Datasets:

dojo

/

newsgroups7_balanced

like 0

Follow

Galileo Internal Hub 1

Precisely my position. As a newbie, I tried the point-by-point approach to debate with these types. It wasted both my time and my lifespan. Ignoring them is not an option, since they don't go away, and doing so would leave one with large stretches of complete anonymity in this group. What's left? Healthy flaming. I'm sure on occassion I've appeared to be little more than a caustic boob to some of the Bobby types. But why waste breath arguing with someone whose most rational though process involves his excretory system? And I stand by my record of recognizing these people long before most of the rest of the group. So let's see what this Timmons character has in store for us... /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Bob Beauchaine [email protected] They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away, and sank Manhattan out at sea.

(Dear Moderator: Would you add this to the BCC faq?) In case there are any ex-members of the "Boston Church of Christ" looking for a support organization, here's the number of "BostonEX" in Burlington, MA: 617-272-1955. -------- s.r.c readers in New England may be interested in seeing a series of news reports about the BCC in the 6 pm nightly news on Channel 5 (WCVB, Boston), for the next few days (starting Wed, 5/19).

It seems faith is the only tool available for emotional purposes due to the tragedy. As such it maybe fills a need, however I'm getting tired to see children dying in pain in Sudan due to lack of food, and assuming that God takes these sufferers to heaven after a painful death. Cheers, Kent

930425 Let's start with the name "Rosicrucian". I took me a long time to come to the conclusion that there is a difference between a *member* of a "rosicrucian" body and BEING *a* ROSICRUCIAN. So when you say that you met some 'rosicrucians' you mean "members of a group that calls themselves rosicrucian". At least that is what your observation suggests :-) Response: This makes much sense to me. This is also true of most religions. There is a difference between being a *member* of a group of people who call themselves 'Hindus' or 'Christians' or 'Pagans' and actually *BEING* any of these. The social groups tend to make very important requirements about not belonging to other 'religions'. I find that the ideal described by the holy texts of most religions can be interpreted in very similar ways so that one could presume that 'mysticism' is the core of every religion and Huxley's 'Perennial Philosophy' is the Great Secret Core of all mystical trads. :> Tony: I'd prefer if you would have stated up front that it was the Lectorium Rosicrucianum, only because they may be confused, by some readers of this newsgroup, with the Rosicrucian Order AMORC based (the USA Jurisdiction) in San Jose, CA; this being the RC org with the most members (last time I looked). Of course, "most members" does not *necessarily* mean "best". Response: Certainly true. I didn't know there WERE any groups which called themselves 'Rosicrucians' that didn't associate with AMORC. Sure, I've heard all the hubbub about the Golden Dawn and Rosae Crucis in relation to all these Western esoteric groups, but hadn't heard about other 'Rosicrucians'. I'll admit my bias. I live in San Jose. :> Tony: "You'll have to trust me" when I tell you that if that lecture/class/whatever had been presented by AMORC, it is unlikely that you would have had the same impression, i.e., you'd probably have had a positive impression more likely than a negative one, IMHO. Response: This may be slightly off. I've met some of these Rosicrucians and have a couple friends in AMORC. The stories I've heard and the slight contact I've had with them does not give me the hope that I'd be received with any kind of warm welcome. I still like to think that most people who are involved with stratified relationships (monogamy, religion, etc.) are in DEEP pain and hope to heal it within such a 'cast'. Tony: It is curious to know that 3 other RC 'orders' (in the USA) claim to be *non- sectarian*. Response: I'd like to know at least the addresses of the 'other orders' which call themselves 'Rosicrucians' and especially those which are 'nonsectarian'. Is this 'nonsectarian' like the Masons, who require that a member 'believe in God by his/her definition'? Tony: I don't see nothing *fundamentally* wrong with "us containing something divine"... And yes I don't like phrases like "eternal bliss" either! :-) Response: Let alone us *BEING* something divine. ;> Tony: BTW, I have read the intro letters of the LRC which they will mail you free of charge. Response: Addresses, phone numbers of groups? I'm into networking. Thanks.

I'm sure there are many people who work with neural networks and read this newsgroup. Please tell Kevin what you've achieved, and what you expect. Indeed. I think dualism is a non-solution, or, as Dennett recently put it, a dead horse. Petri

