id
int32 0
7.53k
| text
stringlengths 0
61.3k
| label
int64 0
6
|
|---|---|---|
3,759 | In the King James Version of the Bible there are three differents words
translated into the word "hell". These Greek words have totally different
meanings. The words are Hades, Tartaros, and Gehenna.
In bibical usage, the Greek word Hades is used only 11 times in the
New Testament, and is roughly the equivalent to the Old Testament word Sheol...
meaning the grave or pit (compare Acts 2:27 with Psalms 16:10). Hades may be
likened to a hole in the ground. (In the Bible it has nothing to do with fire!)
Most modern bibical translators admit that the use in the English word hell
to translate Hades and Sheol are an unfortunate and misleading practice.
Why? Because when seeing the word "hell" many readers impute to it the
traditional connotation of an ever-burning inferno, when this was never
remotely intended in the Greek language or in Old English!
In its true bibical usage Hades does indeed refer to the state or abode of
the dead, but not in the sense of spirits walking around in some sort of
"shadowy realm." Hades is simply the abode we call the grave. All dead go to
this hell.
The second "hell" of the Bible, Tartaros, is mentioned only once in
scripture, 2 Pet.2:4; "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast
them down to hell (TARTAROS), and delivered them into chains of darkness to be
reserved unto judgment..."
Following their rebellion to unseat God from His throne (Isa.14:12-14;
Rev.12:4), the archangel Lucifer (now Satan) and a third of the created angels
(now demons) were ejected from heaven (Luke 10:18). They were cast down to
Tartaros, a place or condition of restraint that God has imposed on the
mutinous angels as they await ultimate judgment (Jude 6; 1 Cor.6:3).
Tartaros, then, is a "hell" that applies only to evil, rebellious angels or
demons (It is interesting that the ancient Greeks used this word to describe
the place in which Zeus confined the rebellious Titans). Nowhere in the Bible
is there any mention of men being put into this particular "hell".
The the third word that is translated as "hell" in the Bible is Gehenna. It
comes from the Hebrew GAI HINNOM, meaning "valley of Hinniom." Hinnom is a
deep, narrow ravine located to the south and southwest of Jerusalem.
In Old Testament times it was a place of abominable pagan rites, including
infant sacrifice (It was there that the apostate kings Ahaz and Manasseh made
their children "pass through the fire" to the god Molech. The rites were
specifically celebrated in Tophet, the "place of abhorrence," one of the chief
groves in the valley).
King Josiah of ancient Judah finally put an end to these abominations. He
defiled the valley, rendering it ceremonially unclean (2 Kings 23:10). Later
the valley became the cesspool and city dump of Jerusalem; a repository for
sewage, refuse and animal carcasses. The bodies of dispised criminals were
also burned there along with the rubbish. Fires burned continuously, feeding
by a constant supply of garbage and refuse.
Aceldama, the "field of blood", purchased with the money Judas received for
the betrayal of Christ (Matt.27:8) was also in part of the valley of Hinnom.
So what does this valley called Gehenna have to do with hell?
In Rev.19:20: the Satan inspired political dictator and a miracle-working
religious figure, the False Prophet, working with him will resist the
re-establishment of the government of God by Jesus Christ at His Second Coming.
Their fate is revealed by the apostle John: "And the beast was taken, and with
him the false prophet... These both were cast alive into a lake of fire
burning with brimstone."
Where will this temporary lake of fire (this "hell") be?
The prophet Isaiah wrote of this lake of fire prepared for the Beast: "For
Tophet (in the valley of Hinnom) is ordained of old, yea for the king it is
prepared, he hath made it deep and large, the pile thereof is fire and wood,
the breath of the Lord, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it" (Isa.30:33).
One thousand years later, Satan himself will be cast into this rekindled
fiery lake where the Beast and False Prophet were cast! (Rev.20:10).
But what of the wicked who have died over the millennia? Does the Bible
say that they are now suffering fiery punishment for their sins in a lake of
fire?
In the sequence of Rev.20 the incorrigibly wicked are resurrected to be
thrown into the lake of fire after Satan is cast there! (Rev.20:15). What will
become of these wicked? Will they writhe in flames for eternity?
The wicked will be burned up from the intense heat of the coming Gehenna
fire on the earth. They wil be consumed, annihilated, destroyed! This
punishment will be everlasting (permanent and final). The Bible calls it the
"second death" (Rev.20:14; 21:8), from which there is no possibility of a
further resurrection.
The Bible does teach eternal punishment, but not eternal punishing.
The prophet Malachi provides a graphic description. "For, behold, the day
cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do
wickedly, shall be stubble, and the day that cometh shall burn them up..."
(4:1). To the righteous, God says that the wicked shall be "ashes under the
soles of your feet..."(Mal.4:3).
Gehenna was a place of destruction and death, not a place of living
torture! Jesus was talking to Jews who understood all about this Gehenna or
valley of Hinnom. Utter destruction by fire was complete. Nothing was left,
but ashes!
Every text in the Bible translated from this Greek word Gehenna means
complete destruction, not living torture (not eternal life in torment)! The
Bible says, in Romans 6:23, "The wages of sin is death", not eternal life in
torture. The punishment revealed in the Bible is Death... the cessation of
life. | 4 |
5,153 | My last response in this thread fell into a bit-bucket and vanished
(though appearing locally). I'll repost it, since I always feel
slighted when someone appears to ignore one of my postings in a
conversational thread, I don't want Rob to think I'm doing so. Since
this is now dated, however, don't feel compelled to respond...
I suspect you meant this in context of the Jewish tradition you have
been referring to; one problem with a highly-interpreted tradition
like this is what happens when a schism occurs, and over time certain
large and influential branches of the heretical group come to favor
exactly a "face value" interpretation...
While the context of the time is important, value judgments must
ultimately be according to current understanding, or at least to some
base standard (relative stability/success of a society, e.g.). This
is obviously true in comparing it to practices of surrounding people,
for instance: according to the Bible, the surrounding people were
immoral savages with repulsive and inhuman habits. We need to look
rather at what those peoples were *really* like. For instance, in
what way is it better to worship a single god whose presence is
symbolically strongest in a tent or temple over multiple gods some of
whose presence is symbolically represented in a statue? By the
Bible's own terms idolatry is inherently evil, but I see no evidence
that the followers of the various other religions of the area and time
were particularly bad people, relative to the people in the Bible.
Sounds good, but it presupposes teeth-rending neighbors, which I see
no support for. One can argue that post-facto assertion of inhumane
neighbors can be used to make moral points, but that doesn't mean that
the actual neighbors really were inhuman. More to the point, such
dehumanization of the people across the river or over the mountain, or
even of a different people dwelling among us, is all too common.
Note that I'm speaking of historical interpretation here, for instance
claiming that Hammurabi's "an eye for an eye" was primitive brutal
retribution, while Moses' version was an enlightened benign fine
(because the tradition has since interpreted the phrase that way). As
of 3000 years ago or so, they probably both meant the same thing.
I don't belittle the accomplishments, particularly the intellectual
ones, of the Jewish people. I have given up on trying to think by
analogy, since I don't know of any other 'tribe' that is at all
similar (the closest I can think of are the Romany, but I don't know
enough about them to make a meaningful comparison). I think a
tradition of reflective study, of flexible rather than dogmatic
interpretation, is a good thing. I think that with such an attitude a
case could be made that you could have done as well starting with a
1943 Captain America comic (or whatever the Babylonian equivalent
would have been).
--
Jim Perry [email protected] Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
These are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.
| 4 |
4,070 |
...
If we take things this literally then we must also forbid women from
speaking in church. Paul while led by the holy spirit was human and could
err. I find it interesting that CHRIST never discussed the issue of
homosexuality, certainly it existed back then and if it was a serious
transgression CHRIST would have condemned it.
I find it disturbing that the modern church spends its energy trying
to stamp out something that CHRIST didn't consider worth a single word
of condemnation. CHRIST repeatedly warns us against judgement.
Don't we risk "judgement in equal measure" when we condemn people who
GOD himself did not judge when he walked on the earth?
--
| The love of CHRIST is contagious!
--+--
| | 4 |
4,284 | refrettably you are mistaken. alt.drugs was used to recruit people for the
worldwide pot religion. I, however hve no problem being in both of them
| 4 |
4,800 |
So what do we have now, an integral over pain X time?
I get to lash you with a wet noodle for ever, but I only get to
cut you up with a power saw if I'm quick about it? | 4 |
4,165 | : BULLSHIT!!! In the Gulf Massacre, 7% of all ordnance used was "smart." The
: rest - that's 93% - was just regular, dumb ol' iron bombs and stuff. Have
: you forgotten that the Pentagon definition of a successful Patriot launch
: was when the missile cleared the launching tube with no damage? Or that a
: successful interception of a Scud was defined as "the Patriot and Scud
: passed each other in the same area of the sky"?
:
: And of the 7% that was the "smart" stuff, 35% hit. Again - try to follow me
: here - that means 65% of this "smart" arsenal missed. | 4 |
2,385 |
Yes, but no more than he is worth. :-). Seriously: Jerome is merely
(and grandly) another Christian witness, to be taken for what he can
tell us. He is one in the community of saints. You seem to wish for
a greater polarization and dichotomy between Catholic and Protestant
thought than seems to me, from a historical perspective, to be valid.
To be sure, Rome rejects (some significant aspects of) Protestant
thought just as vehemently as Protestants reject (some significant
aspects of) Roman thought. Other than some peoplw who apparently try
to embody the greatest extreme of this rejection, on either side, there
is not quite so vast a gulf fixed as casual observers seem to assume.
Ecumenical consultations between Rome and the Lutherans, as well as
those between Rome and the Anglican communion (to which I belong) show
very nearly complete convergence on understanding the basic theological
issues -- the sticking points tend to be ecclesiology and church polity.
Thus, for example, as you go on to say:
Many of us do not regard a papal decretal as having any necessary (as
opposed to political) significance. Sometimes it will, sometimes it
won't. You misread me if you think that my communion, at least, "throws
out" the deuterocanonical books. Nor do I think you should overstress
the sense in which the more Reformed may do so.
I seriously suggest you rethink what you are saying here. It verges on,
and could be taken as, anti-Semitic in the worst sense. The "unbelieving"
Jews were, according to what I understand as a Christian, the chosen
people of God, and the recipients of His pre-Incarnational revelation.
I think they have some say in the matter. The Javneh meeting should not
be over-interpreted. A recent magisterial study titled _Mikra_ (I don't
have more citation information on hand, sorry) produced primarily from
the background of Christian (rather than specifically Jewish) scholarship
suggests strongly that the Javneh meeting mostly resolved a lingering
question, where in practice the canon had long been fixed on the basis
of the scrolls that were kept in the Temple, and thereby "made the hands
unclean" when used. The list of "sacred books" that may be drawn up from
Josephus and other pre-Yavneh sources correspond (plus or minus one book,
if I rememeber the chapter correctly) to the current Jewish canon of Tanakh.
All of this is not to "throw out" the deuterocanonicals (what, by the way,
is YOUR position about the books the Greeks accept and Rome does not? :-))
-- just to observe that the issue is complex and simply binary judgment
does not do it justice.
| 4 |
6,539 | [By default, followups to 3 newsgroups.]
A short excerpt:
[...] | 4 |
6,369 | I have enrolled in "The History of Christianity" at a college here in
St. Louis. The teacher of the class is what I consider to be
closed-minded and bigotted on the subject of what the definition of
Christianity is. His definition is tied directly to that of the
Trinity and the Catholic church's definition of it and belief in
Jesus Christ is not sufficient to call one's self a Christian.
While his saying it doesn't make it so, I nevertheless feel insulted
(or am I just neurotic? :^) ). I would like to be able to respond to
him with some sense of literacy while maintaining an amiable
student-teacher relationship.
So, is there common definition of what Christianity is? As the
previous discussion of the Trinity did not lend itself to an exchange
of flames, I am hopeful that this will also not produce major
flames.
Regards,
--
Larry Autry
Silicon Graphics, St. Louis
[email protected]
[Often we get into discussions about who is Christian. Unfortunately
there are a number of possible definitions. Starting from the
broadest, commonly used definitions are:
a historical definition
people who accept Christ as Lord and savior
a broad doctrinal definition
narrow doctrinal definitions
1) By a historical definition I mean the sort of definition a secular
historian would likely use. This would include any group that
developed out of the Christian church, and continues within the same
broad culture. E.g. some Unitarians would fail just about any
doctrinal test you could come up with. Yet it's clear that that group
developed from Christianity, and people from very different
backgrounds (e.g. Hindus) would likely see them as part of
Christianity. This is not a definition most Christians like, but it's
relevant in some political and ethnic contexts.
2) Accepting Christ as Lord and savior is a test used by many
Christian groups for membership, e.g. the Southern Baptists and
Presbyterian Church (USA). I would qualify it by saying that what
most people have in mind is an exclusive commitment to Christ, so that
someone who accepted Christ as one of many gods would not fit. It's
an attempt to formulate a criterion that is religious but is not based
on technical doctrine. By this definition, groups such as Arians
would be viewed as heretical Christians, but still Christians. In the
modern context this would include Mormons, JW's, and "oneness
Pentecostals". They would be viewed as heretical Christians, but
still Christian. In practice I believe just about everyone who falls
into this category would accept the Apostle's Creed.
3) The next level is an attempt to give a broad doctrinal definition,
which includes all of the major strands of Christianity, but excludes
groups that are felt to be outside "historic Christianity." This is
of course a slippery enterprise, since Catholics could argue that
Protestants are outside historic Christianity, etc. But I think the
most commonly accepted definition would be based on something like the
Nicene Creed and the Formula of Chalcedon. The attempt is to
characterize doctrines that all major strands of Christianity agree
are key. Obviously this is to some extent a matter of judgement. A
Mormon will regard the LDS church as a major strand, and thus will not
want to include anything that contradicts their beliefs. But I think
this definition would have fairly broad acceptance.
4) Finally, some people use definitions that I would say are limited
to a specific Christian tradition. E.g. some evangelicals only
consider someone Christian if he has had an evangelical-style
conversion experience, and some I've even heard of groups that limit
it to their specific church.
I think you can find contexts where each of these definitions is used.
