Datasets:

dojo

/

newsgroups7_balanced

like 0

Follow

Galileo Internal Hub 1

continuing part #4 (I think); used by permission, THE SOURCE AND NT MEANING OF ARSENOKOITAI, WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR CHRISTIAN ETHICS AND MINISTRY James B. DeYoung W. Petersen More recently Wright's understanding has itself been questioned from a different direction. In a brief 1986 study William Petersen found linguistic confusion in using the English word "homosexuals" as the meaning of arsenokoitai.[22] He faulted Wright and English Bible translaions for rendering it by "homosexuals" in I Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1:10. In a sense Petersen has coalesced Bailey, Boswell, and Scroggs into a single assertion that reiterates, in effect, the position of Bailey. He finds "homosexuals" unacceptable as a translation because it is anachronistic. "A major disjunction" exists between contemporary thought and terminology and the thought and terminolgy in Paul's time (187-88). What is this "disjunction"? He bases it on historical and linguistic facts. Accordingly, ancient Greek and Roman society treated male sexuality as polyvalent and characterized a person sexually only by his sexual acts. Virtually all forms of behavior, except transvestism, were acceptable. Christianity simply added the categories of "natural" and "unnatural" in describing these actions. Ancient society know nothing of the categories of "homosexuals" and "heterosexuals," and assumed that, in the words of Dover quoted approvingly by Petersen, "everyone responds at different times to both homosexual and to heterosexual stimuli. . ." (188). [23] In contrast to this, modern usage virtually limits the term "homosexual" to desire and propensity. K.M. Benkert, who in 1869 coined the German term equivalent to "homosexual," used it as referring to orientation, impluse or affectional preference and having "nothing to do with sexual acts" (189). Petersen then proceeds to cite the "Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary," which defines "homosexual" only as a propensity or desire with no mention of acts. Petersen's point is that by using "homosexuals" for arsenokoitai, one wrongfully reads a modern concept back into early history "where no equivalent concept existed" (189). Consequently the translation is inaccurate because it "includes celibate homophiles,. . . . incorrectly exludes heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts . . . [and]incorrectly includes female homosexuals" (19=89). Prior to 1869 there was no "cognitive structure, either inour society or in antiquity, within which the modern bifurcation of humanity into 'homosexuals' and 'hetersosexuals' made sence" (189). The foregoing clarifies why Petersen feels that the translatio "homosexual" is mistaken. Yet is it possible that Petersen is the one mistaken, on both historical and linguistic or philological grounds? The next phases of this paper will critically examine Petersen's position. THE JUSTIFICATION FOR TRANSLATING ARSENOKOITAI BY "HOMOSEXUALS" Historical Grounds A refutation of the foregoing opposition to the traslation of arsenokoitai by "homosexuals" begins with the historical and cultural evidence. Since virtually everyone acknowledges that the word does not appear before Paul's usage, no historical settings earlier than his are available. Yet much writing reveals that ancient understanding of homosexuality prior to and contemporary with Paul. The goal is to discover wheither the ancient s conceived of homosexuality, particularly homosexual orientation, in a way similar to present-day concepts. Peterson, Bailey, Boswell, and Scroggs claim that the homosexual condition, desire, propensity, or inversion -whatever it is called- cannot be part of the definition of the term. They assert this either because the term is limited to acts of particular kind (Boswell, active male prostitutes; Scroggs, pederasty) or because the homosexual condition was unknown in ancient times (Bailey; Petersen). The following discussion will show why neither of these positions is legitimate. Attention will be devoted to the latter postion first with the former one being addressed below under "Linguistic Grounds." In regard to the latter position, one may rightfully ask, did not the homosexual condition exist before 1869? Is it only a modern phenomenon? Yet if it is universal, as alleged today, it must have existed always including ancient times, even though there is lack of sophistication in discussing it. Indeed, evidence show that the ancients, pre-Christian and Christian, not only knew about the total spectrum of sexual behavior, including all forms of same-sex activity (transvestism included), but also knoew about same-sex orientation or condition. Petersen admits (190 n. 10) that Plato in "Symposium" (189d-192d) may be a "sole possible exception" to ancient ingnorance of this condition. He discounts this, however, believing that even here "acts appear to be the deciding factor." However, this is a very significant exception, hardly worthy of being called "an exception," because of the following additional evidence for a homosexual condition. THe "Symposium" of Plato gives some of the strongest evidence for knowledge about the homosexual condition. [24] Plato posits a third sex comprised of a maile-female (androgynon ("man-woman"). Hence "original nature" palai physis, consisted of three kinds of human beings. Zeus sliced these human beings in half, to weaken them so that they would not be a threat to the gods. Consequently each person seeks his or her other half, either one of the opposite sex or one of the same sex. Plato then quotes Aristophances: Each of us, then, is but a tally of a man, since every one shows like a flatfish the traces of having been sliced in two; and each is ever searching for the tally that will fit him. All the men who are sections of that composite sex that at first was called man-woman are woman-courters; our adulterers are mostly descended from that sex, whence likewise are derived our mancourting women and adulteresses. All the women who are sections of the woman have no great fancy for men: they are incllined rather to women, and of this stock are the she-minions. Men who are sections of the male pursue the masculine, and so long as their boyhood lasts they show themselves to be sliced of the male by making griends with men and delighting to lie with them and to be clasped in men's embrasces; these are the finest boys and striplings, for they have the most manly nature. Some say they are shameless creatures, but falsely: for their behavior is due not to shamelessness but to daring, manliness, and virility, since they are quick to welcome their like. Sure evidence of this is the fact that on reaching maturity these alone prove in a public career to be men. So when they come to man's estate they are boy-lovers, and have no natural interest in wiving and getting children but only do these things under stress of custom; they are quite contented to live together unwedded all their days. A man of this sort is at any rate born to be a lover of boys or the willing mate of a man, eagerly greeting his own kind. Well, when one of them -whether he be a boy-lover or a lover of any other sort- happens on his own particular half, the two of them are wondrously thrilled with affection and intimacy and love, and are hardly to be induced to leave each other's side for a single moment. These are they who continue together throughout life, though they could not even say what they would have of one another (191d-192c) [25] Should these two persons be offered the opportunity to be fused together for as long as they live, or even in Hades, Aristophanes says that each "would unreservedly deem that he had been offered just what he was yearning for all the time: (192e). Several observations about this text are in order. Lesbianism is contemplated, as will as male homosexuality (191e). "Natural interest" (ton noun physei), (192b) refelects modern concepts of propensity or inclination. The words, "born to be a lover of boys or the willing mate of a man: (paiderastes te kai philerastes gignetai), (192b) reflect the modern claims "to be born this," i.e., as homosexual. The idea of mutuallity ("the two of them are wondrously thrilled with affection and intimacy and love," 192b) is present. Aristophanes even speaks of "mutual love ingrained in mankind reassembling our early estate" (ho eros emphytos allelon tois anthropois kai tes archaias physeos synagogeus, 191d). The concept of permanency ("These are they who continue together throughout life," 102c) is also present. Further mention of and/or allusion to permanecy, mutality, "gay pride," pederasty, homophobia, motive, desire, passion, and the nature of love and its works is recognizable. Clearly the ancients thought of love (homosexual or other) apart from actions. THe speakers in the Symposium argue that motive in homosexuality is crucial; money, office, influence, etc. . . bring reproach (182e-183a, 184b). They mention the need to love the soul not the body (183e). There are tow kinds of love in the body (186b) and each has its "desire" and "passion" (186b-d). The speakers discuss the principles or "matters" of love (187c), the desires of love (192c) and being "males by nature" (193c). Noteworthy is the speech of Socrates who devotes much attention to explaining how desire is related to love and its objects (200a-201c). Desire is felt for "what is not provided or present; for something they have not or are not or lack." This is the object of desire and love. Socrates clearly distinguishes between "what sort of being is love" and the "works" of love (201e). This ancient philosopher could think of both realms -seaual acts as well as disposition of being or nature. His wors have significance for more than pederasty. [26] In summary, virtually every element in the modern discussion of love and homosexuality is anticipated in the Symposium of Plato. Petersen is in error when he claims that the ancients could only think of homosexual acts, not inclination or orientation. Widespread evidence to the contray supports the latter. [27] Biblical support for homosexuality inclination in the contexts where homosexual acts are discribed adds to the case for the ancient distinction. In Rom 1:21-28 such phrases as "reasoning," "heart," "becoming foolish," "desires of the heart." and "reprobate mind" prove Paul's concern for disposition and inclination along with the "doing" or "working" of evil (also see vv. 29-32). Even the catologues of vices are introdiced (I Tim 1:8-10) or concluded (I Cor 6:9-11) by words describing what people "are" or "were," not what they "do." Habits betray what people are within, as also the Lord Jesus taught (cf. Matt. 23:28). The inner condition is as important as the outer act; one gives rise to the other (cf. Mt 5:27). Petersen errs regarding other particulars too. Transvestism apparently was accepted by the ancients. It was practiced among Canaaniteds, Syrian, people of Asia Minor, as well as Greeks, according to S.R. Driver. [28] Only a few moralist and Jewish writers are on record as condemning it. For example, Seneca (Moral Epistles 47.7-8) condemns homosexual exploitation that forces an adult slave to dress, be beardless, and behave as a woman. Philo also goes to some length to describe the homosexuals of his day and their dressing as women (The Special Laws III, 37-41; see also his On the Virtues, 20-21, where he justifies prohibition of cross-dressing). Even the OT forbade the interchange of clothing between the sexes (Deut 22:5). Petersen is also wrong in attributing to Christianity the creating of the "new labels" of "natural" and "unnatural" for sexual behavior. These did not begin with Paul (Rom 1:26-27) but go as far back as ancient Greece and even non-Christian contemporaries used them. Plato, the TEST.NAPH., Philo, Josephu, Plutarch, and others used these words or related concepts. [29] Linguistic Grounds

RAPTURE - OCTOBER 28, 1992 WHAT TO DO IN CASE YOU MISS THE RAPTURE I. STAY CALM AND DO NOT PANIC Your natural reaction once you realize what has just occurred is to panic. But to do so is absolutely useless now. If you had wanted to get right with God before the rapture, you could have, but you chose to wait. Now your only chance is to stay on this earth and to endure to the end of the Tribulation. "But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." - Matthew 24:13 II. REALIZE YOU ARE NOW LIVING DURING THE GREAT TRIBULATION The Great Tribulation is a seven year period starting from the time of the rapture until Christ's second coming. Also know as "the time of Jacob's (Israel's) trouble" (Jere 30:7) and "Daniel's Seventieth Week" (Dan 9), this period will be unparalleled in trouble and horror. III. GATHER AS MANY BIBLES AS YOU CAN AND HIDE THEM Soon after the Antichrist becomes the leader of the European Community (the revived Roman Empire), Bibles will be confiscated and owning a Bible will be tantamount to treason. The Bible, however, will be your most valuable possession during the Tribulation. IV. READ THE BIBLE LIKE YOU HAVE NEVER READ IT BEFORE IN YOUR LIFE Since all of your Bibles may be confiscated, even if you are careful, it is imperative that you read the Word until you memorize whole passages and can quote them. It is especially important to read Daniel, Luke 21, Matthew 24, Revelation, and Amos, for these books describe the events you can expect to unfold before you. V. PRAY LIKE YOU HAVE NEVER PRAYED BEFORE IN YOUR LIFE Pray until the power of God comes strongly upon you - pray and pray and pray. Only by reading the Word and praying will you gain the spiritual strength to be able to withstand the torture you may have to endure for the sake of Christ. VI. DO NOT TAKE THE MARK AT ANY COST - EVEN IN FIT MEANS YOU AND YOUR LOVED ONES DIE AS MARTYRS After the Antichrist becomes the leader of the European Community, he will institute a world economic system, designed so that you cannot buy, sell, or eat unless you take his mark or the number of his name. Money will be useless. "And he causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666" - Revelation 13:16-18. The Antichrist will implement the greatest slaughter in all of humanity. Think of the various ways people have been tortured and killed in the past, such as the Holocaust. [or maybe the crusades? -M] You cannot even imagine the horror that will take place under the Antichrist's rule; it will be much worse than anything in history (Matt 24:21) "...I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. And a white robe was given to each of them: and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of the fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed." Revelation 6:9, 11. His targets will be Jews and Christians who do not worship his image or take the mark on their forehead or right hadn/ "...And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on the hands." - Revelation 20:4. He will use every form of torture and humiliation in order to force you to renounce Christ. Nor will he hesitate to use your loved ones against you, even your children, torturing and killing them in front of you so that you will be tempted to take the mark. If you take the mark or worship the Antichrist or his image, however, you will be consigned to the second death, which is the Lake of Fire. [Sung about so eloquently by Johnny Cash...-M] You cannot be redeemed. It is better to endure torture for a short while and gain eternal life then [sic] to endure eternal torment in the Ring^H^H^H^H Lake of Fire. "...If anyone worships the Beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. An [sic] he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb." -Revelation 14:9-10 [and probably in the presence of season-ticket holders; special hats given to the first 5,000 at the stadium --M] VII. SET A PLAN IN MOTION FOR SURVIVAL Although you may not be able to hide from the Antichrist's government until the end of the Tribulation, all of the time you gain in hiding is important for your spiritual growth and strengthening, since only those who are extremely strong in Christ can suffer and die for His sake. The first thing to do is move out of the city and into a rural or mountainous area, for the Antichrist's control will come last to the least populated areas. Take a good radio or TV with you so that you can stay attuned to events and discern the time schedule of the Tribulation. ["As you can see on the weather map, heavy currents of Tribulation will sweep into our area by daybreak. Expect delays on I-95 outbound, and perhaps school closings" --M] Store water and food, because you will not be able to purchase anything without the mark. Water in lakes and streams will be polluted by radioactive waste from nuclear warfare and will eventually turn into blood. [Get a good water filter. --M] Bring different types of clothing for all seasons, as well as flashlights, batteries, generators, and First Aid supplies. In short, learn how to survive and live off the land as the pioneers did. VIII. TRUST NO ONE There will be secret agents everywhere, spying for the Antichrist's government. Be on the lookout. [Perot supporters take note --M] IX. WATCH FOR THE ANTICHRIST It is important to realize who the Antichrist is and what he is up to, for he will deceive many into thinking that he is a great world leader who will bring peace and prosperity to a world hungry for it. We can infer from Daniel 11 certain characteristics of this man. Popular during the first three and a half years of the Tribulation, he will dominate the airwaves. He will be physically appealing, highly intelligent, with Christ-like charisma and personality. An international politician, military tactician and economic expert, his word will be peace; he will make a treaty with the Jews, which he will break after three and a half years. He will have such supernatural power that a mortal wound to his head will be healed. Even the very elect will be deceived. If you do not pray and read the Bible, you too will be deceived. [Dominate the airwaves? Perhaps Howard Stern or Rush Limbaugh...-M] The antichrist will have a companion, the False Prohphet [sic], who will make an image in the likeness of the Antichrist and cause it to speak. All who refuse to worhsip [sic] the image will be killed. The final three and a half years will be absolutely insane, with demonized spirits everywhere. X. DO NOT GIVE UP HOPE! The seven years of Tribulation will end with the triumphant return of Christ. The Antichrist will be defeated. Be steadfast and endure, and you will be rewarded greatly in Heaven. Start reading the Bible and praying fervently now. The salvation of your sould depends upon it. Determine that, come what may, you will not take the mark or worship the Antichrist. You still have a chance to be saved or remain saved, but this time you will have to be "faithful unto death." May God find you ready in the hour of his glorious return! ****************************************************************************** Mike Cluff * "Christianity is Stupid. v22964qs@ubvms or mike%luick@ubvms * Give up." -Negativland UB Language Perception Laboratory * ****************************************************************************** /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Bob Beauchaine [email protected] They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away, and sank Manhattan out at sea.

I'm looking for the following article: ``The War Within: an Anatomy of Lust'' Leadership 3 (1985), pp 30-48 I've looked in the libraries of 3 UK Bible Colleges, but none of them subscribe to the Magazine (its a US publication, btw). If anyone has access to this article and would be willing to post me a photocopy (I presume that copyright restrictions will allow this?), please e-mail me. Thanks,

But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.

