have not neglected an order you gave. Too great is he, the great lord of Egypt, To allow aliens to step on his path! What are these Asiatics to you, O Amun, The wretches ignorant of god? Have I not made for you many great monuments, ... I call to you, my father Amun, I am among a host of strangers; All countries are arrayed against me, I am alone, there's none with me! ... The labors of many people are nothing, Amun is more helpful than they; I came here by the command of your mouth, O Amun, I have not transgressed your command!" Now though I prayed in a distant land, My voice resounded in Southern Thebes. I found Amun came when I called to him, He gave me his hand and I rejoiced. He called from behind as if near by: "Forward, I am with you, I your father, my hand is with you, I prevail over a hundred thousand men, I am lord of victory, lover of valor!" I found my heart stout, my breast in joy, All I did succeeded, I was like Mont. ... I slaughtered among them at my will, Not one looked behind him, Not one turned around, Whoever fell down did not rise. ... One called out to the other saying: "No man is he who is among us, It is Seth great-of-strength, Baal in person; Not deeds of man are these his doings, They are of one who is unique, Who fights a hundred thousand without soldiers and chariots, Come quick, flee before him, To seek life and breathe air; For he who attempts to get close to him, His hands, all his limbs grow limp. One cannot hold either bow or spears, When one sees him come racing along!" My majesty hunted them like a griffin, I slaughtered among them unceasingly. So you see Brian, we have a few original manuscripts recording the miraculous battle between the Ramses and the Hittites. Do you reject them as being *completely* true? I suspect you do, and if so, then do you also, in your own words: "question the existence of Alexander the Great, Tilgrath Pilisar III, Nero, Caligula, Josephus, Cyrus the Great, Artexerxes?" Do you also thereby question all their documents? That`s the problem with your "all or nothing" approach. Many ancient people used to mix a bit of fancy with their facts. So for you to say that we must either accept all of Peter (and the rest of the New Testament) or accept no records of antiquity at all, forces you thereby, to accept the verity of documents you probably do not find completely credible. As to your other argument that so many people have testified to Jesus, that he must be true: I have three points. First, this is "argumentum ad populum" (ie: appeal to popular opinion); you cannot vote on truth. For instance, do the millions of Hindu's past and present who testify to the reality of Brahma, constitute actual evidence for the existence of Brahma? How would you answer your own question in regards to the testimony of Hindus: "With a scoff of your keyboard, with near complete ignorance of the testimonies, are you going to say that that is all complete hooey?" If you do so "scoff," then how do you objectively justify your own special pleading? Second, it is not at all clear that King Solomon or King David testified to Jesus. You can claim it to be clear, but that does not make it true. Third, it is quite arguable that Abraham Lincoln was not Christian, and that he had both a public and a private view of Christianity. In fact there was much discussion about it in his day (yes, he was publically accused of being a deist. Oh my). I am presently collecting a FAQ for Lincoln as I've previously done for Tyre, Jefferson and etc. Later, Dave Butler

Proof positive that some people are beyond satire.

In a word, yes.

... Thanks for posting the exact wording which I had not seen previously. The part I quote above seems to me to indicate disapproval of capital punishment - it is to be used only when other means are not sufficient; I would say this is a stronger restriction than saying that capital punishment is useable when justifiable. I would certainly say there are cases where a crime justifies death (perhaps this is the Old Testament interpretation), but my reverence for life would say that I would oppose the actual infliction of the death penalty (a New Testament interpretation?). It is a matter for debate whether the death penalty works to keep the peace in a way that non-violent provisions do not. I don't believe it does, and I would certainly observe that in the USA, where you have the death penalty, there is a far higher murder rate than here in the UK, where we do not.

I haven't read this entire thread, but, if someone hasn't tossed this out yet, then here it is: 2 Samuel 12:21-23 (RSV) : "Then his servants said to him, `What is this thing that you have done? You fasted and wept for the child while it was alive; but when the child died, you arose and ate food.' He [David] said, 'While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows whether the LORD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?' But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.'" Anyhow, many interpret this to mean that the child has gone to Heaven (where David will someday go). I don't claim to know for sure if this applies to all babies or not. But even if it's just this one, what would you say to this?