A lot is going to depend upon the purpose you're using it for. If
you're using it descriptively, e.g. in history or anthropology, you'll
probably use definition 1 or 2. If you're using it normatively, i.e.
to say what you believe the Christian message is, you'll probably use
a definition like 3 or even 4. | 4 |
5,128 |
Apparently you *didn't* read the whole thing. You continue to miss the point.
[deletions]
Counselling that only provides alternatives to abortion would be just as
biased as counselling that only provides *abortion* information. How about
providing counselling that will give a woman help in finding what *she* is
comfortable with.
Your adoption-funding idea may be a good one. Any idea if it is feasable?
Making adoption easier on the birth-mother may help reduce abortion, but
it will *not* eliminate the need for it. Abortion is not done just because
the mother can't care for the child and doesn't feel good about giving it
to strangers. Abortion is done because the mother can not afford the
*pregnancy*.
Then please justify why being "human" automatically makes something valuable.
And why that includes the unborn.
No, they are not guaranteed to become productive members of society. Even
if they do that is *MANY YEARS* in the future--until which they are a burden
on someone, or society. There is also the matter of the mother. Forcing
her to carry a pregnancy to term at a critical time in her life could prevent
her from being a productive member of society.
Ok, look. It's like this. We *are* footing the bill. Maybe they will
take choice A. Maybe they will take choice B. Maybe they will take choice
C. They can't afford any *one* of them. If they take choice A we'd have
to pay them, say $5. If they take choice B it would cost us $20. If they
take choice C it will cost us $20 now and a hell of a lot more for the next
18 years. Which one sounds the most realistic for us to be willing to pay
for? Now some people happen not to like choice A. Other people happen
not to like choice C (paying for it, that is). C has been around and paid
for for years. Even though it means we spend a lot of money, we can't in
conscience refuse to pay for it. Now A has been around and is perfectly
legal, but it hasn't been funded in the past. Now A is going to be funded
but some people object. They don't like the idea of their tax money going
to pay for choice A. So we could refuse to fund A at all. Then those
women who can't afford any of those choices will be forced to take choice
B or C, which will cost *all of us* more money. Most of us don't see any
reason at all why *more money* should be spent to the effect of *removing
personal choice* from some women. The alternative is to fund A if that is
what the mother chooses. We will also still fund B and even C if *that*
is what the mother chooses. However, some women will certainly choose A,
and that will then save us $15 we otherwise would have had to spend. Your
"taxes" are not being raised to fund a choice you object, they are being
*lowered* because we will fund a choice that is *legal*, despite your
objections to it. (Actually, your taxes are not really going to go down,
as I'm sure you would point out. But the amount that is saved in that
area can help out in another--like our massive debt.)
Those other procedures you mention only cost money. There is no savings
in other procedures that would be required down the road without them.
(In fact, there could be additional costs down the road *because* of them.)
This is quite different from the case of abortion.
This is bullshit. We are *not* refusing "to make the alternative affordable
too". 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.
If Clinton tried to block funding for pre-natal care and delivery (or left
it out of his health-care plan), I would certainly object. I would also be
quite surprised.
Yes, but probably not your definition of it, or for the reasons you think.
YOU STUPID FUCK! *WE DO* want to fund *all* the choices. *YOU* are the
one who wants to *NOT* fund all the choices.
Your humble opinion is still wrong. Even with easy adoption, there is still
the fact that pregnancy takes several months. Months in which a young woman
could need to be getting an education. (like finishing High School, entering
college, finishing college, getting a job...things that are much harder to
do if you have to "take a break" for a few months...things that have a massive
impact on her future productivity.)
You *can* have a conversation with the "mentally incompetant". And even
though *you* personally may refuse to have a conversation with "people
you just don't like", it is still *possible* for others to have a conversation
with them. It is *not* possible for *anyone* to have a conversation with
a fetus.
He was still biologically independent. At least to the same extent you are
now. He consumed nutrients and digested them in the normal manner. He
breathed his own air. A fetus on the other hand, gets it's nutrients already
digested by the mother. It gets its oxygen from the mother as well. That
is not biologically independent.
Awareness is only *part* of what makes a "member of society". It is the
minimal conceivable requirement, yet many people seem to think that something
without awareness could still be important enough to justify the suffereing
of a true member of society. I keep asking, but I still haven't seen a real
justification for why the life of a non-sentient creature should be worth the
suffering of a sentient being. (I haven't read every response on the threads
I've been asking on, yet, so we'll see if I see one later.)
Anyone who can program in UNIX has a lot of experiences in the real world. | 4 |
5,283 |
No, this is far from clear. We only have the word of the FBI spokepeople that
a survivor made this claim. We have the contradictory word of the lawyers who
spoke with the survivors individually that ALL of them agreed that they did
NOT have a suicide pact and did not intentionally start the fire. In the absense
of any more evidence, I don't see how we can decide who to believe.
Furthermore, its quite possible that there was no general suicide pact and that
some small inner circle took it upon themselves to kill everyone else.
With the state of the area now, we may never know what happened.
Again, we have only the word of the FBI on this claim. The lawyers who
have also talked to the survors deny that any of them are making that claim.
I will agree on your assessment as to the relative probabilities. Its more likely
that the BD's started the fire than did the FBI. But there is currently NO
way to decide what actually happened based on the publically available evidence
(which is nearly none).
D. The fire was an started accidentally by the BDs. I am truely amazed that
I have heard (or read) of no one suggesting this possibility.
With all the tear gas and the lack of electical power in the compound and
the adults wearing gas masks, it had to have been chaotic inside.
I can easily image someone leaving a lamp too close to something or
accidentally dropping a lamp or knocking one over. With the winds, it
would have quickly gotten out of control.
No, I think that D is also quite reasonable. I personally can't really
asses any relative probablities to either of these 3 probabilities although if
forced to bet on the issue, I would probably take an accident (either FBI or
BD) over intential setting of the fire).
I would also like to add a comment related to the reports that bodies recovered
had gunshot wounds. The coroner was on the Today Show this morning and categorically
denied that they've reach any such conclusions. He pointed out that under intense
heat, sufficient pressure builds up in the head that can cause it to explode and
that this can look very much like a massive gunshot wound to the head which is
quite consisted with te reports I've read and heard.
In short, there's been almost no evidence corroborating any of the many
scenarios as to what happened on Monday. We should remain skeptical until
more information is available.
-- | 4 |
4,183 | 4 |
|
6,219 |
Whoa, dude I don't see the jump you made.
She was blessed, I'll give you that much.
What do you mean, she was placed "beyond"
the sanctification of normal humanity. | 4 |
3,636 | Has anyone read this important book? If so, what are your feelings about it?
Frank | 4 |
5,533 | [ . . .]
I am a relativist who would like to answer your question, but the way you
phrase the question makes it unanswerable. The concepts of "right"
and "wrong" (or "correct/incorrect" or "true/false") belong to the
domain of epistemological rather than moral questions. It makes no
sense to ask if a moral position is right or wrong, although it is
legitimate to ask if it is good (or better than another position).
Let me illustrate this point by looking at the psychological derivatives
of epistemology and ethics: perception and motivation, respectively.
One can certainly ask if a percept is "right" (correct, true,
veridical) or "wrong" (incorrect, false, illusory). But it makes little
sense to ask if a motive is true or false. On the other hand, it is
strange to ask whether a percept is morally good or evil, but one can
certainly ask that question about motives.
Therefore, your suggested answers (a)-(c) simply can't be considered:
they assume you can judge the correctness of a moral judgment.
Now the problem with (d) is that it is double-barrelled: I agree with
the first part (that the "rightness" of a moral position is a
meaningless question), for the reasons stated above. But that is
irrelevant to the alleged implication (not an implication at all) that
one cannot feel peace is better than war. I certainly can make
value judgments (bad, better, best) without asserting the "correctness"
of the position.
Sorry for the lengthy dismissal of (a)-(d). My short (e) answer is
that when two individuals grotesquely disagree on a moral issue,
neither is right (correct) or wrong (incorrect). They simply hold
different moral values (feelings). | 4 |
635 | [cont. Dr. James DeYoung; #3]
R. Scroggs
Robin Scroggs has built upon the discussion of his predecessors and
suggested a new twist to the word. Scroggs believes that arsenokoitai is a
"Hellenistic Jewish coinage, perhaps influenced by awareness of rabbinic
terminology." The term is derived from Lev 18"22 & 20:13 where the LXX
juxtaposes the two words arsenos ("male") and koiten ("bed"), and represents
the Hebrew miskab zabar ("lying with a male"). Yet he believes that Paul did
not originate the term, but borrowed it from "circles of Hellenistic Jews
acquainted with rabbinic discussions" (180 n.14). It was invented to avoid
"contact with the usual Greek terminology" (108). If this is true, Scroggs
observes, it explains why the word does not appear in Greco-Roman discussions
of pederasty and why later patristic writers avoided it. It was meaningless to
native-speaking Greeks (108).
Scroggs takes the second part as the active word and the first word as the
object of the second part, thus differing from Boswell's "learned discussion"
(107). Yet Scroggs understands the general meaning of "one who lies with a
male" to have a very narrow reference. With the preceding malokoi (I Cor 6:9),
which Scroggs interprets as "the effeminate call-boy," arsenokoitai is the
active partner "who keeps the malakos of the 'mistress' or who hires him on
occasion to satisfy his sexual desires" (108). Hence arsenokoitai does not
refer to homosexuality in general, to female homosexuality, or to the generic
model of pederasty. It certainly cannot refer to the modern gay model, he
affirms (109).
This is Scrogg's interpretation of the term in I Tim 1:10 also. The
combination of pornoi ("fornicators"), arsenokoitai and andrapodistai ("slave
dealers") refers to "male prostitutes, males who lie [with them], and slave
dealers [who procure them]" (120). It again refers to that specific form of
pederasty "which consisted of the enslaving of boys as youths for sexual
purposes, and the use of these boys by adult males" (121). Even "serious
minded pagan authors" condemned this form of pederasty. He then uses these
instances of arsenokoitai in I Cor and I Tim to interpret the apparently
general condemnation of both female and male homosexuality in Rom 1.
Consequently Paul "Must have had, could only have had pederasty in mind" (122).
We cannot know what Paul would have said about the "contemporary model of
adult/adult mutuality in same sex relation ships" (122).
In relating these terms to the context and to contemporary ethical
concerns, Scroggs emphasizes the point that the specific items in the list of
vices in I Cor 6 have no deliberate, intended meaning in Paul. The form and
function of the catalogue of vices are traditional and stereotyped. Any
relationship between an individual item in the list and the context was usually
nonexistent. He concludes that Paul "does not care about any specific item in
the lists" (104).
Both on the basis of the meaning of the terms and of the literary
phenomenon of a "catalogue of vices," Scroggs argues that the Scriptures are
"irrelevant and provide no help in the heated debate today" (129). The "model
in today's Christian homosexual community is so different from the model
attacked by the NT" that "Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not
relevant to today's debate. They should no longer be used in denominational
discussions about homosexuality, should in no way be a weapon to justify
refusal of ordination. . . " (127).
REACTIONS TO THE NEW INTERPRETATIONS OF ARSENOKOITAI
D. Wright
In more recent years the positions of Bailey, Boswell, and Scroggs have
come under closer scrutiny. Perhaps the most critical evaluation of Boswell's
view is that by David Wright. In his thorough article, Wright points out
several shortcomings of Boswell's treatment of arsenokoitai. He faults
Boswell for failing to cite, or citing inaccurately, all the references to Lev
18:22 and 20:13 in the church fathers, such as Eusebius, the "Apostolic
Constitutions," Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Origen (127-28).
Boswell has not considered seriously enough the possibility that the term
derives either its form or its meaning from the Leviticus passages (129). This
is significant, for if the term is so derived, it clearly refutes Boswell's
claim that the first half of the word (arseno-) denotes not the object but the
gender of the second half (-koitai). The LXX must mean "a male who sleeps with
a male," making arseno- the object.
Wright also faults Boswell's claims regarding linguistic features of the
term, including suggested parallels (129). Though Boswell claims that
compounds with arseno- employ it objectively and those with arreno- employ it
as an adjective, Wright believes that the difference between the two is merely
one of dialectical diversity: "No semantic import attaches to the difference
between the two forms" (131). Wright believes that in most compounds in which
the second half is a verb or has a verbal force, the first half denotes its
object and where "the second part is substantival, the first half denotes its
gender" (132).
It is with Boswell's treatment of the early church fathers that Wright
takes special issue, because the former has failed to cite all the sources.
For example, Aristides' Apology (c. AD 138) probably uses arrenomaneis,
androbaten, and arsenokoitias all with the same basic meaning of male
homosexuality (133), contrary to Boswell's discussion. Boswell fails to cite
Hippolytus (Refut. Omn. Haer. 5:26:22-23) and improperly cites Eusebius and the
Syriac writer Bardensanes. The latter uses Syriac terms that are identical to
the Syriac of I Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1:10 (133-34).
Next Wright shows how the early church fathers use arsenokoitai in
parallel with paidophthoria referring to male homosexuality with teenagers, the
dominant form of male homosexuality among the Greeks (134). Sometimes this
parallelism occurs in the threefold listings of moicheia ("adultery"), porneia
("fornication"), and paidophthoria, with arsenokoitai replacing paidophthoris
(136). Clement of Alexandria in Protr. 10:108:5 cites the second table of the
Ten Commandments as "You shall not kill, ou moicheuseis ("you shall not commit
adultery"), ou paidophthoreseis ("you shall not practice homosexuality with
boys"), you shall not steal. . ." (150 n. 43).
Another occurrence of arsenokoitein ("commit homosexuality") exists in the
Sibylline Oracles 2:71-73. It may be, Wright observes, that the word was
coined by a Jewish pre-Christian writer in a Hellenistic setting represented by
Or.Sib., book 2 (137-38).
Wright also discusses uses of arsenokoitai in Rhetorius (6th c.) who drew
upon the first century AD writer Teucer, in Macarius (4th-5th c.), and in John
the Faster (d. 595) (139-40). The last in particular bears the idea of
homosexual intercourse, contrary to Boswell.
Wright next replies to Boswell's contention that the term would not be
absent "from so much literature about homosexuality if that is what it denoted
(140-41). Wright points out that it should not be expected in writers prior to
the first century AD since it did not exist before then, that the Greeks used
dozens of words and phrases to refer to homosexuality, that some sources (e.g.