930425 Rome was under attack by barbarians, they sent for advice to some Oracle, and she said Worship Cybele and you'll be saved. They did, they were. Cybele was the quintessential wiccan goddess, there was Her and her son & lover, Attis. Yucky idea if you ask me. OK the book says she was Phrygian, from the neolithic matriarchal society Catal Huyuk (Turkey). Worshipped 1st as Black Stone (that Kaaba in Mecca ring a bell maybe????) Carried to Rome in 205BC to save them from Hannibal. Response: Is there some relation between the name 'Cybele' and the phenemenon of the 'sibyl'? Your paragraph above seems to indicate there might be. My understanding is that Islam was founded on the remains of a goddess cult or two. Many Muslims would not like to hear that. ;> You: It gets more interesting. Romans called her Great Mother (Magna Mater), could be the reason why so many of those Mary statues in Europe are black, prob. IS connected to that Ka'aba they've got in Mecca, 3rd cent. AD She was supreme Goddess in Lyons, France . . . Attis was castrated and formed into a pine tree . . . she should be worshiped on 25 Mar . . . in Rome it was an ecstatic cult, her priests wore drag, worked themselves up in dance and castrated themselves in order to initiate to her, lived their lives as women. They wore make up and jewelry and the whole bit. Only other such primitive transsexualism I know of goes on in India (where else?) where they do that castration thing under some meditation maybe, I forget by now...there's a book on that.) Of course, that excepts that weird Russian / Romanian 18th cent. Xian cult that did all kinds of self-castration too, I forget their name. Response: I'd love to get details or references on any of the above. My own exploration of this issue has only extended to a brief examination of the Zuni 'berdache'. _The Zuni Man-Woman_, by Will Roscoe, University of New Mexico Press, 1991 probably has some interesting things to say about them. I've yet to procure it. Any details or references on: Ecstatic cults in Rome, India, Russia/Romania (Christian too?) which exhibit any type of transsexualism or transvestitism, male OR female (though I expect mostly the former will be found ;>). Thanks for your interesting posts, Charles. :>

But wouldn't that go for any sin. My father told me when he was growing up Catholics were not allowed to associate with anyone who was divorced. There are a few verses prohibitting divorce. Somehow, divorce became acceptable (even in Catholicism anullments). Certainly it is no longer a sin to associate with a divorced person. The point is that each person has their own temptations to deal with. Paul repeatedly talks about the "thorn" in his side, some think it refers to lust, others pride, but who knows. Whatever the thorn was, apparently it was not "compatible" with Christianity, yet does that make his epistles any less? The Bible warns us against judging, greed, anxiety, impure thoughts, bearing grudges, etc., etc. I suppose we should seek out all the so-called Christians who have entertained impure thoughts and oust them. All those who have given in to greed, get 'em outta here. Jesus pointed out that he was the physician for the sinners. Any attempts to make homosexuals feel unwelcome because of our discomfort with homosexuality is incompatible with Christianity. Is our hatred so deep that rather than see someone try to become closer to Jesus, we need to keep them away. Does Jesus need us to screen out those guilty of a particular sin. Do we really mistrust Jesus when he says he can forgive any sin? Think about it. Among the people Jesus encountered were sinners and the Pharisees. The sinners he embraced and forgave. The Pharisees, hypocritcal, unmerciful, self-righteous, pointed out others sins and did not seek and thus did not gain forgiveness of their own sins. What I take from this and other verses is that if we do not admit our sins, those sins will not be forgiven. And since those guilty of even one sin are guilty of the whole law, those not repenting the judging of others are guilty, as guilty as if they committed the same sin they judged others of. The poor in spirit, meek, humble, merciful, pure of heart, peacemakers, those who thirst for justice, those who suffer for His sake are blessed.

Michael> The kind of interpretation I see as "incredibly perverse" is Michael> that applied to the story of Sodom as if it were a blanket Michael> equation of homosexual behavior and rape. Since Christians Michael> citing the Bible in such a context should be presumed to have Michael> at least READ the story, it amounts to slander -- a charge Michael> that homosexuality == rape -- to use that against us. and Michael> It is just Michael> as wrong (though slightly less incendiary, so it's a Michael> secondary argument from the 'phobic contingent) to equate Michael> homosexuality with such behavior as to equate it with the Michael> rape of God's messengers. Let's review the Sodom and Gomorrah story briefly. It states clearly that the visitors were angels. But "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. They called to Lot, `Where are the *men* who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.' " For the rest of the story the angels are referred to by the men of Sodom and by Lot as *men*. Furthermore we know from Gen 18:20,21 that the Lord had already found Sodom guilty of grievous sin--before the angels visited the city. It is clear that the grievous sin of Sodom and Gomorrah involved homosexual sex. It appears that the men had become so inflamed in their lust that they had group orgies in the public square--which simply indicates the extremity of their depravity. It does not show that lesser degrees of homosexuality are not sinful, as Michael would have us believe. Ultimately our understanding of God's will for sexuality comes from the creation story--not solely on the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. He created us male and female, and instituted marriage as a relationship between one male and one female, "Therefore a man will leave his father and mother, and be united with his wife, and they will become one flesh." This marriage relationship is the only sexual relationship which God blesses and sanctions. He regulates and protects the marriage of man and woman, and even uses it as a picture of the relationship between himself and his church. But we find not one word of blessing or regulation for a sexual relationship between two men, or between two women. Everything else that we find in the Bible about sexuality derives from or expresses God's will in instituting and blessing marriage. Thus the Levitical code, which was given only to the Jews, forbade incest, homosexuality, bestiality; the Ten Commandments forbade adultery and the coveting of our neighbor's wife; other commandments forbade rape. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were regarded as sexually immoral and perverse (Jude 7) because they abandoned and/or polluted the marriage relationship. Thus also Paul regarded homosexuality as `unnatural', Romans 1:26,27--not because this was simply Paul's opinion, but because it was contrary to God's purpose in creating us male and female. Michael> Christians, no doubt very sincere ones, keep showing up here Michael> and in every corner of USENET and the world, and ALL they Michael> ever do is spout these same old verses (which they obviously Michael> have never thought about, maybe never even read), in TOTAL Michael> ignorance of the issues raised, slandering us with the vilest Michael> charges of child abuse or whatever their perfervid minds can Michael> manage to conjure up, tossing out red herrings with (they Michael> suppose) great emotional force to cause readers to dismiss Michael> our witness without even taking the trouble to find out what Michael> it is. Really, have you no better response to `slander' than more slander?

I heard about the arms sale to Saudi Arabia. Now, how is it such a grave mistake to sell Saudi Arabia weapons? Or are you claiming that we shouldn't sell any weapons to other countries? Straightforward answer please. Who benefits from arms sales? Hint, it isn't normally the gov't. It is the contractor that builds that piece of equipment. Believe it or not, the US and UK don't export the huge quantities of arms that you have just accused them of doing. Arms exports are rare enough, that it requires an act of congress for non-small arms to most countries, if not all. Do you believe in telling everyone who can do what, and who can sell their goods to whom?

Someone stated that the Davidian cult should not be associated with Christianity. Well, I read all those four postings, and I'm now even more convinced that Davididians are truly Christian in nature. But sometimes it makes sense to re-label the cult, especially if the ugliness is too much to handle. Cheers, Kent

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. Colossians 3:16 A reminder: These verses are from the New International Version. As with any translation, faithfulness to the original Hebrew and Greek may vary from time to time. If a verse sounds a little off occasionally, compare it with another translation or with the original texts, if you are able to do so.

I recall a discussion I had heard years ago. It went something like this: The problem with omnipotence (at least as I perceive it) as personified by the christian God ideal is that it is potentially contradictory. If a manifestation such as God is truly infinite in power can God place limits upon itself? . . Some stuff I can't recall. Then some other questions I think I recall correctly: Can God unmake itself? Can God make itself (assuming it doesn't yet exist)? Has God has always existed or is it necessary for an observer to bind all of Gods potential quantum states into reality? Was God nothing more than a primordial force of nature that existed during the earliest stages of universal (inflationary?) creation? Is God a vacuum fluctuation? Given a great enough energy density could we re-create God? Would that make US God and God something else? . . Some more stuff I don't recall concerning creating God. Followed by: Is God self-aware? Is it necessary that God be self-aware? Is God a living entity? Is it necessay that God be a living entity? Is God unchanging or does it evolve? . . Any comments? Post them so that others might benefit from the open inquiry and resulting discussion.

I think C.S. Lewis has argued that medieval people did not all think the world is flat. However, this argument goes both ways. Pretend someone telling Plato that it is highly probable that people do not really have souls; their minds and their consciousness are just something their brains make up, and their brains (their body) is actually ahead of their mind even in voluntarly actions. I don't think Plato would have been happy with this, and neither would Paul, although Paul's ideas were quite different. However, if you would _read_ what we discuss in this group, and not just preach, you would see that there currently is much evidence in favour of these statements. The same applies to the theory of natural selection, or other sacred cows of Christianity on our origins and human nature. I don't believe in spirits, devils or immortal souls any more than in gods. Ah, you said it. You believe what you want to. This is what I had assumed all along. You might be as well planting Satan's seeds, ever thought of this? Besides, you haven't yet explained why we must believe so blindly, without any guiding light at all (at least I haven't noticed it). I don't think this is at all fair play on god's part. Your argument sounds like a version of Pascal's Wager. Please read the FAQ, this fallacy is discussed there. And I failed to get help from the HS because I had a wrong attitude? Sorry, Dan, but I do not think this spirit exists. People who claim to have access to it just look badly deluded, not gifted. Petri

As I don't know this book, I will use your heresay. It depends on how he defines God. The way I understand the meaning of that term preclues it being used in a useful way in science. Ideas drawn from an understanding that God is supernatural precludes us from forming scientific assertions that can be falsified, that is, where we can decide that they are true or false within the terms of we use and useful observations drawn from them. Some religionists have an interest in bluring the definitions within science to make them more reconcilable, and especially subserviant in a basic way, to religious dogma. This pursuit always fails. Reconciliation of science with religion involves circumventing the tendancy to claim that either pursuit can gain absolute or certian knowledge, or that the domain of truth in each is fundementally limited in some way. It gererally confurs the element of uncertainty and limitations to human knowledge while allowing for the different concerns of these separate pursuits. Science and religion ask different questions which have imperfect and provisional answers, at best. Science is distinctly limited in where it can ask meaningful questions. More questions can be posed than it can answer. At the basis of sacred language is the place where words fail us and mere assertions disolve in contradiction.

> Can't someone describe someone's trinity in simple declarative > sentences that have common meaning? I offer him four attempts. First is an essay by me (largely indebted to Attempts Two and Three), obtainable by sending the message GET TRINITY ANALOGY to [email protected] or to [email protected] Second is a couple of books by Dorothy L Sayers: a play called THE ZEAL OF THY HOUSE, and a non-fiction book called THE MIND OF THE MAKER. The play can be found in the book FOUR SACRED PLAYS, and also in various other collections, including one called RELIGIOUS DRAMA (Meridian Books) and one called BEST PLAYS OF 1937. Third is the book MERE CHRISTIANITY by C S Lewis, particularly the last section, called "Beyond Personality". Fourth is a book called THEOLOGY FOR BEGINNERS, by the Roman Catholic writer Frank Sheed. I will say that I do not find Sheed's approach altogether satisfying, but I know some persons whose minds I respect who do.

You forgot one thing "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Mark

It wasn't Jesus who changed the rules of the game (see quote above), it was Paul. Cheers, Kent

Aaron> Colossians 2:11-12 "In him you were also circumcised, in the Aaron> putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done Aaron> by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised Aaron> with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him Aaron> from the dead." Aaron> In baptism, we are raised to a new life in Christ (Romans 6:4) Aaron> through a personal faith in the power of God. Our parent's Aaron> faith cannot do this. Do infants have faith? Let's look at Aaron> what the Bible has to say about it. Yes, let do. Try: "And if anyone causes one of these little ones *who believes in me* to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck." Mark 9:42 "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." The Colossians passage does not make faith a requirement for baptism. It merely says that in baptism we are born again, regenerated, and resurrected through faith. In the case of an infant I would say that baptism works faith in the heart of the infant--through the power of the word. The Colossians passage does make baptism a spiritual circumcision. Circumcision was the means by which a male infant was made a part of God's covenant with Israel. It was commanded to be performed on the eighth day. The early church understood this, and even debated whether baptism had to be performed on the eighth day, or if it could in fact be done earlier. Aaron> Romans 10:16-17 "But not all the Israelites accepted the good Aaron> news. For Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed our message?' Aaron> Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the Aaron> message is heard through the word of Christ." Aaron> So then we receive God's gift of faith to us as we hear the Aaron> message of the gospel. And the gospel is surely preached at any infant's (or adult's) baptism. Indeed, in a very real sense, the sacraments are the Gospel made tangible. Aaron> Faith is a possible response to hearing Aaron> God's word preached. Kids are not yet spiritually, Aaron> intellectually, or emotionally mature enough to respond to Aaron> God's word. How do you know they are not yet mature enough to have faith? Do you know this on the basis of God's Word, or from your own reason? Faith is also described as a gift from God, Ephesians 2:8,9. He gives faith to infants just as he gives it to adults, through the power of the gospel, Romans 1:6. Aaron> If you read all of Ezekiel 18, you will see that God doesn't Aaron> hold us guilty for anyone else's sins. So we can have no Aaron> original guilt from Adam. Here you show that you just don't understand original sin-- you are arguing against a straw man. Maybe you've been talking to Catholics too much. I don't know. But original sin does not consist of God's imputation of Adam's guilt to us. It consists of our inheritance of Adam's sinful nature. It is actual sin. See for example, the Augsburg Confession, Article II, and the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article II, and, for extra credit, John Knox's `The Scots confession', Article III. Aaron> Now then that we have a little more background as to why Aaron> original sin is not Biblical, let's look at some of the Aaron> scriptures used to support it. Aaron> Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through Aaron> one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to Aaron> all men, because all sinned--" Ask yourself this question. "Do infants ever die?" Then ask yourself, "If infant baptism is not valid, then where was the Christian Church during all the centuries when almost all of the baptisms were performed on infants? Were Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Zwingli, Hus, Knox, Andrae, and Chemnitz Christians? Aaron> Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time Aaron> my mother conceived me." Aaron> This whole Psalm is a wonderful example of how we should humble Aaron> ourselves before God in repentance for sinning. David himself Aaron> was a man after God's own heart and wrote the Psalm after Aaron> committing adultry with Bathsheba and murdering her husband. Aaron> All that David is saying here is that he can't remember a time Aaron> when he wasn't sinful. He is humbling himself before God by Aaron> confessing his sinfulness. His saying that he was sinful at Aaron> birth is a hyperbole. The Bible, being inspired by God, isn't Aaron> limited to a literal interpetation, but also uses figures of Aaron> speech as did Jesus (John 16:25). For another example of Aaron> hyperbole, see Luke 14:26. Who are you to say what is literal and what is not? Is a literal interpretation manifestly absurd in Psalm 51 by reason of direct contradiction with a clear passage from the Word of God? You might also compare Genesis 8:21, "The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart, `Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood...." Aaron> We see Aaron> that he did grow and become wiser in Luke 2:40 and 2:52. The Aaron> implication is that Jesus did wrong things as a child before he Aaron> knew to choose right over wrong. You are a long way from proving this (rather monstrous) assertion. All you can say is that Jesus grew in wisdom and in stature. A conclusion that he did wrong as a child is based on an extrapolation of reason, not on a direct revelation in Scripture.

...in other words faith in a .357 is far stronger than faith in a God providing a miracle for his followers. Interesting. Now, if David Korresh was God, why couldn't he use lightning instead of semi-automatic rifles? It seems even he didn't trust in himself. Cheers, Kent

I thought your nickname was "UnEnlightened" -- Maddi Hausmann [email protected] Centigram Communications Corp San Jose California 408/428-3553

First, you seem to assume all atheists think alike. An atheist does not believe in the existence of a god. Our opinions on issues such as capital punishment and abortion, however, vary greatly. If you were attacking the views of a particular atheist (Benedikt, I presume), then please present your argument as such and do not lump us all together. As for the issues, let's start with abortion. Personally, I do not support abortion as a means of population control or contraception-after-the-fact. However, I support the right of any woman to have an abortion, regardless of what my personal views may be, because it would be arrogant of me to tell any individual what he/she may or may not do to his/her body, and the domain of legislators should not extend into the uterus. That's my opinion, and I am sure many atheists and theists would disagree with me. I do not defend homosexuality as a means of population control, but I certainly defend it as an end to itself. I think most homosexuals would be angered to hear of anyone characterizing their personal relationship as nothing more than a conscious effort to keep population levels down. As for atheists believing all values are biological, I have no idea what you're talking about. Finally, there are the issues of war and capital punishment. An atheist can object to either one just as easily as a theist might. You seem to be hung up on some supposed conspiratorial link between atheism and population control. Could this be the "atheist cause" you were referring to a few posts back?

Surely you are not equating David Koresh with Christianity? The two are not comparable.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [underlining mine/Quean Lutibelle] Yes, those who apply it hatefully would be better served if they if they could alter the Bible to reflect their views: Scene 1: A well in Samaria: Woman: But I have no husband. Jesus: Yo! Everybody! Listen up! Get your rocks ready! We'll have some good biblical fun. Here she is whispering to me that she doesn't have a husband, yet I know by my secret powers that she has had five of them! (You know how these Samaritans are! And worse, she's living with a guy now that she's not even married to. Now I believe in loving her, and if you'll just raise up those rocks like the bible allows and threaten her with a good stoning, she'll understand how much we hate the sin but love the sinner. We must keep our priorities strait, lest folks 2,000 years from now misunderstand me and believe I canceled all sin! Scene 2: Golgatha 2nd Thief: You got a raw deal, man. They didn't catch you doing anything wrong like they caught me. Bleeding Jesus: Now, son. Let me be real clear. You say you did something wrong, but are you repenting? I need to be absolutely certain cause if you repent, I have a nice room for you in heaven, but if you think you might go thieving again, I have to cancel your reservation. It is nice of you to have pity on me while I'm hanging here, but you must understand, this is all an act; I'm not really hurting. I'm God, you see. And the point of all this is to teach you to be perfect like me. If you think a simple kind remark to me in suffering is going to get you any favors, you'd better think twice! But if you will just REPENT, you will become a Fundelical in Good Standing. From all such Bad News, you have delivered us, Good God! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Quean Lutibelle/Louie

If you would like to understand better the sort of behavior that we saw in connection with the Waco tragedy, I'd strongly recommend reading _When Prophecy Fails_, by Leon Festinger, Henry Riecken, and Stanley Schachter (available as a Harper Torchbook). It goes a long way towards explaining how a belief system can be so strong as to withstand even overwhelming disconfirmatory evidence. At least, read the first chapter. Interestingly, just as the Branch Davidians had roots in the Seventh-Day Adventist movement, the SDAs themselves had their roots in the Millerite movement of the first half of the 19th century--a movement that expected the end of the world in 1843, was disappointed when it did not take place, and wound up as a church. Bill

Ok, what's more important to gay Christians? Sex, or Christianity? Christianity I would hope. Would they be willing to forgo sex completely, in order to avoid being a stumbling block to others, to avoid the chance that their interpretation might be wrong, etc? If not, why not? Heterosexuals abstain all the time. (It would be nice if protestant churches had celibate orders to show the world that sex is not the important thing in life) To tell the truth, gay churches remind me a lot of Henry the VIII starting the Church of England in order to get a divorce (or is this a myth). Note that I am not denying that gay Christians are Christian.