Yes, I suppose that's true. Of course, notice I qualified with NEARLY every language :-). And there are missionaries out there who can speak every imaginable language AND dialect. But then, the fact that not all languages have a WRITTEN gospel lends no credence to the concept of "pentecost" type xenoglossolalia since most tongues occur not in these places of un-written language, but rather in churches full of people who do have a written language and a Bible in that language.

stuff deleted - but message is: : : : >He is God. : : In other words, the right of might. : : >He is God. : : In other words, the right of might. : : : : >God granted you the gift of life whether you were sinner or saint. : : In other words, he can do it, he did it, and your in no position to : argue about it. : : >one that must be killed by Him. Note: I say that God and God alone is : >worthy to be Judge, Jury and Executioner. We are not called to carry out : >such duties because we are not worthy. : : In other words, you better do what this God wants you to do, or else! : : >|> Who is god to impose its rules on us ? Who can tell if god is REALLY so : : : >God is God. Who are we to question the Creator? If you doubt God's doing : >in certain situations, do you claim to know a better solution? Would you : >be playing the role of God? : : In other words, its his game, he made the rules, and if you know whats : good for you you'll play his game his way. : Careful there, you make God out to be some spoiled little deity that when he can't have his way takes his ball and goes home. Now that you mention it.... Naw... Can't be right, makes sense.

The thing is, I know what arms and legs are. It's therefore generally easy to tell whether or not someone has arms and legs. This "sinful nature", since it does not require that the baby actually perform any sins, seems to be totally invisible. As far as I know, maybe half the babies have a sinful nature and half don't--it'd look exactly the same, since there is no way to tell the difference. So what's so bad about a sinful nature, then? I could understand it being bad if it always results in people committing sins, but babies can have it, never commit sins, die, and they still have it. So the bad part about can't merely be that it results in people committing sins--so what _is_ bad about it? -- "On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Leftover Turkey! On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Turkey Casserole that she made from Leftover Turkey. [days 3-4 deleted] ... Flaming Turkey Wings! ... -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Cute characterization Bill; however, there is no inconsistency between the two statements. Even if one believes that religion is "primitive, simple-minded and unscientific, anti-intellectual and childish", one can still hold the view that religion also adds an unnecessary level of complexity to the explanation. The ideas themselves don't have to be complex before being excised by Occam's Razor, they only have to add unnecessarily to the overall complexity of the description. I think the non-essential part of an explanatory system is one that adds no predictive capability to the system. Huh? ^^^^^ Watch it, your Freudian Slip is showing

From _Free Inquiry_, Winter 83/84, the following is an introduction to the article "Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon", by George D. Smith. The introduction is written by Paul Kurtz. Mormonism -- the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- claims a worldwide membership 5.2 million. It is one of the world's fastest growing religions, with as many as 200,000 new converst in 1982 alone. Because of the church's aggressive missionary program, covering more than one hundred countries, it is spreading even to third world countries. Mormonism is both puritanical in moral outlook and evangelical in preachment. The church is run along strict authoritarian lines. Led by a president, who allegedly receives revelations directly form God, and a group of twelve apostles who attempt to maintain orthodoxy in belief and practice, the church is opposed to abortion, pornography, sexual freedom, women's rights, and other, in its view, immoral influences of secular society, and it forbids the use of tobacco, alcohol, coffee, and tea. Centered in Salt Lake City, the church is extremely wealthy and politically powerful in Utal and many other western states. Among well-know present-day Mormons are Ezra Taft Benson (former secretary of agriculture), the Osmond family, the Mariotts of the hotel empire, and a score of high-placed government officials. The Mormon church was founded in western New York in 1830 by Joseph Smith who claimed that by divine revelation be had found gold plates containing hieroglyphics buried on a hill and that with the help of visits from the angel Moroni he had been able to translate the writing into the _Book of Mormon_, the basis of Mormon belief. This book, written "by the commandment of God," claims that the ancient Hebrews settled in America about 600 B.C.E. and were the ancestors of the American Indians. Mormons believe that those who have been baptized in the "true church" will be reunited after death and that deceased non-Mormon family members can be baptized by proxy and thus join their relatives in the hereafter. Because of these beliefs, Mormons have been considered outcasts by mainline Christian denominations and as heretics by religious fundamentalists. Joseph Smith was a controversial figure in his day -- he was both worshiped as a saint and denounced as a fraud. Because of persecution he led his band of loyal followers from Palmyra, New York, westward to Ohio and then to Illinois, where in 1844 he was shot to death by an agry mob. Brigham Young, who reportedly had as many as eighty wives, took over the leadership of the church and led the Mormons further westward, to found the new Zion in Salt Lake City. Following the teachings of Joseph Smith in the practice of polygamy was perhaps the Mormons most controversial practice in nineteenth-century America. While other religions go back many centuries -- Muhammadanism, 1200 years; Christianity, 2000; and Judaism, 3000 -- and attempts to examine their beginnings are difficult, extensive historical investigation of Mormon roots is possible. Some Mormons are willing to examine this history objectively, bu others maintain that such scrutiny is dangerous to the faith. In the following pages, _Free Inquiry_ presents two articles about the Mormon church. First, George D. Smith, a lifelong member of the church, provides a detailed critical examination of Joseph Smith and his claim the the _Book of Mormon_ was divinely revealed. Second, we present a portion of an interview with philosopher Sterling McMurrin, also a Mormon since birth, who questions the treatment of the history of the church by Mormon authorities. -- Paul Kurtz The article itself is super.