Didache) show no acquaintance with Paul's letters or deliberately avoid citing
Scripture, and that Boswell neglects citing several church fathers (140-41).
Boswell's treatment of Chrysostom in particular draws Wright's attention
(141-44). Boswell conspicuously misrepresents the witness of Chrysostom,
omitting references and asserting what is patently untrue. Chrysostom gives a
long uncompromising and clear indictment of homosexuality in his homily on Rom
1:26. Boswell has exaggerated Chrysostom's infrequent use of the term. Wright
observes that Boswell has "signally failed to demonstrate any us of
arsenokoites etc. in which it patently does not denote male homosexual
activity" (144). It is infrequent because of its relatively technical nature
and the availability of such a term as paidophthoria that more clearly
specified the prevailing form of male homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world.
Wright also surveys the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic translations of I Tim
and I Cor. All three render arsenokoitai with words that reflect the meaning
"homosexual" i.e., they understand arseno- as the object of the second half of
the word (144-45). None of these primary versions supports Boswell's limited
conclusion based on them.
Wright concludes his discussion with a few observations about the
catalogues of vices as a literary form. He believes that such lists developed
in late Judaism as Hellenistic Jews wrote in clear condemnation of
homosexuality in the Greek world. This paralleled the increased concern on the
part of moral philosophers over homosexual indulgence. The term came into
being under the influence of the LXX (145) so that writers spoke "generally of
male activity with males rather than specifically categorized male sexual
engagement with paides" (146). If arsenokoitai and paidophthoria were
interchangeable, it is because the former encompassed the latter (146).
In summary, Wright seeks to show that arsenokoitai is a broad term meaning
homosexuality and arises with Judaism. The views of Boswell, Scroggs, and
others who limit the term to "active male prostitutes" or pederasty are without
significant support from linguistic and historical studies. | 4 |
5,427 | 4 |
|
6,598 |
If you want parallels the best source is probably the book _Temple
and Cosmos_ by Hugh Nibley. It is not light reading however.
As to why these early practices "only parallel" and do not exactly
duplicate the modern LDS ceremony, there are a couple of reasons:
1. Quite likely we do not have the exact original from ancient
times. This stuff was not commonly known but bits and pieces
undoubtedly spread. (Much as bits and pieces of the modern ceremony
get known.) What we have in the 40 day literature, the Egyptian
ceremonies, and certain Native American ceremonies is almost
certainly not exactly what Jesus taught. | 4 |
2,274 | The tongue that brings healing is a
tree of life,
but a deceitful tongue crushes the
spirit. | 4 |
3,546 |
: Very true (length of time for discussions on creationism vs evolutionism).
: Atheists and Christians have been debating since ?? and still debate with
: unabated passion 8-).
Mike,
I've seen referrences to "Creation vs Evolution" several times in a.a
and I have question. Is either point of view derived from direct
observation; can either be scientific? I wonder if the whole
controversy is more concerned with the consequences of the "Truth"
rather than the truth itself.
Both sides seem to hold to a philosophical outcome, and I can't help
wondering which came first. As I've pointed out elsewhere, my view of
human nature makes me believe that there is no way of knowing
anyhthing objectively - all knowledge is inherently subjective. So, in
the context of a.a, would you take a stand based on what you actually
know to be true or on what you want to be true and how can you tell
the difference? | 4 |
6,047 |
I agree with your points, and I'm glad to hear that you subscribe
to the notion of secular humanism, humans helping humans instead
of hoping for a possible deux ex machina solution!
As for faith, you could always use such constructs to dampen
your anger or sorrow.
Cheers,
Kent | 4 |
2,117 | : >
: Precisely my position.
: As a newbie, I tried the point-by-point approach to debate with
: these types. It wasted both my time and my lifespan. Ignoring
: them is not an option, since they don't go away, and doing so
: would leave one with large stretches of complete anonymity in this
: group.
Bob,
I've posted here long enough to see your name a few times, but I
can't recall any point by point approach to anything you've
contributed. But I'm old (probably senile) and I may have just
forgotten, if you could post an example of your invincible logic, it
might jog my memory. | 4 |
5,228 | I have already made the clear claim that
Don't mind my saying this but the best example of obfuscation is to
condemn without having even your most basic facts straight. If you
want some examples, go back and look at your previous posts, where
you manage to get your facts wrong about the fatwa and Khomeini's
supposed infallibility. | 4 |
7,340 |
You should remember that in Adam's transgression, all men and women
sinned, as Paul wrote. All of humanity cooperativley reblled against
God in Adma's sin, thus, all are subject to it, and the sin is
transmitted from generation to generation. | 4 |
1,342 | [does he believe in predestination]
really? you may be right, but i'd like proof. as far as i know (and
i am not a div school student!) the catholic church does not seem to
accept predestination. my chaplain told me "beware of greeks bearing
gifts" with reference to this doctrine: it seems to have the curious
result that human beings are not held responsible for their own
actions! i'll answer how you deal with this in a minute.
right. that doesn't really seem like predestination to me, but i'll
continue with what you're saying....
this is really confusing to me, especially since i still believe that
christ jesus died for ALL of us. preknowledge of obstinacy seems
like an awfully convoluted way to account for a couple of verses. but
then, i am not really biblically supported in this opinion -- or am i?
others?
so God uses grace like margarine: he only spreads it where it's needed
and not where it isn't? and so there are the saved and the not-saved,
and nothing in between. hmmmm.
although i realize this doctrine was not originally intended to cause
social problems, it ends up doing just that -- if there is supposed to
be some sort of "sign" that someone is elect, like lots of children or
success at work, then those who have a good life on earth will go
around thinking that those who don't are doomed to hell.
in a way, though, this sounds like the opposite idea -- those doomed
to hell will have a great life on earth. that's almost like the
converse of what i believe -- responsibility for what we do now will
be punished after we die. you're saying what we get after we die has
a direct bearing on how we live now? strange....
so sin is either punished now or later -- and not both? what if it's
sort of half-punished? are there any grey areas in this doctrine?
[my stuff deleted]
>We should stop the slaughter of the innocent (cf Proverbs 24.11-12), but
>does that mean that Christians should support a war in Bosnia with the
>U.S. or even the U.N. involved? I do not think so, but I am an
>isolationist, and disagree with foreign adventures in general. But in
>the case of Bosnia, I frankly see no excuse for us getting militarily
>involved, it would not be a "just war." "Blessed" after all, "are the
>peacemakers" was what Our Lord said, not the interventionists. Our
>actions in Bosnia must be for peace, and not for a war which is
>unrelated to anything to justify it for us.
the idea (well, my idea) would be that you would intervene to
establish peace and stop the atrocities. i'm not suggesting wwIII. i
don't really understand what you mean by a "just war". of course i am
not an isolationist, although i see some merit in not jumping in at
the first opportunity (can you say kuwait?). we happen to be a big
country with a lot of resources (as well as a lot of debt), and this
gives us some responsibility in the world, whether we like it or not.
flashbacks of wwII, as well as vietnam, should be haunting us.
yet another difference of opinion. so be it.
>Andy Byler
thank you for answering; i hope you don't take any of my comments as
flames, but instead as expressions of interest. | 4 |
5,603 |
That was my point. If I play poker with Monopoly money I can bet
anything I want.
This is exactly why Christianity is missionary in nature,
not just out of a need to irritate. 8-)
To the people who wrote the Bible and to whom the Bible is written,
there is evidence of love, but that is a cultural bias. This is
a poor answer which you needn't rebut.
I will now pull the old bait and switch.
I think you should use the Bible to judge man, not God.
By that I mean, if your moral intuition doesn't like what
is described in the Bible, realize that such things are going on
now. I will avoid the semantic arguments about the cause of evil
and ask what are you doing to fight it? Not you specifically,
but everyone, including myself. If I don't like the genocide
in the Bible, what about the genocide that goes on right now?
To move beyond the question of a hell, realize that many people
right now are suffering. If you think hell isn't fair and are
willing to sacrifice everything just to deny its existence,
what about how life isn't fair? Right now there is a young mother
with three little kids who doesn't know how she will get through
the day. Right now there is a sixth grader who is a junkie.
Right now there is an old man with no friends and no money to
fix his TV. Instead of why doesn't God help them ask why don't
we help them. I think you are correct to challenge any Christian
who doesn't live his life with the compassion you seem to possess.
You want evidence of God. Find someone who is making a difference,
someone you admire, someone who has been through some tough times
and has come out with his head up. Ask the person how he does it. Ask
the Vietnam vet who was battle medic how he kept his mind. Ask the
woman who was pregnant at 15, kept the baby and now is a successful
business woman. Ask the doctor who has operated on a 1-1/2 pound
baby. They won't all be Christians, or even what you might
call religious, but there will be something in common.
God is not defined in the Bible, God is defined by what is
in those people's hearts. It doesn't matter if you can't give
intellectual assent to any description you've heard, they're
all wrong anyway. The compassion you already feel in your heart
is a step in the right direction. Follow that instead.
Then come back and read the Bible and you'll see that same
thing described there.
Good, I guess we only have to work on your grammar. 8-) | 4 |
3,385 |
This is not correct. The event horizon is not the "center" of the black
hole but merely the distance at which the escape velocity is equal to the
speed of light. That is, the event horizon is a finite radius... | 4 |
4,517 |
Looking at your discussion I would say that you both operate
from your own reference frame. There's no inside and no outside,
there are just two polarized views. As for statements inside the
Bible, things are still not that clear, we don't have any indications
for instance why Jobs was placed in the Old Testament, one of the
few books that actually talks about Satan. Jobs is very much out
of line with the rest of the OT books, and there's a chance that
someone added this book later into the group of OT scriptures.
This operates the other way around as well. You have to understand
the mind of an atheist, agnostic, or as in my case, a radical
relativist. If you don't understand the underlying concepts, it is
pretty hard to continue with a dialogue. I'm not a perfect Christian,
however about 20+ years of Christian teaching should have provided
me with a pretty good picture of the Christian mind frame.
Cheers,
Kent
| 4 |
984 |
My wifes uncle was a 30+ level mason. He let me look at some of the books
(which after his death his "brothers" came over and took from his greiving
widow before his body had even cooled). Don't tell me you don't worship
Osiris. You must not be past your 20th level. You should read Wilkinson's
Egyptians and how he shows this Egyptian religion paralleling his own British
Masonry. There is a man here at this laboratory who is a 33 degree black
mason. I've talked with him, though much he likes to hide ("mystery").
Special handshakes and all. When he first started trying to "evangelize" me,
he told me all kinds on special this, and special that. Here is truely a
"mystery" religion. THere is the public side with motorcyle mania and
childrens hospitals and then there is the priviate side that only the highest
degree mason every learns of.
I haven't read it, but the literature that is offered by the silver haired
apologist (can't remember his name) on TV, didn't exactly come to this same
conclusion.
"Khons, the son of the great goddess-mother, seems to have been gernaerally
represented as a full-grown god. The Babylonian divinity was also represented
very frequently in Egupt in the very same wayas in the land of his nativity
-i.e. as a child in his mother's arems. THis was the way in which Osiris, 'the
son, the husband of his mother,' was often exhibited, and what we learn of this
god, equally as in the case of Khonso, shows that in his original he was none
other than Nimrod. 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. But what could have led to the union of a Masonic body with
these Mysteries, had they not had particular reference to architecture, and had
the god who was worshipped in them not been celebrated for his success in
perfecting the arts of fortification and building? Now, if such were the case,
considering the relation in which, as we have already seen, Egypt stood to
Babylon, who would naturally be liiked up to there as the great patron of the
Masonic art? The strong presumption is, that Nimrod must have been the man.
He was the first that gained faim in this way. As the child of the Babylonian
goddess-mother, he was worshipped in the character of Ala mahozim, 'The God of
Fortification.' Osiris, the child of the Egyptian Modonna, was equally
celebrated as 'the strong chief of the buildings.' THis strong chief of the
buildings was origninally worshipped in Egypt with every physicall
characteristic of Nimrod. I have already noticed the fact that Nimrod, as the
son of Cush, was a negro. Now, there was a tradition in Egypt, recorded by
Plutarch, that 'Osiris was black'......." Hislop
It was like a cold slap to my face, when my wifes uncle brought out his
cerimonial dress and it was leopard skin. I mean real leopard skin. He told
me that only the highest of degrees wore the leopard skin. (The reason that he
started telling me all this was that he had just been given a couple of months
to live and my wife had led him to a saving faith in Christ and he immediately
repented from 'mysteries' of the lodge!)
Nimr-rod from Nimr, a "leopard," and rada or rad "To subdue." It is a
universal principle in all idolatries, that the high priest wears the insignia
of the god he serves. Any representation of Osiris usually show the wearing of
some leopard. It is interesting that the Druids of Britian also show, or
should I say hide, this representation. They, however, worshipped the "spotted
cow".
I'll stand by my statements. Masonry is of the "mystery" religions that all
find their source in Babylon, the great harlot. Sorry Peter, I do not mean to
be a "cold slap to the face" but there is to much evidence to the contrary that
Masonry doesn't find its origins in Egypt. Of the Masons I have personally
talked to, all refered to Egypt as their origin. Why are you now separating
yourself from this which not many years ago, was freely admitted? | 4 |
2,722 | I read somewhere that Kurt Goedel argued that the ontological argument
for God's existence was logically reasonable (or something to that
effect).
Does anyone know if this is true, and have a citation?
Thanks. | 4 |
6,721 |
What is fornication? (sex outside of marriage, abuse of sex)
Is not homosexual intercourse outside the context of marriage?
Isn't it an unatural use of what God has given us?
Why is it that homosexuals are using the Grace of God as a license to
practice sin?
For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long
beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who
turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only
Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
Jude 4 (NASB)
What is defined by God as a legitimate marriage?
For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave to his wife; and the shall become one flesh.
Gen 2:24 (NASB)
And He answer and said, "Have you not read, that He who created them
from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS
CAUSE A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE;
AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? Consequently they are no longer
two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no
man separate."
Matt 19:4-6 (NASB)
But because of immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let
each woman have her own husband. Let the husband fulfill his duty
to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.