I once heard an arguement from a xtian friend similar to this. "Christianity is a Higher Logic. Athiest like u will not be able to understand it. Your atheist logic is very low. Only thru faith can we understand the Higher Logic in God". So I asked him, "So what is this Higher Logic?" His answer, "I don't know." This, & the posting above highlights one of the worst things about xtainity. It is abundantly clear to both atheists & xtains that their believe is both illogical & irrational. Their tactics, therefore: to disregard logic & rationality altogether. Silly excuses such as the ones above and those such as, "How can u trust science, science was invented by man!", only goes to further show the weakness of their religion. In my country where xtainity was and still is rapidly growing, xtains never try to convert people by appealing to their brains or senses. They know it would be a fruitless act, given the irrational nature of their faith. They would wait until a person is in distress, then they would comfort him/her and addict them to their emotional opium. Never in my life had I met a person who converted to xtainity coz it's "reasonable". Rationality has no place in xtainity (see xtian arguement against "reason" above). -- The UnEnlightened One ------------------+-------------------------------------------------------- | Tan Chade Meng | The wise man tells his wife that he understands her. Singapore | [email protected] | The fool tries to prove it. | ------------------+-------------------------------------------------------- --

I read it when it first came out, and the controversy broke. Put my name on the waiting list at the library (that way if the book was really offensive, none of my money would find its way to the author or publisher), and read it, "cover to cover" (to use a phrase that seems popular here right now). And I *liked* it. The writing style was a little hard to get used to, but it was well worth the effort. Coming from a similar background (Rushdie grew up in Bombay in a muslim family, and moved to England; I grew up in New Delhi), it made a strong impression on me. (And he used many of the strange constructions of Indian English: the "yaar" at the end of a sentence, "Butbutbut," the occasional hindi phrase, etc.) At the time I still "sorta-kinda" thought of myself as a muslim, and I couldn't see what the flap was all about. It seemed clear to me that this was allegory. It was clear that he described some local prostitutes who took on the names and personae of Muhammed's wives, and had not (as my grandfather thundered) implied that Muhammed's wives were prostitutes; in short, every angry muslim that had read even part of the book seemed to have missed the point completely. (And I won't mention the fact that the most militant of them had never even seen the book. Oops, I just did!) Perhaps in a deep sense, the book is insulting to Islam, because it exposes the silliness of revealed religion - why does an omnipotent deity need an agent? She can come directly to me, can't she? How do we know that Muhammed didn't just go out into the desert and smoke something? And how do we know that the scribes he dictated the Quran to didn't screw up, or put in their own little verses? And why can Muhammed marry more than four women, when no other muslim is allowed to? (Although I think the biggest insult to Islam is that the majority of its followers would want to suppress a book, sight unseen, on the say-so of some "holy" guy. Not to mention murder the author.) I had much the same response when I tried to talk about the book. A really silly argument - after all, how many of these same people have read "Mein Kampf?" It just made me wonder - what are they afraid of? Why don't they just read the book and decide for themselves? Maybe the reaction of the muslim community to the book, and the absence of protest from the "liberal" muslims to Khomeini's fatwa outrage, was the final push I needed into atheism! -s

Note: the following article is submitted on behalf of someone (Frank daniels) who has difficulty posting to s.r.c, email replies to [email protected] I am unable to post to the bitnet groups. Here is a capsule history of the Shepherding/Discipleship Movement in the Churches of Christ (i.e. Crossroads/Boston): I could trace the Movement back as far as 1800, and indeed some of its roots go back that far, but these were really "influences" on the Movement, and not the actual movement, per se. I will start in c.1920. In that day, there were 'white' churches and 'colored' churches in nearly every area (due to segregation). Modern Pentecostalism was developing as a predominantly 'colored' phenomenon. Here, there was great fanaticism, emphasis on emotional experiences, and belief in a personal guidance and indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Many 'white' Protestant churches were growing into what became known as conservative fundamentalism. By the 1940s, the evangelical movement was in full swing, and many groups were becoming part of it. When the civil rights movement grew stronger (in the 1950's and 1960's), many 'white' church groups began to be influenced by the 'black' churches and by what was going on there. This spread started in the most liberal of groups and spread to the more conservative ones by the late '60's. In 1969, even the Catholic Church was displaying evidence of influence by the other groups...still evident today. The Churches of Christ are (and were) a very conservative Protestant group. When the influence from outside began to reach the CofC in c.1965, it was generally not appreciated. Conservative groups are very strongly resistant to change, and the new movement was VERY different from the CofC status quo. The magazines put out at that time by CofC folks tell the story as it unfolds. New ideas came into the CofC. There was a big push to reach out to college students, young adults, and teens. Some called this the Campus Evangel- ism Movement. Emotions, generally not highly regarded in the CofC at large, played a more important role in the new movement. In some places, people began to speak in tongues (as their Pentecostal predecessors did). This was met with extreme criticism from within the Churches of Christ. In some places, people were fired from their jobs for speaking in tongues or for advocating the "Holy Spirit Movement", another name for the new branch. The term "Underground Church of Christ" also came into use because these people had to hide their differences (or they might be ostricised). There were several congregations, however, whose leaderships were receptive to the new ideas (at least in part; the tongues-speaking never really caught on). One of these was the 14th Street Church of Christ in Gainesville, FL. Campus Ministry had already been regarded as important at 14th Street, and the new ideas seemed to be very helpful tools for evangelism. They also seemed to put vitality into the church, which many felt had been lacking. In October of 1967, the 14th Street congregation hired Chuck Lucas to be its Campus Minister. By 1970, he would move to being the congregation's (lead) Minister. In the late 60's/early 70's, the congregation worked with many other groups. They held Bible discussions at Daytona Beach during Spring Break. They organized talks in the fraternities on the University of Florida campus. They also worked with UF sports people. In 1972, the congregation ordered a larger building to be constructed. When it was finished, the group moved and changed its name (now no longer appropriate). It became the Crossroads Church of Christ from then on, a name that would become legendary. By this time, Crossroads was basically the only CofC whose programs were fully aligned to the new movement. While they didn't start it, they continued it and were responsible for where it wound up going. By 1975, none of the other Churches of Christ in the area felt that they could cooperate with Crossroads, due to what they recognized as doctrinal problems at Crossroads. Crossroads had begun to heavily emphasize, and later require attendance at all church functions. It was seen as a good thing for each member to have at least one close relationship, a person with whom you would share all of your problems, pray, and get help from. The concept was called Prayer Partners, which later became Discipleship Partners and also later became mandatory. The leadership was assigning prayer partners to people for a while. The book called "The Master Plan of Evangelism" was a strong influence on Chuck Lucas. He (and the group) believed that it was every person's duty and life purpose to carry out the great commission. Crossroads was growing in number, and numbers became VERY important (some would say all-important). A person who "was evangelistic" was "spiritual". Evangelism meant inviting people to Crossroads events; if you did this a lot and some of them converted, then you were "spiritual". There were sermons about how if you bought groceries, the cashier and bag boy ought to receive invitations to services. Everyone at your job ought to receive invitations. Since these people needed Jesus, you should be "aggressive"--don't take 'no' for an answer. If you did not evangelize enough, you came to be called "lazy" or "unspiritual". By the end of the decade, the Prayer Partner system was integrated into a structure. The Elders and Ministers were on top (like a big pyramid). Then the group leaders, Bible study leaders, and members. Everyone who came in had someone placed over them. It is at this time, 1978-1980, that the bad press about Crossroads began to circulate. The problem with rape on the University of Florida campus was tremendous, but Crossroads was considered a bigger and more immediate problem. There were many complaints about the congregation and its "pushy" evangelistic tactics. Crossroads was considering the other Churches of Christ to be "dead" churches, which aggravated them; it was aggressively recruiting out of the other church groups (denominations), which aggravated THEM. By this time, Crossroads had grown numerically to the point (1100) where not only did they believe that they would soon need a new building, but also they were sending out "planting" [create a new church] and "reconstructing" [reorganize an existing church] teams to other cities. By this time, the Crossroads Movement was underway. A group was sent to the 30-member Lexington Church of Christ in Boston, MA. The team was headed up by Kip McKean, who had been converted out of a fraternity by Crossroads (in Gainesville). Kip held a still stronger view of church authority, which he believed was heavily vested in the Evangelist(s), and not so much in the Elders. He had been fired in 1977 from the congregation that he had been working at when the elders there found numerous things wrong with his theology, including the practice of what came to be called one-over- one Christianity. [Called this by critics] In the first year, half of the 30 people felt that they did not want to be a part of the new congregation. They left. But others began coming into the new Boston Church of Christ. Ah, but I'm ahead of myself. At Crossroads, the heavy-handed system had begun to take its toll on the members. Many have said that they felt that they were working hard, but they were not achieving the results that were so important. The numbers were dropping. From 1978, Crossroads membership declined steadily. The leadership began to tighten the reigns on the congregation, who was seen as being largely "unproductive" and "unfruitful". The "fruit" passages in the NT were interpreted as referring to new converts. If you were not bearing fruit, said John 15, you would be cast into the fire! [Boston still teaches this.] If you love your neighbor, you'll save his soul (invite him to church and convert him). If you're not doing that, you don't love your neighbor. And if you don't love, you're in danger of backsliding. The logical arguments continue in this vein. In 1985, Chuck Lucas was fired from his job as minister, due to recurring sins in his life. These struggles were never revealed to the congregation at large, although many people outside the congregation had heard about them. For by now, there was very little contact (on a friendship level) between most Crossroads members and those outside. [If you have contact, your focus should be on converting them. Bring them to a Bible Study.] Chuck's replacement was Joe Woods, who was fully supportive of the Boston system. As Boston grew in number, they began to offer 'training' sessions for other ministers. Joe went to Boston to be trained and returned to Cross- roads ready to emphasize the "total commitment" to the church that Boston and Kip McKean were now emphasizing. Eventually, in Fall of 1987, the Elders at Crossroads (now 2 in number--Dick Whitehead and Bill Hogle) made a decision. Boston was demanding that all of the other churches in the movement come under the direction of the church in Boston. The Elders refused, citing their belief that each church should be autonomous (something true in all non-Boston Churches of Christ). Perhaps there was also some degree of offense done here, since Crossroads was no longer the 'example' to the rest of the Movement. The group now numbered about 800, while Boston was now larger (in membership). The Churches of Christ generally teach that baptism is a necessary element of salvation. At Crossroads, they taught what was called 'Lordship' baptism: you had to understand the commitment involved before you could be baptized. You had to 'count the cost'. At Boston, they took this a step further. If at some time you became "unproductive", then your spirituality was suspect. People would begin to ask you if you REALLY understood what you were getting into. Anyone who said 'no' had their baptism deemed invalid: they hadn't counted the cost properly. They still had to be baptized. Others called this "rebaptism", and Crossroads didn't approve of this practice. When Crossroads announced that it would not follow Boston, many of its members left Crossroads and went to Movement-related ministries, which were now called Discipling Ministries. You were either discipling (evangelizing) or you were "dead". They also used the nickname "Movement of God" for a while. By Summer of 1988, Crossroads was withdrawn from the Movement and now stood alone. They had few to no allies in the mainstream Churches of Christ, and now none in the Movement. Boston, however, continued to chart its course in the direction that they had been following. They sent "reconstruction teams" to many cities, which usually meant that they split the church there. They stopped acknowledging other churches of Christ as Christians and began to call themselves the "remnant". The "remnant" of the Jews in the OT are those who are saved by God. It was felt that the "remnant" today represents all the Christians. Sometimes they would simply call their Movement "the church". They usually took the name of the city for their name, implying to the other Churches of Christ that Boston did not recognize their existence. Many campuses have now formally forbidden Boston ministries from recruiting there due to the number of complaints. In some cases, it has been documented that Boston ministries have lied to University officials in order to continue to have access to the campus. Any resistance that they experience is termed "perse- cution", which all true Christians are expected to experience. Are you really a Christian if you're not being persecuted? The numbers at Boston peaked at c.3000 in 1989. Since then, they have fought to remain steady. I have heard a tape of Kip McKean shouting at the leaders for failing to fulfill the Great Commission (their life's purpose) as God commanded them. Their Christianity is highly centered on commands and obedience. Crossroads once was called a cult. Boston is now recognized by the Cult Awareness Network and other national and international groups as a cult, under a formal definition, because of the techniques which they employ. The term "cult" is usually differentiated from "sect" by the practice of those techniques. The techniques which they employ are recognized by many as being techniques of destructive pursuasion, also used by other Shepherding Discipleship groups. [Robert Jay Lifton, Margaret Thaler Singer, and many others have written about the topic.] These techniques include guilt motivation, emotional manipulation, loaded language, the aura of sacred science (a sort of mystic element seen in everyday events), and others. I have no particular axe to grind against the Movement. I have numer- ous friends who are still part of the Movement. I have never had a 'falling out' with anyone in the Movement. I disagree with many things which they teach. I recognize the psychological damage done by being involved in such a system. I hold no loyalty to the mainstream Churches of Christ and do not defend their mistakes either. I want to point out, though, that unlike in many other systems which are in other ways similar, the Leadership of the Boston Movement are as much victims of the system as the members. We do not have a leader who enjoys manipulating his people. The leaders believe what they teach, and they feel accountable for the activites (and spiritual welfare) of the members. When members do not evangelize to their expectations, for example, the leaders feel personally responsible as well. The leaders are not out for money or power. They want to evangelize the world in their lifetime. I have said too much, but there is much more to say. There are many examples I could give and quotes from other sources (including Boston bulletins) that I could include. But this is too long already. You may post this if you so desire. Frank D.

Well, where is he? Another false Messiah shot down in flames. Matthew 24:4 "Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ', and will deceive many." Matthew 24:23 "At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect - if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time." Do we listen? Sadly, not all of us do. Peace be with you, and condolences to the families of those lost at Waco. Malcolm Lee

Exactly. Although this may be a dissapointing answer, there has to be an interplay of the two. Personal Ethos and Societal Morality. A person's self-generated/learned set of beliefs are usually expressed on a purely mental/verbal level, and don't usually find expression in society except in an impure (not in the sense of bad :) ) state. Sometimes this has to be so. Also, what if one feels oneself to be part of more than one society, in a very real sense? To use the obvious example, there is a political society, and a racial society, and a gender society, and sometimes they do not always agree on every issue... Yes. Perhaps with an infamous "do what you want so long as it doesn't hurt others?" The problem with this is that it is merely saying what you CAN do: it is not a morality in that it doesn't propound any specifically preferred behaviours. I'll add a hearty "me two". However, one could just as well say just because certain actions are moral does not make them legal: one still doesn't really get an impression of which one is truly "right". best regards,

From the June newsletter of the Latin Liturgy Association: There is a new e-mail discussion group: LATIN-L, a forum for people interested in classical Latin, medieval Latin, Neo-Latin; the languages of choice are Latin (of course) and whatever vulgar languages you feel comfortable using. Please be prepared to translate on request. The field is open -- name your topic! In order to subscribe, BITNET users should send an interactive message of the form "TELL LISTSERV@PSUVM SUB LATIN-L [your name]". INTERNET users should send a message (without a subject line) to the address [email protected]. The message should read "SUB LATIN-L [your name]". Once subscribed, one may participate by sending messages to LATIN-L@PSUVM or [email protected].

It is still incestuous.... :)

From whose point of view would you like to know what relativism concludes? One of the people involved in the argument, or some third person observing the arguers?

I'm not sure that you can distinguish between myth and legend so neatly, or at all. A myth is more than a single story. The thought structure and world-paradigm in which that story is interpreted is as important a part of the myth as the story itself. Thus, I can think of no story which is meant to be conveyed understandably from one person to another within a single culture which won't rest upon that underlying thought structure, and thus transmit some of that culture's mythical "truths" along with it.

The entire business of a Bank is the management of risk. That's what a Bank is for. That's what people who work for Banks do. OK, but in that case why are you posting about it? What I hear you saying is "I don't understand this stuff, but if Islam says it's so, it's so".