. Of some relevance to the posts on this subject might be Deut.23:2,

Rick, I think we can safely say, 1) Robert is not the only person who understands the Bible, and 2), the leadership of the LDS church historicly never has. Let's consider some "personal interpretations" and see how much trust we should put in "Orthodox Mormonism", which could never be confused with Orthodox Christianity. In one of his attacks on Christians, the Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie said they "thrash around in...darkness in trying to identify Elohim and Jehovah and to show their relationship to the promised Messiah." He also said Christians are wrong to believe "that Jehovah is the Supreme Deity [God the Father]," and that Christ "came into mortality" as His "Only Begotten" Son. McConkie then stated what Mormons believe today to be the truth about the matter. He said that "Elohim is the Father" and "Jehovah is the Son." "Being thus aware of how far astray the religious intellectualists have gone in defining their three-in-one God, it comes as no surprise to learn that they thrash around in the same darkness in trying to identify Elohim and Jehovah and to show their relationship to the promised Messiah. Some sectarians even believe that Jehovah is the Supreme Deity whose Son came into mortality as the Only Begotten. As with their concept that God is a Spirit, this misinformation about the Gods of Heaven is untrue. The fact is, and it too is attested by Holy Writ, that Elohim is the Father, and that Jehovah is the Son who was born into mortality as the Lord Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah. (Promised Messiah, p. 100) Notice that McConkie said the Christians are as wrong about their "three-in-one God" and their belief that "God is a Spirit" as they are in their understanding of who "Elohim" and "Jehovah" are. Before examining McConkie's attack and its validity, we shall read a few more statements by McConkie and other Mormon sources concerning the words "Elohim" and "Jehovah." McConkie stated: "...the chief designation of Christ that has been preserved for us in the Old Testament, as that ancient work is now published, is the exalted name-title Jehovah. (Promised Messiah, p. 367) "_Elohim_, plural word though it is, is also used as the exalted name-title of God the Eternal Father, a usage that connotes his supremacy and omnipotence, he being God above all Gods. (Mormon Doctrine, p. 224) Agreeing with McConkie on the question of who "Elohim" and "Jehovah" are, the Apostle James E. Talmage stated: "_Elohim_, as understood and used in the restored Church of Jesus Christ, is the name-title of God the Eternal Father, whose firstborn Son in the spirit is _Jehovah_ -- the Only Begotten in the flesh, Jesus Christ. (Jesus the Christ, p. 38) "A Doctrinal Exposition by The First Presidency and the Twelve" apostles of the Mormon Church states that "God the Eternal Father...[is] designate[d] by the exalted name-title 'Elohim'..." (Articles of Faith, p. 466) "...Christ in His preexistent, antemortal, or unembodied state...was known as Jehovah..." (Articles of Faith, p. 471) Today Mormon leaders teach that "Elohim" in the OT refers to God the Father and "Jehovah" refers to Christ. McConkie attacked Christians for saying "Jehovah" can refer to the Father. He stressed that these two "name-titles" should not be changed around so that Christ is called "Elohim" and the Father is called "Jehovah." "...the Father...is Elohim, not Jehovah.... Jehovah is Christ, and Christ is Jehovah; they are one and the same person." (Promised Messiah, p. 111) In the OT of the KJV of the Bible, the Hebrew word "Elohim" is used to refer to the true God, false gods and goddesses, and the judges of Israel. When referring to the true God, "Elohim" is translated with a capital "G." When referring to false gods and goddesses and the judges of Israel, it is translated with a small "g." It is translated four times as "judges" (Exod. 21:6; 22:8-9), once as "judge" (1 Sam. 2:25), twice as "mighty" (Gen. 23:6; Exod. 9:28), once as "angels" (Ps. 8:5), once as "godly" (Mal. 2:15), once as "great" (Gen. 30:8), and once as "very great." (1 Sam. 14:15) The word "Jehovah" is the traditional pronunciation of the tetragrammation YHWH or YHVH with the vowel points taken from the word "Adonai." Many people believe the true pronunciation of the tetragrammation was Yahweh or Yahveh. However, since "Jehovah" rather than Yahweh is the word used by Mormonism, this section will also use "Jehovah" instead of Yahweh to examine the validity of the claims of Mormon leaders regarding that name. "Jehovah," unlike "Elohim," is never used of false gods. It is the personal name of the triune God of the Bible. In the KJV, "Jehovah" is rendered primarily "LORD," sometimes "GOD," and rarely "Lord." Now that we understand something about the words "Elohim" and "Jehovah" and their use by Mormon leaders, we shall consider the Apostle McConkie's attack on Christians for believing the Father is "Jehovah." In trying to prove that "Jehovah" refers exclusively to Christ, McConkie cited several verses from the Bible. Some of these verses and McConkie's interpretation of them will be examined to see whether he was right. Remember, McConkie said the Father is not "Jehovah;" He is only "Elohim." The first example we shall consider involves McConkie's interpretation of Ps. 110:1. Of this verse he stated: "Of whom spake David when his tongue was touched by the Holy Spirit and he testified, "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?" (Ps. 110:1.) Two Lords are here involved: one is speaking to the other; one is greater than the other; one is making provision for the triumph and glory of the other. Who are they and what message is contained in this Messianic prophecy? "What think ye of Christ?" our Lord asked certain of his detractors toward the end of his mortal ministry. "Whose son is he?" Is Christ the Son of God or of someone else? Is he to be born of a divine Parent or will he be as other men -- a mortal son of a mortal father? That he was to be a descendant of David was a matter of great pride to all the Jews. And so they answered, "The Son of David." David's son? Truly he was. But he was more, much more. And so our Lord, with irrefutable logic and to their complete discomfiture, asked, "How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?" That is, if he is only the Son of David, how is it that the great King, acting under inspiration, calls him Lord and worships him as such? And we might add: _Who is the other Lord, the one who spake unto David's Lord?_ Can there be any question as to how Jesus is interpreting the words of the Psalm? He is saying that it means: '_The Father said unto the Son, Elohim said unto Jehovah_, sit thou on my right hand, until after your mortal ministry; then I will raise you up to eternal glory and exaltation with me, where you will continue to sit on my right hand forever.' (Promised Messiah, pp. 101-102) (emphasis added) Agreeing with the above statement by McConkie, the following remark in the Mormon pamphlet _What the Mormons Think of Christ, p. 6 reads: "The Lord [Elohim, the Father] said unto my Lord [Jehovah, the Son]..." (brackets in original) McConkie clearly stated that it is "Elohim" the Father who is speaking to "Jehovah" the Son in this Psalm. However, when one looks at the Hebrew word translated "LORD," it becomes apparent that either the first "LORD" is not the Father or else the Father is "Jehovah." Either way McConkie is wrong. The Psalm reads: "The LORD [Jehovah] said unto my Lord [Adon], Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. (Ps. 110:1) The first "LORD" in this verse is "Jehovah" who Mormonism says is Christ, not the Father. The second "Lord" is the Hebrew word "Adon" (singular for "Adonai," meaning master or lord). If the first "LORD" is the Father and the second "Lord" is the Son, then the Father is "Jehovah" and the Son is "Adon." However, if the Father is not "Jehovah" as McConkie claimed, then the first "LORD" is "Jehovah" the Son, but who, then, is "Adon?" Obviously the Father is "Jehovah" in this Psalm, and His Son is "Adon." Another example involves Isa. 42:6 about which McConkie stated the following: "I the Lord have called thee in righteousness," _Isaiah quoted the Father as saying of Christ_, "and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles." (Isa. 42:6.) (Promised Messiah, p. 81) (emphasis added) McConkie said the Father was speaking of Christ in this passage which reads: "I the LORD [Jehovah] have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles. (Isa. 42:6) According to McConkie, "I the LORD" refers to the Father, and "thine" and "thee" refer to Christ. However, the "LORD" who is speaking is "Jehovah" which means either McConkie was wrong about who is speaking or else the Father is "Jehovah." Another example involves Ps. 22:7-8. Of these verses McConkie stated: shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him." (Ps. 22:7-8.) _The fulfillment, as Jesus hung on the cross_, is found in these words: "The chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God. The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth." (Matt. 27:41-44.) (Promised Messiah, pp. 530-531) (emphasis added) Ps. 22:7-8 reads as follows: "All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the LORD [Jehovah] that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him. McConkie said these verses had their fulfillment "as Jesus hung on the cross." That means the person who was scorned in these verses was Christ. Who, then, was the "LORD" in whom he trusted? It was "Jehovah" the Father. Another example involves Ps. 31:13 and Ps. 41:9. Regarding them, McConkie stated the following: "With reference to the conniving and conspiring plots incident to our Lord's arrest and judicial trials the prophecy was: "They took counsel together against me, they devised to take away my life." (Ps. 31:13.) "Mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me." (Ps. 41:9.) (Promised Messiah, p. 532) Apostle McConkie said these Psalms refer to Christ's "arrest and judicial trials." We shall first consider Ps. 31 and then Ps. 41. While McConkie only quoted verse 13 of Ps. 31, verse 14 will also be included to give a complete understanding of the matter. "For I have heard the slander of many: fear was on every side: while they took counsel together against me, they devised to take away my life. But I trusted in thee, O LORD [Jehovah]: I said, Thou art my God [Elohim]. (Ps. 31:13-14) McConkie said verse 13 referred to Jesus Christ. Verse 14 goes on to tell that He (Christ) trusted in the "LORD" who is called His "God" or "Elohim." Mormonism teaches that the God above Jesus is "Elohim" the Father. Verse 14, however, reveals that the "Elohim" of the man Jesus is "Jehovah" the Father. In Ps. 41, McConkie only quoted one verse; however, two verses will be considered in this examination. "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me. But thou, O LORD [Jehovah], be merciful unto me, and raise me up, that I may requite them. (Ps. 41:9-10) McConkie stated above that verse 9 referred to Judas' role in Christ's death. Since it was Judas who was the "familiar friend" who "lifted up his heel," the pronouns "mine," "I," "my," and "me" in verse 9 must refer to Christ. Notice that at the beginning of verse 10 there is a change of pronoun to "thou," which refers to the "LORD" (Jehovah). Then the pronouns "me" and "I" which refer to Christ are used again. That means Christ was speaking to "Jehovah" the Father in these verses. Another example involves McConkie's following remark about Ps. 110:4. "One of the great Messianic prophecies, spoken by the mouth of David, ever after the order of Melchizedek." (Ps. 110:4.) (Promised Messiah, p. 450) McConkie admitted this is a Messianic prophecy involving Christ. The question is, What in this verse refers to Christ? "The LORD [Jehovah] hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. (Ps. 110:4) Does the "LORD," which is "Jehovah," refer to Christ? If McConkie is right and Jesus is "Jehovah," but the Father is not, then the "LORD" would have to refer to Christ. But who, then, is the one addressed as the "priest forever after the order of Melchizedek?" The Bible reveals that the one referred to is Jesus Christ (Heb. 5:8-10; 6:20; 7); therefore, the "LORD" (Jehovah) in Ps. 110:4 is the Father. Another example involves Isa. 53:4-12. Of these verses McConkie stated: "Of the atoning sacrifice of the future Messiah, Isaiah said... The _Lord_ has laid on him the iniquities of us all.... It pleased the _Lord_ to bruise him... (Promised Messiah, p. 234) (emphasis added) McConkie rightly said these verses refer to "the atoning sacrifice of the future Messiah." However, what he failed to mention is that they also prove that the Father is "Jehovah." Verse 6 reads: "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD [Jehovah] hath laid on him [Christ] the iniquity of us all," and verse 10 reads: "Yet it pleased the LORD [Jehovah] to bruise him [Christ]..." Obviously the "LORD" who laid on Christ "the iniquity of us all" and who bruised Him is God the Father who is called "Jehovah" in these verses. Remember, McConkie stated that "some sectarians even believe that Jehovah is the Supreme Deity," and that Christ "came into mortality" as His "Only Begotten" Son. He called this concept "misinformation" that is "untrue." To prove that it is McConkie who is misinformed and believing untruth, two Scriptural references (2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7) will be examined. McConkie stated the following regarding these Scriptures: "In the midst of a passage that is clearly Messianic, the Lord says of the Seed of David: "I will be his father, and he shall be my son." (2 Sam. 7:14.) In the second Psalm, the whole of which is also clearly Messianic, occurs this statement: "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." (Ps. 2:7.) Paul quotes both of these statements in Hebrews 1:5 and says they are prophecies that Christ would come as the Son of God. (Promised Messiah, p. 143) McConkie cited Heb. 1:5 to show that 2 Sam. 7:14 and Ps. 2:7 refer to Christ who "would come as the Son of God." Since McConkie first referenced 2 Sam. 7:14, this examination will, too. However, along with verse 14, verses 11-13 will also be included. "And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the LORD [Jehovah] telleth thee that he will make thee an house. And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. (2 Sam. 7:11-14) These verses teach that the "LORD" (Jehovah) would have a Son, the Messiah. In the second example McConkie cited Ps. 2:7. This examination will include verse 8. Notice that it is the "LORD" (Jehovah) who says, "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." "I will declare the decree: the LORD [Jehovah] hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. McConkie said these verses of Scripture are "clearly Messianic," and he acknowledged they teach that "Christ would come as the Son of God." What he is not willing to acknowledge, however, is that these Scriptures also teach that the Father is "Jehovah" and that the "sectarians" who believe "Jehovah is the Supreme Deity whose Son" is Jesus Christ, "the Only Begotten," are right in their belief. Another example involves Mic. 5:4. Of this verse McConkie stated the following: "And so, truly, did our Lord act _during his mortal ministry! Truly, this is he of whom it is written_: "He shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God... for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth." (Mic. 5:4.) (Promised Messiah, p. 182) (emphasis added) According to McConkie, the pronoun "He" at the beginning of Mic. 5:4 refers to Christ "during his mortal ministry." Who, then, is the "LORD his God?" Mic. 5:4 reads: "And he [Christ] shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD [Jehovah], in the majesty of the name of the LORD [Jehovah] his God [Elohim]... for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth. Obviously the "LORD" of Jesus Christ is "Jehovah" the Father who is referred to as "Jehovah his Elohim." Another example involves Ps. 2:2 and Isa. 61:1. Of these verses McConkie stated the following: "A number of Messianic passages speak of "the Lord, and...his anointed" (Ps. 2:2), signifying that the Chosen One was consecrated and set apart for the ministry and mission that was his. _Jesus applied these passages to himself_ by quoting Isaiah's prophecy. "The Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek" (Isa. 61:1), and then saying: "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears" (Luke 4:21). (Promised Messiah, pp. 182-183) (emphasis added) The first source McConkie quoted -- Ps. 2:2 -- reads as follows: "The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD [Jehovah], and against his anointed. McConkie said the "anointed" one was Christ. If that is true, who was "Jehovah?" If "Jehovah" is always Christ, who was the "anointed" one? Obviously "Jehovah" is referring to God the Father and the "anointed" is indeed referring to Christ. The second source McConkie cited is Isa. 61:1 which states: "The Spirit of the Lord [Adonai] GOD [Jehovah] is upon me; because the LORD [Jehovah] hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; The one who was anointed to preach, bind up, proclaim, and open was Jesus Christ. Who, then, was the one who anointed Him? This verse says the "LORD" (Jehovah) did the anointing. Again, we face the same problem. If "Jehovah" does not refer to the Father, but only to Christ, then Jesus anointed someone, but who? As McConkie pointed out, "Jesus applied these passages to himself." Therefore, the "Jehovah" who anointed Christ is God the Father. Other examples could be cited to show that McConkie and other Mormon leaders are wrong when they say God the Father is not "Jehovah." However, these should be enough to expose their error. Now, what about Mormonism's claim that Jesus is "Jehovah," but He is not "Elohim?" It is true that Jesus is "Jehovah." The following Scriptures prove this fact: "Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah] the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD [Jehovah] of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. (Isa. 44:6) [Jesus said] ...I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead... (Rev. 1:17-18) "...saith the LORD [Jehovah]...they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son... (Zech. 12:1,10) Behold, he [Christ] cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him... (Rev. 1:7) "...I am the LORD [Jehovah] thy God, the Holy One of Israel... (Isa. 43:3) ...Ye denied the Holy One [Christ] and the Just... (Acts 3:14) "And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD [Jehovah] shall be delivered... (Joel 2:32) "...the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth...there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:10,12) "Behold, the Lord GOD [Jehovah] will come with strong hand...his reward is with him... (Isa. 40:10) ...Behold, I [Christ] come quickly; and my reward is with me... (Rev. 22:12) "...the LORD [Jehovah] my God shall come, and all the saints with thee. (Zech. 14:5) "...at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints. (1 Thess. 3:13) "The LORD [Jehovah] is my shepherd... (Ps. 23:1) [Jesus said] I am the good shepherd... (John 10:14) "...saith the Lord GOD [Jehovah]. I will seek that which was lost... (Ezek. 34:15-16) ...the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. (Luke 19:10) "For I am the LORD [Jehovah] thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour... (Isa. 43:3) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. (Tit. 2:13. See also Jer. 42:5 and Rev. 1:5; Mal. 3:6 and Heb. 13:8; 1 Kin. 8:28,39 and John 2:24-25; Isa. 25:8 and 2 Tim. 1:10; Ps. 107:24,29 and Matt. 8:26; Prov.3:12 and Rev. 3:19) While Mormons are right when they say Jesus is "Jehovah," they are wrong when they say He is not "Elohim." The Bible reveals that "Jehovah" is the only true "Elohim" there is; all others are false. Remember, "Jehovah" is the personal name of the triune God who has revealed Himself in the Bible. Before we consider Biblical quotes which show that "Jehovah" and "Elohim" are not two separate gods as Mormons claims let us first note that not only are both God the Father and Christ addressed as "Jehovah" and "Elohim" but so is the Holy Spirit. "Whereof the _Holy Ghost_..._said_...This _is_ the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. (Heb. 10:15-17) (emphasis on "Holy Ghost" and "said" added) Behold, the days come, _saith the LORD_ [Jehovah], that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah... I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God [Elohim], and they shall be my people.... I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (Jer. 31:31,33-34) (emphasis added) "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the _Holy Ghost_. (2 Pet. 1:21) (emphasis on "Holy Ghost" added) "The Spirit of the LORD [Jehovah] spake by me, and his word was in my tongue. (2 Sam. 23:2. See also Heb. 3:7-11 with Ps. 95:6-11) Let us now continue with the Biblical quotes which show that "Jehovah" and "Elohim" are not two separate gods as Mormons claim. "And when the LORD [Jehovah] saw that he [Moses] turned aside to see, God [Elohim] called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.... [Bruce R. McConkie acknowledged that "it was" Christ's "voice that spoke to Moses in the burning bush..." Promised Messiah, p. 394] And the LORD [Jehovah] said... And Moses said unto God [Elohim], Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God [Elohim] of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God [Elohim] said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And God [Elohim] said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD [Jehovah] God [Elohim] of your fathers, the God [Elohim] of Abraham, the God [Elohim] of Isaac, and the God [Elohim] of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. (Exod. 3:4,7,13-15) "And God [Elohim] spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD [Jehovah]. (Exod. 6:2) "I am the LORD [Jehovah], and there is none else, there is no God [Elohim] beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: (Isa. 45:5) "But the LORD [Jehovah] is the true God [Elohim], he is the living God [Elohim], and an everlasting king... (Jer. 10:10) "Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah] the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD [Jehovah] of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God [Elohim]. (Isa. 44:6) "Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus, saith the LORD [Jehovah], whose name is The God [Elohim] of hosts. (Amos 5:27) "Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD's [Jehovah's] thy God [Elohim], the earth also, with all that therein is. (Deut. 10:14) "Wherefore thou art great, O LORD [Jehovah] God [Elohim]: for there is none like thee, neither is there any God [Elohim] beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears. (2 Sam. 7:22) "And he said unto them, I am an Hebrew; and I fear the LORD [Jehovah], the God [Elohim] of heaven, which hath made the sea and the dry land. (Jon. 1:9) "For who is God [Elohim] save the LORD [Jehovah]? or who is a rock save our God [Elohim]? (Ps. 18:31) "Blessed is the nation whose God [Elohim] is the LORD [Jehovah]... (Ps. 33:12. See also Ps. 144:15) "Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God [Elohim], the LORD [Jehovah], the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding. (Isa. 40:28) "The mighty God [Elohim], even the LORD [Jehovah], hath spoken, and called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof. (Ps. 50:1) "Sing unto God [Elohim], sing praises to his name: estol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him. (Ps. 68:4) [Regarding the word "Jah," Bruce R. McConkie stated: "Jah (Hebrew Yah) is a contracted form of Jehovah, Jahveh, or Yahweh -- all of which names have reference to Christ, the God of Israel." Mormon Doctrine, p. 391] "And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God [Elohim], whose name is called by the name of the LORD [Jehovah] of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims. (2 Sam. 6:2) "...the Great the Mighty God [Elohim], the LORD [Jehovah] of hosts, is his name. (Jer. 32:18) "O my God [Elohim], make them like a wheel; as the stubble before the wind.... Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD [Jehovah].... That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth. (Ps. 83:13,16,18) The Bible clearly teaches that "Jehovah" is "Elohim." In fact, He is the only "Elohim" there is. He is the "true," the "living," the "mighty," the "great," and the "everlasting Elohim." He is the "Elohim" of Israel, of all the kingdoms of the earth, and of the heavens. He is the Creator who made the heavens and all their host and the earth and all that dwell thereon. "Jehovah's" name is "Elohim of hosts." (Amos 5:27) Not only is "Jehovah," "Elohim," but "Elohim" is "Jehovah." The Bible reveals that "Elohim's" name is "Jah" (Ps. 68:4), "Jehovah" (Ps. 83:18), and "Jehovah of hosts." (2 Sam. 6:2; Jer. 32:18) The nation whose "Elohim" is "Jehovah" is blessed. (Ps. 33:12) Clearly, this is not the "Jehovah" and "Elohim" of the Mormons. Another Mormon error regarding "Elohim" and "Jehovah" is the belief that "Elohim," not "Jehovah," is the Father of all the spirits, including Jesus. In the Articles of Faith by Apostle James E. Talmage, "A Doctrinal Exposition by The First Presidency and The Twelve" apostles states that "God the Eternal Father...'Elohim,' is the literal Parent of...the spirits of the human race." (p. 466) This "Doctrinal Exposition" also states explicitly that "Jesus Christ is not the Father of the spirits who have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this earth, for He is one of them. He is The Son, as they are sons and daughters of Elohim." (p. 473) The Apostle Talmage stated that "_Elohim_...is the name-title of God the Eternal Father, whose firstborn Son in the spirit is _Jehovah_--" (Jesus the Christ, p. 38) The Apostle Bruce R. McConkie stated the following about this matter: "...Jehovah-Christ...did in fact create the earth and all forms of plant and animal life on the face thereof. _But when it came to placing man on earth, there was a change in Creators_. That is, the Father himself became personally involved. All things were created by the Son, using the power delegated by the Father, except man. _In the spirit and again in the flesh, man was created by the Father_. There was no delegation of authority where the crowning creature of creation was concerned." (Promised Messiah, p. 62) (emphasis added) Mormon leaders claim that "Jehovah-Christ" did not create either man's spirit or his body. They maintain that the Mormon "Elohim," who is the father, created man both in spirit and body. The Bible reveals the truth about who created man. "And Moses spake unto the LORD [Jehovah], saying, Let the LORD [Jehovah], the God [Elohim] of the _spirits of all flesh_, set a man over the congregation. (Num. 27:15-16. See also 16:20-23) (emphasis added) "...the LORD [Jehovah], which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and _formeth the spirit of man within him_. (Zech. 12:1) (emphasis added) "...the LORD [Jehovah]...made us this soul... (Jer. 38:16) "For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth: for the spirit should fail before me, and the _souls which I have made_.... ...saith the LORD [Jehovah]... (Isa. 57:16,19) (emphasis on "souls...I have made" added) "Behold, I am the LORD [Jehovah], the God [Elohim] _of all flesh_... (Jer. 32:27) (emphasis added) "Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah], thy redeemer, and he that _formed thee from the womb_. I am the LORD [Jehovah] that maketh all things... (Isa. 44:24) (emphasis added) "Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah]... I have made the earth, and _created man_ upon it... (Isa. 45:11-12) (emphasis added) "...God [Elohim] created man upon the earth... Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD [Jehovah] he is God [Elohim]; there is none else beside him. (Deut. 4:32,35) "Thus saith God [El] the LORD [Jehovah]...he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein. (Isa. 42:5) "...Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah] of hosts, the God [Elohim] of Israel... I have made the earth, _the man_ and the beast that are upon the ground... (Jer. 27:4-5) (most emphasis added) The Bible reveals that it is "Jehovah" who is the "Elohim of the spirits of all flesh" and "of all flesh" itself, that it was He who "formed the spirit of man within him," that He "made us this soul" and "formed us from the womb." He did indeed "create man." If Mormon leaders are right when they say Jesus is "Jehovah," then they are wrong when they say he did not create man. If they are right when they say the father is the one who created man, then they are wrong when they say he is not "Jehovah." Although Mormon leaders teach that Jesus did not create man, Mormon scriptures teach that he did. The BoM states the following: "Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son.... And never have I showed myself unto _man whom I have created_, for never has man believed in me as thou hast.... Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and _man have I created_ after the body of my spirit... (Eth. 3:14-16) (emphasis added) "For it is I that taketh upon me the sins of the world; for it is _I that hath created them_... (Mos. 26:23) (emphasis added) "...the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob...is that same God who created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. Behold _he created Adam_... (Mor. 9:11-12) (emphasis added) D&C, 93:10 states that "the worlds were made by him [Christ]; _men were made by him_; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him." (emphasis added) Another error by Bruce R. McConkie involving "Jehovah" and his creation is the belief that "Jehovah" had "many" pre-mortal spirits helping him create. Included in this alleged group was Joseph Smith, Jr. "That he [Christ] was aided in the creation of this earth by "many of the noble and great" spirit children of the Father is evident from go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell." (Abra. 3:22-24.) Michael or Adam was one of these. Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Peter, James, and John, Joseph Smith, and many other "noble and great" ones played a part in the great creative enterprise. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 74-75.) (Mormon Doctrine, p. 169) The Bible reveals the truth about this matter: "Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah], thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD [Jehovah] that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself. (Isa. 44:24) "Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea. (Job 9:8) "Jehovah," by Himself, created all things. He had no alleged preexistent spirit helpers assisting Him. Regarding the Mormon 'Elohim," the Apostle McConkie stated: "Elohim. plural word though it is, is also used as the exalted name-title of God the Eternal Father, a usage that connotes his supremacy and omnipotence, he being God above all Gods." (Mormon Doctrine, p. 224) He also stated that "Jesus...is above all save the Father only." (Promised Messiah, p. 363) The Bible states that the One who is God above all so-called gods is the triune God "Jehovah." "For the LORD [Jehovah] is a great God [El], and a great King above all gods [Elohim]. (Ps. 95:3) "For thou, LORD [Jehovah], art high above all the earth: thou art exalted far above all gods [Elohim]. (Ps. 97:9) "Now I know that the LORD [Jehovah] is greater than all gods [Elohim]... (Exod. 18:11. See also Ps. 135:5; Deut. 10:17) If Mormon leaders are right when they say "Jehovah" is god the son and "Elohim" is god the father, these verses from the Bible would be teaching that the Mormon son is above his father. However, as McConkie clearly stated, Mormons believe "Elohim" the father, not "Jehovah" the son, is the "God above all Gods" -- that Jesus is above all except the father; yet the Bible teaches that "Jehovah" is above all "Elohim." At a BYU Dev. on March 2, 1982, Bruce R. McConkie made the following remark about praying to Jesus: "Another peril is that those so involved often begin to pray directly to Christ because of some special friendship they feel has been developed.... This is plain sectarian nonsense. Our prayers are addressed to the Father, and to him only.... ...Perfect prayer is addressed to the Father, in the name of the Son; it is uttered by the power of the Holy Ghost... (Our Relationship With the Lord, pp. 19-20) McConkie states on p. 335 of his book Promised Messiah that the Mormons "pray to the Father, not the Son..." On p. 306 of the same book McConkie states that "Christ [the Son] is Jehovah." This is important to remember, because although McConkie said prayer is not to be offered to the Mormon Christ who is "Jehovah," the Bible states repeatedly in the OT that people prayed to "Jehovah," and He not only heard those prayers, but He accepted them as valid requests. The following is but a small sample of the vast number of times people prayed to "Jehovah." "In my distress I called upon the LORD [Jehovah], and cried unto my God [Elohim]: he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came before him, even into his ears. (Ps. 18:6) "And the LORD [Jehovah] said unto him, I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever; and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually. (1 Kin. 9:3) "And said unto Jeremiah the prophet, Let, we beseech thee, our supplication be accepted before thee, and pray for us unto the LORD [Jehovah] thy God [Elohim], even for all this remnant... (Jer. 42:2) "O LORD [Jehovah], I beseech thee, let now thine ear be attentive to the prayer of thy servant, and to the prayer of thy servants, who desire to fear thy name... (Neh. 1:11) "And it was so, that when Solomon had made an end of praying all this prayer and supplication unto the LORD [Jehovah], he arose from before the altar of the LORD [Jehovah], from kneeling on his knees with his hands spread up to heaven. (1 Kin. 8:54) "He went in therefore, and shut the door upon them twain, and prayed unto the LORD [Jehovah]. (2 Kin. 4:33) "Go, and say to Hezekiah, Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah], the God [Elohim] of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years. (Isa. 38:5) "I acknowledge my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD [Jehovah]; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found... (Ps. 32:5-6) Notice above in Ps. 32:6 that the "godly" pray to "Jehovah." According to McConkie and other Mormon leaders, that is Christ the very one to whom McConkie said people should not pray. The Bible reveals there is only one true "Elohim," and His name is "Jehovah." All other "Elohim" are false. They are idols that cause their followers to commit adultery against the true "Elohim" and idolatry. "For the LORD [Jehovah] is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to be feared above all gods [Elohim]. For all the gods [Elohim] of the nations are idols: but the LORD [Jehovah] made the heavens. (Ps. 96:4-5) "Thou shalt have no other gods [Elohim] before me. (Exod. 20:3) "Now I know that the LORD [Jehovah] is greater than all gods [Elohim]... (Exod. 18:11) "And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD [Jehovah] thy God [Elohim], and walk after other gods [Elohim], and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish. (Deut. 8:19) "Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods [Elohim]. They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou serve their gods [Elohim], it will surely be a snare unto thee. (Exod. 23:32- 33) "Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other gods [Elohim], and worship them. (Deut. 11:16) "That ye come not among these nations, these that remain among you; neither make mention of the name of their gods [Elohim], nor cause to swear by them, neither serve them, nor bow yourselves unto them. (Josh. 23:7) "...neither walk after other gods [Elohim] to your hurt. (Jer. 7:6) "But the LORD [Jehovah] is the true God [Elohim], he is the living God [Elohim]... (Jer. 10:10) "And they forsook the LORD [Jehovah] God [Elohim] of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods [Elohim], of the gods [Elohim] of the people that were round about them, and bowed themselves unto them, and provoked the LORD [Jehovah] to anger. (Jud. 2:12) "Shall a man make gods [Elohim] unto himself, and they are no gods [Elohim]? Therefore, behold, I will this once cause them to know, I will cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is the LORD [Jehovah]. ( Jer. 16:20-21) "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD [Jehovah], choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods [Elohim] which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods [Elohim] of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD [Jehovah]. And the people answered and said, God [Elohim] forbid that we should forsake the LORD [Jehovah], to serve other gods [Elohim]. (Josh. 24:15-16) These verses teach that the only true, living "Elohim" in heaven and on earth is "Jehovah" -- the triune God who made heaven and earth and all therein. "Jehovah" is greater than any "Elohim," because all other "Elohim" are idols. The reality behind them is demonic. (Deut. 32:17) "Jehovah Elohim" has given explicit warnings and guidelines regarding these false "Elohim." He told His people not to have any "Elohim" but Him. He told the people that if they left Him for the false "Elohim," those "Elohim" would be a snare to them, and they would be hurt and would perish. He warned the people to "take heed" that their "heart be not deceived" into worshiping, serving, swearing by, and making covenants with false "Elohim." "Jehovah Elohim" told His people He would eventually judge all false "Elohim" and their followers. Despite these warnings and guidelines, "Elohim's" covenant people forsook Him and believed in and worshiped the false "Elohim's" of the people they came in contact with. Ju. 10:6 states that "the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the LORD [Jehovah] and served Baalim, and Ashtaroth, and the gods [Elohim] of Syria, and the gods [Elohim] of Zidon, and the gods [Elohim] of Moab, and the gods [Elohim] of the children of Ammon, and the gods [Elohim] of the Philistines, and forsook the LORD [Jehovah], and served not him." This examination has shown that the "Elohim" of Mormonism, like the "Elohim" in Ju. 10:6 is not the true "Jehovah Elohim." Therefore, the people who leave the true "Elohim" for the Mormon "Elohim" will do "evil...in the sight of the LORD [Jehovah]." Although McConkie attacked Christians for their belief in a triune God who is Spirit and for their belief that God the Father [Jehovah] sent His Son into the world, these beliefs are true. God is triune; He is Spirit; He is "Jehovah;" and He did send His Son into the world to redeem mankind. It is obvious from this examination that it is not the Christians who "thrash around in...darkness" about who "Elohim" and "Jehovah" are. One wonders what "Holy Writ" McConkie had in mind when he stated that it attests to the fact that "Elohim is the Father, and that Jehovah is the Son." He certainly did not mean the Bible which teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all the one "Jehovah Elohim." He apparently did not mean the D&C either, because chapter 109, verses 1,4,9-10, 14,19,22,24,29,34,42,47,56,68,77 refer to the Father as "Jehovah." Summary Obviously Joseph Fielding Smith's statement that the Mormons "have a clear and perfect understanding of the nature of God" (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:279) is not accurate. The Mormon gods are not the true God as Mormonism claims, but are idols which cause their followers to commit adultery against God and idolatry. In answer to Jesus' question, "But whom say ye that I am," Mormons say Jesus is someone different from the Jesus who is revealed in the Bible and whom the apostles preached. Therefore, anyone trusting in the Mormon Jesus is believing in "another Jesus" whom Paul warned about. Bernard P. Brockbank, of the First Quorum of the Seventy, admitted in the May 1977 issue of The Ensign, a Mormon publication, that the Mormon Jesus is different from the Christian Jesus. He stated that "it is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." (p. 26) The people who believe in the Mormon Jesus are committing adultery against God and idolatry. They do not have the Son; therefore, they do not have the Father, and they do not have eternal life. As the Apostle Bruce R. McConkie rightly stated: "Salvation comes only by worshiping the true God." (Promised Messiah, p. 163) McConkie also rightly stated that "the mere worship of a god who has the proper scriptural names does not assure one that he is worshiping the true and living God," because the "true names of Deity" can be applied to "false concepts of God." (Mormon Doctrine, p. 270) Remember that the Apostle Stephen L. Richards admitted that Joseph Smith, Jr., gave "a new conception of God and the Godhead." (Contributions of Joseph Smith, p. 1) It is important for the people who have left the true triune God revealed in the Bible to repent and return to Him. They must forsake the sins of idolatry and adultery which they are committing in Mormonism. "...all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD [Jehovah], the fountain of living waters. (Jer. 17:13) "And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD [Jehovah] thy God [Elohim], and walk after other gods [Elohim], and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish. (Deut. 8:19) "Thou shalt make no covenant with...their gods [Elohim]. (Exod. 23:32) "...Put away the strange gods [Elohim] that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments. (Gen. 35:2) "...flee from idolatry. (1 Cor. 10:14) It is necessary that Christians heed the warnings of the Bible. If they do, they will not fall into the sins of adultery against God and idolatry. Remember, to know the "only true God" is eternal life. (John 17:3)