1 Corinthians 7:4,5 (NASB)
I disagree... Every law that is written in Leviticus should be looked at
as sin. That is why we have a need for a savior. I can understand
someone who may not know a particular sin listed in the Levitcal law, but
I would hope that they would repent when confronted with it.
Also I noticed that the preceeding verses say.
Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her
menstrual impurity. And you shall not have intercourse with your
neighbors wife, to be defiled with her.
Leviticus 18:19, 20 (NASB)
These verses are just as relevant as:
You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an
abomination.
Leviticus 18:22 (NASB)
Why was God telling the Israelites not to practice such things?
Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these
the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.
For the land has become defiled, therefore I have visited its
punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants.
But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and Judgments, and
shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor
the alien who sojourns among you
Leviticus 18:24-26 (NASB)
He is the Lord... Listen to what he has to say...
Nobody wants to dismiss homosexuals. We do love you, but we don't
agree that what you practice is not sin. You have not truly repented
of your sin. We hate the sin that is within your lives. I hate sin
that is in my life. All Christians should hate the sin that is within
their own lives. Confrontaion with sin should bring about repentance.
Yes I agree with John 3:17, but I also know that Jesus said, "Repent for
the kingdom of heaven is at hand" Matt 3:17. If you don't agree that
homosexuality is sin than how can you repent from it? This means that
you remain in bondage to it. Repent from it and God will set you free.
In His Love,
Mike
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Christensen | Trust the Lord with all your heart,
Senior Product Support Engineer | And do not lean on your own
Procom Technology, Inc. | understanding. Proverbs 3:5 (NASB) | 4 |
5,496 |
(Deletion)
The reference to it's not yet being ethics is dubious. You have used the terms
absolute, objective and others interchangeably. Same with moral values, values,
at all, worth, measuers, and usefulness. You infer from them as if they were
the same.
To the IF. When the If is not fulfilled, your intermission is a waste of time.
Assuming that you don't intend this, it is reasonable to conclude that you
want to argue a point.
You have made a interesting statement here, namely that of the disinterested
observer. There is no such thing in morals. Probably the shortest proof for
objective and morality being a contradiction.
Fine. And that freedom is valuable is not generally agreed upon. I could
name quite a lot of people who state the opposite. (Not that that wasn't
mentioned before). In other words, you have nothing to fulfill your strong
claims with.
Clutching a straw. I don't believe in mappings into metaphysical sets were
loaded terms are fixpoints. Those who deny the morality of freedom make quite
clear what they say, their practice is telling. Yes, there are even those who
are willingly unfree. It is quite common in religions, by the way. For one,
there is a religion which is named Submission.
Don't even try to argue that submission is freedom.
If it were so, it would argue my case. But I am afraid that that is considered
proof.
| 4 |
6,478 |
The killing of the ATF agents is a separate issue. My point is that many
children died because of Koresh defending himself. Did he have what you
call the "moral right" to keep those children in a dangerous enviroment in
order to defend himself?
| 4 |
929 |
Vell, this is perfectly normal behaviour Vor a Vogon, you know? | 4 |
3,822 | 4 |
|
3,904 | 4 |
|
4,776 | John E. King ([email protected]) posts a whopping one liner:
* "The modern theory of evolution is so inadequate that it deserves to be *
* treated as a matter of faith." -- Francis Hitching *
I have a few points to make about the above posting.
1. Science is not based on and does not consist of "quotes" from either
real or alleged experts. Critical reasoning, evidence and (if possible)
experimentation are necessary. Creationists frequently display a massive
confusion about this by merely quoting both non-experts and experts alike
(some of the latter quotes are in fact false) and steadfastly refusing to
follow any kind of rigorous scientific procedure. This strongly suggests
that (a.) their claims completely lack any scientific merit and (b.) they
are aware of this fatal deficiency. Of course, you may not actually be a
creationist and this may not be your real intent.
2. You have failed to identify Hitching and the surrounding context of his
statement. Why is that? If Hitching is a scientific illiterate then the
quote would merely display his profound ignorance of evolutionary biology.
Creationists are frequently known to quote real scientists out of context
and to fabricate statements that they subsequently attribute to legitimate
scientists. Of course, you may not actually be a creationist and this may
not be your real intent.
3. Evidence supporting the alleged inadequacies of "the modern theory of
evolution" would be a much more powerful argument than a contextless one
line quote from an unidentified nobody. It is also important to note that
disproving biological evolution does not automatically prove some alternate
claims any more that disproving that the earth is shaped like a hockey puck
proves that it is a hyperbolic paraboloid. Creationists seem rather fond
of diving (head first) into this logical fallacy. Of course, you may not
actually be a creationist and this may not be your real intent.
4. Since evolution is central to virtually all of modern science, an attack
on evolution (either the fact or the theory) really represents an attack on
science. While the theory will unquestionably continue to evolve (B^) the
fact of evolution will not ever go away. Creationists lost the battle long
ago (more than 100 years in fact) but are simply too willfully ignorant and
irrational to acknowledge the fact. Of course, you may not actually be a
creationist and you may not really be that ignorant.
Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub ([email protected]) asks:
* Neither I, nor Webster's has ever heard of Francis Hitchings. Who is he? *
I, like Hitchings, am not to be found in Webster's B^). Francis Hitchings
is a scientifically illiterate creationist (or perhaps he is just playing the
part of one) who wrote a quite ignorant book attacking evolution ("The Neck of
the Giraffe"). In that publication he quotes a creationist (Jean Sloat Morton)
using the standard invalid creationist probability argument that proteins could
not have formed by chance. Thus not only confusing abiogenesis with evolution
(the two are quite independent) but also concluding with a "non sequitur" (i.e.
the conclusion "does not follow"). [pp 70-71] Hitchings also misquotes Richard
Lewontin in an effort to support creationism. [pp 84]
Hitchings book was reviewed by National Park Service ecologist David Graber
in the Los Angeles Times (and repeated in the Oregonian). The article was
titled "`Giraffe' sticks scientific neck out too far". Excerpts include :
"Francis Hitchings is not a biologist." "He goes after Darwin like Mark
Antony after Brutus. He flips from scientific reasoning to mysticism and
pseudo-science with the sinuosity of a snake-oil salesman." "He suggests
a mystical `organizing principle' of life, using the similarity of organs
in different creatures as evidence [sic]."
Note that the last statement above is actually evidence FOR evolution not
against it. If John E. King is quoting from this reviewed book it wouldn't
surprise me much. It's also interesting that King had nothing to add (i.e.
he only posted a quote).
| 4 |
1,020 |
Brian Kendig also declares:
"Christ" is Greek for "Messiah". "Messiah" means "Annointed One".
"Annoint" means "to rub with oil, i.e. to anoint; by impl. to
consecrate" The major prophet Daniel uses the word "Messiah"
in Daniel chapter 9. | 4 |
6,010 |
Hmm. The police strategy of bursting in with weapons drawn, clearly marked as
officers and yelling "Police" repeatedly. This is used every day to bust drug
houses. The idea is to awe the suspects into submission with surprise and
display of firepowere in order to avoid a gun fight. As for not knocking, it's
a sad necessity in many cases since the suspects will attempt to escape or even
fight. Usually this strategy works; if it didn't, then it wouldn't be used so
commonly, now would it?
Whether or not it was appropriate to use this strategy on the BD is not my
point, since I don't think any of us have enough information to make a clear
judgement on this issue.
I merely point out that it IS a valid strategy which is used every day.
Furthermore, we don't know of any substitute strategy capable of apprehending
potentially dangerous and armed suspects. Do you suggest that the police
always knock with guns holstered and never arrest any suspects until they have
been allowed to inspect the officers's badges? Just what should the police do
when apprehending potentially dangerous and armed suspects? How far can they
reasonably go to identiy themselves? What do you suggest they can do which
can't be faked by the "competition"?
Even if you've got deadly enemies who may pretend to be cops, that's not an
excuse to murder police. In the case of the BD's, there was almost definitely
at most the paranoid delusion of deadly enimies who would pretend to be cops. | 4 |
5,544 | This is hell. Hasn't anyone noticed?
| 4 |
4,656 |
Well lets see - a long haired nut case with sexual hangups surrounded
by a lot of gulible losers without a brain between them with a miserable
and meaningless death to boot
Sounds like he fits the bill to me!
Joseph 'Remember David Koresh fried for you' Askew
| 4 |
503 | Can a theist be truly objective? Can he be impartial
when questioning the truth of his scriptures, or
will he assume the superstition of his parents
when questioning?
I've often found it to be the case that the theist
will stick to some kind of superstition when
wondering about God and his scriptures. I've
seen it in the Christian, the Jew, the Muslim,
and the other theists alike. All assume that
their mothers and fathers were right in the
aspect that a god exists, and with that belief
search for their god.
Occasionally, the theist may switch religions or
aspects of the same religion, but overall the
majority keep to the belief that some "Creator"
was behind the universe's existence. I've
known Muslims who were once Christians and vice
versa, I've known Christians who were once
Jewish and vice versa, and I've even known
Christians who become Hindu. Yet, throughout
their transition from one faith to another,
they've kept this belief in some form of higher
"being." Why?
It usually all has to do with how the child is
brought up. From the time he is born, the
theist is brought up with the notion of the
"truth" of some kind of scripture-- the Bible,
the Torah, the Qur'an, & etc. He is told
of this wondrous God who wrote (or inspired)
the scripture, of the prophets talked about in
the scripture, of the miracles performed, & etc.
He is also told that to question this (as
children are apt to do) is a sin, a crime
against God, and to lose belief in the scrip-
ture's truth is to damn one's soul to Hell.
Thus, by the time he is able to read the
scripture for himself, the belief in its "truth"
is so ingrained in his mind it all seems a
matter of course.
But it doesn't stop there. Once the child is able
to read for himself, there is an endeavor to
inculcate the child the "right" readings of
scripture, to concentrate more on the pleasant
readings, to gloss over the worse ones, and to
explain away the unexplainable with "mystery."
Circular arguments, "self-evdent" facts and
"truths," unreasoning belief, and fear of
hell is the meat of religion the child must eat
of every day. To doubt, of course, means wrath
of some sort, and the child must learn to put
away his brain when the matter concerns God.
All of this has some considerable effect on the
child, so that when he becomes an adult, the
superstitions he's been taught are nearly
impossible to remove.
All of this leads me to ask whether the theist can
truly be objective when questioning God, Hell,
Heaven, the angels, souls, and all of the rest.
Can he, for a moment, put aside this notion that
God *does* exist and look at everything from
a unbiased point of view? Obviously, most
theists can somewhat, especially when presented
with "mythical gods" (Homeric, Roman, Egyptian,
& etc.). But can they put aside the assumption
of God's existence and question it impartially?
Stephen
_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ * Atheist
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ * Libertarian
_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ * Pro-individuality
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ * Pro-responsibility
_/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Jr. * and all that jazz...
| 4 |
5,115 | Fred Gilham asks (May 11) whether it is true that Kurt Goedel wrote
a version of the ontological argument for the existence of God.
Yes, he did. He did not publish it, but it will be published by the
Oxford University Press in German and with English translation in
Volume 3, due to appear this fall, of his Collected Works.
Meanwhile, you can find a summary, or perhaps the whole thing, in an
article by Jordan Howard Sobel called "Goedel's ontological proof"
in the book ON BEING AND SAYING, edited by Judith Jarvis Thompson
(sp?), published by the MIT Press in 1987.
Professor C Anthony Anderson of the Philosophy Department of the
University of Minnesota has written an article, "Some Emendations of
Goedel's Ontological Proof," which appeared in the magazine FAITH
AND PHILOSOPHY, v. 7 (1990): 291-303. It discusses some objections
that various critics have raised against Goedel's proof, and offers
a revised version of the proof that is not vulnerable to these
objections. | 4 |
7,344 |
Yes, one does. I examined a critique of the Book of Romans by
I think, Benjamin Franklin once, a Deist. I found it amazing that
Benjamin Franklin missed the whole boat. I also have the writings
on Thomas Jefferson sitting on my shelf, and it is amazing how
much he missed. I have studied Plato's Theory of Forms and
Aristotelian Hylomorphesism. What a pile of junk. Jesus
makes Plato and Aristotle look like kindergardeners. Psychology,
the id, ego, superego by Freud? Elements of truth, but Jesus
explained it far better and gave reasons.
Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson are mere men. They
can screw up the Bible just as well as any man. I do not put these
men on a pedestal. And if I remember T.J.'s autobiography correctly,
he thought Thomas Paine was the most unread man he ever met.
Here's some more circular reasoning to you. Paul says to the Corinthians
that "that the gospel will be foolishness to the world, because it is
spiritually discerned." And so, people without the spirit of God haven't a
clue to what the Bible is saying. From your point of view, that's
incredibly circular and convenient. To me, it is mysteriously and supernaturally
bizarre. I can see it, but you can't. This is not arrogance on
my part. Trust me. It is as bizarre to you as it is to me. But nonetheless,
it is a truth, explainable or not.
Are any of you color blind to red and green? I am. Remember those
dot tests they do at the optomologist's? They put pictures in front
of you and you are supposed to identify the pattern in the dots? If
your eyes are perfectly normal, you can see letters or numerals
embedded in the dots. They are a slightly different color and stand
out from the background. But if you are color blind to red and green,
you will not see anything but gray-shaded dots. That is how a dot
test appears to me. I do not see a pattern at all.
A normal seeing person will see the patterns. And to him, I seem like a
total anomaly. To him, I appear as if I am missing the universe or something.
It is hard for him to understand why I can't see anything
that to him is as plain as day.
That it what it is like with the Bible, the Word of God, to the believer.
The believer can see the meaning in the words. I can see how the patterns
fit together. There is such depth. Such consistency. But then, on the
other hand, I notice the non-believer. He doesn't see it. He thinks
I am weird because he thinks I am seeing things. I look at him, and
say, "No, you are weird. You do not see." Then it is time for a sanity
check. I go to another Christian and say, "Do you see this." And
they go, "Yes. It is an "X"". And I say, "Thank God, I see the "X"
too."