: Lets talk about principles. If we accept that God sets the : standards for what ought to be included in Scripture - then we : can ask: : 1. Is it authoritative? "Authoritative" is not a quality of the writing itself- it is a statement by the community of faith whether it will accept the writing as normative. : 2. Is it prophetic? How is "prophecy" to be defined? If it is "speaking forth" of God's message, much of the apocrypha must surely qualify. : 3. Is it authentic? Again, by what standard? Is "authenticity" a function of the authors? the historical accuracy? : 4. Is it dynamic? What is this supposed to mean? Many of the apocryphal books are highly "dynamic" -thought provoking, faithful, even exciting. : 5. Is it received, collected, read and used? By whom? Of course the apocryphal books were received (by some), collected (or else we would not have them), read and used (and they still are, in the Catholic and Orthodox churches). : On these counts, the apocrapha falls short of the glory of God. This is demonstrably false. : To quote Unger's Bible Dictionary on the Apocrapha: : 1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and : anachronisms. So do other books of the Bible. : 2. They teach doctrines which are false and foster practices : which are at variance with sacred Scripture. "False" by whose interpretation? Those churches that accept them find no contradiction with the rest of scripture. : 3. They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of : subject matter and styling out of keeping with sacred Scripture. This is a purely subjective evaluation. The apocryphal books demonstrate the same categories and forms of writing found in the other scriptures. (In fact, one could argue that the apocryphal "Additions to the Book of Esther" act rather to bring the "unscripturelike" book of Esther more into line with other books.) : 4. They lack the distinctive elements which give genuine : Scripture their divine character, such as prophetic power and : poetic and religious feeling. Have you ever read the Wisdom of Ben Sira or the Wisdom of Solomon? They exhibit every bit as much "poetic and religious feeling" as Psalms or Proverbs. [deletions] : How do you then view the words: "I warn everyone who hears the : words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to : them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. : And if anyone takes away from this book the prophecy, God will : take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the : holy city" (Rev 22.18-9) : Surely this sets the standard and not just man-made traditions. These words clearly were meant to refer to the book of Revelation alone, not to the whole body of scripture. Revelation itself was accepted very late into the canon. The church simply did not see it as having a primary role of any kind in identifying and limiting scripture. : It is also noteworthy to consider Jesus' attitude. He had no : argument with the pharisees over any of the OT canon (John : 10.31-6), and explained to his followers on the road to Emmaus : that in the law, prophets and psalms which referred to him - the : OT division of Scripture (Luke 24.44), as well as in Luke 11.51 : taking Genesis to Chronicles (the jewish order - we would say : Genesis to Malachi) as Scripture. Jesus does not refer to the canon for the simple reason that in his day, the canon had not been established as a closed collection. The books of the apocrypha were part of the Septuagint (which was the Bible of the early church). The Hebrew canon was not closed until 90 c.e. The Torah (Pentateuch/ "Law") was established in Jesus' day, as were the Prophets (with the _exclusion_ of Daniel). The Writings, however, were still in flux. Jesus does not refer to the Writings, only to the Psalms, which were part of them. The books of the apocrypha were all part of the literature that was eventually sifted and separated. To argue that Jesus is referring to the Jewish canonical order in Luke 11:51 is weak at best; he is not quoting scripture, but telling a chronological story. And, as mentioned above, the Hebrew canon (especially in the present order) did not exist as such in Jesus' day.

A friend of mine managed to get a copy of a computerised Greek and Hebrew Lexicon called "The Word Perfect" (That is not the word processing package WordPerfect). However, some one wiped out the EXE file, and she has not been able to restore it. There are no distributors of the package in South Africa. I would appreciate it, if some one could email me the file, or at least tell me where I could get it from. My email address is [email protected] or [email protected] Many thanks.