Actually if Mr X had something to gain by his claims his account of the events would nmot be the most respected. Case and point, the resurrection. By claiming that the resurrection actually happened the early preachers were able to convert many to Christianity. However, if you read Mathew 27:38 (?) and the case for the resurrected saints who walked around Jerusalem and appeared to "many People" you would realize that other historians (Josephus for one) would have reported on it all if it happened. The fact that the Bible speaks of events of such great magnitude that they would have been noticed taken with the fact that they are not reported on by historians could only mean that the bible contains many made up stories.

[ ... my stuff deleted ... ] Bill, you seem to have erroneously assumed that this board has as its sole purpose the validation of atheism. It doesn't. This board is used to discuss atheism as a philosophy, to share posters' experiences regarding atheism, to debunk various theisms and theism as a whole, to share resources relating to atheism, and even to socialize with others with similar views. And of course with the number of theists who come here to preach, it is also used to argue the case for atheism. If you want to accuse people of lying, please do so directly. The phrase "deliberately mistaken" is rather oxymoronic. The two forms of theism most often discussed here these days are Christianity and Islam. Both of these claim to make their followers into good people, and claim that much of benefit to humanity has been accomplished through their faiths. IMHO they are right. The American Friends Service Committee (Quaker), Catholic Relief Services, Bread For The World, Salvation Army soup kitchens, and Mother Theresa spring to mind. (Can someone with more knowledge of Islam supply the names of some analagous Islamic groups?) When Mother Theresa claims that her work is an outgrowth of her Christianity, I believe her. Her form of theism ascribes to her deity such a benevolence toward humanity that it would be wrong not to care for those in need. The point is that such a philosophy does have the power to change the behavior of individuals; if it is widespread enough, it can change societies. The same works for the horrors of history. To claim that Christianity had little to do with the Crusades or the Inquisition is to deny the awesome power that comes from faith in an absolute. What it seems you are doing twisting the reasonable statement that religion was never the solitary cause of any evil into the unreasonable statement that religion has had no evil impacts on history. That is absurd.