It is truly the strangest thing. It adds a little extra dimension to
the phrase,
"He will make the blind see, and the deaf hear."
| 4 |
4,200 |
Translation of the above paragraph:
"I am uninformed about the evidence for evolution. Please send me the
talk.origins FAQs on the subject."
| 4 |
2,081 | Aside to the moderator:
I won't quote any of it, but there are several errors in the article.
Not things that are just differences of opinion, but the writer just
plain has his facts confused.
For example, Kip McKean was *asked* to come to the Lexington church
by the leaders there. He brought no team. He actually had been in
Charleston, IL up to that point. He had many friends, even leaders in
Gainesville, telling him not to go, because people in the Northeast
weren't "open" and he'd be wasting his time and talents. Really!!
(This fact was a kind of "inside joke" at one point after the church
in Boston took off so well... Not open, indeed!) ;-)
I could take it on point by point, but I am not in a position to know
one way or the other about some things in the article. I just wanted
to point out that it contains misinformation.
Mark | 4 |
7,165 |
[ Deletia; in case anybody hadn't noticed, Frank and I are debating
"objective morality", and seemingly hitting semantics. ]
It may be that, being a non-native English-speaker, I've
misunderstood your usage of "objective", and tried to debate something
you don't assert; my apologies. I'm at a loss to imagine what you really
do mean, though.
Wrong point. The age of the universe has no direct effect on
humanity's sticking power, in the way the moral system of a society can
have.
I'm saying the Universe has a "real age", because I see evidence
for it; cosmology, astronomy and so on. I say this age is independent of
people's opinions of it, because I know different people have a lot of
different opinions in the matter, yet empirical tests consistently seem
to give roughly the same results.
I can't see how it does that. Put a creationist to the task of
performing the tests and calculations, see to it (s)he makes no blatant
errors in measuring or calculating, and the result of the test will be
the same.
Because logically consistent empirical tests contradict their
opinion. If those tests were just my opinion, then their own tests
(which would then be their opinion) would contradict mine, even if we
conducted said tests in identical manner, no? They don't, which I take
as showing these tests have some validity beyond our opinion of them.
Map the activity of nerves and neural activity, if you mean
physical pain. You have a sharp point, I'll give you that; but you still
haven't given me a way to quantify morality.
We agree. Hypotheses, however, can change; I hold that there is no
"ultimate hypothesis of morality" towards which these changes could
gravitate, but that they could be changed in any way imaginable,
producing different results suitable for different tasks or purposes.
"Better" and "worse" are (almost?) always defined in the context
of a moral system. Your prediction will _always_ be correct, *within*
*that* *moral* *system*. What you need now is an objective definition of
"good" and "bad"; I wish you luck.
Isn't that what _you're_ doing, when assuming an "objectively
real" morality? Besides, what _exactly_ is provably wrong with my
statement?
Claiming there is no objective morality is suddenly a positive
claim? Besides, I think I _can_ lend some credence to my claim; ponder
different individuals, both fully functional as human beings and members
of society, but yet with wildly different moral codes. If morality was
"objective", at least one should be way off base, but yet hir
'incorrect' morality seems to function fine. How come?
As for producing these individuals, it might be easiest to pick
them from different societies; say, an islamic one and some polynesian
matrilineal system, for example (if such still exist).
[ deletia - testing for footballs on desks ]
One thing is "good" under some circumstances, because we wish to
achieve some goal, for some reason. Other times we wish to do something
else, and that thing is no longer so clearly "good" at all.
Some things are hard to make "good", because we'd seldom if ever
wish to achieve the sort of goal mass murder would lead one into. Still,
the Aztecs were doing fine until the Spaniards wiped them out.
I almost always know what "good" means; sometimes I even know why.
I never claim this "good" is thereby fixed in stone, immutable.
[...]
Yes, me too, and I've tried a thing or two down that line; it
doesn't look good for objective values to me at all.
| 4 |
1,354 |
You mean Bobby Mozumder is a myth? We wondered about that.
You mean Bobby Mozumder didn't really post here? We wondered
about that, too.
So, Mr Conner. Is Bobby Mozumder a myth, a performing artist,
a real Moslem. a crackpot, a provocateur? You know everything
and read all minds: why don't you tell us? | 4 |
522 | . | 4 |
3,408 |
"I'm afraid I'm going to have to kill you. Don't worry, though; as a Loving
Christian, I guarantee that I will regret the fact that I have to kill
you, although I won't regret the actual killing."
False dichotomy.
That's because they weren't even attempted.
You want to know why it bothers me that thousands of innocent people were
maimed or killed by bombing at the end of WW2, when it was far from clear
that such bombing was necessary?
And why-is-it-that-way? Who set things up to be that way?
No, just the ones that have oil. Or the ones that look like they might make
a success of Communism.
I don't see that getting UN forces to East Timor is any harder than getting
them to Iraq.
Fine. Write to your Congressman and to President Clinton. China's status as
"Most Favoured Nation" comes up for renewal in June. Point out that the US
shouldn't be offering favourable trading terms to such a despicable regime.
I doubt anything will happen. Clinton's keener on trade sanctions against
Europe.
[ Unbelievable comments about the Rodney King case deleted ]
Any idea how many kill files you just ended up in?
The ends justify the means, eh?
The same tired old misunderstanding. Moral relativism means that there is no
*objective* standard of morality. It doesn't mean you can't judge other
people's morals. Christ on a bike, how many times have we tried to hammer
that into your head?
Obviously not, as I am an atheist. I don't think you'd get on with Jesus,
though; he was a long-haired lunatic peace-nik, was he not?
Right. Unfortunately for you, it turned out that my opinions on the matter
were entirely consistent in that I condemned the bombing of Dresden too.
I think you're being a bit glib with your explanation of the blanket bombing
policy, too. You make it sound as though we were aiming for military targets
and could only get them by destroying civilian buildings next door. As I
understand it, that is not the case; we aimed deliberately at civilian
targets in order to cause massive damage and inspire terror amongst the
German people.
Oh, come on. With wars like the Falklands fresh in people's minds, that sort
of propaganda isn't going to fool anyone.
Yes? And what about the millions of casualties the Russians suffered? It's
hardly surprising the US didn't lose many men in WW2, given that you turned
up late.
| 4 |
6,884 |
I wouldn't and don't. I thought I did a pretty good job of
qualifying my statement, but apparently some people
misinterpreted my intentions. I apologize for my part in
communicating any confusion. My intent was more to
stir up discussion rather than judge. It seems to
have worked.
[rest of post noted - by the way, I did not originally post this to
alt.atheism. If it got there, I don't know how it did.]
| 4 |
4,783 | Ken,
Then what happens when you die?
Why are you here?
What is the purpose of Your life, do you think it's
just by chance you're in the family you are in and have the
friends you have?
Why do you think your searching? To fill the void that
exists in your life. Who do you think can fill that void | 4 |
5,272 | (This is a continuation of an earlier post)
(I am sorry you found this offensive. It was not my intent to offend. I was
leading up to another point, which I discuss in more detail below.)
I can see you have a revulsion for bestiality that far exceeds my distaste for
homosexuality. Certainly if I spoke about homosexuality the way you speak of
bestiality, nobody would have any trouble labelling me a homophobe. Let me ask
this gently: why are you so judgemental of other people's sexual preferences?
What happened to "No doubt I am free to do anything"? I think you have a
serious double standard here. When you describe a comparison between
homosexuality and bestiality as "slimey" and "sleazy", you are making an
implicit judgement that bestiality is perverted, sinful, disgusting,
unnatural--in short, all the things that society once thought about
homosexuality. Not all people share your view. You claim not to know any
sincere zoophiles, but this does not mean that they do not exist. They even
have their own newsgroup: alt.sex.bestiality. Are you going to accuse them
all of being mere "jokers"?
I notice you deleted the main point of my comment: the fact that the only
Biblical condemnations of bestiality occur in connection with the Levitical
prohibitions against homosexuality. While there are some New Testament
passages that can arguably be taken as condemning homosexuality, there are none
that condemn bestiality. One of your main points seems to be that Christian
homosexuality is acceptable due to the lack of any "clear" New Testament
statements against it; if this is a valid argument, then should not Christian
zoophilia be made that much more acceptable by the fact that the New Testament
makes no reference, clear or unclear, to the subject at all?
I am quite serious here. If I am going to accept homosexuality as Biblically
acceptable on the basis of your arguments, then I am going to be fair and apply
the same standards to everyone else's declared sexual preferences as well. If
the arguments you make for homosexuality can be applied to other sexual
preferences as well, I'm going to apply them and see what comes up. I'm not
trying to "torpedo a serious issue" by using what you label "a ridiculous
joke". I posted a question about how we should interpret Biblical guidelines
for Christian sexuality, and I don't think such a question is "irrelevant" in a
group called "soc.religion.christian". The Bible discusses homosexuality and
bestiality together in the same context, and therefore I feel I have a good
precedent for doing the same.
I don't know whether it makes any difference, but for the record, this is not a
side issue for me. I believe loving one another includes not encouraging
people to defile themselves, therefore it is of high importance to determine
whether God regards certain sexual acts as defiling. I can read in the New
Testament that "God has joined together" heterosexual couples, and that the
marriage bed is undefiled. I can read in the Old Testament that homosexual
intercourse and bestiality defile a person whether or not that person is under
the Law. If gay Christians can validly put aside the Old Testament standards
of defilement, then I want to know so that I can fairly apply it to all the
sexual practices that defiled a person in the old days. I don't think it's
right to take just bits and pieces of the Law and try and apply them to
Christians today, e.g. bestiality still defiles you but homosexuality doesn't.
That was pretty much what you said earlier, right? You used different
examples, but I think you said essentially the same thing about it being wrong
to apply only certain parts of the Law to Christians.
It was not my intent to stir up such an emotional reaction. I personally don't
get all that upset discussing alternatives to the monogamous heterosexual
orientation; I'm afraid I naively assumed that others would have a similar
attitude. Please note that I have never intended to equate homosexuality with
child abuse. I have merely noted that, for all the lack of "clear" NT
condemnation of homosexuality, there is an even greater lack of NT condemnation
(or even mention) of bestiality, a practice which a number of people (e.g. on
alt.sex.bestiality) consider to be their true sexual orientation.
This is an excellent question, and I pray that you will not treat it as a mere
rhetorical question, but will genuinely seek to discover and understand the
answer. I recommend you begin with a little introspection into why you
yourself have much the same attitude towards zoophilia. Why do you find
bestiality so repugnant that you regard it as slanderous to even mention in
connection with other alternative sexual orientations? Why do you not apply
all the same verses about love and tolerance to zoophiles the way you apply
them to homosexuals?
Is it because you automatically experience a subjective feeling of revulsion at
the thought? A lot of people have the same experience at the thought of
homosexual intercourse. Is it because you regard the practice as socially
unacceptable? A lot of people regard homosexuality as socially unacceptable.
Do you feel that it violates the traditional Judeo-Christian standard of sexual
morality? Many people feel that homosexuality does. Do you feel the Bible
condemns it? Many people think the Bible says more to condemn homosexuality
than it does to condemn bestiality. Why then do you think comparing bestiality
with homosexuality is insulting to homosexuality? If you can honestly answer
this question, you will have come a long way towards understanding why many
people feel the same way about homosexuality as you feel about bestiality.
Also please note that I am not in any sense condemning *people*. I am merely
pointing out that when I read the Bible I see certain sexual *practices* that
the Bible appears to condemn, e.g. sex outside of marriage. When I say I think
adultery and pre-marital sex are sinful, do you take that as me failing to love
my neighbor? When you treat bestiality as something disgusting and
unmentionable, are you disobeying "repeated orders not to judge or condemn
others"? When you say other Christians are guilty of sinning by condemning you
and judging you, are you by that accusation making yourself guilty of the same
offense? Or are you and I both simply taking note about *practices* the Bible
brands as sinful, and leaving the judgement of the *people* up to God?
I'm not sure what you mean by the above two paragraphs. If you mean that Jesus
is the Truth, and that He accepts sinners, and does not reject them, then I
agree. If we were not sinners, then we would not *need* a Savior. Our
salvation in Christ, however, does not mean that sin is now irrelevant for us,
and we can now do whatever we want. Nor does Christ's grace mean that those
who refer to sin as "sin" are being judgemental or intolerant. I am speaking
in general terms here, not specifically about homosexuality. If the Bible
calls something "sin", then it is not unreasonable for Christians to call it
sin too.
As applied to Christian homosexuality, I think the only definitive authority on
Christian sexuality is the Bible. If you make a list of everything the Bible
says on the subject of homosexual intercourse, I think you will find that every
verse on the list is negative and condemning at worst, and "unclear" at best.
The most pro-gay statement you could make about the list is that there is some
dispute about the New Testament verses which many people interpret as
condemning homosexual intercourse. That is, from a gay perspective, the most
positive thing you can say about the Bible's treatment of homosexuality is that
some verses fail to clearly condemn it. That's it. Jesus declared all foods
clean, the council at Jerusalem declared that Gentiles were not required to
keep the ritual Law, but nobody ever reclassified homosexual intercourse from
being an abomination deserving of death to being an accepted Christian
practice. You have verses describing homosexual intercourse as an abomination
that defiles both Jews under the Law and Gentiles not under the Law, and you
have some verses which are at best "not clear" but which some people believe
*are* clear in their condemnation of homosexual behavior, and that's the sum
total of what the Bible says about same-sex intercourse.
I can appreciate (from personal experience) your desire to have everything
simple, cut-and-dried, black-and-white, what-I-want- is-ok, and
those-who-oppose-me-are-wicked. However, I do not think the Bible makes your
case as definitively as you would like it to. In fact, I don't believe it says
anything positive about your case at all. Yes, I know the verses about loving
one another, and not judging one another, but that's not really the issue, is
it? You know and admit that there are still things that are sinful for
Christians to do, since you say it is wrong for Christians to condemn you.
Therefore, the issue is whether the Bible says homosexual intercourse is a sin.
Even if you do challenge the clarity of the New Testament verses, you are still
left with the fact that the only thing the Bible does say clearly about
homosexual intercourse is that it is an abomination that defiles both those who
are under the law and those who are not.
- Mark
| 4 |
320 | 4 |
|
7,006 |
(I presume you are quoting John 3:3-7.)
1. My King James Bible says "Except a man be born of water
and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God"
(John 3:5). (Here "man" == "adult").