Meta-exegesis: Conviction of Sin, part II Let me return to the question, stipulating that Paul meant his use of _arseonkoitai_ to refer more or less exactly to the Levitical prohibition of male-male sex. In order to bring out the problems most clearly, I'll also stipulate (what I think is far less plausible) that Paul coined the term for this usage. The question I want to turn to is what that would mean for Paul's readers and for later Christians. This should be shorter than my last note, as we will see that this question rapidly confronts us with some of the major divisions within Christ's body, and I am not trying to open the gates for flames across any of the terrible chasms that separate any of us from our fellow Christians. My own biases (loosely characterizable as "liberal") will be evident, but I am not grinding an axe here, so much as trying to get all parties to see that it may be HARD to reach "closure" when the issues involved strike at the heart of what we each, in our own different ways, see as crucial to the Gospel of Christ. So; stipulating Paul's intent, the immediate question is: HOW CAN HIS READERS UNDERSTAND this intent? And following on that question, there is a second one: WHAT IS OUR PROPER ACTION if we *do* manage to understand him? Since Paul gives not a single clue about his meaning in the text of 1st Corinthians, there are two "positive" answers and one "negative" to this question: + a. Paul (or Apollos, or someone) in the apostolic community has conveyed to the Corinthians the then-traditional Jewish condem- nation of homosexual behavior, and Paul expects them to be sufficiently well-tutored by this tradition that he needs no futher explanation. [I should note that there is no evidence in the letter, or in 2 Corinthians for such a supposition :-)] + b. The Spirit will teach us what Paul means (or, if not Paul, what God means "behind" Paul's inspired word-choice.) - c. We *don't* know, and cannot guess to within any better pre- cision here than, for comparison, in the parallel use by Paul, in the same passage of the word _pleonektai_ ("those who have more" -- if you think that _areseonkoitai_ is "obvious" from its roots, try cutting your teeth on *this* word! The NEB translates it as "grabbers") or even _methusoi_ ("drunkards" -- at least this has the advantage of being a common insult, so that at least there is *some* hint as to its meaning!) The three positions more or less -- if I can be allowed some exaggeration for the sake of argument -- define a classical Catholic attitude towards tradition, one form of Protestant _sola scriptura_, and a liberal/critical demand for evidence. All three positions have strengths and weaknesses. _ad_ a: It is unquestionable that the gospel was preached in and by the community of Christ's disciples and their successors, and that our NT scripture itself emerges from this communal tradition. But it's also the case that we know little or nothing about this tradition until almost a century after Paul, which is to say that we have access to the tradition only after several generations of possibly confused transmission. The scripture is itself our only documentation of the tradition in the critical era. _ad_ b: If we are NOT born of water and Spirit [to revert to John in an attempt to explain Paul :-)], then we have no more hope of under- standing the gospel than Nicodemus had; neither the traditions of men nor the vain elevation of our own reason can prevent the Spirit from blowing where it will -- the Paraclete is a kamikaze. But the downside of Protestant belief in the efficacy of the Spirit as our guide in scripture is that the wing of Protestantism that takes this most seriously is also the most fragmented over divergent understanding supposedly derived from the "clear" Word of God. [Note: classical Lutheran, Calvinist and Anglican thought constrains scripture to be read *within* tradition, even while reserving judgment against tradition out of scripture; the more bizarre forms of "I will read Scripture my way" are primarily a fringe aspect of "cultic" Protestantism.] The main problem with this approach is that there is apparently no means for ONE person to convey to another what that one may feel *is* teaching received from the Spirit; and history shows incredible conflict between Christians on this point, each in his own mind "convinced" that he is led by the Spirit. No one can seriously urge point b without SOME sense of its potential for setting Christian against Christian. To what purpose? _ad_ c: The critical approach has the distinct advantage that when it can reach a conclusion, it can lay out the data in a way which is open to all. The weakness is an obvious corollary: this is not usually possible. :-) [If I may say a word here, out of my own already acknowledged bias; one complaint against critical methodology is that it "dissolves" faith -- but surely a "faith" that cannot honestly face the evalu- ation of evidence has problems which mere theology is helpless to address.] Anyway, there is a serious and unfortunate possibility of schism between "liberal" and "conservative" positions, mostly on the basis of extreme zealots of positions b and c. A Catholic sense of authority and tradition tends to constrain arguments of b contra c to secondary position, so that despite horrendous strains Rome is NOT as likely to find these issues as ultimately divisive as the Protestant world will. And Anglicans will (I predict) muddle through on the _via media_, attempting to give each position its due, but no more than its due. Second question. Suppose tradition tells us, and lots of "spiritual" Christians tell us, and critical thought at least admits as possible, that Paul is refering to a flat, universal Levitical prohibition against male-male sex. What then? Again, we can abdicate