In the course of discussing the Sabbath with some folks, I came across something that was completely new to me, and I thought I'd offer it for comment. To keep this as brief as possible, let me state my observation as a declarative statement, and then whoever wants to can comment on it. Basically, what I think I've observed is that the phrase "the Ten Commandments", as used by Moses, is not a reference to Ex. 20:1-17, but rather a reference to ten distinct discourses from Ex. 20:1 through Ex. 31:18. That is, the phrase "the Ten Commandments" should more accurately be translated "the Ten Discourses", of which the passage we call the "Ten Commandments" is really only the first. I'm not completely convinced that the above is true, but for purposes of discussion, let me argue it as though I was sure. Arguments supporting the above idea: 1) There aren't really ten commandments in Ex. 20:1-17. In order to get 10 commandments, you have to get two of them out of verses 3-6, and the verses themselves do not support such a division because they are all about not worshipping other gods. That is, verse 3 commands to have no other gods, and verse 5 commands to not worship the idols mentioned in verse 4. You can't violate verses 5-6 without violating verse 3, indicating that the whole passage is one command, and leaving us with only Nine "Commandments". I could go on at length about this, but for now I'll just stop with this summary. 2) There ARE ten speeches between Ex 20:1 (the beginning of the traditional "Ten Commandments") and Ex 31:18 (where God actually gives Moses the two tablets with the Ten Commandments/Discourses written on them). I break these ten down as follows: 20:1-17; 20:22-26; 21:1-23:33; 25:1-30:10; 30:11-16; 30:17-21; 30:22-33; 30:34-38; 31:1-11; and 31:12-18. In most cases, each of these passages begins with some variation of the phrase, "And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying..." The exception is Ex. 21:1, which begins "Now these are the ordinances which you are to set before them..." 3) The word translated "commandments" in the phrase "the Ten Commandments" isn't really the word for "commandment", its the word for a speech, or an utterance. It's a word often used for longer discourses rather than individual statements; for instance, when combined with the word 'yom' (day), this word is translated "Chronicles" in such phrases as "now the rest of the acts of so-and-so, are they not written in the Chronicles of x?..." The word for "commandment" is freely used throughout the books of Moses, and perhaps it is significant that when Moses spoke of the Ten X's, he appears to have avoided the word for commandment and chosen instead a word associated with discourses longer than just a single command. 4) God tells Moses that He is going to give him the stone tablets "with the law and the commandments" (Ex 24:12), yet He does not give Moses the tablets until He has finished all ten discourses on Mount Sinai. If the Ten Commandments were only Ex. 20:1-17, it is not immediately clear why God would wait several days and nine more discourses before giving these tablets to Moses. On the other hand, if we have the Ten Discourses written on the tablets, then it makes perfect sense that God would not give Moses the tablets until He had finished delivering all Ten Discourses. 5) When Moses did get the tablets, he found that both tablets were written on both sides (Ex. 32:15). If these Ten "Commandments" were only the first 17 verses of Ex. 20, God would have had to have written in LARGE letters! Not that He couldn't have, of course, but it does seem more likely to me that this is a reference to two tablets containing ten discourses written in normal- sized letters. 6) In II Cor. 3, Paul seems to specifically single out the "commandments written on stone" as being the "ministry of death", "that which is fading away," and "the ministry of condemnation." With the possible exception of the commandment about the Sabbath, it is difficult to see why Paul would refer to the commands in Ex. 20:1-17 as being temporary, "fading away"-type commandments. This is less of a problem if the stone tablets should happen to have included all of the commandments from Ex 20 through Ex 31. Arguments against this idea: The main argument against this idea, aside from the fact that it contradicts a long-standing tradition, is that in Dt 5:22, Moses says, after quoting the commands in Ex. 20:1-17, "These words the LORD spoke...and He added no more. And He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me." This appears to identify the words just quoted as being the only contents of the two stone tablets. That was my first impression, anyway. However, after some thought, I noted that a great deal hinges on how you understand the phrase "These words." If Moses meant "These words *which I have just related to you* were spoken by God" etc., then that would mean that only the traditional "Ten Commandments" were on the stone tablets. If, however, Moses was making a parenthetical comment--"These words *which I AM NOW telling you* were spoken by God" etc.--then that's quite different. I did note that in the Dt 5 account, Moses tells of being given the stone tablets BEFORE telling of the people asking Moses to represent them before God, whereas in the Exodus account, the people asked this of Moses between the first and second discourses, several days BEFORE God gave Moses the stone tablets. This reinforces the idea that Moses' remarks in Dt 5:22ff were intended as a parenthetical remark, rather than a strictly chronological account of when God wrote what, and at what point He stopped adding to what was on the tablets. Summary: all things considered, I find it somewhat more likely that the nine commands in Ex 20 are really only the first of what Moses regarded as the Ten Discourses of God. I don't know if anybody has ever espoused this idea before; it's brand-new to me. So, while I lean towards accepting it, I would be very interested in hearing any comments and criticisms anyone may care to offer.

Okay, I see smilies, so this isn't supposed to be a serious post. On the other hand, I would suppose it does has some motivation behind it. Apparently the idea is to poke fun at religion, but there is presumably some sort of reasoning behind it. As an argument, this statement is worthless. Presuming the Qur'an is a perfect religious text (whatever that might be) there is still plenty of room for disagreement about its implications for issues far from essentials. I've already responded to the question of how a judgment might be made between two people who in fact _do_ disagree about Islam, which doesn't presume anything about the Qur'an other than its having sufficient clarity for all important disputes about the basic principles of Islam. This hardly constitutes a claim that no two people could have disagreements about _all_ issues relevant to Islam.

[email protected] (Peter Nelson) writes... The rest of the story seems to be that the agreement for the broadcast was for prime-time, and that Koresh never even heard it played. Wasn't even tuned in to the radio when it aired -- so no reason to come out. If later they had given him a copy of the grossly twisted newswire transcript -- I'm certain Koresh would think he was at the mercy of evil itself. As to coming out after Passover, wasn't that just one of the lawyer's speculations Peter?

Persons interested in the tongues question are are invited to peruse an essay of mine, obtainable by sending the message GET TONGUES NOTRANS to [email protected] or to [email protected]

... Regarding the first paragraph, I would say that I didn't write it. I don't believe that unbaptized babies are put in Hell. I don't even believe in Hell. At least, I don't believe in a fiery place where there will be "gnashing of teeth".

You said everyone in the world. That means *everyone* in the world, including children that are not old enough to speak, let alone tell lies. If Jesus says "everyone", you cannot support that by referring to a group of people somewhat smaller than "everyone". -- "On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Leftover Turkey! On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Turkey Casserole that she made from Leftover Turkey. [days 3-4 deleted] ... Flaming Turkey Wings! ... -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Riddle me this. If a god(s) exist why on earth should we grovel? Why on earth should we give a damm at all? What evidence do you have that if such a creature(s) exist it deserves anything beyond mild admiration or sheer hatred for what it/they have done in the past (whichever god(s) you care to pick). That is assuming any records of their actions are correct. Religon offers a bliss bubble of self contained reality which is seperate from the physical world. Any belief system can leave you in such a state and so can drugs. God(s) are not a requirement. Only if you remove such useless tappestry can you build a set of morals to build a society upon. It is that or keep on exterminating those who don't believe (or converting them). - Eric NEW VIRUSES:

I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

> A Christian friend of mine once reasoned that if we were never > created, we could not exists. Therefore we were created, and > therefore there exists a Creator. I hesitate to comment on the validity of this, because I do not know what your friend meant by it. If he meant that whatever exists must have been created, then he is open to the obvious retort that God exists, and so God must have been created. Perhaps your friend meant that we exist now but that there was a time when we did not exist, and therefore something other than ourselves must have brought us into existence. This seems plausible, but an atheist might reply, "So my parents engendered me. So what?" Here your friend would have to explain why an infinite regress of causes is not a satisfactory explanation. He would have some support from philosophers who are not ordinarily considered religious (Ayn Rand, and some others who are in the tradition of Aristotle). Having argued for a First Cause, he would have to bridge the gap between said entity and the God of Abraham. If he merely asserts that the things we observe are ultimately dependent on things radically unlike them, few physicists would disagree.

Throw away the FAQ. We can all just ask Mr O'Dwyer, since he can define the thing that the rest of us only talk about.

I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. Luke 10:19

[...details of US built chemical plant at Al Alteer near Baghdad...] : However, the plant's intended use was to aid the Iraqi infrastructure. : It is not an example of selling a weapon. May sound nitpicking, : but are we going to refuse to sell valuable parts that build the : infrastructure because of dual use technology? I am contending that in this case (and in the case of the sale of pesticides by UK companies) that they knew full well that it was to be used for the production of chemical weapons even if that was not its officially stated purpose. : I personally don't think that letting Iran conquer Iraq would have been a : good thing. For that matter, neither do I (for the reasons you state). It is the hypocrisy and claims the US did not help Iraq that make me angry, plus the fact that the USA seems to believe it has the *right* to interfere where is sees fit (i.e. has an interest) rather than a *duty* to intervene where it is required. This is demonstrated by the failure of the US to do anything about East Timor (and the region *is* becoming destabilised). The USA might have done something approaching the right thing, given my reservations about the uncessary number of civillian casualites, but for wholly the wrong reasons and after having a hand in creating the situation. : That in no way would affect the US later military action against Iraq. I did not suggest it would and it would be ridiculous to assert otherwise. I was simply indicating the USA has previously aided Iraq. : Intel on manufacturing techniques, or something of that nature? No, apparently data (orginally from satellites although I doubt that Iraq would have been given the raw data) concerning troop concentrations.

#|> # #|> #False dichotomy. You claimed the killing were *not* religiously #|> #motivated, and I'm saying that's wrong. I'm not saying that #|> #each and every killing is religiously motivate, as I spelled out #|> #in detail. #|> #|> Which killings do you say are religously motivated? # #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. # #|> At the time #|> of writing, I think that someone who claims the current violence is #|> motivated by religion is reaching. # #What would you call is when someone writes "The killings in N.I #are not religously motivated?" I'd say it was motivated by a primitive notion of revenge, and by misguided patriotism. Otherwise, I'd have to wonder how come mainland catholics are not killed by mainland protestants, and southern catholics are not killed by southern protestants, and so on. Take away all plausible causes bar religion, and the violence diminishes markedly. Gee, why _is_ that? #|> Now, it's possible to argue that #|> religion *in the past* is a major contributing factor to the violence in #|> the present, but I don't know of any evidence that this is so - and I'm #|> not enough of a historian to debate it. # #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. The country also has a different official language written in its constitution (and vice versa :-) - maybe they're motivated by a love of Irish poetry. Your argument is fallacious, jon. For what it's worth, I agree with all that you say about Ireland above, and more.

existance. *************************************************************************** I just thought it necessary to help defend the point that Jesus existed. Guys: Jesus existed. If he didnt, then you have to say that Socrates didnt exist cuz he, like Jesus, has nothing from his hands that have survived. Only Plato and others record his existance. Many others record Jesus' existance, including the Babylonian Talmud. Sorry guys, the argument that Jesus may not have existed is a dead point now. He did. Whether he was God or whether there is a God is a completely different story, however. *****************************************************************************

[continuing with Dr. DeYoung's article-] SURVEY OF NEW INTERPRETATIONS OF ARSENOKOITAI D.S. Bailey D.S. Bailey was perhaps the trailblazer of new assessments of the meaning of arsenokoitai. He takes the term in I Cor 6:9 as denoting males who actively engage in homosexual acts, in contrast to malakoi ("effeminate"), those who engage passively in such acts.*4 However, he insists that Paul knew nothing of "inversion as an inherited trait, or an inherent condition due to psychological or glandular causes, and consequently regards all homosexual practice as evidence of perversion" (38). Hence Bailey limits the term's reference in Paul's works to acts alone and laments modern translations of the term as "homosexuals." Bailey wants to distinguish between "the homosexual *condition* (which is morally neutral) and homosexual *practices*" [italics in source]. Paul is precise in his terminology and Moffatt's translation "sodomites" best represents Paul's meaning in Bailey's judgment (39). Bailey clearly denies that the homosexual condition was known by biblical writers. J. Boswell The most influential study of arsenokoitai among contemporary authors is that of John Boswell.*5 Whereas the usual translation*6 of this term gives it either explicitly or implicitly an active sense, Boswell gives it a passive sense. In an extended discussion of the term (341-53), he cites "linguistic evidence and common sense" to support his conclusion that the word means "male sexual agents, i.e. active male prostitutes." His argument is that the arseno- part of the word is adjectival, not the object of the koitai which refers to base sexual activity. Hence the term, according to Boswell, designates a male sexual person or male prostitute. He acknowledges, however, that most interpret the composite term as active, meaning "those who sleep with, make their bed with, men." Boswell bases his interpretation on linguistics and the historical setting. He argues that in some compounds, such as paidomathes ("child learner"), the paido- is the subject of manthano, and in others, such as paidoporos ("through which a child passes"), the paido- is neither subject nor object but simply a modifier without verbal significance. His point is that each compound must be individually analyzed for its meaning. More directly, he maintains that compounds with the Attic form arreno- employ it objectively while those with the Hellenistic arseno- use it as an adjective (343). Yet he admits exceptions to this distinction regarding arreno-. Boswell next appeals to the Latin of the time, namely drauci or exoleti. These were male prostitutes having men or women as their objects. The Greek arsenokoitai is the equivalent of the Latin drauci; the corresponding passive would be parakoitai ("one who lies beside"), Boswell affirms. He claims that arsenokoitai was the "most explicit word available to Paul for a male prostitute," since by Paul's time the Attic words pornos ("fornicator") and porneuon ("one committing fornication"), found also in the LXX, had been adopted "to refer to men who resorted to female prostitutes or simply committed fornication."*7 In the absence of the term from pagan writers such as Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, and Plutarch, and from the Jewish writers Philo and Josephus, Boswell finds even more convincing evidence for his affirmation that arsenokoitai "did not connote 'homosexual' or even 'sodomite' in the time of Paul" (346).*8 He also demonstrates its absence in Pseudo-Lucian, Sextus Empiricus, and Libanius. He subsequently finds it lacking in "all discussions of homosexual relation" (346)*9 among Christian sources in Greek, including the Didache, Tatian, Justin Martyr, Eusebius,*10 Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, and John Chrysostom. Chrysostom is singled out for his omission as "final proof" that the word could not mean homosexuality.*11 Boswell next appeals to the omission of the texts of I Cor and I Tim from discussions of homosexuality among Latin church fathers (348).*12 Cited are Tertullian, Arnobius, Lactantius, and Augustine. The last named uses "circumlocutions." Other Latin writers include Ausonius, Cyprian, and Minucius Felix. The term is also lacking in state and in church legislation. By the sixth century the term became confused and was applied to a variety of sexual activities from child molesting to anal intercourse between a husband and wife (353). Having surveyed the sources, Boswell concludes, There is no reason to believe that either arsenokoitai or malakoi connoted homosexuality in the time of Paul or for centuries thereafter, and every reason to suppose that, whatever they came to mean, they were not determinative of Christian opinion on the morality of homosexual acts (353). It is clear throughout that Boswell defines arsenokoitai to refer to male prostitutes. He even goes so far as to conclude that Paul would probably not disapprove of "gay inclination," "gay relationships," "enduring love between persons of the same gender," or "same-sex eroticism" (112, 166-17). ________________________________________________________ 4. D.S. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. (London: 1975) 38. 5. J. Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (Chicago: 1980). 6. Several tranlation of I Tim 1:10 are: KJV, "them that defile themselves with mankind"; ASV, "Abusers of themselves with men"; NASB, "homosexuals"; RSV, NKJV, NRSV, "sodomites"; NEB, NIV, "perverts"; GNB, "sexual perverts"; In I COr 6:9 these occur: KJV, "abusers of themselves with mankind"; ASV, "Abusers of themselves with men"; NASB, RSV, "homosexuals"; NKJV, "sodomites"; NEB, "homosexual persversion." The RSV and NEB derive their translation from two Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai which GBN has as "homosexual perverts." NRSV has the two words as "male prostitutes" in the text, and "sodomites" in the footnote. The active idea predominates among the commentators as well; it is the primary assumption. 7. Boswell, Christianity 344. Yet this was no a word "available to Paul for a male prostitute," for it does not occur at all in any literature prior to Paul (as a serach in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae using IBYCUC confirms). If Paul coined the term, it would have no prior history, and all such discussion about its lack of usage in contemporary non-Christian and Christian literature is meaningless. 8. Again this would be expected if Paul coined the word. 9. The key phrase here apparently is "discussoin," for Boswell admits later (350 n.42) that it occurs in quotes of Paul but there is no discussion in the context. Hence the implication is that we cannot tell what these writer (Polycarp "To the Philippian 5:3"; Theophilus "Ad Autolycum 1.2, 2.14";Nilus "Epistularum libri quattuor 2.282"; Cyril of Alexandria "Homiliae diversae 14"; "Sybilline Oravle 2.13") meant. Yet Polycarp, who was a disiple of Hohn the Apostle and died about A.D. 155, argues in the context that young men should be pure. He uses only the three terms pornoi, malakoi, and arsenokoitai from Paul's list. This at least makes Boswell's use of "all" subjective. Apparently Clement of Alexandria "Paedogogus 3.11"; Sromata 3.18"; also belong here. 10.. Yet Eusebius uses it in "Demonstraionis evangelicae 1." 11. Either Boswell is misrepresenting the facts about Chrysostom's use of arsenokoitai and its form (about 20) in the vice lists of I Cor 6 or I Tim 1, or he is begging the question by denying that the word can mean homosexual when Chrysostom uses it. Yet the meaning of arsenokoitai is the goal of his and our study, whether in the lists or other discussions. Boswell later admits (351) that Chrysostom uses the almost identicl form arsenokoitos in his commentary on I Cor. Although Boswell suggests that the passage is strange, it may be that Paul is seeking to make a refinement in arsenokoitai. 12. Apparently Jerome is a significant omission here, since he renders arsenokoitai as "masculorum concubitores," corresponding "almost exactly to the Greek" (348 n.36). footnotes: _______________________ 5. D.S. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. (London: 1975) 38. 6. J. Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (Chicago: 1980). Several tranlation of I Tim 1:10 are: KJV, "them that defile themselves with mankind"; ASV, "Abusers of themselves with men"; NASB, "homosexuals"; RSV, NKJV, NRSV, "sodomites"; NEB, NIV, "perverts"; GNB, "sexual perverts"; In I COr 6:9 these occur: KJV, "abusers of themselves with mankind"; ASV, "Abusers of themselves with men"; NASB, RSV, "homosexuals"; NKJV, "sodomites"; NEB, "homosexual persversion." The RSV and NEB derive their translation from two Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai which GBN has as "homosexual perverts." NRSV has the two words as "male prostitutes" in the text, and "sodomites" in the footnote. The active idea predominates among the commentators as well; it is the primary assumption. 7. Boswell, Christianity 344. Yet this was no a word "available to Paul for a male prostitute," for it does not occur at all in any literature prior to Paul (as a serach in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae using IBYCUC confirms). If Paul coined the term, it would have no prior history, and all such discussion about its lack of usage in contemporary non-Christian and Christian literature is meaningless. 8. Again this would be expected if Paul coined the word. 9. The key phrase here apparently is "discussoin," for Boswell admits later (350 n.42) that it occurs in quotes of Paul but there is no discussion in the context. Hence the implication is that we cannot tell what these writer (Polycarp "To the Philippian 5:3"; Theophilus "Ad Autolycum 1.2, 2.14";Nilus "Epistularum libri quattuor 2.282"; Cyril of Alexandria "Homiliae diversae 14"; "Sybilline Oravle 2.13") meant. Yet Polycarp, who was a disiple of Hohn the Apostle and died about A.D. 155, argues in the context that young men should be pure. He uses only the three terms pornoi, malakoi, and arsenokoitai from Paul's list. This at least makes Boswell's use of "all" subjective. Apparently Clement of Alexandria "Paedogogus 3.11"; Sromata 3.18"; also belong here.