(However, this could be a quibble between translations.)
2. We can also analyze to whom the Lord is addressing:
"Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again"
(John 3:7). Here Jesus is clearly directing his remarks
to Nicodemus -- a ruler of the Jews (not a child).
3. We can ask ourselves why the Lord would even
introduce the concept of spiritual re-birth through
baptism if newborn babies weren't free from sin?
A IDLER | 4 |
1,039 | Could the guy who wrote the article "Why I am not Bertrand Russell"
resend me a copy? | 4 |
7,220 | You just don't get it, do you?
I think the discussion is more like this...
Me: [ happily picking daisies by the side of the road ]
BC: [ dancing on the double yellow broken line ]
"Come on out and play on the highway!"
Me: "Why?"
BC: "The highway was put here for people to be on. We must work towards
fulfilling its purpose."
Me: "But --"
BC: "Look, the highway has been here for several generations. Look, I
have a story about how it was actually created by a divine being!
And several people actually saw Elvis bless it!"
Me: "But --"
BC: "Look, are you going to come out here, or not?"
Me: "But --"
BC: "You probably think that picking daisies is fun. Well, you're wrong."
Me: "Where in blazes did you get this silly idea that you're supposed to
be playing on the highway? You'll get yourself killed!"
BC: "Better to be killed on the highway than to live an empty life off
of it. Besides, you're just asking pointless questions. You know
you really want to be playing on the highway too; you're just
denying it."
Me: "If you want to get run over, then fine, but I'd much rather enjoy
the daisies, if you please."
BC: "Why do you shun me like this? The Creator of the Highway will flatten
you with a steamroller if you don't see the light and come join me!"
Me: "Well, if he's gonna be THAT way about it, maybe I want to get as
far from the highway as I can..."
BC: [ incoherent but quite familiar righteous sputtering ]
Brian C., don't you see? I do not believe that your god is:
(a) real, or even
(b) beneficial.
In fact, I believe your religion is imaginary and, carried to
extremes, harmful. I would like to help you see its shortcomings, and
perhaps someday finally become strong enough to see it for what it is:
an elaborate lie, kept alive by the elite priesthood to keep the
masses properly submissive to their influences.
Please offer me an argument that's more convincing than "you just
don't believe 'cos you don't want to." Everything you've said so far
could apply equally to any religion -- why do you believe yours is the
real one?
(Note that saying "it's the only one that promises eternal life" or
something like that isn't an answer to my question, unless you show
that (a) no other religion promises eternal life and (b) it is
unarguably true that eternal life must be a reality.)
| 4 |
1,494 | ********NOTE: FOLLOWUPS go to alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins!
[deleted]
If you say X statement and give it the authority of fact, I will respond
by asking you why. You aren't obligated to say anything, but if your
intent is to convince me that X statement is true, then yes, the burden
of proof is upon you.
If you are merely giving testimony to your beliefs, then you are an egotist.
Why would I care?
To surmise, the burden of proof is upon you if you wish us to believe that
what you say is true. | 4 |
561 | Stuff deleted
I reiterate that I would agree with you that there is little
justification for the punishment of apostasy in the Qur'an.
In Islamic history, as well, apostasy has rarely been punished.
Belief is considered a matter of conscience and since there
is to be no compulsion in the matter of belief, apostates have
been generally left to believe or not believe as they will.
However, when an apostate makes attacks upon "God and
His Messenger" the situation changes. Now the charge of
apostasy may be complicated with other charges - perhaps
charges of sedition, treason, spying, etc. If the person
makes a public issue of their apostasy or mounts public
attacks (as opposed to arguement) against Islam, the
situation is likewise complicated. If the person spreads
slander or broadcasts falsehoods, again the situation
changes. The punishments vary according to the situation
the apostate is in. Anyhow, the charge of aggravated
apostasy would only be a subsidiary charge in Rushdie's case.
There is a distinction in the Qur'an between a formal war situation
and being in the situation where someone unilaterally
wages war (by their actions), creates disorder, makes mischief,etc.
against the Muslims and creates a situation that results in harm
to Muslims. Here, a small group or even a single individual could
be said to be engaged in such a practise. In other words, there is
a clear difference between a formal war situation (where two
clearly defined parties wage war, conclude treaties, exchange
prisoners, etc.), and dealing with attacks that come from isolated
individuals or groups against Islam. It is the second situation,
the unilateral attack and the spreading of "fasad" that
would apply in the case of Rushdie.
The matter of Rushdie is not a simple matter of banning an
offensive book (banning the book is secondary) -
a full set of circumstances following the publication of
the book come into play as well, including the deaths of many
Muslims, and Rushdie's (and his publishers) Media games.
I am not sure which hadith you are referring to above. I believe
that one of the Qur'anic verses on which the fatwa is based is 5:33.
Every verse in the Qur'an has a corresponding "circumstance of
revelation" but in no way is the understanding (the tafsir) of the
verse restricted solely to the particular historical circumstance
in which it was revealed. If this was the case then we could say
that all the laws and regulations that were revealed when the
Muslims were NOT involved in conflict, should be suspended when
they were at war. The logic does not follow. In complex, real-life
situations, there may be many verses and many hadiths which can
all be related to a single, complicated situation. The internal
relationships between these verses may be quite complex, such that
arriving at an understanding of how the verses interlock and how
each applies to the particular situation can be quite a demanding task.
It is not necessarily a simple "this or that" process. There may
be many parameters involved, there may be a larger context in
which a particular situation should be viewed. All these matters
impinge on the situation.
In other words there is a great deal involved in deciphering the Qur'an.
The Qur'an asks us to reflect on its verses, but this reflection must
entail more than simply reading a verse and its corresponding hadith.
If the reflection is for the sake of increasing personal piety, then each
person has his own level of understanding and there is no harm in that.
However, if the reflection is in order to decide matters that pertain to
the
State, to the gestation of laws and rulings, to the gestation of society,
the dispensing of justice, the guidance of the community, then there
are certain minimum requirements of understanding that one
should achieve. Jaffar Ibn Muhammad as-Sadiq(a.s.) relates some of
these requirements, as taught by the Prophet(S.A.), in a hadith:
"...he who does not distinguish in the Book of Allah the abrogating
verse from the abrogated one, and a specific one from a general one,
and a decisive from an ambiguous; and does not differentiate between
a permission and an obligation, and does not recognize a verse of
Meccan period from a Medinite one, and does not know the circumstances
of revelation, and does not understand the technical words of
the Qur'an (whether simple or compound); and does not comprehend the
knowledge of decree and measure, and is ignorant of advancing and
delaying (in its verses); and does not distinguish the clear from
the deep, nor the manifest from the esoteric, nor the beginning
from the termination; and is unaware of the question and the answer,
the disjoining and the joining, and the exceptions and the all-inclusive,
and is ignorant of an adjective of a preceding noun that explains the
subsequent one; and is unaware of the emphasized subject and the
detailed one, the obligatory laws and the permissions, the places of the
duties and rules, and the meaning of the lawful and the unlawful; and
does not know the joined words, and the words that are related to those
coming before them, or after them - then such a man does not know
the Qur'an; nor is he among the people of the Qur'an....".
Based on these and other hadiths, and in accordance with many Qur'anic
verses ("Why should not a company from every group remain behind
to gain profound understanding (tafaqquh) in religion and to warn
people when they return to them, so that they may beware." (9:122)),
a science of jurisprudence arose. The requirements
for a person to be considered a mujtahid (one who can pronounce on
matters of law and religion) are many. I've listed a few major
divisions below - there are, of course, many subdivisions within these
headings.
- Knowledge of Arabic (syntax, conjugation, roots, semantics, oratory).
- Knowledge of tafsir and principles of tafsir.
- Logic (mantiq)
- A knowledge of Hadiths
- A knowledge of transmitters (rijal)
- Knowledge of the principles of juriprudence (Qur'an, Sunnah, Consensus,
Reasoning)
The study of Qur'an and sunnah for purposes of law involves:
- discussion of imperatives (awamir)
- discussion of negative imperatives (nawahi)
- discussion of generalities and particularities (aam wa khas)
- discussion of unconditional and conditional
- discussion of tacit meanings
- discussion of the abstract and the clear
- discussion of the abrogator and the abrogated
The principles of Application of the law involves:
- principles of exemption
- principles of precaution
- principles of option
- principles of mastery
The jurisprudent is bound to go through a very rigorous process
in pronouncing judgement on a given situation. It is not a matter
of looking at one verse and one hadith.
Now no one should blindly follow anyone, but there is a difference
between blind following and acceding to the opinion of someone who is
clearly more knowledgeable and more qualified than oneself. There is the
"The fuqaha (religious scholars) are the trustees of the Prophet, as
long as they do not concern themselves with the illicit desires, pleasures,
and wealth of this world." The Prophet (S.A.) was asked: "O Messenger
of God! How may we know if they so concern themselves?" He (S.A.) replied:
"By seeing whether they follow the ruling power. If they do that, fear for
your religion and shun them." I do not yet know enough about the Imams
of the four Sunni madhabs to comment on how this hadith applies
to them or to the contemporary scholars who base themselves upon them.
The Prophet also refered to the fuqaha as "The fortress of Islam". My only
point is to make it clear that arriving at a legal judgement calls into
play a certain amount of expertise - the specifics of this expertise is
delineated in the Qur'an and hadith. Those who acquire this expertise
are praised in both the Qur'an and hadith - those who without the requisite
knowledge pronounce on matters that affect society, state, and religion
are cautioned.
The only reason I said anything at all about the Rushdie affair in this
group, is because the whole basis for the discussion of the fatwa (that is,
apostasy), was wrong. When one discusses something they should at least
base their discussion on fact. Secondly, Khomeini was condemned as a
heretic
because he supposedly claimed to be infallible - another instance of
creating a straw man and then beating him.
I agree that we should move the discussion to another newsgroup.
Unfortunately,
I do not have any access to email, so private discussion or a moderated
group
is out of the question (I cannot post to a moderated group like
soc.religion.islam. How about soc.culture.arabic or talk.religion.misc? | 4 |
3,140 |
[some big deletions]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Another in a string of idiotic generalizations. Gad, I'm surprised I got
this far down in the post. I guess some just like seeing their names up on
a CRT.
Like me :-)
Phil Trodwell | 4 |
4,884 | While this is essentially a discussion of reincarnation in the context of
Christianity Gerry Palo has made some comparisons to Asian religious
beliefs on this topic which have simplified the Asian idea of karma
to the point of misrepresentation.
There are significant differences in the idea of karma among Hindus,
Jains, Buddhists (and even among the various Buddhist traditions.)
To refer to karma as a system of reward for past deeds is totally
incorrect in the Buddhist and Jain traditions. Karma is considered to
be a moral process in which intentions (either good or evil) shape
a person's predilections for future intention and action and
produce a person who is more prone to good than evil, or the opposite --
"reward" has nothing to do with it. Both Jainism and Buddhism are atheistic
so there is no deity to dispense rewards or punishments. Karma is usually
described in terms of seeds and reaping the fruit thereof. In fact "As you
sow, so shall you reap" is found in the Pali Canon as I recall, the metaphor
of natural growth is explicit.
Hinduism, or some sects in that tradition, are I believe much more
deterministic and involve concepts closer to reward and punishment being
theistically inclined.
In point of fact, the Theravadin Buddhist tradition of Southeast Asia
considers karma as only one of five influences in human life, and in
fact from their point of view they would be unable to explain the mechanics
of karma without the element of free will.
Also in Eastern religions there is a difference between reincarnation and
rebirth, which is essentially absent in Western considerations.
Isn't Origen usually cited as the most prestigious proponent of reincarnation
among Christian thinkers? What were his views, and how did he relate them
to the Christian scriptures? | 4 |
6,451 | Is anybody using David Rapier's Hebrew Quiz software? And can tell
me how to *space* when typing in the Hebrew? (space bar doesn't work,
for me anyway...) Email please; thanks.
Ken | 4 |
3,179 | [email protected] (Turin Turambar, ME Department of Utter Misery)
said re. Dan Schaertel's article [if I followed the quoting right]:
I think it may also be worthwhile pointing out that if we
take the appellation `Rabbi' seriously then Jesus had a full
grasp of contemporary `scripture'
Mat21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures...
Mat22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing
Mat22:29 the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Following from this, he would have been in a wonderful
position to fulfil prophesies, and the NT says as much:
Mat26:54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled,
Mat26:54 that thus it must be?
Mat26:56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the
Mat26:56 prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples
Mat26:56 forsook him, and fled.
If the books comprising the referred-to `scripture' had not
been accessible then it probably would be a different
matter. | 4 |
5,397 |
I am not familiar with, or knowledgeable about the original language,
but I believe there is a word for "idol" and that the translator
would have used the word "idol" instead of "graven image" had
the original said "idol." So I think you're wrong here, but
then again I could be too. I just suggesting a way to determine
whether the interpretation you offer is correct.
| 4 |
3,361 | Did you by any chance see the pictures of the agents in flak jackets climbing
up on the roof and breaking windows. You call that peaceful? If you
believed, as these people did, that they would be attacked by evil forces
from the outside, found the scores of agents breaking into your compound
what would you do? Your beliefs always determine your actions. The
beliefs may be wrong from my point of view but they are yours all the same.
To make it more practical. If I attempted to stick you with a needle you
would try to stop me because you believe it would hurt, or that I do not
have that right. If you did not you would ignore me. You certainly would
it you saw me sticking the needle in a tree.
Koresh may have been misguided, only God knows. But the Jews at Masada
died for what they believed, the three Hebrews preferred to die in the
furnace rather than bow down, Daniel preferred to die in a lion's den
rather than stop praying to his God, and as a Christian I am prepared to
die for my faith.
Koresh was not dying for now reason. He had a cause. Why should he give
up the children to forces he was convinced were evil. The events are
bizarre but they match his beliefs. | 4 |
7,326 |
Robin Lane Fox is a historian and a gardener. He has written several
history books, perhaps a recent one you might remember is "The Search
for Alexander". He has also written or edited several books on
gardening. | 4 |
5,133 |
> Public revelation, which is the basis of Catholic doctrine, ended
> with the death of St John, the last Apostle. Nothing new can be
> added.