our personal responsi- bility to tradition, and let it dictate the answer. But it's precisely where inherited traditions are NOT questioned that they're most dangerous. We have EXAMPLES of Christ questioning the Pharisees and THEIR use of tradition (despite his urging, in Matthew 23:2 that we are to heed them). We have EXAMPLES of Peter, and more radically still Paul, jettisoning the traditions that THEY were led by the Spirit to call into question. Jesus and Peter and Paul do not so much "throw out" tradition as subject it to radical criticism, on a couple of very basic grounds: "the weightier demands of the law: justice and mercy and good faith" (Matthew 23:23) and "On these two commandments [love God & neighbor] hand the whole Law, and the Prophets, also." (Matthew 22:40) If there is a fundamental (because derived from Christ) validity in the challenge to *some* traditions, a validity that led the first generation to go so far as to waive application of the Torah to gentile converts (vastly beyond anything that is directly deducible from Jesus' reported words and deeds), it signifies to me a certain failure of the imagination to *postulate* that *only* the traditions that we have specific challenges against are in fact open to challenge. All traditions passed *through* men are traditions *of* men. That God may lead us even so, that these traditions are a source of our spiritual instruction I will freely grant. But tradition is inherently human, and inherently corruptible (and given the Fall, corrupt). Nothing in it is immune to challenge, when the Spirit shows us a failure in justice, mercy and good faith. Nothing may ultimately stand unless it DOES follow from love of God and love of neighbor. I am perfectly willing to grant that I could be blind to my own sin. That the Spirit may have taught another what She refuses to teach me (or I am too dense to learn). That tradition *might* have value here. But what I *know* of tradition is that on one occasion, some superstitious Christians appealed to Justinian after an earthquake in Asia Minor, and scapegoated "sodomites" as the "cause" of the earthquake, so that legislation was passed making homosexual behavior a capital offense. If that is in accord with the gospel of Christ, then I am no Christian. That is human tradition at its most hateful and vicious. And I see nothing all that much different in all the unbidden eruptions onto USENET of people who are quick to condemn but slow to understand. If that is the leading of the Spirit, then I want no part of it. But what I have found in obedience to the Lord is that I am, myself, TOTALLY dependent on the witness of other Christians, for the truth that lives in the Body of Christ. And I say to all who doubt that gay Christianity is from God what Gamaliel said to doubting Pharisees who would have suppressed the earliest Church: "be careful how you deal with these people... If this enterprise, this movement of theirs, is of human origin it will break up of its own accord; but if it does in fact come from God you will not only be unable to destroy them, but you might find yourselves fighting against God." [Acts 5:36...39] All I ask is that you listen to your traditions, and read your scriptures with a mind and soul OPEN to the Spirit, and to the past history of our first Christian witnesses' willingness to challenge tradition and OTHER readings of scripture -- though read with all the authority of scribes and rabbis -- and a submission to the declaration that all must depend on the love of God and neighbor. Then, study the evidence; learn the history of Christians oppressing Christians out of their traditions and eagerness to judge where Jesus and Paul tell us NOT to judge. And let the witness of the Spirit in the lives of your fellow Christians -- including those who are NOT of your preference in theology -- guide you towards God's truth. -- Michael L. Siemon I say "You are gods, sons of the [email protected] Most High, all of you; nevertheless - or - you shall die like men, and fall [email protected] like any prince." Psalm 82:6-7 [There's a certain ambiguity in your discussion of position (a), as to whether you're speaking of tradition in Paul's time or ours. I think there are two ways to use tradition. One is to say that when Paul and his readers share a tradition, it makes sense to interpret his words in the context of that shared tradition. That's what makes me think that these arguments over words turn out to be silly. We know that Paul came out of a background that was rather Puritanical on sex. Everything else he says on sex is consistent with that background. The tone of his remarks on homosexuality in Rom 1 is consistent with that background. Even if the words in the sin lists aren't the most general terms for homosexual activity (and it seems to me that there's some evidence that they are not), they are just one more piece of evidence for something we would probably be willing to believe with no evidence at all -- that Paul shares the common Jewish rejection of homosexuality. But when you identify (a) with the Catholic position, that's rather a horse of a different color. The Catholic position involves a continuing church tradition. Arguments specific to that tradition might be (1) we can get guidance on how to interpret Paul's original meaning from tradition, e.g. the way the Church Fathers interpreted him, and (2) we gain confidence that his prohibitions still apply in our time because of the universal judgement of the church between his time and ours. I think this is a somewhat different use of tradition. A radical Protestant might be willing to use known 1st Cent. tradition to illuminate Paul's original meaning, but not use the Catholic position to answer the question of what our own attitude to homosexuality should be.