I've done all those things, and I've regretted it, and I learned a lesson or two. So far an aspirin, a good talk with your wife, or a one week vacation has cured me -- no need for group therapy or strange religions! Cheers, Kent

#[reply to [email protected] (Frank O'Dwyer)] # #>>The problem for the objectivist is to determine the status of moral #>>truths and the method by which they can be established. If we accept #>>that such judgements are not reports of what is but only relate to #>>what ought to be (see naturalistic fallacy) then they cannot be proved #>>by any facts about the nature of the world. # #>This can be avoided in at least two ways: (1) By leaving the Good #>undefined, since anyone who claims that they do not know what it is is #>either lying or so out of touch with humanity as to be undeserving of a #>reply. # #If the Good is undefined (undefinable?) but you require of everyone that #they know innately what is right, you are back to subjectivism. No, and begging the question. see below. #>(2) By defining the Good solely in terms of evaluative terms. # #Ditto here. An evaluative statement implies a value judgement on the #part of the person making it. Again, incorrect, and question-begging. See below. # #>>At this point the objectivist may talk of 'self-evident truths' # #Pretty perceptive, that Prof. Flew. # #>>but can he deny the subjectivist's claim that self-evidence is in the #>>mind of the beholder? # #>Of course; by denying that subject/object is true dichotomy. # #Please explain how this helps. I don't see your argument. I don't see yours. It seems to rest on the assertion that everything is either a subject or an object. There's nothing compelling about that dichotomy. I might just as well divide the world into subject,object, event. It even seems more sensible. Causation, for example, is an event, not a subject or an object. Furthermore, if subject/object were true dichotomy, i.e. Everything is either a subject or an object Then, is that statement a self-evident truth or not? If so, then it's all in the mind of the beholder, according to the relativist, and hardly compelling. Add to that the fact that the world can quickly be shoved in its entirety into the "subjective" category by an idealist or solipsist argument, and that we have this perfectly good alternate set of categories (subject, object, event) [which can be reduced to (subject, object, quality) without any logical difficulty] and why yes, I guess I *am* denying that self-evident truths are all in the mind of the beholder. #>>If not, what is left of the claim that some moral judgements are true? All of it. #>If nothing, then NO moral judgements are true. This is a thing that #>is commonly referred to as nihilism. It entails that science is of #>no value, irrepective of the fact that some people find it useful. How #>anyone arrives at relativism/subjectivism from this argument beats me. # #This makes no sense either. Flew is arguing that this is where the #objectivist winds up, not the subjectivist. Furthermore, the nihilists #believed in nothing *except* science, materialism, revolution, and the #People. I'm referring to ethical nihilism #>>The subjectivist may well feel that all that remains is that there are #>>some moral judgements with which he would wish to associate himself. #>>To hold a moral opinion is, he suggests, not to know something to be #>>true but to have preferences regarding human activity." # #>And if those preferences should include terrorism, that moral opinion #>is not true. Likewise, if the preferences should include noTerrorism, #>that moral opinion is not true. Why should one choose a set of #>preferences which include terrorisim over one which includes #>noTerrorism? Oh, no reason. This is patently absurd.... # #And also not the position of the subjectivist, as has been pointed out #to you already by others. Ditch the strawman, already, and see my reply #to Mike Cobb's root message in the thread Societal Basis for Morality. I've responded over there. BTW - I don't intend this as a strawman, but as something logically entailed by relativism (really any ethical system where values are assumed to be unreal). It's different to say "Relativists say..." than "relativism implies...".

Jim and Andy both have it incorrect I believe: The *facts* are what is there, the processes that exist in the present or the physical evidence of the processes having occured in the past. These *facts* exist with or without a theory. The *theory* tries and explains the *facts* and how they relate to the rest of the physical universe in a manner that is both coherent and useful, that it can be used to make predictions. The *facts* of gravity, evolution, electromagnetic radiation, relativity, atoms will exist and behave in the way in which they behave regardless of whether we have a theory to try and explain how they interact... or even why. A theory never really becomes a fact... but a theory can predict the existence of a previously unknown fact, and if we find this fact as the theory predicted we say the *theory* is *supported* by the *facts*. A theory is a mental construct, a speculation, a model. If it is a good model, it may be useful. In science a theory is something that is supported by the evidence, considerable evidence, sometimes *all* of the evidence. A *hypothesis* is a new fledgling theory because there is not yet enough evidence to support it. When a new hypothesis is proposed to replace an existing theory, it must explain *all* of the facts that the current theory explains and at least some of the facts that the current theory could not and/or predict new facts. It is so simple.... I'm surprised that this subject gets beat to death about once a month. A quick glance in a dictionary would clear up 99% of the confusion and bandwidth in this newsgroup. Then we could talk about really important things like, why do men have nipples? -David Utidjian- [email protected]

[my stuff about dealing with defferences deleted] i am sorry; i did not mean to. i think i understand how your experiences were much worse than the small bit of ridicule i have had to put up with. i guess i didn't really understand before; now i do. wow, pretty conservative church. (please excuse me if this seems like a ridiculous understatement to you.) (on a side note, that "under God" wasn't in there until recently -- i believe my father, who is in his sixties, remembers saying the pledge of allegiance without that in there. i don't know the history behind that though.) emotional blackmail -- ouch. thank goodness (i'll be neutral in my thanks here :) ) i was raised in a completely tolerant household, so that i could make my own decisions! so atheism doesn't have to be taught, but christianity does. i guess i can see that, although i can see a child believing in some sort of god without anything other than his/ her own imagination as a basis. (sorry, i guess this is sort of minor) [my query about parallel between lack of choice for homosexuals and lack of choice for him as an atheist deleted] hmm, i wonder why i am a christian then? this isn't a flame, this is a real wonder. does anyone else have opinions to offer on why you believe in something that hasn't necessarily been "proven" to you? sounds like you are an atheist by nature, then. or is it possible that at least part of it is due to the apparently repressive nature of the christianity of your childhood? if this is getting too personal perhaps you should ignore it, or we can take it to email. this may have been a general remark; you do not sound broken to me, but indeed stronger. yes, i agree with that. i've seen some of the damage repressive religion can do, and as a result i intend to raise my own children as much as i can to look around before accepting one religious stand (atheism is included in this) and to _question everything_ -- this is very important. i can see that.

On one of the morning shows (I think is was the Today Show), David Koresh's lawyer was interviewed. During that interview he flipped through some letters that David Koresh wrote. On one of letters was written in Hebrew (near the bottom of the page): koresh adonai

No, which is why I want an investigation. Who ever said he was? What is obvious is that he was defending himself, and his followers, from the government. Whether you think he was right or wrong in this is another question. If he was right, then he had the moral right to kill those kgBATF agents. --Ray Cote

Ultimately it rests with personal opinion...in my opinion. :-) The question doesn't make sense to me. Maybe it would be better to ask, "What makes a democracy better than [for example] a totalitarian regim?"

Here is someones "biblical" claim for the characteristics of Satan: And separately: We have here three distinct claims concerning the results of the devil's decision making, a specific desire, and a physical description. Now, in support (aside from the minor detail that an author seldom writes an unbiased account of the opposition) we see: ISA 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! ISA 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into -------------------- heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit ----------------------------------------------------- also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: ISA 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. ISA 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. Doesn't say sits on God's throne. Says will exhault throne above the stars. DAN 10:12 Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words. DAN 10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me ------------------------------ one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, ------------------------ came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. DAN 10:14 Now I am come to make thee understand what shall be- fall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days. See who is being discussed? EZE 28:12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of ----------- Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up ----- the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. EZE 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every pre- cious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the dia- mond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the em- erald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy ta- brets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. EZE 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. EZE 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. EZE 28:16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. EZE 28:17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. EZE 28:18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. EZE 28:19 All they that know thee among the people shall be as- tonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

The universe, mirrored in a puddle. Isn't it amazing how there *always* seems to be *another* bottle of bheer there? Aleph *one* bottles of beer on the wall, Aleph *one* null bottles of beer! you, too, are a puddle. As above, so below.

On 21-Apr-93 in Re: ABORTION and private he.. Not so in PA. Recently the gender inequity in auto insurance was removed. Just a point.

[Someone quoted the following. I've removed the name because it's not clear which name goes with which level of quote. --clh] On the basis of these examples I would say that Joe Moore was only wrong in claiming Augustine as a prime mover of the sin=sex view. These quotes clearly equate sexuality with defilement and incontinance, even within the marriage relationship (else they would not apply to Mary after her marriage to Joseph). So Joe's assignment of the reasoning behind the concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary does seem to be supported by these quotes.

From a parallel thread. Much about definitions of bombs, etc. deleted. [...] Mathew, I agree. This, it seems, is the crux of your whole position, isn't it? That the US shouldn't have supported Hussein and sold him arms to fight Iran? I agree. And I agree in ruthlessly hunting down those who did or do. But we *did* sell arms to Hussein, and it's a done deal. Now he invades Kuwait. So do we just sit back and say, "Well, we sold him all those arms, I suppose he just wants to use them now. Too bad for Kuwait." No, unfortunately, sitting back and "letting things be" is not the way to correct a former mistake. Destroying Hussein's military potential as we did was the right move. But I agree with your statement, Reagan and Bush made a grave error in judgment to sell arms to Hussein. So it's really not the Gulf War you abhor so much, it was the U.S.'s and the West's shortsightedness in selling arms to Hussein which ultimately made the war inevitable, right? If so, then I agree. [more deleted.] Regards,

I also heard the Romans had a large Solar festival on this day because this day, about 3 days after the Winter Solstice, was when you could notice a change in the shadows and be sure that the Sun was indeed returning. In fact, I remember the latin phrase Natalis Solis Invicti (sp!) associated here. I can't say for certain when Saturnalia was, since I can't locate my Master Holiday List. I think it was 2 weeks or so however.

Once the Rushdie situation exploded into the media, the Muslim voice on the matter of the book was effectively restricted to short video bytes showing the dramatic highlights of Muslim demonstrations. For every twenty or so newspaper, magazine articles, interviews etc. supporting Rushdie, there would appear one Muslim voice. This person was usually selected based on how dramatic and incoherent he was, not on his knowledge of Islam or the situation at the time. This approx. twenty to one ratio continued throughout the escalation of the crisis, with Rushdie in the central spotlight as the man of the moment, the valiant defender of everyman's right to free speech decoupled from responsibility. (As an aside, it's interesting that while the hue and cry about freedom of speech went up, some books (defaming certain ethnic and religious groups) continued to be banned here. It was felt that they injured the sensibilities of these groups and presented a false image which could promote feelings of hate towards these groups. For Muslims this kind of double standard was annoying.) Rushdie saw this spotlight as a golden opportunity to lash out at "organized" Islam, and he did so with admirable verbal skill. The only kind of Islam which Rushdie finds palatable is what he calls a "secular" Islam - an Islam separated from it's Qur'an, it's Prophet, God, its legislation, and most importantly from any intrusion into any political arena. Fine - Rushdie made his views known - the Muslim's made their anger at his book known. The scale of the whole affair erupted into global proportions - it was, by this time, already a political situation - affecting governments as well as individuals. The situation was a serious one, with far-reaching political implications. At the centre of this turmoil was Rushdie, throwing fuel on the fire - engaged in a personal crusade that made him oblivious to any sense of caution. Now you may feel that the person in the centre of a worldwide storm such as this has no responsibility, has no reason to exercise restraint of any kind, has no obligation to perhaps step back momentarily out of the spotlight till matters calm down. Perhaps you even feel that he is justified in "boldly" defying the anger of all those who dare to take umbrage at his literary work, no matter what insult they find within it. Perhaps you see him as a kind of secular "heroic Knight",mounted on the his media steed, doing battle with the "dragon" of Islamic "fundamentalism". Well Khomeini saw him as a disingeneous author who grew up in a Muslim atmosphere, knew well what Muslim's hold dear, who wrote a book which mischievously uses certain literary conventions to slander, insult, and attack Islam and its most notable personalities - who, when faced with a situation that became a worldwide crisis, continued with his mischief in the world stage of the media - who, even after people were injured and killed because of the magnitude and emotion of the situation, continued his mischief, instead of having the good sense to desist. Khomeini saw the crisis as mischief making on a grand scale, mischief making that grew in scale as the scale of the crisis enlarged. The deaths of Muslims around the world and Rushdie's continued media mischief even after this, was the triggering factor that seemed to decide Khomeini on putting a stop to the mischief. The person at the centre of all these events was Rushdie - he was the source of the continuing mischief - all media support, government support was just that - support. The source was Rushdie (and his publishers, who were nothing short of ecstatic at the publicity and were very happy to see Rushdie constantly in the media). The Islamic rulings that deal with people who engage in this kind of grand-scale mischief making, was applied to Rushdie. I have made no attempts at justification, only at explanation. "Image" is the chief concern of Muslim 'apologists' for Islam and for Rushdie. If Muslims willingly relegated themselves to becoming a sub-culture within a larger secular culture, such that the secular principles and laws had precedence over the laws of Islam - then I have no doubt that Islam would then be thought to have a good "image" (Principally because it would by and large reflect the secular image). A "good image" usually means " be more like me". Your attempts at TOTALLY exonerating Rushdie reflect exactly the attitude that resulted in the polarization brought about by the crisis.

You may not think that it is fair, but how many sins do you know of that affect only the sinner? Is it fair for us even to be able to get into Heaven? Do we have a _right_ to Heaven, even if we were to lead sinless lives? Anyway, your argument seems to be saying, "If _I_ were God, I certainly wouldn't do things that way; therefore, God doesn't do things that way." Isaiah 55:8-9: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Original Sin is biblical: Romans 5:12-14: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come." 1 Corinthians 15:22: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

Ok, let me see if I can get all this out concisely. I am on an information gathering venture regarding the various expressions of Christianity/churches there are. My husband and I come from very different, but completely Christian backgrounds. I was a Lutheran when I met him and he was a born and raised Church of Christ member. At first I agreed with a lot of what the C of C was about, I wanted to move from the liturgical based Lutheran church to something a little more Biblical based. However over the last year, I've been regretting changing to the Church of Christ for a number of reasons - for one thing I am not a fundamentalist and believe that a few things in the Bible are socio-cultural in nature and don't relate to the Christian doctrine. One of my sorest spots is the role of women. I believe that through Mary and other women, Chris validated women as worthy disciples - but in the C of C the writings of Paul are taken without exception and I am told that I am not an equal partner in my marriage but the lesser member, I am to submit to my husband in all things (if I hear that verse one more time....) and I am not to take an active role in anything which might be construed as putting me in authority over men (ie leading prayers, conducting Bible studies etc). The last straw was when the Elders at our church came down on one of our college groups because it was all-women and they wanted a man to lead the study. Also my husband and I really resent the way everyone at our church feels that if you aren't a conservative republican - you aren't a REAL Christian (I got told that nobody who voted for Clinton should call themselves a Christian). Hence we are subjected during the service to long prayers calling for things we flatly dont agree with. We are also don't agree with the C of C's dread of any new "movement" being led by the young people. So, we have been church hunting with NO success. I want a reasonably biblical based church where women are viewed as whole people no matter what their calling ( C of C really looked down on career women). Christopher is looking for a church with deeply rooted religious convictions, with adult baptism and a church where the members still bring their Bibles to service. We are so confused here and we're drifting around trying to find a place where we both feel loved and can express our faith honestly and without reservation. If anyone can point us in a direction we'd be thrilled! I'm afraid that it will be very hard for me to go back to C of C and even harder for me to stay churchless for long. any responses would be welcome the diel family

: : > Surely you are not equating David Koresh with Christianity? The two are : > not comparable. : : This is always an option: when the sect is causing harm, re-label : the cult to something else. : : Cheers, : Kent Good point. I would not doubt that DK could have spouted verse and debated with best. According to reports his extensive Bible knowledge was one way he sucked in the fools (followers?). Quote bible all you want. I too judge what you say be what you do and even more by if it makes sense. Sense, common that is. Doesn't seem so common after all!

"CHRISTIANITY IN CRISIS" by: Hank Hanegraaff "Controversy for the sake of controversy is a sin. Controversy for the sake of truth is a divine command." -Dr. Walter Martin Dr. Walter Martin personally selected Hank Hanegraaff to succeed him as President of the Christian Research Institute -- the largest evangelical counter-cult organization in the world. In this skillful, careful treatment of an explosive subject, Hanegraaff documents and examines how the beliefs of the Word of Faith movement clearly compromises and confuse the essentials of the historic Christian faith. For the first time ever, this large and influential movement is legitimately labeled as cultic. In this book, Hanegraaff discusses such leaders of the Word of Faith movement as E.W. Kenyon and the Twelve Apostles of "another gospel" (Gal 1:6-9) (Kenneth E. Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, Frederick K.C. Price, John Avanzini, Robert Tilton, Marilyn Hickey, Paul (David) Yonggi Cho, Charles Capps, Jerry Savelle, Morris Cerullo, and Paul and Jan Crouch). The book is now available through Harvest House Publishers and should be in most Christian Book Stores soon. You can order a hard-back copy through CRI for $14.99 by calling 1-800-443-9797 and avoid retail mark-ups. The Christian Research Journal, which is a quarterly publication by CRI has an article in it's most recent issue just released called, "What's Wrong With The Word Faith Movement?" This is a good article that will inform you of each of the teachers above, and tide you over until your book arrives. If you are interested in receiving the Journal yourself, you can order it from CRI at the number above for $14 a year. It is the best source of the most-accurate and well-researched info in Christiandom today.

}It is so simple.... I'm surprised that this subject gets }beat to death about once a month. A quick glance in a dictionary }would clear up 99% of the confusion and bandwidth in this }newsgroup. Reading Stephen Jay Gould's essay "Evolution as Fact and Theory" wouldn't hurt, either. It appears in _Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes_. } Then we could talk about really important things }like, why do men have nipples? See Gould's "Male Nipples and Clitoral Ripples" in _Bully for Brontosaurus_. Gee, this is easy.