I recently came across this article which I found interesting. I have posted it to hear what other people feel about the issue. I realise it is rather long (12 pages in Wordperfect) by may well be worth the read. Except for the first page (which I typed) the rest was scanned inusing Omnipage. Some of the f's have come out as t's and visa-versa. I have tried to correct as much as possible. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Peter Hammond is the founder of Frontline Fellowship, a missionary organisation witnessing to the communist countries in Southern Africa. He has also made several visits to many East European countries. FRONTLINE FELLOWSHIP NEWS ISSN 1018-144X PRAYING FOR JUSTICE (by Peter Hammond) To those involved in ministering to Christians suffering persecution the imprecatory Psalms are a tremendous source of comfort. And those of us who are fighting for the right to life of the preborn, or battling social evils such as pornography or crime, are beginning to appreciate what an important weapon God has entrusted to us in the imprecatory Psalms. THE IMPRECATORY PSALMS Early in my Christian walk I encountered the prayers for judgement in the Psalms and was quite at loss to know how to respond to them. Prayers such as: "Break the arm of the wicked and evil men; call him to account for his wickedness ..." Psalm 10:15 did not seem consistent with the gospel of love which I had accepted. Yet Psalm 10:15 was clearly motivated by love for God ("The Lord is King for ever and ever; the nation will perish from His land" 10:16, and "Why does the wicked man revile God? 10:13), and by love for the innocent who suffer ("You hear, O Lord, the desire of the afflicted; You encourage them, and You listen to their cry, defending the fatherless and oppressed, in order that man, who is of the earth, may terrify no more." 10:17-18) Nevertheless, I grew increasingly uncomfortable reading such graphic prayers for God to judge the wicked as: "Pour out your wrath on them; let Your fierce anger overtake them" 64:24; "O Lord, the God avenges, O God who avenges, shine forth. Rise up, O Judge of the earth, pay back to the proud what they deserve." 95:1-2; "Break the teeth in their mouths, O God; ...let them vanish like water .. let their arrows be blunted ... The righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked. Then men will way, "Surely the righteous still are rewarded; surely there is a God who judges the earth.'" 58:6-11 Certainly I wanted God to be honoured and yes I was deeply destressed by the prevalence of evil - but could I actually pray for God to "pour out His wrath" on the wicked? The scripture make it clear that these prayers are not to be prayed for own selfish motives, nor against our personal enemies. Rather they are to be prayed in Christ, for His glory and against His enemies. The psalmist describes the targets of these imprecation as: those who devise injustice in their heart and whose hands mete out violence (58:2) those who "boast of evil" and "are a disgrace in the eyes of God. Your tongue plots destruction, it is like a sharpened razor, and you who practise deceit. You love evil rather than good, falsehood rather than speaking the truth." 52:1-3; "They crush your people ... They slay the widow and the alien; they murder the fatherless." 94:5- 6; "With cunning they conspire against Your people; they plot against those You cherish." 83:3; "You hate all who do wrong. You destroy those who tell lies; bloodthirsty and deceitful men the Lord abhors." 5:5-6. To those unrepentant enemies of God the psalmist declares: "Surely God will bring you down to everlasting ruin" 52:5; "Surely God will crush the heads of His enemies ... of those who go on in their sins" 68:21. And the purpose of these prayers for justice is declared: "Then it will be known to the ends of the earth that God rules ..." 59:13; "to proclaim the powers of God" 68:34; "All kings will bow down to Him and all nations will serve Him " 72:11; "Who knows the power of Your anger? For Your wrath is as great as the fear that is due You. " 90:11 Yet despite the fact that 90 of the 150 Psalms include imprecations (prayers invoking God's righteous judgement upon the wicked) such prayers are rare in the average Western church. However, amongst the persecuted churches these prayers are much more common. PRAYING AGAINST THE PERSECUTORS Amidst the burnt out churches and devastation of Marxist Angola I found the survivors of communist persecution including the crippled and maimed, and widows and orphans praying for God to strike down the wicked and remove the persecutors of the Church. I was shocked - yet it was Biblical (Even the martyrs in heaven pray "How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?" Revelation 6:10). The initiator of the communist persecution in Angola was Agestino Neto. Described as a "drunken, psychotic, marxist poet", Neto had been installed by Cuban troops as the first dictator of Angola. He boasted that: "Within 20 years there won't be a Bible or a church left in Angola. I will have eradicated Christianity." Yet despite the vicious wave of church burning and massacres it is not Christianity that was eradicated in Angola but Agestino Neto. Neto died in mysterious circumstances on an operating table in Moscow. In Romania I learnt of a series of remarkable incidents recorded of God judging the persecutors of the Church in answer to prayer: * A communist official ordered a certain pastor to be arrested. the next day the official died of a heart attack. * Another communist party official ordered that all the Bibles in his district were to be collected and pulped, to be turned into toilet paper. This blasphemous project was in fact carried out. But the next day when the official was medically examined, he was informed that he had terminal cancer. He died shortly afterwards. * On another occasion, a communist official who had ordered a Baptist church to be demolished by bulldozers died in a car crash the very next day. * When an order was given to dismantle a place of worship on the mountainside in a forest, the workmen flatly refused to carry out the order. At gunpoint a group of conscripted gypsies also refused to touch the church. In desperation, the communist police forced prisoners at bayonet-point to dismantle the structure. Yet the officer in charge pleaded with the local Christians to pray for him, that God would not judge him. He emphasised that he had nothing against Christians and was only obeying strict orders. The building was in fact reconstructed later, and again used for worship. "They were all seized with Sear and the Name of the Lord Jesus was held in high honour... in this way the Word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power. " Acts 19:17,20 Nicolae Ceaucescu the dictator who ordered much of the persecution in Romania was overthrown by his own army and executed on Christmas day, 1989, to joyous shouts of "the antiChrist is dead" in the streets. Many testified that this was in answer to the fervent prayers of the long suffering people of Romania. Another persecutor of the Church who challenged God was Samora Machel, the first dictator of Marxist Mozambique. Samora Machel was a cannibal who ate human flesh in witchcraft ceremonies in the 1960's. He pledged his soul to Satan and vowed that he would destroy the Church and turn Mozambique into the first truly Marxist-Leninist state in Africa. Thousands of churches in Mozambique were closed confiscated, "nationalised" chained and padlocked, burnt down or boarded up. Missionaries were expelled, some being imprisoned first. Evangelism was forbidden. Bibles were ceremonially burnt and tens of thousands of Christians, including many pastors and elders, were shipped off to concentration camps - most were never seen again. A month before his sudden death Samora Machel cursed God publicly and challenged Him to prove His existence by striking him (Machel) dead. On 19 October 1986, while several churches were specifically praying for God to stop the persecution in Mozambique, Machel's Soviet Tupelov aircraft crashed in a violent thunderstorm. The plane crashed 200 metres within South Africa's boundary with Mozambique. Amidst the wreckage the marxist plans for overthrowing the government of Malawi were discovered and published. Not only had God judged a blasphemer and a persecutor, but He had also saved a country from persecution. In the months leading up to the first multi-party elections in Zambia many churches fasted and prayed tor God to remove the 27 year socialist dictatorship of Kenneth Kaunda. This was done on 31st October 1991 when Fredrick Chiluba (a man converted to Christ whilst imprisoned for opposing Kaunda) was elected president of Zambia and covenanted to make Zambia a Christian country. It is recorded in history that the wicked Mary, Queen of Scots, declared trembling and in tears: "I am more afraid of John Knox's prayers than of an army of ten thousand". On 3 April 1993 the Secretary General of the South African Communist Party Chris Hani was shot dead. From the unprecedented international wave of condolences and adulation reported one could be forgiven for assuming that this man was a saint and a martyr. Certainly it was not the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus which dominated the thoughts and headlines of South Africa this Easter, but the assassination of Chris Hani. The stunning hypocrisy of the situation is that 20 135 people were murdered in South Africa in 1992, yet more collective concern and anguish were reported over the death of the head of the SA Communist Party than for all the thousands of other victims. Indeed the SA government, the international community and the mass media have apparently had greater sorrow reported over this one death than for all the 50 000 South Africans murdered since 2nd February 1990 when the ANC, SACP and PAC were unbanned! Yet as a member of the ANC Revolutionary Council since 1973, Deputy Commander of Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) the ANC's "military wing" - from 1982, and Chief of Staff of MK from 1987, Chris Hani had approved and ordered bombings and assassinations of many unarmed civilians. As Jesus warned: "all who live by the sword will die by the sword " Matt 26:52. After personally confronting Hani about his terrorist activities at a press conference in Washington DC (where he publicly declared his support for Fidel Castro, Col. Gaddafi, Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein and defended the placing of car bombs and limpet mines in public places during "the struggle") I told him that I was a Christian and, while I didn't hate him, I did hate communism and I was praying for him - that God would either bring him to repentance and salvation in Christ, or that God would remove him. He responded by swearing and declaring that he was an atheist. Several other people also prayed that God would either bring Hani to repentance or remove him. Similarly several churches in America have begun to pray the imprecatory Psalms against unrepentant abortionists. In one town 8 abortionists were struck down, with heart attacks, strokes, car accidents and cancer, within months of these public prayers for God to stop these killers of preborn babies. Some praised God for His righteous acts of judgement and quoted: "When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous and terror to evildoers " Proverbs 21:15. Others were shocked that any Christian could express satisfaction at the misfortune of any - even of the blatantly wicked. Yet the Apostles prayed imprecatory prayers (Acts 13:8-12; Galatians 1:8-9; 2 Tim 4:14-15) and so did our Lord (Matt 11:20-24). What then should our attitude towards the imprecatory Psalms be? Should we be praying the Psalms? To tackle these thorny issues I would like to present a short summary of an excellent book, "War Psalms of the Prince of Peace - Lessons From The Imprecatory Psalms" by James E Adams, (published by the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company): Our Lord Jesus Christ & His apostles used the Psalms constantly in teaching men to know God. The New Testament (NT) quotes the Old Testament (OT) over 283 times. 41% of all OT quotes in the NT are from the Psalms. Christ Himself alluded to the Psalms over 50 times. The Psalms are the Prayer Book of the Bible. 1. Are the imprecatory Psalms the oracles of God? Some Christian commentators & theologians reject these Psalms as "devilish", "diabolical ", "unsuited to the church", and "Not God 's pronouncements of His wrath on the wicked; but the prayers of a man for vengeance on his enemies, just the opposite of Jesus' teaching that we should love our enemies. " Yet 2 Tim 3:16-17 declares: "All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. " (see also 2 Peter 3:15-16). The fact that something in the Word of God is beyond our comprehension is not grounds to denying or even questioning its inspiration. To make ourselves the judge of what is good or evil is to impudently take the place of God. Do we imagine ourselves to be holier than God? Wrong ideas of God have led many to become "evangelic plastic surgeons who have made it their job to "clean up" God's Word according to their own ideas of what is proper. They have forgotten that it is God alone who must determine what Christianity is and what is suitable for His Church. The essence of what many have done is to question the authority of God's Word (like Eve's original sin of listening to Satan's question "Yes, hath God said... ?"). The Psalms are part of God's revelation of Himself and His attributes, and they are reaffirmed by the NT as the authoritative Word of God. Those imprecatory Psalms which these evangelical plastic surgeons reject as "unsuited" and "unworthy" for the Church are the very Psalms Christ used to testify about Himself (eg: Mark 12:36; Matt 22:43-44) and which the Apostles used as authoritative Scripture (eg: Acts 1:16-20; Acts 4:25; Heb 4:7). See also: 2 Samuel 23:1-2. CH Spurgeon said concerning the imprecatory Psalms, (especially Ps 109): "Truly this is one of the hard places of Scripture, a passage which the soul trembles to read, yet it is not ours to sit in judgement upon it, but to bow our ear to what the Lord would speak to us therein. " The rejection of any part of God's Word is a rejection of the giver of that Word, God Himself. 2. Who is praying these Psalms? Christ quoted the Psalms not merely as prophesy; He actually spoke the Psalms as His own words. The Psalms occupied an enormous place in the life of our Lord. He used it as His prayer book and song book - from the Synagogue to the festivals and at the Last Supper. On the cross Christ quoted from the Psalms - not as some ancient authority that He adapted for His own use, but as His very own words - the words of the Lord's Anointed - which as David's Son He truly was. "Father, into your hands I commit my Spirit" Ps 31:5 "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Ps 22:1 In His ministry Christ foretells what He will say as the Judge on the day of judgement, and He quotes the Psalms in doing so! Matt 7:23 "Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers'. " Ps 6:8 In Heb 10:5 the apostle attributes Ps 40:6-8 directly to Christ although nowhere in the Gospels is Christ recorded as having said these words. Similarly Hebrews 2 : 12 attributes Ps 22:22 directly to Christ despite there being no record of His having spoken these words while on earth. Clearly the apostles believed Christ is speaking in the Psalms. Christ came to establish His kingdom and to extend His mercy in all the earth. But let us never forget that Jesus will come again to execute Judgement on the wicked. David as the anointed king of the chosen people of God was a prototype of Jesus Christ. Acts 2:30: "being therefore a prophet, ... he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of Christ. " David was a witness to Christ in his office, in his lite, and in his words. The same words which David spoke, the future Messiah spoke through him. The prayers of David were prayed also by Christ. Or better Christ Himself prayed these Psalms through His forerunner David. The imprecatory Psalms are expressions of the infinite justice of God, of His indignation against wrong doing, and His compassion for the wronged. 3. But what about the Psalms of repentance? Christ is also the Lamb of God, the substitutionary sacrifice for our sins. Christ in the day of His crucifixion was charged with the sin of His people. He appropriated to Himself those debts for which He had made Himself responsible. Our Lord was the substitution for the sinner. He took the sinners place (Isaiah 53). "God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God. " 2 Cor 5:21 In history the Psalms, especially the imprecatory Psalms, have been understood to have been the prayers of Christ by: St Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, Tertullian, Luther and many others. All the Psalms are the voice of Christ. Christ is praying the imprecatory Psalms! All the Psalms are messianic. It is the Lord Jesus Christ who is praying these prayers of vengeance. It is only right for the righteous King of Peace to ask God to destroy His enemies. These prayers signal an alarm to all who are still enemies of King Jesus. His prayers will be answered! God's Word is revealed upon all who oppose Christ. Anyone who rejects God's way of forgiveness in the cross of Christ will bear the dreadful curses of God. He who prays Psalm 69:23-28 will one day make this prayer a reality when He declares to those on His left: "Depart from me you who are cursed into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. " Matt 25:41 All the enemies of the Lord need to hear these Psalms. *God's Kingdom is at War.* The powers of evil will tall and God alone will reign forever! "With justice He judges and makes war...out of His mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. He will rule them with an iron sceptre; He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty...King of Kings and Lord of Lords. " Rev 19 : 15 4. Are Jesus' prayers contradictory? What about Jesus' command to love our enemies and to bless those who curse us (Matt 5:44)? Christ is of course the loving and merciful Saviour who forgives sin; but He is also the awesome Judge who is coming in Judgement on those who disobey His Gospel. "God is just. He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled...This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with His powerful angels. He will punish those who do not obey the Gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of His power on the day He comes to be glorified in His holy people and to be marvelled at among au those who have believed. " 2 Thess 1:6-10 Jesus has power on earth to forgive sins, and He has power on earth to execute judgement upon His enemies. In the Psalms we see both the vengeance and the love ot God. Even in the N.T. & in the Gospels we see imprecations. "Woe to you,...hypocrites...blind guides...blind fools...full of greed and self indulgence...whitewashed tombs...you snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to Hell ? " Matt 23 In Matt 26:23-24 Christ quotes from Ps 69 and 109 to refer to His betrayal by Judas. We also need to acknowledge that Christ's prayers of blessing are not for all. In John 17:6-9 it is clear that Christ is only praying to the elect of God - those who have: "obeyed your Word"... "accepted" God's Word ... and have "believed ". (see Luke 10:8-16 - Those who reject the message of God's kingdom will be judged.) 5. May we pray the imprecatory Psalms? Martin Luther pointed out that when one prays: "Hallowed be Thy Name, Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done " then "he must put all the opposition to this in one pile and say: 'Curses, maledictions and disgrace upon every other name and every other kingdom. May they be ruined and torn apart and may all their schemes and wisdom and plans run aground' . " To pray tor the extension of God's kingdom is to solicit the destruction of all other kingdoms, eg: Dan 2:44: "The God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed ... it will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. " * Advance and victory for the Church means defeat and retreat for the kingdom of darkness. * There is a life & death struggle between two kingdoms. The Church cannot exclude hatred tor satan's kingdom from its love for God's kingdom. God's kingdom cannot come without satan's kingdom being destroyed. God's will cannot be done on earth without the destruction of evil. The glory of God demands the destruction of evil. Instead of being influenced by a sickly sentimentalism which insists upon the assumed, but really non-existent, rights of man - we should focus instead upon the rights of God. Note Psalm 83 where the Psalmist prays against those who "plot together" against God and His people: "Cover their faces with shame so that men will seek your Name O Lord... Do to them as You did to Midian, as you did to Sisera and Jabin at the river Kishon, who perished at Endor and became like refuse on the ground. " The story of Sisera in the book of Judges (Chapter 4 and 5) provides a vivid example of God's judgement on the wicked. Sisera "cruelly oppressed the Israelites for twenty years" and they "cried to the Lord for help" Judges 4:3. In response to those prayers: "The Lord routed Sisera and all his chariots and army by the sword, and Sisera abandoned his chariot and fled on foot... All the troops of Sisera fell by the sword; not a man was left. " Judges 4:15-16 The account then goes on to describe how Sisera escaped to the tent of Jael where she lulled him into a false sense of safety and then drove a tent peg through his temple with a hammer. The song of victory by Deborah and Barak celebrated the crushing of the head of Sisera in graphic detail (Judges 5:25-27). And it is this that Psalm 83 implores God to again do to His enemies.. "As you did to Sisera ..." 6. The blessings of obedience and the curse of disobedience The imprecatory Psalms are fully consistent with the Law of God: "If you do not carefully follow all the words of this Law, which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome Name - the Lord your God - the Lord will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants. He will bring upon you all the diseases of Egypt that you dreaded, and they will cling to you. The Lord will also bring on you every kind of sickness and disaster not recorded in this Book of the Law until you are destroyed...because you did not obey the Lord your God ... so it will please Him to ruin and destroy you. You will be uprooted from the land you are entering to possess. " Deuteronomy 28:58-63 The covenant God made with His people included curses for disobedience as well as blessings for obedience. Deuteronomy 27 records the formal giving and receiving of the covenant terms in an awesome account: "The Levites shall recite to all the people of Israel in a loud voice: "Cursed is the man who carves an image or casts an idol - a thing detestable to the Lord, the work of the craftsman's hands - and sets it up in secret. " Then all the people shall say, "Amen!" " "Cursed is the man who dishonours his father or his mother... "Cursed is the man who moves his neighbour's boundary stone... "Cursed is the man who leads the blind astray on the roads... "Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the alien, the fatherless or the widow... "Cursed is the man who kills his neighbour secretly... "Cursed is the man who accepts a bribe to kill an innocent person. "Cursed is the man who does not uphold the words of the Law by carrying them out. Then all the people shall say, "Amen!" " Deut 27:14-26 The New Testament confirms that the inevitable consequence of rejecting Christ is the curse. "If anyone does not love the Lord - a curse be on him. " 1 Corinthians 16:22 (See also: Romans 12:19-21; Hebrews 1:1-3; 3:7-12; 3:1519; 10:26- 31; 12:14-29.) 7. How can we preach these prayers? The Church of Jesus Christ is an army under orders. Scripture constitutes the official dispatch from the Commander- in-Chief. But we have a problem: those who are called to pass on those orders to others are refusing to do so. How then can we expect to be a united, effective army? Is it any wonder that the troops have lost sight of their commission to demolish the strongholds of the kingdom of darkness? If the Church does not hear the battle cries of her Captain, how will she follow Him onto the battlefield? Pastors are commissioned to pass on the orders of the Church's Commander, never withholding or changing His words. One whose job is to carry dispatches to troops in wartime would face certain and severe punishment if he dared to amend the general's orders. The pastor's charge is of greater importance than that of a courier in any earthly army. There's no place tor the dispatcher to decide he doesn't agree with his Commander's strategy. When Jesus Christ sent seventy-two disciples on a preaching mission, He told them to proclaim the coming of God's Kingdom (Lk 10:9) - that is, to announce that people must submit to God's rule in their lives. Jesus instructed them to pray for peace on any house they approach, assuring them that if anyone rejected it, the peace would return on the disciples (verse 5). But we must consider what He said they should do if their message were rejected - that is, if the hearers persisted in rebellion against God's rule - "But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its 'streets and say, 'Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near"' Luke 10:11. What would be the result of that denunciation? I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom [on which God sent fire from Heaven in judgement for its wickedness] than for that town (verse 12). Immediately Jesus added curses on Korazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum tor their rejection of His message (verses 13-15). He then explained to the disciples the great authority He had given them: "He who listens to you listens to Me; he who rejects you rejects Me; but he who rejects Me rejects him who sent Me " (verse 16). This is the fundamental basis tor calling down God's curses on anyone: his persistent rebellion against God's authority expressed in His Law and the ministry of His servants. We need to clearly and forcefully proclaim the war cries of the Prince of Peace. Only then will the Church awake from its lethargy and once again enter the battle. If we tail to pass on the battle cry then a lack of urgency and confusion in the ranks will be inevitable. Like Psalm 1 our preaching needs to clearly show the blessings of obedience and the curse of disobedience. The eternal truth is that God cannot be mocked. Whatever a man sows - that shall he reap (Galatians 6:7). The curses pronounced on disobedience in Deut 28:47-53 were fulfilled in detail in Samaria (2 Kings 6:2&29) and in Judea (AD 70). The wrath of God upon covenant breakers is real. The "I" of the Psalms is Jesus Christ. The "we" of the Psalms includes those of us in the Lord Jesus. The enemies are not our own, individually, but those of the Lord and of His Church. The Psalms are ot Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King. They record Christ's march in victory against the kingdom of darkness. As Christ is the author of the Psalms, so, too, is He the final fulfilment of the covenant on which they are based. God will answer the psalmist's prayers completely in Jesus Christ on the final day of judgment. While on earth Jesus foretold the day when He will say: "But those enemies of Mine who did not want Me to be King over them - bring them here and kill them in front of Me" Luke 19:27. A fatal end awaits everyone who refuses to acknowledge and to obey Jesus as King and Lord. Hearing expositions of these war psalms of the Prince of Peace will remind His people that God's kingdom is at war! The kingdom of darkness is being overcome by the kingdom of Jesus Christ, a war in which each local congregation of believers plays a vital part. You must rally your battalion to put on the whole armour of God, including "the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God " Eph 6:17. That battle- readiness also involves "pray(ing) in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests n Eph 6:18. Christ teaches His army to pray for the utter destruction of the enemies of God as the psalmist did: "Pour out Your wrath on the nations that do not acknowledge You, on the kingdoms that do not call on Your Name" Ps 79:6. To deal with the very real hurts and injustices in this world it is necessary for us to pray for God's justice. Those who are persecuted need the comfort of these prayers. "Let the saints rejoice in His honour and sing for joy...May the praise of God be in their mouths and a double-edged sword in their hands, to inflict vengeance on the nations and punishment on the peoples, to bind their kings with fetters, their nobles with shackles of iron, to carry out the sentences written against them. This is the glory of all His saints. Praise the Lord. " Ps 149:5-9 Prayer is, in fact, spiritual warfare. One weapon is prayer for conversion of spiritual enemies; another is prayer for judgement on those who finally refuse to be converted. We handicap the army of God when we refuse to use both of these great weapons that He has given us. It is at all times a part of the task of the people nf God to destroy evil. If you have been guilty of dulling your sword, by neglecting or undermining these psalms, repent of that sin, sharpen your sword anew, and go forth to do battle in the Name and for the Glory of Jesus - until "the knowledge of the Lord will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea" Hab 2:14. The full book "War Psalms of the Prince of Peace " is available, at R25, from Frontline Fellowship, PO Box 74 Newlands, 7725 RSA.