Every so often, the Pope declares that some departed Christian is
now in Heaven, and may be invoked in the public rites of the Church.
It is my understanding that Roman Catholics believe that such
declarations by the Pope are infallible. I see three possibilities:
1) The Church has received a Public Revelation since the death
of (for example) Joan of Arc.
2) The Church was given a list before the death of St John
which had Joan's name on it.
3) There is no public revelation about Joan, and Roman
Catholics are free to doubt that she died in a state of grace, or
even that she is a historical character. | 4 |
4,433 |
In some earlier discussions on this thread I may have
given the impression that even though children didn't
require baptism it wouldn't hurt if they were.
To the contrary, when you baptize children before
they are capable of comprehending it you deny them
their opportunity to demonstrate their desire to
serve God.
Have any of you considered that children are not
accountable for sin because they are not capable of
repentance?
Peter said to a group of "men and brethren," "Repent
and be baptized every one of you" (Acts 2:38).
Notice that he specified that if they *repent* then
they may be *baptized*.
In following Peter's instructions people must first
demonstrate repentance (a forsaking of their sins and
a desire to obey God's commands) *before* they are
eligible to be baptized.
Since young children are not capable of repenting,
they are not eligible for baptism.
And since God is both just and merciful "sin is not
imputed when there is no law" (Romans 5:13), young
children are not accountable for what they can't
comprehend. | 4 |
6,314 | It troubles me that there have been so many posts recently trying to support
the doctrine of Original Sin. This is primarily a Catholic doctrine, with no
other purpose than to defend the idea of infant baptism. Even among, its
supporters, however, people will stop short of saying that unbaptised infants
will go to hell.
It's very easy for just about anyone to come up with a partial list of
scripture to support any sort of wrong doctrine. However, if we have the
heart to persevere in our beliefs to make sure that they are biblically
based, then we can come to an understanding of the truth. Let's now take a
more complete look at scripture.
Colossians 2:11-12 "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of
the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by Christ, having been
buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the
power of God, who raised him from the dead."
In baptism, we are raised to a new life in Christ (Romans 6:4) through a
personal faith in the power of God. Our parent's faith cannot do this. Do
infants have faith? Let's look at what the Bible has to say about it.
Romans 10:16-17 "But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For
Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed our message?' Consequently, faith
comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word
of Christ."
So then we receive God's gift of faith to us as we hear the message of the
gospel. Faith is a possible response to hearing God's word preached. Kids
are not yet spiritually, intellectually, or emotionally mature enough to
respond to God's word. Hence they cannot have faith and therefore cannot
be raised in baptism to a new life.
Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul who sins will die. The son will not share the
guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The
righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the
wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him."
If you read all of Ezekiel 18, you will see that God doesn't hold us guilty
for anyone else's sins. So we can have no original guilt from Adam.
Ezekiel 18:31-32 "Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committted,
and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel?
For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord.
Repent and live!"
The way to please God is to repent and get a new heart and spirit. Kids
cannot do this. Acts 2:38-39 says that when we repent and are baptized, we
will then receive a new spirit, the Holy Spirit. Then we shall live.
Now then that we have a little more background as to why original sin is
not Biblical, let's look at some of the scriptures used to support it.
Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and
death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all
sinned--"
Sin and death entered the world when the first man sinned. Death came to
each man because each man sinned. Note that it's good to read through all
of Romans 5:12-21. Some of the verses are easier to misunderstand than
others, but if we read them in context we will see that they are all
saying basically the same thing. Let's look at one such.
Romans 5:19 "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many
were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many
will be made righteous."
Through the disobedience of each individual, each was made a sinner. In
the same way, through the obedience of Jesus, each will be made righteous.
We must remember when reading through this passage that death came to each
man only because each man sinned, not because of guilt from Adam.
Otherwise the Bible would contradict itself. I encourage you to read
through this whole passage on your own, looking at it from this point of
view to see if it doesn't all fit together.
Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother
conceived me."
This whole Psalm is a wonderful example of how we should humble ourselves
before God in repentance for sinning. David himself was a man after God's
own heart and wrote the Psalm after committing adultry with Bathsheba and
murdering her husband. All that David is saying here is that he can't
remember a time when he wasn't sinful. He is humbling himself before God
by confessing his sinfulness. His saying that he was sinful at birth is
a hyperbole. The Bible, being inspired by God, isn't limited to a literal
interpetation, but also uses figures of speech as did Jesus (John 16:25).
For another example of hyperbole, see Luke 14:26.
Now then, even though people see that baptism requires faith and that
original sin is not Biblical, they will still argue that infant baptism is
necessary because children sin by being selfish - not sharing toys with
other children, by being mean - hitting others and fighting, etc.
Certainly we have observed children doing wrong things, but my gut feeling
is always that they don't know any better. Let's look to see if the Bible
agrees with my gut feelings.
Isaiah 7:14-15 "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The
virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him
Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the
wrong and choose the right."
Now just about any church leader will tell you that this is a prophecy
about Jesus. If they don't, then point them to Matthew 1:23 and find a new
leader. Jesus certainly couldn't have had less knowledge than normal human
babies. Yet this passage says that he had to mature to a certain extent
before he would know the difference between right and wrong. We see that
he did grow and become wiser in Luke 2:40 and 2:52. The implication is
that Jesus did wrong things as a child before he knew to choose right over
wrong. Since we know that Jesus was perfect -- without sin, we have rather
conclusive proof that babies cannot sin because they don't know to choose
the right instead of the wrong.
Jesus himself was baptized, albeit with John's baptism, not as an infant,
but as a thirty-year-old man (Luke 3:21-23) and started his ministry as
soon as he was baptized (Luke 3:23). Immediately afterwards, he was
tempted by the devil (Luke 4:1-13; Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:12-13).
Thank you for your attention.
Moderator - this should finish up the subject for a while. Perhaps you
would like to make a FAQ out of this response so that you can repost it
from time to time when the topic comes up. Feel free to rearrange the
contents if you would like to, but please send me a copy of the final FAQ.
Sincerely,
Aaron Cardenas
[email protected] | 4 |
1,062 |
I use it to refer to those Christians who take a more
conservative-literalist approach to the Bible, as distinct from
"liberals".
I would use the word "Christian" (unqualified) to describe someone to
whom the above definition applied. BTW, it applies to me.
[deletia: Joe Gaut indicates his interest in the BD disaster is from a
civil liberties issue, not an attempt to justify Koresh's beliefs
and/or practices.]
I agree with Joe about this: if some group wants to believe in
whatever god or Invisible Pink Unicorns and go off and live together
and have group sex, or no sex, or sex only for the leaders (but NOT
with children), then, as much as I might believe them to be misguided,
I think they should have the legal right. And I hope the
investigation will start by determining whether the feds had any
*legitimate* reason for going after Koresh in the first place (before
moving on to consider the wisdom of various tactics used).
[Joe goes on to dispute the child-abuse allegations. I'll
(provisionally) accept this, unless someone has evidence to support
the allegations?]
Actually I wasn't thinking about the (alleged) child abuse, but about
the reports that he had sex with, and fathered children by, several
women in the cult. I agree this is not a legal matter - consenting
adults and all that - but Stephen Tice seems to be defending Koresh's
beliefs and practices from specifically *Christian* perspective, not a
civil liberties perspective.
I think my question is not really aimed at Joe (and possibly not at
Ray Cote either, who seems to also be taking the political angle), but
at Stephen Tice.
| 4 |
6,195 |
The biblical arguments against homosexuality are weak at best, yet
Christ is quite clear about our obligations to the poor. How as
Christians can we demand celibacy from homosexuals when we walk
by homeless people and ignore the pleas for help?
Christ is quite clear on our obligations to the poor.
Thought for the day:
MAT 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but
considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to
thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam
is in thine own eye? | 4 |
6,331 |
An extremely good example of "circumstantial evidence!"
Every time these right-wing control-freaks start spouting
about prayer in schools, I get this nagging commentary
from the Sermon on the Mount [Matt: 6:5-6] "And when you
pray, do not imitate the hypocrites: they love to say their
prayers standing up in the synagogues and at the street
corners for people to see them. I tell you solemnly, they
have had their reward. But when you pray, go to your
private room and, when you have shut your door, pray to
your Father who is in that secret place."
But no. THEY want PUBLIC prayers, the better to manipulate
children. "Amen" indeed.
I hope you don't mind if I say "amen" to this? :-) | 4 |
6,954 | Stephen A. Creps writes to All:
[...]
SAC> Also, we know that
SAC> the Bible says that _everyone_ must be baptized to enter Heaven.
Where exactly does it say that?
SAC> _Everyone_ includes infants, unless there is other Scripture to the
SAC> contrary, i.e. an exception. Since there is no exception listed in the
SAC> Bible, we must assume (to be on the safe side) that the Bible means what
SAC> it says, that _everyone_ must be baptized to enter Heaven.
I think we do see an exception in the case of Cornelius and his
household, mentioned in Acts. Of course, they were baptised, but only
after "God showed that He accepted them by giving them the Holy
Spirit". This means they were already acceptable to God before their
baptism, and had they suddenly died they would have gone to heaven.
In case that seems far-fetched - an ancestor of mine was a missionary
who worked among the Hereros in Namibia. Some of the tribesmen were
jealous of Christianity, and they poisoned the first convert before he
could be baptised. Surely he still went to heaven? I'm inclined to
agree with a comment recorded at the time: "It is not the neglect of
baptism, but its contempt, that condemns."
Mike | 4 |
3,391 |
Well, again, I am doing as much as the poster I was replying too. I am
quite busy and really don't have the time to respond in full scholarly
form to every accusation that is flippantly made by someone who's
being clearly antagonistic.
I have considered it. But if someone spreads falsehoods out of
ignorance then they are still spreading falsehoods. Those falsehoods
generally do not come out of nowhere but are produced by people
who know that what they are saying is (at _least_) not the whole
truth. I still consider such spreading of falsehoods propaganda
on some level.
Bob, I never accused you of having your head up your ass! It takes
me quite some time in dealing with someone before accusing them of
having their head up their ass. I was accusing the original poster
(Benedikt, I believe) of being so impaired.
Cheers, | 4 |
7,456 |
Bill Conner, meet Bill Conner. | 4 |
4,929 | ^^-- name?
Other than it tells quite a lot about the Man himself.
Are you the spokesman for "most people?"
That you don't recognize the Biblical commentary used. Those in the
church know the language though, and have no such excuse.
You missed the point -- which is that the Prophets, the Psalms, and
Revelation, all together, provide a very rich view of a very special
event -- a wedding.
How are you able to make such a conclusion? Please note, that the
first part of Revelation makes it clear that the address is to those
in the church. That said, it doesn't hurt to try to see what the
prophecies are ahead of time -- for those outside the church.
So you say. It should be interesting to see what the investigators
conclude, and what the final judgments are.
So much for war and government eh.
Very glad you asked, since I goofed -- it should be Philippian 1:14-19:
(here from NIV)
Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord
have been encouraged to speak the word of God more
courageously and fearlessly.
It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and
rivalry, but others out of good will. The latter do so
in love, knowing that I am put here for the gospel.
The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not
sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for
me while I am chains. But what does it matter?
The important thing is that in every way, whether from
false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because
of this I rejoice.
My comment stems from the realization that we who love the Lord, are
human and imperfect. Whatever we "preach," no matter how eloquent, or
how corrupted -- is of little difference. Those who know the Master's
voice will recognize Him -- a gem-stone amidst rock. Such is also the
lesson of the "stumblingblock." For those who have an ear to hear. | 4 |
4,089 |
For example, I would claim that the recent assassination of four
catholic construction workers who had no connection with the IRA
was probably religously motivated.
What would you call is when someone writes "The killings in N.I
are not religously motivated?"
Given that the avowed aim of the IRA is to take Northern Ireland
into a country that has a particular church written into its
constitution, and which has restriction on civil rights dictated
by that Church, I fail to see why the word "past" is appropriate.
You don't have to hand us a bunch of double-talk about what
I was "seemingly" attacking. I *quoted* what I was attacking. | 4 |
832 | .
It should be remembered that all of the first reports came from
the FBI, and that independent observers, i.e. the press, were not
allowed to get close and see things for themselves. Official
communiques tend to be self-serving for the agencies that issue
them.
People in general tend to believe first reports, as these get
the most and the biggest headlines. Corrections are often
overlooked.
An example is the FBI report that several of the bodies found
in the rubble had bullet wounds. The local coroner, who is
independent of the FBI, has so far found no bullet wounds! | 4 |
3,070 |
I didn't know God was a secular humanist...
Kent | 4 |
4,867 |
As opposed to Universal or Catholic or "FourSquare Gosple". I think that
the Greek Orthodox Church would take high offense at your misuse of the
word. Your version of Christianity is neither mainstream nor bible derived
you make claims of bible-centricity that are not derivable soley from the
Bible. About six-seven months ago, you claimed that your primary objection
to the LDS was that "our" doctrine was not bible-derived, And now this
(and other) claims can be shown, are also not bible interpeting bible.
Simple truths... oh for example?
"paradise exalted to heaven"
paradise wasn't equal to heaven and _now_ it is? Yet you claim that
peeple can not be exalted to heaven, nicht wahr?
When I read the story, I found that "Abraham's Bosom" wasn't so much
a place, but somewhere the rich man could see and talk to Abraham?
Gee this is fairly close to what the LDS call spirit prison, and what
you have called false doctrine...
[ vers deleted reproduced below quoted from the SunSpot Gopher Archive ]
This part is _not_ supported from scripture, nor does it support your
claim that the "paradise" where Christ descended was exalted.
Making such claims on this little "evidence" ignores the witness of the
scripture
Using this to argue that paradise or spirit prison, is now changed from
a Pre-Easter postion to post-easter by God postion is not supportable.
Makeing such a claim requires more evidence than you have given here...
Yes, and your reasons are in general not supported by any direct reading
of the scriptures. You have demonstrated that you claims to scriptural
"proof" need to be cross-checked. The referencs that you supply often do
not support your postion, if they are read in the context of the scripture.
How about that those who have been in paradise, and have accepted
the gosple will be judged of Jesus Christ, and then return to the
presence of God. Is that somehow different from your expressed view
that the paradise spoken of (or "Abraham's Bosom")
Should we go back and discuss your view on why the Angle of the Lord
is the Lord again... ;-)
| 4 |
386 | Thanks for the responses so far. I hope that I have
sparked some thought (which is more my intent than
to restart one of the Reformations).