Kent Sandvik and Jon Livesey made essentially the same response, so this time Kent's article gets the reply: This begs the question of whether it ever "started"-- perhaps because accuracy was always an intention. It makes little difference if you have eyewitnesses or people one step away (reporters, if you will). As I said earlier, the "telephone" metaphor is innately bad, because the purpose of a game of telephone is contrary to the aims of writing these sorts of texts. (Also, I would point out that, by the standards generally asserted in this group, the distinction between eyewitnesses and others is hollow, since nobody can be shown to be an eyewitness, or indeed, even shown to be the author of the text.) There is no evidence that the "original" texts of either the OT or the NT are largely lost over time in a sea of errors, "corrections", additions and deletions. In the case of the NT, the evidence is strongly in the other direction: the Textus R. and the Nestle-Aland text do not differ on more than a low level of significance. It is reasonable to assume a similar situation for the OT, based on the NT as a model.

Yes, unless the observer is at rest with respect to the singularity at infinite distance away. But an observer on a close approach to the BH will see the particle go in in finite time. Peter

If you don't agree with Joseph's accurate statement of the Catholic dogma of Mary's perpetual sinlessness, then how do you interpret Luke 1:28, And when the angel had come to her, he said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women." and Luke 1:48? ...for, behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. I suppose that these verses might be interpreted to mean that Mary was possessed of some limited quantity or quality of grace, just as some of filled to the brim, incapable of containing more. The only other people we know of who have an abundance of grace are those souls existing in heaven now (another Catholic dogma, based on the communion of saints, as I explained in an earlier post). Full of grace to me means sinless, and anyone who has ever sinned in his life cannot be without sin in the same sense as Mary was sinless. As a Catholic, I too find certain of the dogmas tough to embrace. But that's where the Catholic faith and prayer come into play. I pray God to strengthen my will to accept the faith given the bride of Christ, which in turn usually strengthens my community faith in His Church. And, as you probably know, faith in Christ's Church is tantamount to faith in Christ inasmuch as the Church is Christ's Mystical Body. A Catholic by nature must have two aspects to his faith in Christ: (1) a personal faith in Christ as his own personal redeemer and (2) a community faith in the Church as the body of Christ. -- Randal Lee Nicholas Mandock Catechist [email protected]

... Apologies, I've not been paying attention.

Lets talk about principles. If we accept that God sets the standards for what ought to be included in Scripture - then we can ask: 1. Is it authoritative? 2. Is it prophetic? 3. Is it authentic? 4. Is it dynamic? 5. Is it received, collected, read and used? On these counts, the apocrapha falls short of the glory of God. To quote Unger's Bible Dictionary on the Apocrapha: 1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and anachronisms. 2. They teach doctrines which are false and foster practices which are at variance with sacred Scripture. 3. They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of subject matter and styling out of keeping with sacred Scripture. 4. They lack the distinctive elements which give genuine Scripture their divine character, such as prophetic power and poetic and religious feeling. But the problem with this argument lies in the assumption that the Hebrew canon included the Apocrapha in the first place, and it wasn't until the sixteenth century that Luther and co. threw them out. The Jewish council you mentioned previously didn't accept them, so the reformation protestants had good historical precedence for their actions. Jerome only translated the apocrapha under protest, and it was literally 'over his dead body' that it was included in the catholic canon. How do you then view the words: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes away from this book the prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city" (Rev 22.18-9) Surely this sets the standard and not just man-made traditions. It is also noteworthy to consider Jesus' attitude. He had no argument with the pharisees over any of the OT canon (John 10.31-6), and explained to his followers on the road to Emmaus that in the law, prophets and psalms which referred to him - the OT division of Scripture (Luke 24.44), as well as in Luke 11.51 taking Genesis to Chronicles (the jewish order - we would say Genesis to Malachi) as Scripture. I am not familiar with the book. Some other arguments you might like to consider are found in Chapter 3 of Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands A Verdict.

The remainder of my article deleted stated why. One would be an egotist to believe that someone CARED about what Bill R. thought he needed to say about God. Whether they did or not is irrelevant.

I give up. What's new about yet another interpretation of the odl Adam and Eve story? -- Michael

"Hate the sin but love the sinner"...I've heard that quite a bit recently, often in the context of discussions about Christianity and homosexuality... but the context really isn't that important. My question is whether that statement is consistent with Christianity. I would think not. Hate begets more hate, never love. Consider some sin. I'll leave it unnamed since I don't want this to digress into an argument as to whether or not something is a sin. Now lets apply our "hate the sin..." philosophy and see what happens. If we truly hate the sin, then the more we see it, the stronger our hatred of it will become. Eventually this hate becomes so strong that we become disgusted with the sinner and eventually come to hate the sinner. In addition, our hatred of the sin often causes us to say and do things which are taken personally by the sinner (who often does not even believe what they are doing is a sin). After enough of this, the sinner begins to hate us (they certainly don't love us for our constant criticism of their behavior). Hate builds up and drives people away from God...this certainly cannot be a good way to build love. In the summary of the law, Christ commands us to love God and to love our neighbors. He doesn't say anything about hate. In fact, if anything, he commands us to save our criticisms for ourselves. So, how are Christians supposed to deal with the sin of others? I suppose that there is only one way to deal with sin (either in others or ourselves)...through prayer. We need to ask God to help us with our own sin, and to help those we love with theirs. Only love can conquer sin...hatred has no place. The best way to love someone is to pray for them. - Scott