[email protected] (Keith M. Ryan) Pontificated: Is this from the Quran (or however it's spelled)?

Me too. Our local used book store is the second largest on the West Coast, and I couldn't find a copy there. I guess atheists hold their bibles in as much esteem as the theists. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Bob Beauchaine [email protected] They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away, and sank Manhattan out at sea.

Well, you were going well until you hit this one. Hawaii was an independent country. A coup by Americans led to a request to annex it. The US refused, but eventually did annex it several years later during the Spanish-American War. -- "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)

To you, it shouldn't matter if you do evil things or good things. It is all meaningless in the end anyway. So go rob a bank. Go tell someone you dislike that he is a dirty rotten slime bag. What's restraining you?

Thanks for the letter, your comments helped some. As to the last comment, I certainly realize that it was not intended to sound that way. I am still trying to understand *how* a spiritual being colud truly be one and three at the same time. All of the descriptions of this are either Platonic or sound like special pleading (sort of, "they appear to be three seperate beings in all ways, but really they are one, trust me"). Neither of these is acceptible to me. The fact is, so far the only descriptions of the trinity that makes any *sense* to me are the modalistic ones, such as Modalistic Monarchianism or "Economic Trinitarianism". [I can accept that the three aspects are intrinsic to the nature of God, so I perhaps lean more towards the latter]. I am trying, here, to see if anybody can come up with another description that is both orthodox and believable. -- [email protected] (formerly tdatirv!sarima) or [email protected]

Of course not. I would think that would be great _fun_, not having ever felt the joy and peace the Christians speak of with a longing gaze. This is not what I got when I believed - I just tried to hide my fear of getting punished for something I never was sure of. The Bible is hopelessly confusing for someone who wants to know for sure. God did not answer. In the end, I found I had been following a mass delusion, a lie. I can't believe in a being who refuses to give a slightest hint of her existence. I suggest they should honestly reconsider the reasons why they believe and analyse their position. In fact, it is amusing to note in this context that many fundamentalist publications tell us exactly the opposite - one should not examine one's belief critically. I'll tell you something I left out of my 'testimony' I posted to this group two months ago. A day after I finally found out my faith is over, I decided to try just one more time. The same cycle of emotional responses fired once again, but this time the delusion lasted only a couple of hours. I told my friend in a phone that it really works, thank god, just to think about it again when I hung up. I had to admit that I had lied, and fallen prey to the same illusion. I used to believe what I read in books when I was younger, or what other people told me, but I grew more and more skeptical the more I read. I learned what it means to use _reason_. As a student of chemistry, I had to perform a qualitative analysis of a mixture of two organic compounds in the lab. I _hated_ experiments like this - they are old-fashioned and increase the student's workload considerably. Besides, I had to do it twice, since I failed in my first attempt. However, I think I'll never forget the lesson: No matter how strongly you believe the structure of the unknown is X, it may still be Y. It is _very_ tempting to jump into conclusions, take a leap of faith, assure oneself, ignore the data which is inconsistent. But it can still be wrong. I found out that I was, after all, using exactly the same mechanism to believe in god - mental self-assurance, suspension of fear, filtering of information. In other words, it was only me, no god playing any part. Oh? And I had better believe this? Dan, many UFO stories are much better documented than the resurrection of Jesus. The resurrection is documented quite haphazardly in the Bible - it seems the authors did not pay too much attention to which wild rumour to leave out. Besides, the ends of the gospels probably contain later additions and insertions; for instance, the end of Mark (16:9-20) is missing from many early texts, says my Bible. Jesus may have lived and died, but he was probably misunderstood. This is easy. I believe that the world exists independent of my mind, and that logic and reason can be used to interpret and analyse what I observe. Nothing else need to be taken on faith, I will go by the evidence. It makes no difference whether I believe George Washington existed or not. I assume that he did, considering the vast amount of evidence presented. A liar, how do you know what my attitude was? Try reading your Bible again. I was willing to die for my faith. Those who do are usually remembered as heroes, at least among those who believe. Dan, do you think I'm lying when I say I believed firmly for 15 years? It seems it is very difficult to admit that someone who has really believed does not do so anymore. But I can't go on lying to myself. Blind trust is dangerous, and I was just another blind led by the blind. But if god really wants me, she'll know what to do. I'm willing. I just don't know whether she exists - looking at the available evidence, it looks like she doesn't. Petri

What I mean is what I said. "What I want" does not automatically translate into "what I think is right." That is, it does not translate that way for me. If you reply that "I think it is ok to kill you because that is what I decided" then what that means is that for you "What I want" does translate into "what I think is right". It just doesn't translate that way for me.

In other words, the right of might. In other words, the right of might. In other words, he can do it, he did it, and your in no position to argue about it. In other words, you better do what this God wants you to do, or else!

> I would rather spend an eternity in Hell than be beside God in > Heaven knowing that even one man would spend his "eternal life" > being scorched for his wrongdoings.... Stephen, I suspect that when you and I use the word "Hell," we have different concepts in mind. When you encounter references to Heaven in terms of crowns and harps and golden streets, I trust that you do not suppose (or suspect Christians of supposing) that the golden streets are to be taken literally, still less that they are what the concept of Heaven is all about. Why then should you suppose that about the "fires" of Hell? Have you read the novel ATLAS SHRUGGED? Do you remember the last description of James Taggart, sitting on the floor beside the Ferris Persuader? This comes close to a description of what is meant by Hell in my circles. If the image of fire is often used in this connection, there are two reasons that occur to me. The first reason is that it conveys the idea of Hell as something that any rational being would earnestly wish to avoid (as any rational being would wish to avoid the fate of James Taggart -- but the latter image is meaningful only to those who have read ATLAS SHRUGGED, a smaller audience than those who have played with matches). The second reason is the history of the Hebrew word "Gehenna," one of the words translated "Hell" in the New Testament. It refers to the valley of Hinnon, outside Jerusalem. In early days, it was a place where the Canaanites offered human sacrifices (burned alive) to Molech. Later, it was made a garbage or refuse dump, where fires burned continually, consuming the trash of the city of Jerusalem. "To be cast into Gehenna" or "to burn in Gehenna" thus became a metaphor for "to be rejected or discarded as worthless." Lest you think that identifying Hell with the fate of James Taggart is my own private fancy, I commend to you the book THE GREAT DIVORCE, by C S Lewis. It discusses Heaven (no harps) and Hell (no flames). It is shorter than ATLAS SHRUGGED, and available at most bookstores and libraries.

Probably because it IS rape. So nothing. It may work for some, but not for others: it doesn't give any insight into an overall God or overall truth of a religion- it would seem to be dependent solely on the individual, as well as individually-created. And since Christians have failed to show us how there way of life is in any wy better than ours, I do not see why the attempt to try it is necessary, or even particularly attractive. Well, we will nerver know for sure if we were told the truth or not, but at the very least there is a bit more evidence pointing to the fact that, say, there was a military conflict in Vietnam 25 years ago, then there is a supernatural diety who wants us to live a certain way. The fact that Jesus warned against it means nothing. *I* warn against it too. Big deal. This is not true. The first two choices here (life and death) are scantily documented, and the last one is total malarky unless one uses the Bible, and that is totally circular. Perhaps it be better to use the imagination, or one's ignorance. Someone else will address this I'm sure, and refer you to plenty of documentation... How is this? There is nothing more disgusting than Christian attempts to manipulate/interpret the Old Testament as being filled with signs for the coming of Christ. Every little reference to a stick or bit of wood is autmoatically interpreted as the Cross. What a miscarriage of philology. Well, since we have skeptical hearts (thank goodness,) there is no way to get into us. Here we have the irreconcilable difference: Christians glorify exactly what we tend to despise or snub: trust/belief/faith without knowledge. If I am lucky one day and I happen to be thinking of God at the same time my enkephalins go up, then I may associate this as a sign of God (it will "feel" right, and I will trust without knowing). Maybe. Religosity does not seem to be anything that is conclusively arrived at, but rather it seems to be more of a sudden affliction... I believe many of us were willing to die for what we believed, many of us were not. The question is, is suchg an attitude reflective of a _correct_ or healthy morality. IT would seem not to be. The same thing could reflect fanaticism, for example, and is any case an expression of simple selfishness. -- --Adam

| | > Mary at that time appeared to a girl named Bernadette at | > Lourdes. She referred to herself as the Immaculate Conception. | > Since a nine year old would have no way of knowing about the | > doctrine, the apparition was deemed to be true and it sealed | > the case for the doctrine. |Bernadette was 14 years old when she had her visions, in 1858, |four years after the dogma had been officially proclaimed by the |Pope. | | Yours, | James Kiefer I forgot exactly what her age was but I remember clearly that she was born in a family of poverty and she did not have any education, whatsoever, at the age of the apparitions. She suffered from asthma at that age and she and her family were living in a prison cell of some sort. She had to ask the 'Lady' several times in her apparitions about what her name was since her confessor priest asked her to do so. For several instances, the priest did not get an answer since Bernadette did not receive any. One time, after several apparitions passed, The Lady finally said, "I am the Immaculate Conception". So, Bernadette, was so happy and repeated these words over and over in her mind so as not to forget it before she told the priest who was asking. So, when she told the priest, the priest was shocked and asked Bernadette, "Do you know what you are talking about?". Bernadette did not know what exactly it meant but she was just too happy to have the answer for the priest. The priest continued with, "How did you remember this if you do not know?". Bernadette answered honestly that she had to repeat it over and over in her mind while on her way to the priest... The priest knew about the dogma being four years old then. But Bernadette did not know and yet she had the answer which the priest finally observed and took as proof of an authentic personal revelation of Our Lady to Bernadette. (Note: This Lady of Lourdes shrine has a spring of water which our lady requested Bernadette to dig up herself with her bare hands in front of pilgrims. At the start little water flowed but after several years there is more water flowing.)

Like we have never heard of, or read these verses before? How about you read them in context, taking into consideration the times and places in which they were written; the local customs and pagan rituals; what the surrounding verses are talking about and how they interact with the rest of the Bible. There are many issues in the Bible that are argued, and can be argued successfullly from both sides of an issue. Some examples that come to mind are Gifts of the Spirit when the Rapture will occur(pre or post tribulation) how people should be baptized to name a few. I have found nothing in scripture that condemns me, or anyone else, for having a monogamous relationship with the person whom I love, even if we are the same sex. I'm sorry if I am coming across as heated. It's just that the Lord has been so dear to me the last several years and I'm tired of hearing this same old thing from people who believe what their told rather than finding out for themselves. Check it out for yourself. Invite the Holy Spirit to guide you. If I weren't confident of this I wouldn't invite you to do this.

Well I am one of those (apparently) odd people who can sometimes control their dreams. For example, I might decide before going to sleep that I want to repeat a favourite dream, or dream about a specific place. Or if I am having an unpleasant dream, I can often (not always) redirect events to something more pleasant. I guess I think that the same standards apply in these "directed" dreams as apply in waking fantasies or real life (ref Jesus teaching about looking at a woman lustfully being the same a committing adultary). When my normal dreams display themes that I would not conciously chose to dream about, I take that as a sign that all is not well with my "inner life" - maybe I have underlying tenstions/fears that need to be resolved, or maybe its straightforward sin. In either case, the cause needs to be resolved. In fact, either case is pretty rare. I don't often remember dreams that I don't chose to have. When I do, they almost always tell me something important. I also almost never dream in pictures, and especially not in colour (in fact I've had precisely one full colour picture dream that I can remember, and it was definately spiritually important) I tend to dream in sound, with the odd blurred image, in black and white. Interesting topic - I'll be fascinated to read other responses. Alison

Ouch, this is a good question. To me, not existing is worse than existing no matter what, so I will modify this question to be: would I be a Christian if it made no eternal difference in my reward or punishment? I hope this is in the same spirit you want. I personally am very goal oriented. It is hard for me to do things that do not achieve some goal. However, to relate this to sports, only after I learned to not care about the score did I become a good basketball player. I had to learn to go all out no matter the situation. Perhaps this lesson is relevent. After all, only if I can give up my life can I keep it, only if I am humble can I achieve glory. Only if I concentrate on living my life now the best I can will I be afforded life eternal. I think you have illuminated the true meaning of "saved by faith." But what is my answer? Right now I would remain a Christian. However, was that always my answer? That's the problem. Heaven and hell are good motivators at certain stages of maturity. And I admit there are certain times when perhaps I bite my tongue and put up with something in the hope of a better day, i.e. I mentally trade present happiness for future happiness. I hope the cynics and skeptics do not read more into that than appropriate, but I am trying to be honest. I think these kinds of questions are extremely fruitful. I guess it depends on how one views knowledge and learning. By stripping ideas to simple, straightforward, opposing concepts we can determine levels of importance. By analyzing the theoretically absurd we can gain a better understanding of the actually absurd.