: The willingness of true believers : to die for their belief, be it in Jesus or Jim Jones, is : well-documented, so martyrdom in and of itself says little. It does say something about the depth of their belief. Religion has both deluded believers and con men. The difference is often how far they will follow their beliefs. I have no first hand, or even second hand, knowledge of how the original apostles died. If they began a myth in hopes of exploiting it for profit, and followed that myth to the death, that would be inconsistent. Real con men would bail out when it was obvious it would lead to discomfort, pain and death.

God ItSelf appeared to me and spoke to me, saying "Rawlins has been listening to a deamon, and has been taken in by its satanic words!"

Question for those of you who seem to be fundamentalists (Stephen Tice, the Cotera, Joe Gaut, et al)(apologies if I've mislabelled any of you, I've only started reading t.r.m since the BD disaster. But I know the Cotera is a fundy) and are defending Koresh and his beliefs as an example of True Christianity under persecution from the the Big Bad Secular State: what is your opinion of his reported sexual habits? If the reports are accurate, what IYO does this say about the quality of his Christianity? Or are the allegations just part of the Big Cover-Up? (I remain deliberately neutral on the cause of the fire: I wouldn't put it past Koresh to have torched the place himself. On the other hand, if the propane-tank-accident story is correct, I wouldn't put it past the FBI to try to cover its ass by claiming Koresh did it. I hope your government does a VERY thorough investigation of the whole debacle, and I'll be disappointed if a few heads don't roll. The authorities seem to have botched the original raid, and in the matter of the fire, are guilty of either serious misjudgement, or reckless endangerment.)

Though this will be addressed in the series of articles I'm posting now under "ARESNOKOITIA", I can't wait. This just really blew my socks off. Read I Tim 1: 3-11. Verses 3-8 speaks against those who have perverted the teachings of the Mosaic Law. In vv.9-10, we have, *IN ORDER*, the 5th thru the 9th commandments and in the midst of this listing is "homosexuals." The decalogue, above everything else, is seen as God's absolute. If you don't believe in absolutes, then you have nothing do do with Jehovah of the OT, which Paul reveals to be the Messiah of the NT. "Lord Christ Jesus" transliterates to read "Jehovah's Anointed Savior." In I Cor5, we see the same emphasis of moral separation from the pagan gentiles as we do in Lev 18-20. In I Cor 6:9-10, only one notation (drunkards) is not found in Lev 18-20. Paul was not naive in his use of the LXX. He knew full well how he was using the Law of God that was given in the OT, for application in the NT. As I've said, the Law was fulfilled, not done away with. This understanding is thoroughly rebutted in DeYoungs article that is being posted. Please refer to it. We can do better than "probably" which is not an adequate defense against the statement that Paul's culture didn't have the same understanding of homosexuality as ours. Again read the article because it uses facts. I think I do, because I have worked in the homosexual community by means of working with AIDs patients. The pastoral is merely the practical application of the theological truth however. Those who are working thru the issue of homosexuality need to have our love and understanding just as with a friend who is contiplating cheating on his wife or a friend who lives with his girlfriend, yet you continue to witness to him. But, once the choice is made, and there is no remorse, then I feel that Paul's "pastoral" care, as presented in the Corinthian Church, come to bear significance. THe one in active rebellion should be placed outside of the church if a believer, and if a non-believer, then one wipes his sandels and leaves it in Gods hand. If there was a member in your youth group who was constantly pawing at the little girls, you wouldn't hesitate to deal with the matter quickly and decisivly. That, in part, betrays the present "political correctness" of the issue. Pederasty is not accepted at the present, but some how we are to accept homosexuality because the latter is politically correct, while the former is not -at least not yet. THis is how the morals decay. I guess this would follow the liberal application in the political realm of economics. The liberals want to tax the rich in the federal, yet in their own states, when they try to get businesses to settle there, they give tax incentives to these same richies. It comes down to a moral code of relativeness, or to use the cultural thing, politically correct -at the moment. --Rex

[email protected] (Kevin Marshall) <[email protected]> Faith and dogma are dangerous because they cause people to act on faith alone, which by its nature is without justification. That is what I mean by the word ``faith'': belief without justification, or belief with arbitrary justification, or with emotional (irrational) justification. For example, when someone says that God exists, that they don't know why they believe God exists, they can just feel it, that's faith. Dogma is bad because it precludes positive change in belief based on new information, or increased mental faculty. Faith and dogma are irrational. The faith and dogma part of any religion are responsible for the irrationality of the individuals. I claim that faith and dogma are the quintessential part of any religion. If that makes (the much overused in this context) Buddism a philosophy rather than a religion, I can live with that. Science is not a religion, because there is no faith nor dogma. Have you noticed that philosophers tend to be atheists? If a philosopher is not an atheist, s/he tends to be called a theologian. A Christian tends to consider Christianity sacred. Christianity is a special set of beliefs, sanctioned by God himself, and therefore, to conceive of changing those beliefs is to question the existence of That Being Who Makes No Mistakes. Faith comes into play. Dogma comes into play. ``The lord works in mysterious ways'' is an example of faith being used to reconcile evidence that the beliefs are flawed. Sure, interpretations of what ``God said'' are changed to satisfy the needs of society, but when God says something, that's it. It was said, and that's that. Since God said it, it is unflawed, even if the interpretations are flawed. Science, (as would be practiced by atheists) in contrast, has a BUILT IN defence against faith and dogma. A scientist holds sacred the idea that beliefs should change to suit whatever is the best information available at the time, AND, *AND*, ****AND***, a scientist understands that any current beliefs are deficient in some way. The goal is to keep improving the beliefs. The goal is to keep changing the beliefs to reflect the best information currently available. That's the only rational thing to do. That's good philosophy. Can you see the difference? Science views beliefs as being flawed, and new information can be obtained to improve them. (How many scientists would claim to have complete and perfect understanding of everything? None---it would put them out of a job!) Religion views its beliefs as being perfect, and the interpretations of those beliefs must be changed as new information is acquired which conflicts with them. It's easier for someone to kill a person when s/he doesn't require a good rational justification of the killing. I don't consider ``he's Jewish'', or ``he was born of Jewish parents'', or ``this document says he's Jewish'' to be good rational justification. Clinton and the FBI would love for you to convince them of this. It would save the US taxpayer a lot of money if you could.

What is the basis of the idea of hell being a place of eternal suffering? If it is Biblical, please reference. Here's my train of thought: If God is using the Earth to manufacture heavenly beings, then it is logical that there would be a certain yield, and a certain amount of waste. The yield goes to Heaven, and the waste is burned (destroyed) in Hell. Why is it necessary to punish the waste, rather than just destroy it? Peace and joy,

: Ok, what's more important to gay Christians? Sex, or Christianity? : Christianity I would hope. Would they be willing to forgo sex : completely, in order to avoid being a stumbling block to others, : to avoid the chance that their interpretation might be wrong, : etc? If not, why not? Heterosexuals abstain all the time. : (It would be nice if protestant churches had celibate orders : to show the world that sex is not the important thing in life) The difference is that straight members are given the choice of abstaining or not, and celibacy is recognized as a gift, given only to some. Gays are told that, as a condition of acceptance, they _must_ be celibate. I don't believe that God gives me a forced choice between having a relationship with God and expressing my heterosexuality (within the context of a faithful relationship). Nor do I believe that God gives that forced choice to gays. Sex or Christianity is a false dichotomy. : To tell the truth, gay churches remind me a lot of Henry the VIII : starting the Church of England in order to get a divorce (or is : this a myth). Note that I am not denying that gay Christians are : Christian. For my part, gay churches remind me of blacks starting their own churches either because they were not allowed at all in the white churches, or, at best, only with special restrictions that did not apply to white members.

... I had an ehum, interesting experience with the Rosicrucians, or at least Rosicrucians of some sort last Sunday. They had advertised that they were holding a lecture titled The Graal of the King -- the room of the heart (which rhymes in Swedish). Out of curiosity, I went to the lecture. There were four people there apart from the two Rosicrucians, one woman and two men apart from me. The Rosicrucians were male, both of them. First one of them told us about the Rosicrucians and Lectorium Rosicrucianum, which was founded in Harlem, NL in 1925. He read straight from a piece of paper, which I at that point was because he lacked experience in talking in front of people, but the other guy read, too, and he was used to holding speeches, I could tell. The first guy also said that the R:s are a mystical Christian order, and that they base their teachings on the teachings of the Kathars (English?) from the thirteenth century. The other guy took over, reading from his piece of paper in a fairy-tale teller's voice. What he said sounded like a load of crap to me. Of course that might be because I am unenlightened or something. What made me a bit suspicious, was the way they first said that we all contained something divine, and could find our way back to divinity, then that we couldn't become divine as the persons we are currently, but if we worked really hard we would reach eternal bliss. Maybe I've read too much RAW, but it sounded very much like the things he talks about in the chapter _How to robotize people and brainwash your friends_ in _Prometheus rising_. It was very interesting to watch the two Rosicrucians. The one holding the actual lecture, obviously was top dog, and the other one seemed to be a true believer. I got the impression that the top dog had more distance to the faith than the true believer, that he used it to gain power and admiration. He spoke like a fairy-tale teller, whenever he remembered. ;) The information brochure is at home. Should you want their address, please e-mail me. --Ceci

Brian Ceccarelli wrote (that's me): Kent Sandvik responds: I think I see where you are coming from Kent. Jesus doesn't view guilt like our modern venacular colors it. "Feelings" have nothing to do with guilt. Feelings arise from the state of being guilty. Feeling and guilt are mutally exclusive. Feelings are a reaction from guilt. Jesus is talking about the guilt state, not the reaction. Let me give you an example: Have you ever made a mistake? Have you ever lied to someone? Even a little white lie? Have you ever claimed to know something that you really didn't know? Have you ever hated someone? Have you ever been selfish? Are you guilty of any one of these? The answer is of course, YES. You are guilty. Period. That is it what Jesus is getting at. No big surprise. Feelings do not even enter the picture. Consider Jesus's use of the word "guilt" as how a court uses it. Jesus is concerned that everyone should admit that they are guilty of being imperfect. The Bible calls it the state that we are all sinners. We all do bad things. Even the most insignficant thing that we do wrong is proof of our guilt that we are all sinners. It is it in our nature to do bad things. We are sinners, therefore we do bad things. Being a sinner is fact. It is not a pleasant fact. But it is just a fact. We are not perfect. Calling us sinners should have no more emotional charge to you than calling you a human being. Guilty as charged. You can handle your guilt in one of two ways: Acknowledge you made a mistake, learn from it, and try to not do it again--in the meantime, not punishing yourself for it: which is the way Jesus wants you to handle or it. This is the healthy way. Or two, the destructive way: put yourself down, slap yourself and feel like crap, never forgive yourself, force yourself to say a thousand Hail Marys . . . even to suicide. This the way Jesus does NOT want us to deal with it. All people fall into this category to some extent in their lives. Jesus is not in the business of saving us from this guilt feeling. Jesus is in the business of showing us how much he loves us despite our guilt. Jesus knows we are guilty. That isn't new to him. It is no big deal to him. He just wants you to realize that this sinful nature destroys the relationship between you and him. That is what he wants you to know. Why, because he wants to have your company. You are immensely valuable to him. Jesus wants a relationship with you, however, in our present sinful nature, we are incapable of having this relationship. God is perfect. We are not. You cannot fit a square peg into a round hole. However, God has provided a way for us to change our nature so that we can have a relationship with him. God has provided Jesus, so that whosoever just believes in Jesus, will have their nature changed. The Holy Spirit will move it. And now divine nature is now within lives our very being--and us and God communicate with each through his unifying Holy Spirit. The benefits of this are endless. For with the divine nature living within us, we can now see our imperfections better. We can now head them off at the pass. With the power of the Holy Spirit living in us, we now have his power to help us overcome our shortcomings. Because the divine nature lives within us, we can now understand profound Bible passages that never before we could understand. Because the divine nature now lives within us, we now have authority over demonic forces. And lastly, because the divine nature now lives within us, we have eternal life--for the Holy Spirit is eternal. The relationship with Jesus is of the utmost importance. Because it is not what you do in life that qualifies you to belong to heavenly kingdom, it is your relationship to the living God. Remember what Jesus said at the tail end of Matthew when he separated the "goats from the sheep". Many people in the last day will ask him, "Didn't I prophesy in your name and do miracles, and do good things in your name?" And what did Jesus say? "Depart from me, for I never *knew* you." That is the cornerstone of Christianity, Kent. Jesus must know you as his friend. It is your relationship to Jesus. If he is your friend and you are his, you will be counted among those who will share in his inheritance in heaven. Good. It shows that you have a strong self-image--that you love yourself. That is the second greatest commandment Jesus taught. If only more people could do as you do. As I said before, in the common english venacular, "feeling guilty" has a different meaning than the state of guilt. I believe what we all need in our personalities is a lot less ego, a lot less self-centeredness, and a lot more unconditional love.

It isn't. And I wasn't aware that this O'Hair chick was a reader of a.a., so that doesn't support your assertion that the argument is "the whole basis of a great many HERE rejecting...".

Does anyone belong to or know any facts about the Christian Reformed Church?

FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY by Robert E. McElwaine, Physicist Ninety to a hundred years ago, everybody "knew" that a heavier-than-air machine could not possibly fly. It would violate the "laws" of physics. All of the "experts" and "authorities" said so. For example, Simon Newcomb declared in 1901: "The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which man shall fly long distances through the air, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for the demonstration of any physical fact to be." Fortunately, a few SMART people such as the Wright Brothers did NOT accept such pronouncements as the final word. Now we take airplanes for granted, (except when they crash). Today, orthodox physicists and other "scientists" are saying similar things against several kinds of 'Free Energy' Technologies, using negative terms such as "pseudo-science" and "perpetual motion", and citing so-called "laws" which assert that "energy cannot be created or destroyed" ("1st law of thermodynamics") and "there is always a decrease in useful energy" ("2nd law of thermodynamics"). The physicists do not know how to do certain things, so they ARROGANTLY declare that those things cannot be done. Such PRINCIPLES OF IMPOTENCE are COMMON in orthodox modern "science" and help to cover up INCONSISTENCIES and CONTRADICTIONS in orthodox modern theories. Free Energy Inventions are devices which can tap a seemingly UNLIMITED supply of energy from the universe, with- OUT burning any kind of fuel, making them the PERFECT SOLUTION to the world-wide energy crisis and its associated pollution, degradation, and depletion of the environment. Most Free Energy Devices probably do not create energy, but rather tap into EXISTING natural energy sources by various forms of induction. UNLIKE solar or wind devices, they need little or no energy storage capacity, because they can tap as much energy as needed WHEN needed. Solar energy has the DIS-advantage that the sun is often blocked by clouds, trees, buildings, or the earth itself, or is reduced by haze or smog or by thick atmosphere at low altitudes and high latitudes. Likewise, wind speed is WIDELY VARIABLE and often non-existent. Neither solar nor wind power are suitable to directly power cars and airplanes. Properly designed Free Energy Devices do NOT have such limitations. For example, at least three U.S. patents (#3,811,058, #3,879,622, and #4,151,431) have so far been awarded for motors that run EXCLUSIVELY on permanent MAGNETS, seemingly tapping into energy circulating through the earth's magnetic field. The first two require a feedback network in order to be self-running. The third one, as described in detail in "Science & Mechanics" magazine, Spring 1980, ("Amazing Magnet-Powered Motor", by Jorma Hyypia, pages 45-48, 114-117, and front cover), requires critical sizes, shapes, orientations, and spacings of magnets, but NO feedback. Such a motor could drive an electric generator or reversible heatpump in one's home, YEAR ROUND, FOR FREE. [Complete descriptive copies of U.S. patents are $3.00 each from the U.S. Patent Office, 2021 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202; correct 7-digit patent number required. Or try getting copies of BOTH the article AND the Patents via your local public or university library's inter-library loan dept..] A second type of free-energy device, such as the 'Gray Motor' (U.S. Patent #3,890,548), the 'Tesla Coil', and the motor of inventor Joseph Newman [see SCIENCE, 2-10-84, pages 571-2.], taps ELECTRO-MAGNETIC energy by INDUCTION from 'EARTH RESONANCE' (about 12 cycles per second plus harmonics). They typically have a 'SPARK GAP' in the circuit which serves to SYNCHRONIZE the energy in the coils with the energy being tapped. It is important that the total 'inductance' and 'capacitance' of the Device combine to 'RESONATE' at the same frequency as 'EARTH RESONANCE' in order to maximize the power output. This output can also be increased by centering the SPARK GAP at the 'NEUTRAL CENTER' of a strong U-shaped permanent magnet. In the case of a Tesla Coil, slipping a 'TOROID CHOKE COIL' around the secondary coil will enhance output power. ["Earth Energy: Fuelless Propulsion & Power Systems", by John Bigelow, 1976, Health Research, P.O. Box 70, Mokelumne Hill, CA 95245.] During the 1930's, an Austrian civil engineer named Viktor Schauberger invented and partially developed an 'IMPLOSION TURBINE' (German name, 'ZOKWENDLE'), after analyzing erosion, and lack of erosion, in differently shaped waterways, and developing sophisticated mathematical equations to explain it. As described in the book "A Breakthrough to New Free-Energy Sources", by Dan A. Davidson, 1977, water is pumped by an IMPELLER pump through a LOGARITHMIC-SPIRAL-shaped coil of tubing until it reaches a CRITICAL VELOCITY. The water then IMPLODES, no longer touching the inside walls of the tubing, and drives the pump, which then converts the pump's motor into an ELECTRIC GENERATOR. The device seems to be tapping energy from that of the earth's rotation, via the 'Coriolis effect', LIKE A TORNADO. [ It can also NEUTRALIZE GRAVITY! ] A fourth type of Free Energy Device is the 'McClintock Air Motor' (U.S. Patent #2,982,261), which is a cross between a diesel engine (it has three cylinders with a compression ratio of 27 to 1) and a rotary engine (with solar and planetary gears). It burns NO FUEL, but becomes self-running by driving its own air compressor. This engine also generates a lot of heat, which could be used to heat buildings; and its very HIGH TORQUE makes it ideal for large trucks, preventing their slowing down when climbing hills. [David McClintock is also the REAL original Inventor of the automatic transmission, differential, and 4-wheel drive.] Crystals may someday be used to supply energy, as shown in the Star Trek shows, perhaps by inserting each one between metal capacitor plates and bombarding it with a beam of particles from a small radioactive source like that used in a common household smoke detector. One other energy source should be mentioned here, despite the fact that it does not fit the definition of Free Energy. A Bulgarian-born American Physicist named Joseph Maglich has invented and partially developed an atomic FUSION reactor which he calls 'Migma', which uses NON-radioactive deuterium as a fuel [available in nearly UNLIMITED quantities from sea water], does NOT produce radioactive waste, can be converted DIRECTLY into electricity (with-OUT energy-wasting steam turbines), and can be constructed small enough to power a house or large enough to power a city. And UNLIKE the "Tokamaks" and laser fusion MONSTROSITIES that we read about, Migma WORKS, already producing at least three watts of power for every watt put in. ["New Times" (U.S. version), 6-26-78, pages 32-40.] And then there are the 'cold fusion' experiments that have been in the news lately, originally conducted by University of Utah researchers B. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. Some U.S. Navy researchers at the China Lake Naval Weapons Center in California, under the direction of chemist Melvin Miles, finally took the trouble to collect the bubbles coming from such an apparatus, had them analyzed with mass-spectrometry techniques, and found HELIUM 4, which PROVES that atomic FUSION did indeed take place, and enough of it to explain the excess heat generated. There are GOOD INDICATIONS that the two so-called "laws" of thermodynamics are NOT so "absolute". For example, the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson developed a comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, which he calls the 'Reciprocal System', (which he describes in detail in several books such as "Nothing But Motion" (1979) and "The Universe of Motion" (1984)), in which the physical universe has TWO DISTINCT HALVES, the material half and an anti-matter half, with a CONTINUOUS CYCLE of matter and energy passing between them, with-OUT the "heat death" predicted by thermodynamic "laws". His Theory explains the universe MUCH BETTER than modern orthodox theories, including phenomena that orthodox physicists and astronomers are still scratching their heads about, and is SELF-CONSISTENT in every way. Some Free Energy Devices might be tapping into that energy flow, seemingly converting "low-quality energy" into "high-quality energy". Also, certain religious organizations such as 'Sant Mat' and 'Eckankar' teach their Members that the physical universe is only the LOWEST of at least a DOZEN major levels of existence, like parallel universes, or analogous to TV channels, as described in books like "The Path of the Masters", by Dr. Julian Johnson, 1939, and "Eckankar: The Key to Secret Worlds", by Sri Paul Twitchell, 1969. For example, the next level up from the physical universe is commonly called the 'Astral Plane'. Long-time Members of these groups have learned to 'Soul Travel' into these higher worlds and report on conditions there. It seems plausible that energy could flow down from these higher levels into the physical universe, or be created at the boundary between them, given the right configuration of matter to channel it. This is supported by many successful laboratory-controlled experiments in PSYCHO-KINESIS throughout the world, such as those described in the book "Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain". In terms of economics, the market has FAILED. Inventors do not have enough money and other resources to fully develop and mass-produce Free Energy Equipment, and the conventional energy producer$ have no desire to do so because of their VE$TED INTERE$T$. The government is needed to intervene. If the government does not intervene, then the total supply of energy resources from the earth will continue to decline and will soon run out, prices for energy will increase, and pollution and its harmful effects (including the 'GREENHOUSE EFFECT', acid rain, smog, radioactive contamination, oil spills, rape of the land by strip mining, etc.) will continue to increase. The government should SUBSIDIZE research and development of Free Energy by Inventors and universities, subsidize private production (until the producers can make it on their own), and subsidize consumption by low-income consumers of Free Energy Hardware. The long-range effects of such government intervention would be wide-spread and profound. The quantity of energy demanded from conventional energy producer$ (coal mining companie$, oil companie$ and countries, electric utilitie$, etc.) would drop to near zero, forcing their employees to seek work elsewhere. Energy resources (coal, uranium, oil, and gas) would be left in the ground. Prices for conventional energy supplies would also drop to near zero, while the price of Free Energy Equipment would start out high but drop as supply increases (as happened with VCR's, personal computers, etc.). Costs of producing products that require large quantities of energy to produce would decrease, along with their prices to consumers. Consumers would be able to realize the "opportunity costs" of paying electric utility bills or buying home heating fuel. Tourism would benefit and increase because travelers would not have to spend their money for gasoline for their cars. Government tax revenue from gasoline and other fuels would have to be obtained in some other way. AND ENERGY COULD NO LONGER BE USED AS A MOTIVE OR EXCUSE FOR MAKING WAR. Many conventional energy producer$ would go out of business, but society as a whole, and the earth's environment and ecosystems, would benefit greatly. It is the People, that government should serve, rather than the big corporation$ and bank$. For more information, answers to your questions, etc., please consult my CITED SOURCES (patents, articles, books). UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.

He appears to have believed that. He had a view which was condemned by conciliar action, which is often taken to be condemnation of the idea of reincarnation. What was actually condemned was the doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul before birth. Similar, but not exactly the same thing. Larry Overacker ([email protected]) --

More to the point, how long are atheists going to be insulted by the disgraceful addition of religious blah-blah to our money and out pledge? -- "What's big, noisy and has an IQ of 8?"

I wasn't sure if this was the right newsgroup to post this to, but I guess the misc is there for a reason. Here goes... I am getting married in June to a devout (Wisconsin Synod) Lutheran. I would classify myself as a strong agnostic/weak athiest. This has been a a subject of many discussions between us and is really our only real obstacle. We don't have any real difficulties with the religious differences yet, but I expect they will pop up when we have children. I have agreed to raise the children "nominally" Lutheran. That is, Lutheran traditions, but trying to keep an open mind. I am not sure if this is even possible though. I feel that that the worst quality of being devoutly religous is the lack of an open mind. Anyway, I guess I'll get on with my question. Is anyone in the same situation and can give some suggestions as to how to deal with this? We've taken the attitude so far of just talking about it a lot and not letting anything get bottled up inside. Sometimes I get the feeling we're making this much bigger than it actually is. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Also, please e-mail responses since I don't get a chance to read this group often. :-(

Fine, but one of the points of this entire discussion is that "we" (conservative, reformed christians - this could start an argument... But isn't this idea that homosexuality is ok fairly "new" [this century] ? Is there any support for this being a viable viewpoint before this century? I don't know.) don't believe that homosexuality is "acceptable to Him". So your scripture quotation doesn't work for "us".

[The only reason for the death penalty is revenge?? If you are going to try to refute a position, try to refute the whole position or acknosledge that you are only speaking to small piece of the problem. Broad sweeping "the only reason, " etc on as tough nut to crack as the death penalty reallly doesn't help much. Every year the FBI releases crime stats showing an overwhelming amount of crime is committed by repeat offenders. People are killed by folks who have killed (who knows how many times) before. How aobut folks who are for the death penalty, not for revenge, but to cut down on recidivism?]

(Deletion) (rest deleted) That's a fallacy, and it is not the first time it is pointed out. For one, you have never given a set of morals people agree upon. Unlike a football. Further, you conveniently ignore here that there are many who would not agree on tghe morality of something. The analogy does not hold. One can expect sufficiently many people to agree on its being a football, while YOU have to give the evidence that only vanishing number disagrees with a set of morals YOU have to give. Further, the above is evidence, not proof. Proof would evolve out of testing your theory of absolute morals against competing theories.

I am not exactly known as a Flower Child Pacifist, but lets call cowpoop cowpoop. "The peaceful attempt to serve the warrant" consisted of the following actions, in order: 1) BATF agents forcing their entry of the "compound" through second story windows. 2) BATF agents loosing some grenades (allegedly "stun" or "flash" grenades) which promptly detonated. *After* which, according to the tapes I have seen, the B-D started shooting back. Now exactly how is it that someone breaking into private property and tossing grenades around is considered "peaceful" by *anyone*? You *think* on that. (Which is not to say I do not still hold my previous and entirely correct notions about what should be worn and what arms should be used in assaulting a building.)

Once again, this posting has been delayed for about a week by falling between some software cracks... [Here follows an introduction to the controversial incident, and an apologetic explanation purporting to show why it couldn't actually have happened. The historicity of the episode doesn't matter to what follows] I don't know whether I'm quoting Gregg or Zakaria below. Anyway, back to current affairs, Among others; this incident is not something Rushdie or Watt or anyone else dug up from nowhere, it is a well known story, a myth if you will, known (according to Umar Khan) to "Every Muslim school boy and girl", and so presumably to Rushdie, and to Gibreel Farishta. Yes, this is what writing fiction is all about. Rushdie was writing about a crisis of faith, and chose this myth to present it, by placing the actor "Gibreel" in the role of the angel whose name he took. Rushdie was not writing a history or theology book, and nowhere claims or implies that this is what actually happened. It's somewhat like stories woven around the relationship between Jesus and the reformed prostitute Mary Magdalene (another myth). Or those referring to the Arthurian mythos, or the Grail legend, or the Wandering Jew, or dozens of others. If you can stand to read the work of a blasphemer, consider Salman Rushdie's children's book "Haroun and the Sea of Stories" for an idea of the way a storyteller -- a specific storyteller -- works with existing story lines. No. Muhammad's [Mahound's] integrity is not really impugned in this part of the story, and there's no reason to think this was Rushdie's intent: Gibreel, as the archangel, produces the verses (divine and satanic), though he doesn't know their provenance. It is not implied (in a straight reading) that Muhammad influences them: " *Not my voice* I'd never know such words I'm no classy speaker never was never will be but this isn't my voice it's a Voice. Mahound's eyes open wide, he's seeing some kind of vision, staring at it, oh, that's right, Gibreel remembers, me. He's seeing me. My lips moving, being moved by. What, whom? Don't know, can't say. Nevertheless, here they are, coming out of my mouth, up my throat, past my teeth: the Words. Being God's postman is no fun, yaar. Butbutbut: God isn't in this picture. God knows whose postman I've been." It's ambiguous: is Mahound somehow manipulating Gibreel? Is it Satan? Or something else? The answer is not given. To be sure, the question is raised. This novel explores faith and the role of revelation in religion, among other things. Addressing loss of faith implicitly raises questions about the truth of revelation, but this novel proposes no answers, at least not directly. The very existence of a newsgroup named "alt.atheism" raises the same questions, more forcefully, and does propose some answers, which is the real relevance. If Rushdie's mild fictional exploration is "filth and lies", and he "asked for what he got", are we next on the fatwa list? (That's a rhetorical question, of course.) -- Jim Perry [email protected] Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC These are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.

Well, as I remember Jacoby's "Mythmaker" talks about this to cite one source -- but I'm not sure if all Christians have read this book. In addition my social experiences is from being raised and educated as a Lutheran, having a lot of Christian friends, and I even have played in two Christian rock bands! So, over to you, do you have any counter claims, sources et rest that shows that Christianity does not have the concept of a social promise that is independent on the social status? Cheers, Kent

Yes, that's exactly what I felt. My heart just felt that what I was being taught was *wrong* -- a basically good message, but framed in errors. I could not with a clear conscience accept that women were somehow not equal to men, that homosexuals are "guilty" of their lifestyle, that pride in one's work is a bad thing, that Jesus died for me -- I don't want ANYBODY to die for me, especially as an impersonal act where the person can't possibly even *know* me well enough to really know if I'm worth dying for or not. I was never able to accept the bit about Jesus's death being a good thing. If that means that I'm just not comprehending a basic message of Christianity, then so be it. Maybe I'm just not compatible with Christianity. I just refuse to follow rules blindly, and since I can't even convince myself that your god even EXISTS in the way you describe it, I've got to just follow my own conscience in these matters. Don't think that my morals are shoddy or nonexistent just because I don't believe in your god. I will not steal, and I will not murder -- not because I fear divine repudiation, but because these just *aren't* in my character. You may think there's nothing keeping me from just running around on a murdering spree, stealing things when I'm able, insulting people for the heck of it, because I'm not answerable to anyone; but you'd be wrong. I'm answerable to myself. A life like that would be a cheap life; I happen to want to earn respect in myself. My initial break with Christianity came after a lot of soul-searching and a lot of wondering why I could no longer feel the 'presence' of God with me. I finally decided that I had once "felt" this presence just as I had "felt" my mighty teddy bear beside me when I was a little tyke, protecting me from the monsters under the bed -- that I had believed in God just as I had believed in the teddy bear, as something of an emotional crutch to protect me from perceived dangers. Since then, I've never abandoned the possibility that maybe your supernatural trinity does exist. But there are a few times when, in my darkened room by my bed, I have set aside everything I believe for a moment and called out to whatever's out there, because I want to know the truth even if it means abandoning everything I know. And I have not yet received an answer. Nope. It may well be unknowable. Scientists have suggested that the universe may be finite and wrap around on itself (the three-dimensional universe may be mapped onto a four-dimensional supersphere in the same way you can map a two-dimensional plane onto a three-dimensional sphere; see _Sphereland_, the sequel to _Flatland_, for more thoughts on this). Our entire universe might just be an electron in a four- dimensional universe, which in turn may only be an insignificant speck in a universe above that, and so on and so forth until the variables become too much for us to even speculate on. That is, there's no possible way for us to know exactly how we came to be, so there's no reason at all to believe that your God exists nor had anything to do with it. Christians have provided me with nothing except quotes from your holy book, and all sorts of tactics to try to get me to believe: guilt trips, insinuations that I'm without morals, arguments from disbelief ("how can you possibly believe that God *doesn't* exist?"), and so forth. All I'm asking is for you to convince me. I want to be convinced, but it's not going to be easy. Having had years upon years of contact with your religion from both the inside and the outside, I view it as harmful in many ways. It preys on people who want to find meaning in their lives, and once it's got these people, it teaches them to have pity (and sometimes starkly intolerant) of others who do not share these views. Maybe you'll say that your religion doesn't teach that -- but I've got to judge Christianity from the Christians I know. I feel that it is entirely possible and good to have faith in one's self, and to be a positive influence on society for no better reason than that. So I hope that my words in this newsgroup will at least make some people think. I want Christians to realize that there are perfectly valid lifestyles and opinions that have nothing to do with their deity whatsoever, and I want people who are considering Christianity to realize that Christianity does not hold the sole key to a happy, fulfilled life. I have known some very nice Christians who have done some very nice things. I think what sets these people apart from the general masses is that they recognize that their religious beliefs may be wrong, and they know the weaknesses of their religion, yet they still decide to believe, but they keep their beliefs to themselves and do not think any less of people who don't agree with them. Precisely my point. You've still not given me a reason to be a Christian instead of a Buddhist or a Moslem... ... just as the Moslems aren't religious, and the Buddhists aren't religious. Who *is* religious, then?