KS> This is the story of Kent, the archetype Finn, that lives in the KS> Bay Area, and tried to purchase Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason". This KS> man was driving around, to Staceys, to Books Inc, to "Well, Cleanlighted KS> Place", to Daltons, to various other places. KS> When he asked for this book, the well educated American book store KS> assistants in most placed asked him to check out the thriller section, KS> or then they said that his book has not been published yet, but they KS> should receive the book soon. In some places the assistants bluntly KS> said that they don't know of such an author, or that he is not KS> a well known living author, so they don't keep copies of his books. KS> Such is the life and times of America, 200+ years after the revolution. Sigh, now I don't feel so bad. Searching for a copy in bookstores has been a habit of mine for at least two years now. I spend a *lot* of time browsing through bookstores, new and and used, and I've not once seen a copy. Now, I know, all I do is pick up a phone and order the darned thing, but come on, this is America and he's one of the founding fathers. And no one carries his books? Sure, you can find "Common Sense" but I think that's because it's required reading for most colleges. I did find one hole-in-the-wall bookstore where the owner said that they usually carry one or two copies, but that they were currently out. I haven't been back since so I don't know if he was telling the truth or not. sigh...

[email protected] (Bruce Stephens) suggests different levels of acceptance of homosexuality: I would add 4': our churches should accept homosexual orientation but hold all people to certain standards of sexual behavior. Promiscuity, abuse of power relationships, harrassment, compulsivity are equally out of place in the lives of homosexual as of heterosexual people. Of course, this would bring up the dread shibboleth of homosexual marriage, and we couldn't have that! :-)

That's fascinating. I heard that the Chinese, rather than the Italians, invented pasta.

genealogical old Well, since my wife is (in your gentle term) a "bastard", I can probably speak with a bit of authority on this. Any "stigma" associated with children conceived and/or born out of wedlock rests solely upon the parents--they've committed a sexual transgression for which they should repent. The child itself has no a priori limitations on him or her; indeed, the concept of blaming the child for the parents' sins is one most Mormons would find appalling; note that LDS theology rejects original sin, as the term is usually defined, and the subsequent need for infant baptism (cf. Moroni 8 in the Book of Mormon). Indeed, LDS doctrine goes one step further and in some cases holds parents responsible for their children's sins if they have failed to bring them up properly (cf. D&C 68:25-28; note that this passage applies it only to members of the LDS Church). Also note that there is no "big genealogical book in Salt Lake City". The LDS Church has a massive storage facility in the nearby mountains containing (on microfilm) vital statistic records (birth, christening, baptism, marriage, death) gathered from all over the entire world. I may be misremembering, but I believe they have records for some 2 billion people in that vault. At the same time, the LDS Church is building up an on-line genealogical database. In neither case is there some kind of "worthiness screening" as to whether someone can be entered in. The only potential issue is that of establishing who the parents were, and that would apply only in the case of the database. ..bruce.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce F. Webster | I love the Constitution of this land, CTO, Pages Software Inc | but I hate the damned rascals that [email protected] | administer it. #import <pages/disclaimer.h> | -- attributed to Brigham Young ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [The following arrived as a separate posting --clh] A follow-up to my own follow-up--lest anyone misunderstand, the term "bastard" is one which I have never in 25 years of LDS Church membership heard applied, formally or informally, to a child born out of wedlock, and indeed would (rightly) be considered a vulgar, offensive term. I would not have echoed the expression in my reply, except in hopes that the poster would recognize the offensive nature of the word in the given context. Unfortunately, after posting my reply, I remembered that subtle points are often lost on the 'net, and figured I'd better spell it out. ..bruce..

There's a difference between believing in the existence of an entity, and loving that entity. God _could_ show me directly that he exists, and I'd still have a free choice about whether to love him or not. So why doesn't he? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Kevin Anthoney [email protected] Don't believe anything you read in .sig files.

[reply to [email protected] (Frank O'Dwyer)] If the Good is undefined (undefinable?) but you require of everyone that they know innately what is right, you are back to subjectivism. Ditto here. An evaluative statement implies a value judgement on the part of the person making it. Pretty perceptive, that Prof. Flew. Please explain how this helps. I don't see your argument. This makes no sense either. Flew is arguing that this is where the objectivist winds up, not the subjectivist. Furthermore, the nihilists believed in nothing *except* science, materialism, revolution, and the People. And also not the position of the subjectivist, as has been pointed out to you already by others. Ditch the strawman, already, and see my reply to Mike Cobb's root message in the thread Societal Basis for Morality.