I disagree. In the end, the *individual* is responsible for his/her own irrationality. The individual's belief in some dogmatic religion is a symptom of that irrationality. Atheists and agnostics, I would imagine, but yes, that was my point. An atheist would theoretically be just as ill-equipped to study the philosophy of religion as a Christian, and yet there is a persistence of atheists among the ranks of philosophers. Therefore, the conflict between one's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and the ability to be a philosopher must not be as great as you assert. The fact that most philosophers may be non-religious was a secondary point. As opposed to science practiced by theists? Be careful here. Science does have a built-in defence against faith and dogma: skepticism. Unfortunately, it is not foolproof. There is that wonderful little creature known as the "theory." Many of us believe in the theory of evolution. We have no absolute proof that this theory is true, so why do we believe it? Because it "makes more sense than...?" There is quite a bit of faith involved here. Well, not ALL current beliefs are deficient, but basically I agree. Ideally, this is true. In reality, though, you have to acknowledge that scientists are human. Scientists have egos and biases. Some scientists assume a particular theory is true, refuse to admit the flaws in that theory because of ego problems or whatever, and proceed to spend their time and money trying to come up with absolute proof for the theory. Remember cold fusion? Not really. I agree that we spent far too much money on the Waco crisis ($7,500,000 I believe), especially considering the outcome. My point was that mass suicides in the U.S. are rare (Jonestown was in Guyana, incidentally, although we footed the bill for the clean-up), and the U.S. has far more important issues to address. Compare the number of U.S. citizens who have died in mass suicides with, say, the number of U.S. soldiers who died during one week of the Vietnam War and you will see my point.

: Arrogance is arrogance. It is not the result of religion, it is the result : of people knowing or firmly believing in an idea and one's desire to show : others of one's rightness. I assume that God decided to be judge for our : sake as much as his own, if we allow him who is kind and merciful be the : judge, we'll probably be better off than if others judged us or we judged : ourselves. I'm not sure I agree with this 100%. I agree that arrogance is not the result of religion and that God is a far better judge than we are. I also agree if you mean to say that arrogance shows up in the form of trying to prove one's superior knowledge, rightness, or holiness over another person's beliefs. I need to be careful to understand what you mean here so that I do not fall into the mistake of misrepresenting your views. If I fall down in this area I hope you will forgive me. Arrogance is not the result of believing one is right or of believing that one's God is greater than the god's of others or of believing that one's religion is better than other religions. These are all naturally self-implied beliefs. It is self-contradictory to say that I believe my current beliefs to be wrong. Were I to find myself in error, my beliefs would naturally change and follow what I believe to be right. Therefore, I must always consider my beliefs correct. That's not arrogance. That's unavoidable behavior. It is nonsense to say that I believe another person's god to be greater than my God. Were his or her god greater, wouldn't I be obligated to change so that their god would become my God? We are naturally obligated to worship that God which we deem to be the greatest. Why should we feel obligated to worship a second best god for the sake of feeling humble? Arrogance is not necessarily thinking onesself to be better looking or more intelligent or stronger or having more resources than another person. No doubt many will have to chew on this one awhile. Were passive observation of one's superior points arrogance, then God would be most arrogant of all. Humility does not rest in slandering or belittling God's work of creation in our lives. People often go around trying to be humble saying to one another, "I'm not very smart. I'm poor. I'm not good looking. I'm just a worm in the ground. I'm such a weak person and although I don't want to sin, I really cannot help it." Were this person truely humble, he would take a different approach. "God, thank you for making me the way you did. I know that you never do anything second best. Yet with all that you have given me, I have been so unthankful. You've given me power to resist the devil. I have not used it but have indulged myself in doing exactly what you have said not to do. I have slandered your creation in my life and have credited myself with humility for doing so. Lord, with all you've given me, I have been completely unfaithful and I do not deserve your forgiveness. And, yet Your love for me is so boundless that you would give Yourself to die for me to save me. As terribly evil as I am, I deserve to go straight to hell, yet it pleases you somehow to rescue me from this terrible life I've led. Lord, please forgive me and help me stay on the right track so that I can bring glory to Your Name instead of insult. Lord I'm so sorry for my wrongs. Please help me to change." : : I think people take exceptional offense to religious arrogance because : they don't want to be wrong. If I find someone arrogant, I typically : don't have anything to do with them. For me, I've often found it hard to tell the difference. Often times, the most humble christian has come across to me as arrogant while the most proud "worm in the ground" false humility type person has been found to be most comfortable company. When I'm wrong and arrogant about my wrongness, I certainly don't feel like being confronted by my wrongness. Were someone to confront me verbally with my wrongness, I'd be likely to snap at them and examine them head to toe for all their faults and charge them with hypocricy for what they said to me. At the root, my desire would be to make them shut up so that I can go about living my life arrogantly as I wish. However, were someone to confront me silently by their example, earn my respect, and perhaps mention it to me in humility in private, I'd feel broken down and challenged to seek God for help in changing from the error of my ways. The hard part is getting to the point to where I can be humble before anyone regardless of their humility or pride--regardless of their hypocricy or sincerity--regardless of whether onlookers will frown down upon me or not. It isn't easy to take this pain in love with thankfulness for the opportunity to improve in one's ability to serve God. It's easier to cast aside any hope of reaching true humility and merely hide behind slandering God's creation in our lives instead. : But we should examine ourselves [I hope I typed this back in right] : and why we react to certain situations with such emotions. For instance, : many of us feel "justified" to be insulted by an arrogant person. As if : we needed a reason to feel insulted. But after being insulted over and : over again by the words of others, you'd think we'd either toughen up : or decide not to be insulted, or ignore the insult. Just because you : can justify feelings of anger or insult or outrage, that doesn't make that : reaction the appropriate one. It is in this light of self-examination : that we can change our emotional reactions. : Sometimes it helps when we can understand and feel the difference between what is a true statement of our character and what is a false and slanderous statement of our character. The devil is the accuser of the bretheren. He would love us to feel hopelessly guilty where we are innocent and feel arrogant and self-righteous where we are indeed wrong. The devil's aim is to get us into as much misery as he can. Just think of the devil as a cruel and merci- less criminal who torments a parent by burning his or her children with hot irons. The way the devil gets under the Father's skin is by hurting those that the Father loves so much. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "I deplore the horrible crime of child murder... We want prevention, not merely punishment. We must reach the root of the evil... It is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt from the dreadful deed... No mater what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed... but oh! thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime."

Hello. I just like to share this rosary and other prayer propagation practice we do in my country. I am not sure if it is going on also here in the US or any other country. In all these 4 1/2 yrs. I've been here in Illinois, USA, I have not encountered it. May I just call it "Traveling Fatima" since I don't know of an exact translation of what we call it in my native language. For certain regions in a district in a town or city, an image/ statue of our Lady of Fatima is moved from one home (originating from owner) to another. This will stay with that family for one (1) week and this family is required to pray the rosary and other prayers (prayer sheets accompany the image) to our Lady of Fatima. The move will be like a simple procession of folks picking up the image from its current 'home' after 'departing' prayers and proceeds to move it to the next home which has the prior notification about the move. There will be the 'receiving' prayers at the next home to welcome our Lady of Fatima image there. It does not have to be that only members of the family in that home who must pray to the image. They may invite others (or others/friends can invite themselves in ;^)) to participate during prayer time in that 'new' home everyday for one week. This image is moved from one family to the next within the bounded region of that district, until it goes back to the owner of the image. This is probably going on around there (Philippines) right now (or somebody correct me when exactly since I forgot) and every year, this is part of our devotion to our Lady of Fatima. It has been easy to facilitate this back home because it is more likely that your next door neighbor is a Catholic and the image then is just moved next door. I am thinking of starting something like it in the village where my sister and her family lives. Most of our friends and neighbors there are Catholics and practicing ones. I'd like to know if there are any state/community laws that this practice will violate, whatsoever, before I go for it. Thank you for any comments or help about this matter.

Actually, I've got an entire list of books written by various atheist authors and I went to the largest bookstore in my area (Pittsburgh) and couldn't find _any_ of them. What section of the bookstore do you find these kinds of books in? Do you have to look in an "alternative" bookstore for most of them? Any help would be appreciated (I can send you the list if you want).

Brian Kendig first states: I ask: Brian Kendig states: Make up your mind. And we do not end perfect either. We are never perfect. Can you name one person, young or old, past or present, that you deem perfect? Good luck. Then you lie to yourself. You do not know your shortcomings. I have clearly shown one of your shortcomings, if not two. That is, ignorance of the Bible and the arrogance you demonstrate butchering it without even knowing its contents. Because you have been too prideful to examine the record of him for yourself. And to demonstate your lack of support for your conclusion, I bet you do not even know what the word "Christ" means. Or which prophet used "Christ" to describe the "Son of Man". Yes. I agree with that. So we must learn first. Read the Bible. Come up with our own interpretation. Evaluate what is being said and by whom. Check the history books as well. Compare someone else's interpretation with your own. Then make a judgment. But I tell you the truth, 99% of what is being said in the Bible needs interpretation as much as a coffee cup needs interpretation. And remember, the Bible isn't a Guru's Esoteric Guide to Metaphysics. It doesn't take a theologian to understand what is being said. The Bible is a bunch of testimonies from people like you and I addressed to people like you and I. These guys wrote down what they saw and heard. Is it their open diary--and they want to tell you something. And because they want you to know something, they make it very clear what they want you to know. They didn't encouch their ideas in esoteric rhetoric, but in simple straight-forward language. You have chosen the road that avoids the Bible. You have chosen the road that avoids a confrontation with the living God because that road doesn't look appealing to you. You rather build your own road. One that goes far away from that confrontation. But be assured of this, you will have to confront him one day willingly or unwillingly. I see what you mean. I hear what your saying. I am not degrading your life. But I have heard the same irrational excuses for years. There is nothing new in what you are saying. And by your own words, you are "spouting off" contradictions. If contradictions give you meaning, then your life must be sad. Bingo. For God so loved the world, he GAVE his only begotton to son so that whososever belives in him will have ever lasting life. I look what God *did*. He has given his Son, even to his death, so that I can have hope in his resurrection and know that life isn't for nothing, but has glorious purpose. Because you turn your eyes away from testimony and history. You choose to lie to yourself that he doesn't exist, for you ignore what has been said for thousands of years. You sound exactly, almost verbatim, like the Lazarus of Jesus's story starting in Luke 16:19. And the conclusion of that story is a bleak one. Lazarus wound up in hell. The story ends like this: "For if Lazarus doesn't even listen to Moses and the Prophets, he won't even believe if a man rose from the dead." Arrogance at its best. The fact is, you are not rational. Several specific cases have already been cited. And again with this new statement, you show more irrationality with regards to heaven. Jesus does tell you something of what to expect in heaven. Jesus expects you to use your brain to believe in him. Jesus does not expect you to placate either. Jesus wants you to willingly come to him, but not as his grovelling slave, but rather as his brother who will share in his glorious riches. Why do you not pick up the Bible and read it for yourself. You maintain you have an open mind. See whether you are lying to yourself for yourself. I do understand what you said. But that's is not what I feel went amiss here. You missed the point. Living a "good life" has no eternal consequences. Once they close the amusement park of life, to you that is the end. To you, it is over. To you, therefore, your time spent in the amusement park is meaningless. It has no eternal consequences to you nor to anyone left on earth. But then you contradict yourself. From a previous post, you said doing evil things is bad. To you, it shouldn't matter if you do evil things or good things. It is all meaningless in the end anyway. So go rob a bank. Go tell someone you dislike that he is a dirty rotten slime bag. What's restraining you? Life after all, has no eternal consequences and accountability is irrelevant. At which time, you are truly not the master of yourself. So you (and your holy book) say. By the same token, therefore, Santa Claus delivers toys every xmas. Don't you see? I have NO REASON to believe that what you say is true. Please give me some reason that I can't similarly apply to Santa Claus. You have EVERY reason to believe that what Jesus says and the witnesses of Jesus say are true. But you choose to be unreasonable and "ignore" the reasons. By definition, "ignorance". Santa Claus is said to live at the North Pole and have a squad of elves and flying reindeer. Ever see a flying reindeer? Has anyone in human history seen a flying reindeer? Has anyone seen a reindeer whose nose blinks red? On the other hand, are people born in Bethlehem? Was Nebuchandezzar really a king? Was Daniel really one of his court officials? Were David and Solomon really kings of Israel and Judah? Was their really a king called Jehoachin? Did Sennecherib really attack Jerusalem 600 years before Christ? Did Sennacherib really lose his battle--and badly? Was there really a Caiaphas who interrogated Jesus? Yes, yes, yes . . . history verifies it. It is NONFICTION. Do you have a problem discerning truth from fiction? Perhaps you can't evaluate the context of Grimm's Fairy Tales apart from that of the Scientific American. I suppose you treat both with equal truthfulness or equal falsity. Is this what you are telling me? Or is it that just do want to read the Scientific American and find out that it's not a fairy tale? Get real. Have you ever been to Zaire? Do you have to go there to be assured that there really is such a place? Given your irrationality, I take it you have never used a map in your life.

: In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] : > I'd say that what one chooses to observe and how the observation is : > interpreted and what significance it's given depends a great deal on : > the values of the observer. Science is a human activity and as such, : > is subject to the same potential for distortion as any other human : > activity. The myth that scientists are above moral influence or : > ethical concern, that their knowledge can be abstacted whole and pure : > from nature untainted by the biases of the scientist, is nonsense. : Bill, this is wonderfully phrased. I assume you understand that your : statement is also undermining such human constructs as religion : as well. Kent, I'll accept this as a compliment although I'm always a little paranoid when visiting a.a, thanks. Yes I do know the extent of the statements relevence, it's what I think of as human nature. I'm not sure it undermines either religion or atheism since both claim special knowledge about the Truth and since such claims are always suspect, all we can learn from it is that humans are a very arrogant species. My point is that we cannot ignore human nature when examining human claims. The trick here then, is to find some way to abstract our infinitely fallible nature from whatever reality is out there so we can see what there is to see. I can think of no way this can be done.

I don't have a stat, but, unfortunately, I did read generally that both smoking and belief in the supernatural (occultish garbage) is on the rise here. This is very interesting. I thing the principle is sort of the same though: all "philosophical" ideas are generally tried out and tested mostly during college years. Whether the idea is christian or atheist doesn't always matter. But I'd like to say it's because atheists are more intelligent :) -- regards, --Adam

Until recently I always understood the term "kingdom theology" to mean the theology of the kingdom of God, but now I have discovered that there is a new and more specialized meaning. I gather that it is also called "Dominion theology", and that it has to do with a belief that Christians must create a theocratic form of government on earth before Christ will come again. I have not come across anyone who believes or advocates this, but I am told that it is a very widespread belief in the USA. Can anyone give me any more information about it? Here are some of my questions: 1. Is it the teaching of any particular denomination? If so, which? 2. Where and when does it start? 3. Are there any particular publications that propagate it? 4. Are there any organizations that propagate it?

Everything we need to know about the seven seals is already in the bible. There is no "knowledge" of the seals that Koresh could have. Unless the FBI were to kill all publishers of the bible, it would seem the story of the seven seals would be bound to leak out.