I'm just going to tug on two threads:
In Message-ID: <[email protected]>
[email protected] (D. Andrew Byler) writes,
I was simply observing that as a non-Jew, I am not in that community
which might be bound by such a decision (I don't know much about
the Council of Jamnia, but I have heard that it is not well-attested
historically). 'Faithless' has nothing to do with it, and I prefer
not to speculate about motives.
I wish the Dialogue_with_Trypho were a real transcript of a real
dialogue,, but I think it a fictional effect on Justin's part.
Putting that to one side, Justin's point may be evidential; one
would want to know- 'which books?'
Perhaps the reformers were traveling in all the light (MS evidence)
they had. Let's stick to the issues. Again, I prefer not to speculate
about motives. One would need quotes from Luther, Calvin, etc. to
evidence this 'preference'.
-----
In Message-ID: <[email protected]>
[email protected] (David Wagner)
Is this the principle: 'Any (BC) text not quoted by Christ cannot
be counted as Scripture' ? Think well about this- Job, Ruth...?
These is a logically invalid *a priori*.
Besides, we are talking about OT texts-
which in many parts are superceded by the NT
(in the Xtian view). Would not this same
principle exclude _Ecclesiastes_?
This principle cannot be consistently applied.
Dave W. answers:
Meaning what? Do you affirm the principle (that the D.c's can be
excluded since they contain 'false doctrine') or do you deny it?
If affirmed (as is implied in your statement) how does one determine
that doctrine X is false? Do you affirm every teaching in _Ecclesiastes_?
If so, it may be a test that cannot be applied. The Orthodox
faithfully believe that Psalm 151 is canonical. How can my
faith say 'Not!' ? All I hear here is the *a priori* I mentioned
before.
This is contrary to fact.
Can this be elevated to a principle? How is 'spiritual quality'
measured? I'll take the 'spiritual quality' of most of Sirach over
Joshua or Chronicles, any day.
What can I say? You believe what you believe- I'm asking for
a consistency check. I don't see that the books were added- in any
construction this formulation begs the question. No one can validly
ask me to 'have faith' that these books are noncanonical.
Dave Davis, [email protected]
These are my opinions & activities alone
QOTD: | 4 |
7,187 |
Actually in D&C 68:25-28 the parents are being held accountable for
their own sins. Specifically they are accountable for their failure
to teach their children properly. If I fail to teach my children
that stealing is wrong then I am responsible for their theft if they
later indulge in such behavior. | 4 |
6,728 |
STILL, the Angel Gabriel's greetings was:
"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.
Blessed art thou amongst women".
Even Mary was confused about this greeting. | 4 |
2,418 |
Why don't you ask the approx. two million British Muslims who break
it five times a day and have never ever been prosecuted under it?
Then ask how easy it is to hold a Christian church service in Saudi
Arabia. | 4 |
4,482 |
Let me say that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is
central to Christianity. If you personally believe that Jesus Christ
died for you, you are a part of the Christian body of believers.
We are all still human. We don't know it all, but homosexual or heterosexual,
we all strive to follow Jesus. The world is dying and needs to hear about
Jesus Christ.
Are you working together with other Christians to spread the Gospel? | 4 |
1,837 |
I'm curious to know if Christians ever read books based on critique
on the religion, classical text such as "Age of Reason" by Paine,
or "The Myth Maker" by Jacobi. Sometimes it is good to know your
enemy, and if you want to do serious research you have to understand
both sides, and not solely the one and only right one.
Cheers,
Kent
| 4 |
1,397 | Does anyone know about the Christian Embassy in Washington DC? What
exactly does it do?
Please respond to [email protected] | 4 |
460 |
I don't think the issue of whether infants have faith is relevant or not.
Certainly they *can*, as the example of John in utero proves. I find the
translation of Col 2 above odd in terms of the circumcision of christ,
which the KJV and RSV put in terms of Christ's cricumcision which we, in
union with him *participate* in putting off the body of sins of the flesh.
Also, perhaps cor 2:12 is dividing the act of burial with him in baptism,
which can be independant of faith, from the experience of rising with
Christ by faith. Who says both are by faith? This interpretation has the
advantage of explaining those who are faithlessly baptized, for whom their
baptisim is not benefit, but serves to put them into the kingdom nonetheless.
Like the israelites (all of them, children included) who were baptized in
the cloud and in the sea, it was of no advantage because they did not add
to their baptism faith and obedience.
Baptism does not impart faith, nor is it done strictly speaking on the
basis of the faith of the parent, but because of the covcenant promise of
God. It imparts grace, the grace of the kingdom, which can be a
punishement in disguise if there is later apostacy.
Do you teach a child to pray the Lord's prayer? Do you expect them to not
steal? They *can* have faith appropriate to their condition. And in the
new covenant, we shall no longer say: know the lord, for they shall all
know him from the least unto the greatest Heb 8:11.
But also according to Ezekiel 18, God will not hold innocent anyone on the
basis of anyone elses innocense. Thus Jesus could not be our federal head
any more than adam, *IF* that's what ezekiel is talking about. Shall you
make ezekiel 18 contradict the second commandemnt as well?
>
Ezekiel 36:25-26 indicates that this new heart will be given by God,
in the context of the sprinkling of water in baptism. It is the action of
God puting them into his new order, and not a question of"personal"
faith as such.
But the death that came to all because of sin is not just their personal
death, but the dead state (originbal sin). We are in a covenant of death,
because adam, our federal head gave over his dominion to the devil and death.
While this psalm is figurative in it's language, it is not hyperbolic, and
the one does not necessarily imply the other. There is not other
hyperbolic language in this psalm. What v 5 is likely refering to is
what is symbolized by the OT cleanliness laws (which make intercourse and
childbrith both acts which caus uncleannes and seperation from God). The
whole psalm is in the language of OT ritual (hyssop, cleansing, burnt
offering, etc) David's sin with bathsheba included this element, as he
did not ritually cleanse himself when he should have.
But what was symbolized by the OT ritual was the truth that sin was
passed generationally. That's why the organ of generation had to be
cut. That's why brith was unclean. Uncleanness was death, and all babies
were born dead, and needed to be washed to newness of life, which we have in
baptism today. | 4 |
1,348 | : >
: > I think you're letting atheist mythology
: Great start. I realize immediately that you are not interested
: in discussion and are going to thump your babble at me. I would
: much prefer an answer from Ms Healy, who seems to have a
: reasonable and reasoned approach to things. Say, aren't you the
: creationist guy who made a lot of silly statements about
: evolution some time ago?
: Duh, gee, then we must be talking Christian mythology now. I
: was hoping to discuss something with a reasonable, logical
: person, but all you seem to have for your side is a repetition
: of the same boring mythology I've seen a thousand times before.
: I am deleting the rest of your remarks, unless I spot something
: that approaches an answer, because they are merely a repetition
: of some uninteresting doctrine or other and contain no thought
: at all.
: I have to congratulate you, though, Bill. You wouldn't
: know a logical argument if it bit you on the balls. Such
: a persistent lack of function in the face of repeated
: attempts to assist you in learning (which I have seen
: in this forum and others in the past) speaks of a talent
: that goes well beyond my own, meager abilities. I just don't
: seem to have that capacity for ignoring outside influences.
: Dean Kaflowitz
Dean,
Re-read your comments, do you think that merely characterizing an
argument is the same as refuting it? Do you think that ad hominum
attacks are sufficient to make any point other than you disapproval of
me? Do you have any contribution to make at all? | 4 |
6,921 | A recent post bears the subject line:
> Re: Serbian genocide work of God?
The text contains 80 lines devoted to a defence of the doctrine of
predestination as applied to the salvation of individuals. There is
then a five-line post-script on the Balkans. It is natural and easy
to keep the Subject line of the post that one is replying to, but
when the focus shifts, keeping the same Subject can cause confusion.
This is intended as a general request. The post mentioned is just
the handiest example. | 4 |
5,210 |
I've tried [email protected]
Bounced twice.... Any other guesses? | 4 |
6,328 |
Yes.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No, look again. While you never *said* it, the implication is pretty clear.
I'm sorry, but I can only respond to your words, not your true meaning. Usenet
is a slippery medium.
[deleted wrt the burden of proof]
Look, I'm not supporting *any* dogmatic position. I'd be a fool to say that
in the large group of people that are atheists, no people exist who wish to
proselytize in the same fashion as religion. How many hard atheists do you
see posting here, anyway? Maybe I'mm just not looking hard enough...
I never meant to do so, although I understand where you might get that idea.
I was merely using the 'bible' example as an allegory to illustrate my
point.
Evidence for what? Who? I think I may have lost this thread...
[why theists are arrogant deleted]
Guilty as charged. What I *meant* to say was, the theists who *are* arrogant
are this way because they say ... Other than that, I thought my meaning
was clear enough. Any position that claims itself as superior to another with
no supporting evidence is arrogant. Thanks for your apology, btw.
Explained above. | 4 |
973 |
The "R Us" thing is trademarked. I don't know if Charles
Lazarus is dead or alive, but I'd be careful, because with
a name like Lazarus, he might rise again just to start a
lawsuit.
Dean Kaflowitz | 4 |
872 |
But one of the most basic concepts of Christian morality is that we
all have defective appetites due to original sin. Not just
homosexuals, but everybody. Thus we are not entitled to indulge in
whatever behavior our bodies want us to.
I think we need to keep clear the distinction between homosexual
_behavior_ (which is wrong) and homosexual _orientation_ (which is not
a sin, merely a misfortune).
[Please: NO EMAIL REPLIES. Respond in this public forum.] | 4 |
2,213 |
For your information, I checked the Library of Congress catalog,
and they list the following books by Francis Hitching:
Earth Magic
The Neck of the Giraffe, or Where Darwin Went Wrong
Pendulum: the Psi Connection
The World Atlas of Mysteries
| 4 |
4,289 | On 26-Apr-93 in Re: What part of "No" don't..
Please provide evidence that having a moment of silence for a student
who died tragically costs taxpayers money.
| 4 |
5,395 |
No wonder that we don't see any detail for this claim. It is good to
remember that you have answered the statement that you are a theist
by another correspondent with that you are not a member of a denomination.
It is either stupidity or an attempt at a trick answer. Not unlike the
rest of your arguments.
I am extremely wary of the way you use words. Like in this case, there
are broader definitions of gods used by persons who are considered by
themselves and others theists. I have pointed to that in my post. You
use one of them.
Your use of definitions seems to rest on the assumption: because my
moral is objective/absolute or the other buzz words you are so fond
of, everybody will know it, and there is no need to define it more
exactly.
And as a user has shown recently, the easiest way to dispell you is
to ask you for definitions.
| 4 |
6,805 | rh> From: [email protected] (ron house)
rh> Newsgroups: alt.atheism
rh> Organization: University of Southern Queensland
rh> I _know_ I shouldn't get involved, but... :-)
rh> [bit deleted]
[rest of rant deleted]
This is a standard argument for fundies. Can you spot the falicy? The
statement is arguing from the assumption that Jesus actually existed. So far,
they have not been able to offer real proof of that existance. Most of them
try it using the (very) flawed writings of Josh McDowell and others to prove
it, but those writers use VERY flawed sources. (If they are real sources at
all, some are not.) When will they ever learn to do real research, instead of
believing the drivel sold in the Christian bookstores.
rh> Righto, DAN, try this one with your Cornflakes...
rh> The book says that Muhammad was either a liar, or he was
rh> crazy ( a modern day Mad Mahdi) or he was actually who he
rh> said he was. Some reasons why he wouldn't be a liar are as
rh> follows. Who would die for a lie? Wouldn't people be able
rh> to tell if he was a liar? People gathered around him and
rh> kept doing it, many gathered from hearing or seeing how his
rh> son-in-law made the sun stand still. Call me a fool, but I
rh> believe he did make the sun stand still.
rh> Niether was he a lunatic. Would more than an entire nation
rh> be drawn to someone who was crazy. Very doubtful, in fact
rh> rediculous. For example anyone who is drawn to the Mad
rh> Mahdi is obviously a fool, logical people see this right
rh> away.
rh> Therefore since he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, he must have
rh> been the real thing.
Nice rebutal! | 4 |
3,410 | From article <[email protected]>, by [email protected] (Stephen A. Creps):
Just a little issue of semantics:
Would it not be better, then to call it "pre-determination"?!
--
RRRRR OO BBBBB :
R R OO OO B B :
R R OO OO B BB : Robert Pomeroy
R RR O O B B :
RRRR O O BBBBB : [email protected]
R R O O B B :
R R OO OO B BB : 1993
R R OO OO B B :
R R OO BBBBB :
My address }
during } Hawthorns Hall, KEELE, Staffordshire, ST5 5AE. England.
term-time. }
| 4 |
4,463 | The cited passages are covered IN DEPTH in a FAQ for this group.
That particular FAQ (I've forgotten the author) discusses the
traditional vs. pro-homosexual interpretations of the passages and
indicates which points have strong textual support.
Perhaps the moderator might give again the instructions for
retrieving the FAQ on this topic?
BTW, this issue, while dealt with before, is VERY timely. One
of the major Presbyterian churches in California (St. Andrews -- a
MegaChurch in a rich neighborhood) is withholding their support of
Synod (amounts to about 10% of the budget of the Synod, which
covers all of Southern CA and Hawaii) until support for a
pro-homosexual lobbying group (the Lazarus Project) is terminated.
[This came from a news report on CNN yesterday -- corrections welcome.]
Tim
[I think it's time for me to post the FAQ.
This is an issue throughout the Presbyterian Church. On the other
side, one of the major churches in Cincinnati has been ordaining
homosexual elders, and has ignored Presbytery instructions not to do
so. And the church in Rochester where the judicial commission said
they couldn't install a homosexual pastor has made her an
"evangelist". These situations, as well as the one you describe, do
not appear to be stable. This will certainly be a major topic for the
General Assembly next month. If the church can't come up with a
solution that will let people live with each other, I think we're end
up with a split. Clearly neither side wants that, but I think we'll
get pushed into it by actions of both sides. | 4 |
Subsets and Splits