With the Southern Baptist Convention convening this June to consider the charges that Freemasonry is incompatible with christianity, I thought the following quotes by Mr. James Holly, the Anti-Masonic Flag Carrier, would amuse you all... The following passages are exact quotes from "The Southern Baptist Convention and Freemasonry" by James L. Holly, M.D., President of Mission and Ministry To Men, Inc., 550 N 10th St., Beaumont, TX 77706. The inside cover of the book states: "Mission & Ministry to Men, Inc. hereby grants permission for the reproduction of part or all of this booklet with two provisions: one, the material is not changed and two, the source is identified." I have followed these provisions. "Freemasonry is one of the allies of the Devil" Page iv. "The issue here is not moderate or conservative, the issue is God and the Devil" Page vi." "It is worthwhile to remember that the formulators of public school education in America were Freemasons" Page 29. "Jesus Christ never commanded toleration as a motive for His disciples, and toleration is the antithesis of the Christian message." Page 30. "The central dynamic of the Freemason drive for world unity through fraternity, liberty and equality is toleration. This is seen in the writings of the 'great' writers of Freemasonry". Page 31. "He [Jesus Christ] established the most sectarian of all possible faiths." Page 37. "For narrowness and sectarianism, there is no equal to the Lord Jesus Christ". Page 40. "What seems so right in the interest of toleration and its cousins-liberty, equality and fraternity-is actually one of the subtlest lies of the 'father of lies.'" Page 40. "The Southern Baptist Convention has many churches which were founded in the Lodge and which have corner stones dedicated by the Lodge. Each of these churches should hold public ceremonies of repentance and of praying the blood and the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ over the church and renouncing the oaths taken at the dedication of the church and/or building." Page 53-54.

Enclosed is an advertisement for the Defending the Faith IV conference to be held at Franciscan University of Steubenville (Ohio) June 25-27. I attended DTF III last year, and plan to go again this year. I would recommend it highly to Catholic interested in apologetics. There will be lots of music, well-known Catholic speakers, fellowship, as well as Eucharistic Liturgies Friday and Sunday. Registration is $85 per person, but I believe financial aid is available if you need it. Housing in residence halls (each of which has its own Blessed Sacrament chapel), if desired, is $30/person for double occupancy for two nights ($30 total). Reservations can also be made for you at the very nearby Holiday Inn. I think it was $47 a night there for my single room. Meals are available at the cafeteria (Friday dinner through Sunday lunch) for $38 or $32, with or without breakfast, respectively. Franciscan University of Steubenville is located in eastern Ohio on US Route 22, 1/2 mile west of the Ohio River and Ohio Route 7. Greater Pittsburgh International Airport is less than one hour (35 miles) from campus. Feel free to e-mail me if you have any question I can answer. Here is the agenda, as typed in by a friend of mine: Friday afternoon special: Reflections on C.S. Lewis, a preliminary session with Walter Hooper. Walter Hooper is one of the foremost international experts on the writings of C.S. Lewis. In 1963, he served as secretary to C.S. Lewis, and he has since edited 18 of Lewis' literary works for publication. Walter was ordained a priest in the Church of England in 1965, serving in Oxford, England, until he entered the Catholic Church in 1988. ---------------- Friday evening, opening session: In Search of the Truth: Finding the Fullness of Faith Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz. Know Your Rites Kimberly Hahn. ------------------- Saturday Morning Apologetics Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry Karl Keating C.S. Lewis: My Signpost to the Catholic Church Walter Hooper Mass Bishop Bruskewitz, celebrant Fr. Ray Ryland, homilist --------------------------- Saturday afternoon: The Mystery of Femininity: Why It Excludes the Priesthood Dr. Alice von Hildebrand Men Make Better Fathers: Masculinity and the Male Priesthood Dr. Peter Kreeft ---------------------------- Saturday evening: When Do Catholics Hear the Gospel? Dr. Thomas Howard The Catholic Gospel: Not Just Saving Sinners Scott Hahn ----------------------------- Sunday morning: There's No Place Like Rome: The Pilgrimage of Two Protestant Pastors Panel. Mass Fr. Ray Ryland, celebrant Fr. Michael Scanlan, TOR, homilist - - - - - - - - - - Here is the ad that appeared in _The Catholic Answer_: DEFENDING THE FAITH IV CONFERENCE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHING: KNOW WHY YOU BELIEVE June 25-27, 1993 Times have changed. Major Catholic doctrines are misunderstood and attacked. Like never before, believers need to know the reasons behind the Catholic Church's teaching. As our first pope urged: "Always be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within you" (I Peter 3:15). Grab your notebooks and get ready for an unforgettable spiritual and intellectual weekend. This year's conference will candidly confront the hardest questions and objections about the Catholic faith. Deepen your understanding of Church teaching with _Scott_ and _Kimberly Hahn, Dr. Thomas Howard, Karl Keating, Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, Dr. Peter Kreeft,_ and _Fr. Ray Ryland_. Cut throught the confusion and doubt, and be better equipped to give a defense for the hope that is within you. Join us at _Defending the Faith IV_, the fourth in a series of annual conferences designed to strengthen the life of Catholics and others interested in the Catholic faith. It can help _you_ know why you believe. Call toll free today: Franciscan University 800/437-TENT of Steubenville or 614/283-6314 Steubenville, Ohio 43952-6701