[I write:] #>>> Imagine that 1000000 Alterian dollars turn up in your bank account every #>>> month. Suppose further that this money is being paid to you by (a) your #>>> big-hearted Alterian benefactor, or (b) a bug in an Alterian ATM. Let's #>>> suppose that this is a true dichotomy, so P(a)+P(b)=1. Trouble is, Alterius #>>> is in a different universe, so that no observations of Alterius are possible #>>> (except for the banks - you couldn't possibly afford it ;-) #>>> #>>> Now let's examine the case for (a). There is no evidence whatsoever that #>>> there is any such thing as a big-hearted Alterian benefactor. However, #>>> P(exists(b-h A b)) + P(not(exists(b-h A b)) = 1. On the grounds that #>>> lack_of_evidence_for is evidence_against when we have a partition like #>>> that, we dismiss hypothesis (a). #>>> #>>> Turning, therefore, to (b), we also find no evidence to support that #>>> hypothesis. On the same grounds as before, we dismiss hypothesis (b). #>>> #>>> The problem with this is that we have dismissed *all* of the possible #>>> hypotheses, and even though we know by construction that the money #>>> arrives every month, we have proven that it can't, because we #>>> have dismissed all of its potential causes. # #>> That's an *extremely* poor argument, and here's why. #>> #>> Premise 1: "...this money is being paid to you by [either] (a) your big- #>> hearted Alterian benefactor, or (b) a bug in an Alterian ATM". #>> #>> Thus each monthly appearance of the bucks, should it happen, is an #>> observation on Alterius, and by construction, is evidence for the #>> existence of [either the benefactor or the bug in the ATM]. #>> #>> Premise 2: no observations on Alterius are possible. # #> #> (except for the banks - you couldn't possibly afford it ;-) #> #> You forgot to include this. My premise is actually: #> #> Premise 2: The cardinality of the set of possible observations on Alterius #> is one. # #>> This is clearly contradictory to the first. # #> Not if you state it properly. # #>> Trouble is, on the basis of premise 2, you say that there can be no evidence #>> of [either the benefactor or the bug], but the first premise leads to the #>> conclusion that the appearance of the bucks, should it happen, is evidence #>> for the existence of [either the benefactor or the bug]. #>> #>> Voila, a screaming contradiction. # #[with my highlights - SC] #> But in a strawman argument. There is only evidence for OneOf(Benefactor,Bug). #> No observation to distinguish Benefactor from Bug is possible. That is #> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ #> not evidence for Bug, and neither is it evidence for Benefactor. Nor #> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ #> is true to say that this hypothetical universe appears exactly as #> if there were no Benefactor/Bug (two statements, both would be false). # #This is still contradictory. It reduces to # # (1): Alterian dosh arriving in my account is due to [benefactor or bug]. # # (2): this is not evidence for [benefactor], neither is it evidence for # [bug] (meaning that it doesn't lend more weight to one than to the # other) # # (3): therefore no evidence can exist for [benefactor] and no evidence # can exist for [bug]. # #But (3) relies on a shift in meaning from (2). When you say (paraphrased) #in (2) that this is not "evidence for [benefactor]", for example, what you #mean is that it's no *more* evidence for [benefactor] than it is for [bug]. Yes, that's what I mean. #In (3), however, you've shifted the meaning of "evidence for [benefactor]" #so that it now means `absolute' "evidence for [benefactor]" rather than #`relative' "evidence for [benefactor]" w.r.t. [bug]. Not really, I meant evidence that would tend to one over the other. I think this is just a communications problem. What I am trying to say, in my clumsy way, is that while I buy your theory as far as it relates to theism making predictions (prayer, your 'Rapture' example), I don't buy your use of Occam's razor in all cases where A=0. In my example, one couldn't dismiss [benefactor] or [bug] on the grounds of simplicity - one of these is necessary to explain the dosh. I brought up the 'one-by-one dismissal' process to show that it would be wrong to do so. From what you're saying in this post, it seems you agree, and we're talking at cross-purposes. #(3) is still in contradiction to (1). # #Some sums may help. With B = benefactor, b = bug, d = dosh arrives in account: # # (1) implies P(B+b | d) = 1 # #Assuming that P(Bb | d) = 0, so it's either the benefactor *or* a bug #which is responsible if the bucks arrive, but not both, then # # P(B+b | d) = P(B | d) + P(b | d) # #so # # P(B | d) + P(b | d) = 1 # #but (3) implies that # # P(B | d) = 0 and P(b | d) = 0. No, this isn't what I meant. P(B | d) = 0.5 and P(b | d) = 0.5, with necessarily no new observation (we've already seen the dosh) to change those estimates. I was trying to say (again, in my clumsy way) that it would be _wrong_ to assign 0 probability to either of these. And that's precisely what use of the Razor does in the case of gods - gods are one class of hypothesis (there are many others) belonging to a set of hypotheses _one_of_which_ is necessary to explain something which otherwise would _not_ be satisfactorily explained. It can be thrown out or retained on grounds of non-rational preference, not of science or statistics. Alternatively, one could chuck out or retain the lot, on the grounds that the answer can't be known, or that the notional probability estimates are effectively useless, being equal (agnosticism/weak atheism). #> As they do when the set M is filled by "the universe is caused by x", #> where x is gods, pink unicorns, nothing, etc. - and no observation #> tends to one conclusion over the other. # #Exactly the point I was making, I think. So we don't "throw out" any of #these, contrary to your assertion above that we do. Some people do, Simon, and they think they are doing excellent science. My sole point was that they aren't. #>> Only observations which directly contradict the hypothesis H[i] (i.e. x #>> where P(x | H[i]) = 0) can cause P(H[i]) to go to zero after a finite #>> number of observations. Only in this case do we get to throw any of the #>> hypotheses out. # #> Exactly my point, though I may have been unclear. # #You said the diametric opposite, which I guess is the source of my confusion. I was merely trying to illustrate the incorrectness of doing so. #> What I'm trying to say is that while you are correct to say that absence of #> evidence can sometimes be evidence of absence, this does not hold true for #> all, or perhaps any, versions of theism - and it isn't true that those for #> which it does not hold can be discarded using the razor. # #On the contrary, those for which it does not hold are *exactly* those which #can be discarded using the Razor. See my post on the other branch of this #thread. Then you seem to be guilty of the contradiction you accuse me of. If the razor holds for gods, then it holds for all like hypotheses. Which means that you're assigning P(x | H[i]) =0 for all i, though we've already established that it's not correct to do so when SUM(P(x|H[i]))=1 over all i. #> Simply put, anyone who claims to have a viable proof of the existence or #> non-existence of gods, whether inductive or no, is at best mistaken, and #> at worst barking mad. # #Luckily I make no such claim, and have specifically said as much on numerous #occasions. You wouldn't be constructing a strawman here, would you Frank? #Although that doesn't, of course, rule out my being barking mad in any case #(I could be barking mad in my spare time, with apologies to Cleese et al). # #But I think you miss the point once again. When I say that something is #"evidence against" an hypothesis, that doesn't imply that observation of #the said something necessarily *falsifies* the hypothesis, reducing the #estimate of P(H | data) to zero. If it *reduces* this quantity, it's still #evidence against H. No, I got that. I'm talking about the case when A=0. You're clearly correct when A!=0. And I'm not constructing a strawman (though it's certainly possible that I've misunderstood what you're saying). However, by any standards, a system that says when A=0, gods are highly unlikely, and when A!=0 gods can be dismissed using the Razor, is a system purporting to be an inductive proof that gods either don't exist, or are unnecessary to explain any or all phenomena. In my experience, systems such as this (including those which purport to prove that gods exist) always contain a fallacy upon close examination. If that's not what you're saying, then please put me straight.

Hmm, it seems that this is the core of Christianity then, you have to feel guilty, and then there's this single personality that will save you from this universal guilt feeling. Brian, I will tell you a secret, I don't feel guilty at all, I do mistakes, and I regret them, however I've never had this huge guilt feeling hanging over my shoulder. If things happen wrong, I will try to learn from the mistakes and go on. This all is a very clear indication that you need a certain personality type in order to believe and adjust to certain religious doctrines. And if your personality type is opposite, then you are not that easily attached to a certain world view system. All I know is that I don't know everything. And frankly speaking I don't care, life is fun anyway. I recognize that I'm not perfect, but that does not hinder me from have a healthy and inspiring life. There are humans that subscribe to the same notion. The nice thing is that when you finally shake off this huge burden, the shoulders feel far more relaxed! Cheers, Kent

ra> Robert, you keep making references to "orthodox" belief, and saying ra> things like "it is held that..." (cf. "Kermit" thread). On what ra> exact body of theology are you drawing for what you call "orthodox?" "Orthodox" is a compound word. It comes from 'orthos' (straight, true, right) and from 'doxa' (opinion, doctrine, teaching). I use orthodox to refer to 'right teaching.' Right teaching is derived from letting God speak to us through the Bible. This can be from reading simple truths in the Scriptures and by using the Bible to interpret the Bible. ra> Who is that "holds that" Luke meant what you said he meant? I think that it is apparent from reading the Scriptures that are pertinent. Luke 23:43 records Christ's promise to the repentant thief who hung on an adjacent cross: "Truly I say to you, today you will be with Me in paradise." But was it not until later that Christ rose from the dead and ascended to heaven? If Christ Himself was not in heaven until Sunday, how could the repentant thief have been there with Him? The answer lies in the location of "paradise" when Jesus died. Apparently paradise was not exalted to heaven until Easter Day. Jesus refers to it in the middle of the story of the rich man and Lazarus as "Abraham's Bosom," to which the godly beggar Lazarus was carried by the angels after his decease (Luke 16:19-31). Thus "Abraham's Bosom" referred to the place where the souls of the redeemed waited till the day of Christ's Resurrection. It was not yet lifted to heaven but it may well have been a section of hades (Hebrew: Sheol), reserved for believers who had died in the faith but would not be admitted into the glorious presence of God in heaven until the price of redemption had actually been paid on Calvary; or even that none would precede the presence of Jesus back to glory with the Father. Doubtless it was the infernal paradise that the souls of Jesus and the repentant thief repaired after they each died on Friday afternoon. But on Sunday, after the risen Christ had first appeared to Mary Magdalene (John 20:17) and her two companions (Matthew 28:9), presumably He then took up with Him to glory all the inhabitants of infernal paradise (including Abraham, Lazarus, and the repentant thief). We read in Ephesians 4:8 concerning Christ: "Ascending on high, He led captivity captive; He gave gifts unto men." Verse 9 continues: "But what does `He ascended' mean but that He also descended to the lowest parts of the earth?" -i.e., to hades. Verse 10 adds: "He who descended is the same as He who ascended above all the heavens." Presumably He led the whole band of liberated captives from hades (i.e., the whole population of preresurrection paradise) up to the glory of heaven. ra> Whenever your personal interpretation of Biblical passages is ra> challenged, your only response seems to be that one needs merely to ra> "look at the Bible" in order to see the truth, but what of those who ra> see Biblical things differently from you? I think that this characterization is faulty. Whenever my 'personal interpretation' is questioned, I usually give a reason. As for those that see things differently, please, put forward where there is a valid difference, and we can discuss it. I seem to be seeing from you the notion that any difference in how one views the Bible is somehow legitimate, except, or course, for the stuff that I glean from it. Put forward a contrary view and perhaps we can have a discussion on that topic. But to decry something that I put forward, without putting forward something else to discuss, and to dismiss what I put forward while giving credence to other alleged views that have yet to be put forward is simply being contentious. ra> Are we to simply assume that you are the only one who really ra> understands it? If you believe that something that I have drawn from Scripture is wrong, then please, show me from Scripture where it is wrong. Simply stating that there are other views is not a proof. Show it to me from Scripture and then we can go on.

Who is Ram Das? According to his brochures, he is a.k.a. Richard Alpert, PhD, and is somehow associated with the: Seva Foundation 8 N. San Pedro Road San Rafael, CA 94903 and the: Hanuman Foundation 524 San Anselmo Ave #203 San Anselmo, CA 94960 He speaks publically on such topics as "Consciousness & Current Events," and has written some books and recorded some tapes on similar subjects. Why do I care? My wife wants to go to one of his lectures. When I asked why, she said Ram Das was "the greatest spiritual leader of our time!" Several years ago my wife got involved with a religious cult, and we went through 9 months of hell that almost ended our marriage before she quit. Let's just say I'm concerned about this Ram Das and her interest, especially so with the recent religious cult events from Texas. I need information - solid and real - so I know what I'm dealing with. If you have any information about Ram Das or the organizations shown above, I would be very interested in your correspondence. Please reply via e-mail to me at: scott%[email protected] Thank you! -- Scott Roleson

What do you accept as a fact -- the roundness of the earth (after all, the ancient Greeks thought it was a sphere, and then Newton said it was a spheroid, and now people say it's a geoid [?])? yourself (isn't your personal identity just a theoretical construct to make sense of memories, feelings, perceptions)? I'm trying to think of anything that would be a fact for you. Give some examples, and let's see how factual they are by your criteria (BTW, what are your criteria?). "Gravity is _not_ a fact": is that a fact? How about Newton's and Einstein's thoughts about gravity -- is it a fact that they had those thoughts? I don't see how any of the things that you are asserting are any more factual than things like gravity, atoms or evolution. In short, before I am willing to consider your concept of what a fact is, I'm going to have to have, as a minimum, some examples of what you think are facts.

Not true. Only an observer at rest at infinite distance from the black hole will see the particle take infinite time to reach the horizon. In the particle's own reference frame, it takes a very finite time to reach the horizon and the singularity. The math does indeed predict this. Take a look at Mitchner, Thorne, and Wheeler's _Gravitation_. Peter Walker

The OED gives the etymology of "sibyl" as coming from the ancient Greek sigma iota beta upsilon lambda lambda alpha ( S i b ih l l a ) which is claimed to come from the Doric sigma iota omicron beta upsilon lambda lambda alpha ( s i o b ih l l a ) which (if I read it properly) in turn came from the Attican (Athenian) theta epsilon omicron beta omicron upsilon lambda eta ( th eh o b o ih l ae ) I don't know much about Attis, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that this God was tied to the Athenian capital Alpha tau tau iota kappa upsilon sigma (a t t i k u s)

CALL FOR VOTES This is the official 2nd Call For Votes for this newsgroup. NAME OF PROPOSED NEWSGROUP: ========================== soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya CHARTER: ======= A religious newsgroup, which would mainly be devoted to fostering an understanding and appraisal of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, its beliefs, ideology and philosophy. It will also discuss the distinction between Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and other branches of Islam. In addition this newsgroup will also discuss the beliefs, teachings, and philosophy of all the other major religions to pro- mote universal religious appreciation, awareness, and tolerance. The newsgroup may also be used to post important religious events within the world wide Ahmadiyya Islamic Community. VOTING INSTRUCTIONS: ==================== Voting is being held since the first call for votes appeared (May 4, 1993), and will continue untill May 25, 1993 (23:59:59 GMT) All votes should be received within this period. It gives a total of 21 days for all to vote. All votes in _favor_ of creation of the proposed newsgroup should be sent in a form of a e-mail message to: [email protected] with a clear statement in the body of the message like: I vote YES for soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya I vote in favor of s.r.i.a. etc. Similarly all votes _against_ the proposed newsgroup should be sent in a form of a e-mail message to: [email protected] with a clear statement in the body of the message like: I vote NO for soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya I vote against the creation of s.r.i.a. etc. * You may also include your vote in the SUBJECT header of your mail. * Please make sure to include your FULL NAME, if your mailer does not do that for you. * One person may only vote ONCE. No matter how many e-mail accounts s/he has. Only one vote per person shall be considered valid. * Any ambiguous votes like "I vote YES for S.R.I.A., if ...." shall only be considered comments and would NOT be counted as votes. * Votes received _after_ 23:59:59 GMT, on May 25, 1993, will not be valid and not counted. * In the event of multiple votes being received from the same person, only the last one will be counted. If you change your mind regarding the way you have voted, send your new vote again, your previous vote shall be discarded. * Posting to USENET will NOT be counted a vote. * Please DO NOT send any votes to the e-mail address of the per- son who has posted this CVF. Those votes shall not be counted either. NOTE: An acknowledgement shall be sent to everyone who votes.Two additional CFV's will be posted during the course of the vote. Number(s) of "YES" or "NO" votes will not be disclosed during the the voting period, at the end of which all votes shall be made public. PURPOSE OF THE NEWSGROUP: ======================== The following are the main purposes this group shall achieve: i) To highlight the common beliefs of all major religions and philosophical traditions as they relate to Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. ii) To discuss the doctrines, origin and teachings the Ahmad- iyya Muslim Community, a dynamic world-wide movement. iii) To expound Islamic teachings and beliefs in the Holy Quran and Islamic traditions from the Ahmadiyya Islamic perspective. iv) To emphasize and discuss the similarities between Ahmadi Muslims and followers of other religions of the world and to explore how understanding and respect for each other's faith can be brought about to eliminate religious intol- erance and malice among people of all religious and phil- osophical traditions. v) To look into the origin and teachings of all religions in general and of Islam and Ahmadiyya Muslim Movement in par- ticular, and to use the commonality of origin to foster better understanding among Ahmadi Muslims and other people and to promote an acceptance of universality of fundamental rights to the freedom of conscience. vi) To point out current world problems and suggest solutions to these problems, as offered by different religions and systems of ethical philosophies. vii) To investigate the implications of science on religion with particular emphasis on the Ahmadi Muslim perspective, but with openness to dialogue with people of all religions and philosophical traditions with reasoned positions as to the relationship between religion and empirical science, logic, and scientific ethics. viii) To exchange important news and views about the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and of other religions. ix) To add diversity to the existing religious newsgroups pre- sent on Usenet in the interest of promoting a forum for decorous dialogue. x) To inquire why religious persecution is on the rise in the world and suggest solutions to remedy the ever deterior- ating situation in the world in general and in the Islamic world in particular. xi) To commemorate the contributions to humanity, society and world peace made by the founders and followers of all religions in general and by the International Ahmadiyya Muslim community in particular. TYPE: ==== The group will be MODERATED for orderly and free religious dialo- gue. The moderation will NOT prevent disagreement, dissent, or controversy based on a difference of beliefs or doctrine; rather, the moderators will seek mainly to discourage gratuitously deroga- tory, abusive, or squalid language, and the introduction of issues which are irrelevant based on the provisions of this charter. The moderators have been chosen through personal e-mail and through a general consensus among the proponents by discussion in news.groups. The following moderators have been proposed and agreed upon: Moderator: Nabeel A. Rana <[email protected]> Co-Moderator: Dr. Tahir Ijaz <[email protected]> A BRIEF DESCRIPTION ABOUT AHMADIYYA ISLAM: =============================================== The Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam, an international organi- sation, was found in 1889 in Qadian, India. The founder of this movement, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908), was proclaimed to be the Promised Reformer of this age as foretold in the Scriptures of almost all major religions of the world. He claimed to be the fulfillment of the long awaited second comming of Jesus Christ (metaphorically), the Muslim Mahdi, and the Promised Messiah. The claims of Hazrat Ahmad raised storms of hostility and extreme opposition, which are often witnessed in the history of divine reformers. Even today this sect is being persecuted especial- ly in some of the Muslim regimes. The right of Ahmadi Muslims to openly practice their religion and to define themselves as Muslims has been severely restricted in many Muslim Countries. The United Nations, human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and top leaderships of some countries have voiced their concerns against this denial of basic human and civil liberaties to the members of this movement, but so far to no avail. Despite the opposition and persecution, the movement cont- inues to grow with a current membership of millions from around the world in over 130 countries, who come from diverse ethnic and cul- tural backgrounds. The movement is devoted to world peace and strives towards developing a better understanding of all religions. Ahmadi Muslims have always been opposed to all forms of violence, bigotry, reli- gious intolerance and fundamentalism. Among its many philanthropic activities, the sect has es- tablished a network of hundreds of schools, hospitals, and clinics in many third world countries. These institutions are staffed by volunteer professionals and are fully financed by the movement's internal resources. The movement stresses the importance of educa- tion and leadership. Its members have included a high number of professionals as well as world class individuals. The Ahmadiyya mission is to bring about a universal moral reform, establish peace and justice, and to unite mankind under one universal brotherhood. NEWSGROUP CREATION: ================== The discussion for this proposed newsgroup has now offi- cially ended. Voting will be held for three weeks. If the news- group gets 2/3rd majority AND 100 more "YES/Create" votes than "NO/don't create" votes; the newsgroup shall be created. ABOUT THE VOTE-TAKER: ==================== Mr. Anthony Lest has been asked by the proponents of this newsgroup to act as an official impartial vote-taker for the proposed newsgroup. He has no objection to use his workstation for the purpose of vote-taking. Neither the University of Colora- do, nor Anthony Lest has anything to do with the proposal of the newsgroup. They are just collecting the votes as a neutral third party. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS: ===================== Any questions or comments about the proposed newsgroup may be sent to: Nabeel A. Rana <[email protected]>