Archive-name: atheism/resources Alt-atheism-archive-name: resources Last-modified: 5 April 1993 Version: 1.1 Atheist Resources Addresses of Atheist Organizations USA FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION Darwin fish bumper stickers and assorted other atheist paraphernalia are available from the Freedom From Religion Foundation in the US. Write to: FFRF, P.O. Box 750, Madison, WI 53701. Telephone: (608) 256-8900 EVOLUTION DESIGNS Evolution Designs sell the "Darwin fish". It's a fish symbol, like the ones Christians stick on their cars, but with feet and the word "Darwin" written inside. The deluxe moulded 3D plastic fish is $4.95 postpaid in the US. Write to: Evolution Designs, 7119 Laurel Canyon #4, North Hollywood, CA 91605. People in the San Francisco Bay area can get Darwin Fish from Lynn Gold -- try mailing <[email protected]>. For net people who go to Lynn directly, the price is $4.95 per fish. SET FREE Atheist stickers, T-shirts and books. Write to: Set Free, P.O. Box 3065-192, Garden Grove, CA 92642. AMERICAN ATHEIST PRESS AAP publish various atheist books -- critiques of the Bible, lists of Biblical contradictions, and so on. One such book is: "The Bible Handbook" by W.P. Ball and G.W. Foote. American Atheist Press. 372 pp. ISBN 0-910309-26-4, 2nd edition, 1986. Bible contradictions, absurdities, atrocities, immoralities... contains Ball, Foote: "The Bible Contradicts Itself", AAP. Based on the King James version of the Bible. Write to: American Atheist Press, P.O. Box 140195, Austin, TX 78714-0195. or: 7215 Cameron Road, Austin, TX 78752-2973. Telephone: (512) 458-1244 Fax: (512) 467-9525 PROMETHEUS BOOKS Sell books including Haught's "Holy Horrors" (see below). Write to: 700 East Amherst Street, Buffalo, New York 14215. Telephone: (716) 837-2475. An alternate address (which may be newer or older) is: Prometheus Books, 59 Glenn Drive, Buffalo, NY 14228-2197. AFRICAN-AMERICANS FOR HUMANISM An organization promoting black secular humanism and uncovering the history of black freethought. They publish a quarterly newsletter, AAH EXAMINER. Write to: Norm R. Allen, Jr., African Americans for Humanism, P.O. Box 664, Buffalo, NY 14226. United Kingdom Rationalist Press Association National Secular Society 88 Islington High Street 702 Holloway Road London N1 8EW London N19 3NL 071 226 7251 071 272 1266 British Humanist Association South Place Ethical Society 14 Lamb's Conduit Passage Conway Hall London WC1R 4RH Red Lion Square 071 430 0908 London WC1R 4RL fax 071 430 1271 071 831 7723 The National Secular Society publish "The Freethinker", a monthly magazine founded in 1881. Germany IBKA e.V. Internationaler Bund der Konfessionslosen und Atheisten Postfach 880, D-1000 Berlin 41. Germany. IBKA publish a journal: MIZ. (Materialien und Informationen zur Zeit. Politisches Journal der Konfessionslosesn und Atheisten. Hrsg. IBKA e.V.) MIZ-Vertrieb, Postfach 880, D-1000 Berlin 41. Germany. For atheist books, write to: IBDK, Internationaler B"ucherdienst der Konfessionslosen Postfach 3005, D-3000 Hannover 1. Germany. Telephone: 0511/211216 Books -- Fiction THOMAS M. DISCH "The Santa Claus Compromise" Short story. The ultimate proof that Santa exists. All characters and events are fictitious. Any similarity to living or dead gods -- uh, well... WALTER M. MILLER, JR "A Canticle for Leibowitz" One gem in this post atomic doomsday novel is the monks who spent their lives copying blueprints from "Saint Leibowitz", filling the sheets of paper with ink and leaving white lines and letters. EDGAR PANGBORN "Davy" Post atomic doomsday novel set in clerical states. The church, for example, forbids that anyone "produce, describe or use any substance containing... atoms". PHILIP K. DICK Philip K. Dick Dick wrote many philosophical and thought-provoking short stories and novels. His stories are bizarre at times, but very approachable. He wrote mainly SF, but he wrote about people, truth and religion rather than technology. Although he often believed that he had met some sort of God, he remained sceptical. Amongst his novels, the following are of some relevance: "Galactic Pot-Healer" A fallible alien deity summons a group of Earth craftsmen and women to a remote planet to raise a giant cathedral from beneath the oceans. When the deity begins to demand faith from the earthers, pot-healer Joe Fernwright is unable to comply. A polished, ironic and amusing novel. "A Maze of Death" Noteworthy for its description of a technology-based religion. "VALIS" The schizophrenic hero searches for the hidden mysteries of Gnostic Christianity after reality is fired into his brain by a pink laser beam of unknown but possibly divine origin. He is accompanied by his dogmatic and dismissively atheist friend and assorted other odd characters. "The Divine Invasion" God invades Earth by making a young woman pregnant as she returns from another star system. Unfortunately she is terminally ill, and must be assisted by a dead man whose brain is wired to 24-hour easy listening music. MARGARET ATWOOD "The Handmaid's Tale" A story based on the premise that the US Congress is mysteriously assassinated, and fundamentalists quickly take charge of the nation to set it "right" again. The book is the diary of a woman's life as she tries to live under the new Christian theocracy. Women's right to own property is revoked, and their bank accounts are closed; sinful luxuries are outlawed, and the radio is only used for readings from the Bible. Crimes are punished retroactively: doctors who performed legal abortions in the "old world" are hunted down and hanged. Atwood's writing style is difficult to get used to at first, but the tale grows more and more chilling as it goes on. VARIOUS AUTHORS "The Bible" This somewhat dull and rambling work has often been criticized. However, it is probably worth reading, if only so that you'll know what all the fuss is about. It exists in many different versions, so make sure you get the one true version. Books -- Non-fiction PETER DE ROSA "Vicars of Christ", Bantam Press, 1988 Although de Rosa seems to be Christian or even Catholic this is a very enlighting history of papal immoralities, adulteries, fallacies etc. (German translation: "Gottes erste Diener. Die dunkle Seite des Papsttums", Droemer-Knaur, 1989) MICHAEL MARTIN "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification", Temple University Press, Philadelphia, USA. A detailed and scholarly justification of atheism. Contains an outstanding appendix defining terminology and usage in this (necessarily) tendentious area. Argues both for "negative atheism" (i.e. the "non-belief in the existence of god(s)") and also for "positive atheism" ("the belief in the non-existence of god(s)"). Includes great refutations of the most challenging arguments for god; particular attention is paid to refuting contempory theists such as Platinga and Swinburne. 541 pages. ISBN 0-87722-642-3 (hardcover; paperback also available) "The Case Against Christianity", Temple University Press A comprehensive critique of Christianity, in which he considers the best contemporary defences of Christianity and (ultimately) demonstrates that they are unsupportable and/or incoherent. 273 pages. ISBN 0-87722-767-5 JAMES TURNER "Without God, Without Creed", The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, USA Subtitled "The Origins of Unbelief in America". Examines the way in which unbelief (whether agnostic or atheistic) became a mainstream alternative world-view. Focusses on the period 1770-1900, and while considering France and Britain the emphasis is on American, and particularly New England developments. "Neither a religious history of secularization or atheism, Without God, Without Creed is, rather, the intellectual history of the fate of a single idea, the belief that God exists." 316 pages. ISBN (hardcover) 0-8018-2494-X (paper) 0-8018-3407-4 GEORGE SELDES (Editor) "The great thoughts", Ballantine Books, New York, USA A "dictionary of quotations" of a different kind, concentrating on statements and writings which, explicitly or implicitly, present the person's philosophy and world-view. Includes obscure (and often suppressed) opinions from many people. For some popular observations, traces the way in which various people expressed and twisted the idea over the centuries. Quite a number of the quotations are derived from Cardiff's "What Great Men Think of Religion" and Noyes' "Views of Religion". 490 pages. ISBN (paper) 0-345-29887-X. RICHARD SWINBURNE "The Existence of God (Revised Edition)", Clarendon Paperbacks, Oxford This book is the second volume in a trilogy that began with "The Coherence of Theism" (1977) and was concluded with "Faith and Reason" (1981). In this work, Swinburne attempts to construct a series of inductive arguments for the existence of God. His arguments, which are somewhat tendentious and rely upon the imputation of late 20th century western Christian values and aesthetics to a God which is supposedly as simple as can be conceived, were decisively rejected in Mackie's "The Miracle of Theism". In the revised edition of "The Existence of God", Swinburne includes an Appendix in which he makes a somewhat incoherent attempt to rebut Mackie. J. L. MACKIE "The Miracle of Theism", Oxford This (posthumous) volume contains a comprehensive review of the principal arguments for and against the existence of God. It ranges from the classical philosophical positions of Descartes, Anselm, Berkeley, Hume et al, through the moral arguments of Newman, Kant and Sidgwick, to the recent restatements of the classical theses by Plantinga and Swinburne. It also addresses those positions which push the concept of God beyond the realm of the rational, such as those of Kierkegaard, Kung and Philips, as well as "replacements for God" such as Lelie's axiarchism. The book is a delight to read - less formalistic and better written than Martin's works, and refreshingly direct when compared with the hand-waving of Swinburne. JAMES A. HAUGHT "Holy Horrors: An Illustrated History of Religious Murder and Madness", Prometheus Books Looks at religious persecution from ancient times to the present day -- and not only by Christians. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 89-64079. 1990. NORM R. ALLEN, JR. "African American Humanism: an Anthology" See the listing for African Americans for Humanism above. GORDON STEIN "An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism", Prometheus Books An anthology covering a wide range of subjects, including 'The Devil, Evil and Morality' and 'The History of Freethought'. Comprehensive bibliography. EDMUND D. COHEN "The Mind of The Bible-Believer", Prometheus Books A study of why people become Christian fundamentalists, and what effect it has on them. GEORGE H. SMITH "Atheism: The Case Against God", Prometheus Books Describes the positions of atheism, theism and agnosticism. Reviews many of the arguments used in favour of the existence of God. Concludes with an assessment of the impact of God on people's lives. Net Resources There's a small mail-based archive server at mantis.co.uk which carries archives of old alt.atheism.moderated articles and assorted other files. For more information, send mail to [email protected] saying help send atheism/index and it will mail back a reply.

Sounds as though you are confused between "what I want" and "what I think is morally right".

Maybe before Babel,everyone including angels spoke the same language,so at Babel, God punished us by giving us languages different from the original one. So if that's the case,then angels now would be speaking in the tongue mankind spoke before Babel.

[stuff about hard to find atheist books deleted]

Absolutely not. I went through a "journey" of lukewarm Christianity, agnosticism, atheism, agnosticism, and now (although I know my faith is less than what it should be) Christianity again. I think it's a path many of us take.

For your first set of questions (regarding the energy and will of Christ) I quote to you the relevant part of the Statement signed by both Eastern (Chalcedonian) and Oriental (non-Chalcedonian) Orthodox scholars a few years ago (Both families = both Orthodox churches) : 1. Both families agreed in condemning the Eutychian heresy. Both families confess that the Logos, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, only begotten of the Father before the ages and consubstantial with Him, was incarnate and was born from the Virgin Mary Theotokos; fully consubstantial with us, perfect man with soul, body and mind ($ \nu o \upsilon \zeta $); He was crucified, died, was buried and rose from the dead on the third day, ascended to the Heavenly Father, where He sits on the right hand of the Father as Lord of all creation. At Pentecost, by the coming of the Holy Spirit He manifested the Church as His Body. We look forward to His coming again in the fullness of His glory, according to the Scriptures. 2. Both families condemn the Nestorian heresy and the crypto-Nestorianism of Theodoret of Cyrus. They agree that it is not sufficient merely to say that Christ is consubstantial both with His Father and with us, by nature God and by nature man; it is necessary to affirm also that the Logos, Who is by nature God, became by nature man, by His incarnation in the fullness of time. 3. Both families agree that the Hypostasis of the Logos became composite by uniting to His divine uncreated nature with its natural will and energy, which He has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit, created human nature, which He assumed at the Incarnation and made His own, with its natural will and energy. 4. Both families agree that the natures with their proper energies and wills ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ are united hypostatically and naturally without confusion, without change, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ without division and without separation, and that they are distinguished in ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ thought alone. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 5. Both families agree that He who wills and acts is always the one Hypostasis of the Logos Incarnate. [...] I guess that adresses your question adequately. As for your second set of questions, I am afraid they are irrelevant to the discussion (at least from my point of view) of Monophysitism. I do not see how they relate to the topic we are discussing (other than to start an endless Orthodox-RC debate which I do not plan to engage into). As a brief answer to your questions, the position of the Coptic Orthodox Church regarding the Roman pontiff, his jurisdiction, his infalability, etc. is exactly the same as all the other Orthodox churches. Peace, Nabil

What would you accept as sources? This very thing has been written in lots of books. You could start with Erich Fromm's _The Dogma of Christ_.

The problem is that you imagine him inside this huge wall, unable to see reality. While he imagines the same about you. Clearly we have a case where relativity plays a big role concerning looking at opposite frames of reality. Cheers, Kent

: > : >I think you're letting atheist mythology confuse you on the issue of : (WEBSTER: myth: "a traditional or legendary story... : ...a belief...whose truth is accepted uncritically.") : How does that qualify? : Indeed, it's almost oxymoronic...a rather amusing instance. : I've found that most atheists hold almost no atheist-views as : "accepted uncritically," especially the few that are legend. : Many are trying to explain basic truths, as myths do, but : they don't meet the other criterions. Andrew, The myth to which I refer is the convoluted counterfeit athiests have created to make religion appear absurd. Rather than approach religion (including Christainity) in a rational manner and debating its claims -as the are stated-, atheists concoct outrageous parodies and then hold the religious accountable for beliefs they don't have. What is more accurately oxymoric is the a term like, reasonable atheist. Bill : >Divine justice. According to the most fundamental doctrines of : >Christianity, When the first man sinned, he was at that time the : You accuse him of referencing mythology, then you procede to : launch your own xtian mythology. (This time meeting all the : requirements of myth.) Here's a good example of of what I said above. Read the post again, I said, "Acoording to ...", which means I am referring to Christian doctrine (as I understand it), if I am speaking for myself you'll know it. My purpose in posting was to present a basic overview of Christain doctrines since it seemed germane. Bill : >with those who pretend not to know what is being said and what it : >means. When atheists claim that they do -not- know if God exists and : >don't know what He wants, they contradict the Bible which clearly says : >that -everyone- knows. The authority of the Bible is its claim to be : ...should I repeat what I wrote above for the sake of getting : it across? You may trust the Bible, but your trusting it doesn't : make it any more credible to me. : If the Bible says that everyone knows, that's clearly reason : to doubt the Bible, because not everyone "knows" your alleged : god's alleged existance. Again I am paraphrasing Christian doctrine which is very clear on this point, your dispute is not with me ... Bill : >refuted while the species-wide condemnation is justified. Those that : >claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God or that His will is : >unknown, must deliberately ignore the Bible; the ignorance itself is : >no excuse. : 1) No, they don't have to ignore the Bible. The Bible is far : from universally accepted. The Bible is NOT a proof of god; : it is only a proof that some people have thought that there : was a god. (Or does it prove even that? They might have been : writing it as series of fiction short-stories. As in the : case of Dionetics.) Assuming the writers believed it, the : only thing it could possibly prove is that they believed it. : And that's ignoring the problem of whether or not all the : interpretations and Biblical-philosophers were correct. : 2) There are people who have truly never heard of the Bible. : 3) Again, read the FAQ. 1) Here again you miss the point. The Bible itself is not the point, it's what it contains. It makes no difference who accpets the Bible or even who's unaware of its existence, Christians hold that it applies universally because mankind shares the same nature and the same fate and the same innate knowledge of God. 2) See above 3) If you read my post with same care as read the FAQ, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Bill : >freedom. You are free to ignore God in the same way you are free to : >ignore gravity and the consequences are inevitable and well known : >in both cases. That an atheist can't accept the evidence means only : Bzzt...wrong answer! : Gravity is directly THERE. It doesn't stop exerting a direct and : rationally undeniable influence if you ignore it. God, on the : other hand, doesn't generally show up in the supermarket, except : on the tabloids. God doesn't exert a rationally undeniable influence. : Gravity is obvious; gods aren't. As I said, the evidence is there, you just don't accept it, here at least we agree. Bill : >Secondly, human reason is very comforatble with the concept of God, so : >much so that it is, in itself, intrinsic to our nature. Human reason : >always comes back to the question of God, in every generation and in : No, human reason hasn't always come back to the existance of : "God"; it has usually come back to the existance of "god". : In other words, it doesn't generally come back to the xtian : god, it comes back to whether there is any god. And, in much : of oriental philosophic history, it generally doesn't pop up as : the idea of a god so much as the question of what natural forces : are and which ones are out there. From a world-wide view, : human nature just makes us wonder how the universe came to : be and/or what force(s) are currently in control. A natural : tendancy to believe in "God" only exists in religious wishful : thinking. Yes, human reason does always come back to the existence of God, we're having this discussion are we not? Bill : >I said all this to make the point that Christianity is eminently : >reasonable, that Divine justice is just and human nature is much : >different than what atheists think it is. Whether you agree or not : YOU certainly are not correct on human nature. You are, at : the least, basing your views on a completely eurocentric : approach. Try looking at the outside world as well when : you attempt to sum up all of humanity. Well this is interesting, Truth is to be determined by it politically correct content. Granted it's extremely unhip to be a WASP male, and anything European is contemptable, but I thought this kind of dialogue, the purpose of a.a, was to get at the truth of things. But then I remember the oxymoron, reasonalble atheist, and I understand.

I don't know either. Truth be known, so little is known of angels to even guess. All we really know is that angels ALWAYS speak in the nativ tongue of the person they're talking to, so perhaps they don't have ANY language of their own. Well, we are told to test the spirits. While you could do this scripturally, to see if someones claims are backed by the bible, I see nothing wrong with making sure that that guy Lazarus really was dead and now he's alive. It's a common fallacy you commit. The non-falsifiability trick. How can I prove it when not all the evidence may be seen? Answer: I can't. The fallacy is in assuming that it is up to me to prove anything. When I say it has never been proven, I'm talking about the ones making the claims, not the skeptics, who are doing the proving. The burden of proof rest with the claimant. Unfortunately, (pontification warning) our legal system seems to be headed in the dangerous realm of making people prove their innocence (end pontification). But truthfully, Corinthians was so poorly written (or maybe just so poorly translated into English) that much remains unknown about just what Paul really intended (despite claims of hard proof one way or another). Some will see his writings in 1 cor 12-14 as saying don't do this don't do this and using sarcasm, metaphor, etc. while yet others take what he says literally sarcasms and metaphors notwithstanding.

[re. Conner's questioning of the blissful afterlife as a reason why many joined the early Xian church] Do you mean Hyam Maccoby's _The Mythmaker_?

[...] That brings up an interesting question. If this interpretation is correct, how would these people be getting into Heaven before Jesus opened the gates of Heaven?

I've been following this train of talk, and the question of dismissing atoms as being in some sense "not real" leaves me uneasy. It seems to be implied that we obseve only the effects, and therefore the underlying thing is not necessarily real. The tree outside my window is in this category... is observe the light which bounces off of it, not the tree itself. The observation is indirect, but no more so than observations I have made of atoms. Also, what about observations and experiments that have been routinely done with individual atoms. I am thinking in particular of atom trapping experiments and tests of fundamental quantum mechanics such as the quantum Zeno effect, where an individual atom is studied for a long period of time. Some of the attempts at quantum mechanical arguments were not very satisfying either. One has to be carefull about making such arguments without a solid technical background in the field. What I read seemed a little confused a quite a red herring. Anyway, if the purpose of a public debate is to make the audience think, it worked. After doing so, I'm willing to try to defend the following assertion if anyone cares:

Then delete the "unfortunately". Now tell me that the two statement say effectively the same thing. And to save everyone a couple of trips round this loop, please notice that we are only obliged to use force to preserve self. We can choose *not* to preserve self, which is the point of pacifism. And in this case they don't prescribe the same things, so..... If you don't think the use of force is immoral, why minimise its use?

I would label him rather an original Christian, not a Pauline Christian, though. Sad that the original church lost the game. Cheers, Kent

> When Elizabeth greeted Mary with the words: "Blessed art thou > among women" (Luke 1:42), it appears that this places Mary > beyond the sanctification of normal humanity. But Deborah says (Judges 5:24): > Blessed among women shall be Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite, > Blessed above all women in the tents. It can doubtless be taken that Jael's slaying of Sisera was a type of Mary's victory over sin. But even if we take Deborah's words as applying prophetically or symbolically to Mary, they must still be applicable literally to Jael. We may well take them to mean that God used her as a part of His plan for the deliverance of His people, and that she has this in common with Mary. But we have no reason to suppose that they mean that she was sinless, and thus no reason to take the like expression applied to Mary as proof that she was sinless.

Word is that the ones he let go were not his. --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------Visit the SOUNDING BOARD BBS +1 214 596 2915, a Wildcat! BBS------- "Foot" the Bill: let's get a new President.

Gregg, you haven't provided even a title of an article to support *your* contention. You also have no reason to believe it *is* an anti-Islamic slander job, apart from your own prejudices. Why, yes. What's a mere report in The Times stating that BCCI followed Islamic banking rules? Gregg *knows* Islam is good, and he *knows* BCCI were bad, therefore BCCI *cannot* have been Islamic. Anyone who says otherwise is obviously spreading slanderous propaganda. I see. If someone wants to provide references to articles you agree with, you will also respond with references to articles you agree with? Mmm, yes, that would be a very intellectually stimulating debate. Doubtless that's how you spend your time in soc.culture.islam. I've got a special place for you in my...  ...kill file. Right next to Bobby. Want to join him? The more you post, the more I become convinced that it is simply a waste of time to try and reason with Moslems. Is that what you are hoping to achieve?

[On secrecy in LDS ceremonies. --clh]

#|> # #|> #Noting that a particular society, in this case the mainland UK, #|> #has few religously motivated murders, and few murders of *any* #|> #kind, says very little about whether inter-religion murders elsewhere #|> #are religiously motivated. #|> #|> No, but it allows one to conclude that there is nothing inherent #|> in all religion (or for that matter, in catholicism and protestantism) #|> that motivates one to kill. # #"Motivates" or "allows?" The Christian Bible says that one may kill #under certain circumstances. In fact, it instructs one to kill under #certain circumstances. I'd say the majority of people have a moral system that instructs them to kill under certain circumstances. I do get your distinction between motivate and allow, and I do agree that if a flavour of theism 'allows' atoricities, then that's an indictment of that theism. But it rather depends on what the 'certain circumstances' are. When you talk about Christianity, or Islam, then at least your claims can be understood. It's when people go to a general statement about theism that it falls apart. One could believe in a God which instructs one to be utterly harmless. # #|> For my part, I conclude that something #|> else is required. I also happen to believe that that something #|> else will work no less well without religion - any easy Them/Us will #|> do. # #And what does religion supply, if not an easy Them/Us? Not necessarily. "Love thy neighbour" does not supply a them/us - it demolishes it. And my definition of religion is broader than my definition of theism, as I have explained. # #|> #By insisting that even the murder of four labourers, chosen because #|> #they were catholics, and who had nothing to do with the IRA, by #|> #Protestant extremists, is *not* religously motivated, I think what #|> #you are saying is that you simply will not accept *any* murder as #|> #being religiously motivated. #|> #|> No. What about that guy who cut off someone's head because he believed #|> he was the devil incarnate? That was religously motivated. # #What about the Protestant extremists who killed four Catholic #labourers? That *wasn't* religiously motivated? Not in my opinion. If they were doing it because of some obscure point of theology, then yes. But since all protestants don't do this (nor do they elect extremists to do it for them), it's just too broad too say "religion did this". I'm saying that the causes are far more complex than that - take away the religious element, and you'd still have the powerful motives of revenge and misguided patriotism. You know, when most Catholics and Protestants worldwide say 'stop the killing', one might listen to that, especially when you claim not to read minds. # # #|> Also, the murders ensuing from the fatwa on Mr. Rushdie, the Inquisitions, #|> and the many religous wars. # #What's so special about these exceptions? Isn't this all just a #grab-bag of ad-hoc excuses for not considering some other murders #to be religiously motivated? What's the general principle behind #all this? The general principle is that it's fairly clear (to me, at least) that religion is the primary motivator (enabler, whatever) of these. It's not nearly so obvious what's going on when one looks at NI, apart from violence of course. # #|> #It's not an abstract "argument". Northern Irish Protestants say #|> #"We don't want to be absorbed into am officially Catholic country." #|> # #|> #Now what are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to reply "No, #|> #that's only what you think you don't want. Mr O'Dwyer assures us #|> #that no matter what you say you want, you really want something #|> #else?" #|> #|> You think the Unionists wouldn't mind being absorbed into a non-Catholic #|> country (other than the UK of course)? It's a terrible thing to lose #|> a mind. Maybe the word "country" is there for more than just kicks. #|> I certainly don't believe that the Unionists are in it for God - I think #|> they wish to maintain their position of privilege. # #I'm still listening to what they say, and you are still telling us #your version of what they think. You read minds, and I don't. You've speculated on my motives often enough, and you don't take my statements of my own beliefs at face value - therefore your claim not to read minds has no credibility with me, sorry. I also note that you fail to answer my question. It just looks to me very much like you have an axe to grind - especially as you are indeed ignoring what most Protestants say - which is @stop the killing". The people you refer to are properly described as Unionists, not Protestants. # #As for their position of privilege, what is that if not religion- #based? It is based on politics, bigotry, and heartless extremism. None of these things are synonymous with religion, though there is certainly some overlap.

Um, Kent... just what *have* you been doing with his wife?!? ;-D

According to CNN last night (Saturday 4/24/93) he has now found bullets in two of the corpses, in the head (that would indicate that the bullets were aimed at killing the humans). Cheers, Kent

Arthur Clarke may have quoted the comment about knowing you're to be hanged in the morning concentrating a man's mind wonderfully, but the source of the comment is Samuel Johnson. (Pardon me if you already knew that.)

If a Christian means someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus, it is safe to say that Jesus was a Christian. -- "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)

Archive-name: atheism/overview Alt-atheism-archive-name: overview Last-modified: 20 April 1993 Version: 1.3 Overview Welcome to alt.atheism and alt.atheism.moderated. This is the first in a series of regular postings aimed at new readers of the newsgroups. Many groups of a 'controversial' nature have noticed that new readers often come up with the same questions, mis-statements or misconceptions and post them to the net. In addition, people often request information which has been posted time and time again. In order to try and cut down on this, the alt.atheism groups have a series of five regular postings under the following titles: 1. Alt.Atheism FAQ: Overview for New Readers 2. Alt.Atheism FAQ: Introduction to Atheism 3. Alt.Atheism FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) 4. Alt.Atheism FAQ: Constructing a Logical Argument 5. Alt.Atheism FAQ: Atheist Resources This is article number 1. Please read numbers 2 and 3 before posting. The others are entirely optional. If you are new to Usenet, you may also find it helpful to read the newsgroup news.announce.newusers. The articles titled "A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet Community", "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Usenet" and "Hints on writing style for Usenet" are particularly relevant. Questions concerning how news works are best asked in news.newusers.questions. If you are unable to find any of the articles listed above, see the "Finding Stuff" section below. Credits These files could not have been written without the assistance of the many readers of alt.atheism and alt.atheism.moderated. In particular, I'd like to thank the following people: [email protected] (Karl Kluge) [email protected] (Jim Perry) [email protected] (Wayne Aiken) [email protected] (Toby Kelsey) [email protected] (Jyrki Kuoppala) [email protected] (Geoff Arnold) [email protected] (Torkel Franzen) [email protected] (George Kimeldorf) [email protected] (Greg Roelofs) [email protected] (Ken Arromdee) [email protected] (Maddi Hausmann) [email protected] (John A. Johnson) [email protected] (Douglas Graham) [email protected] (William Mayne) [email protected] (Andy Rosen) [email protected] (Achim Stoesser) [email protected] (Bryan O'Sullivan) [email protected] (James J. Lippard) [email protected] (S. Baum) [email protected] (York H. Dobyns) [email protected] (Wayne Schroeder) [email protected] (J.D. Baldwin) [email protected] (Dana Nibby) [email protected] (Richard C. Dempsey) jmunch@hertz,elee.calpoly.edu (John David Munch) [email protected] (Paul Crowley) [email protected] (Richard Zach) [email protected] (Tim Chow) [email protected] (Simon Clippingdale) [email protected] (Pekka Himanen) ...and countless others I've forgotten. These articles are free. Truly free. You may copy them and distribute them to anyone you wish. However, please send any changes or corrections to the author, and please do not re-post copies of the articles to alt.atheism; it does nobody any good to have multiple versions of the same document floating around the network. Finding Stuff All of the FAQ files *should* be somewhere on your news system. Here are some suggestions on what to do if you can't find them: 1. Check the newsgroup alt.atheism. Look for subject lines starting with "Alt.Atheism FAQ:". 2. Check the newsgroup news.answers for the same subject lines. If you don't find anything in steps 1 or 2, your news system isn't set up correctly, and you may wish to tell your system administrator about the problem. 3. If you have anonymous FTP access, connect to rtfm.mit.edu [18.70.0.226]. Go to the directory /pub/usenet/alt.atheism, and you'll find the latest versions of the FAQ files there. FTP is a a way of copying files between networked computers. If you need help in using or getting started with FTP, send e-mail to [email protected] with send usenet/news.answers/ftp-list/faq in the body. 4. There are other sites which also carry news.answers postings. The article "Introduction to the news.answers newsgroup" carries a list of these sites; the article is posted regularly to news.answers. 5. If you don't have FTP, send mail to [email protected] consisting of the following lines: send usenet/news.answers/finding-sources send usenet/alt.atheism/faq send usenet/alt.atheism/introduction send usenet/alt.atheism/logic send usenet/alt.atheism/resources 5. (Penultimate resort) Send mail to [email protected] consisting of the following lines: send atheism/faq/faq.txt send atheism/faq/logic.txt send atheism/faq/intro.txt send atheism/faq/resource.txt and our poor overworked modems will try and send you a copy of the files. There's other stuff, too; interesting commands to try are "help" and "send atheism/index". 6. (Last resort) Mail [email protected], or post an article to the newsgroup asking how you can get the FAQ files. You should only do this if you've tried the above methods and they've failed; it's not nice to clutter the newsgroup or people's mailboxes with requests for files. it's better than posting without reading the FAQ, though! For instance, people whose email addresses get mangled in transit and who don't have FTP will probably need assistance obtaining the FAQ files.

I have a copy. Why are you interested? Lance

This may sound argumentative, but do the pro-homosexual crowd give the same support to church members that are involved in incestuous relationships? If we do a little substitution above, we get: "although by no means all episcopalians are sympathetic to incestuous men and women, there certainly is a fairly larget percentage (in my experience) who are. I am good friends with an episcopalian minister who is ordained and living in a monogamous incestual relationship. This in no way diminishes his ability to minister -- in fact he has a very significant ministry with the Incest association of his community..." Do the same standards apply? If not, why not? And while we're in the ballpark, what about bestiality? I can't recall offhand if there are any direct statements in the Bible regarding sex with animals; does that activity have more or less a sanction? Please avoid responses such as "you're taking this to extremes". I would guess that a disproportionate percentage of the inerrant Bible community views homosexual acts with distaste in the same manner that society at large views incest. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Cokely | (714) 833-4760 [email protected] "They came for the Davidians, but I did not speak up because I was not a Davidian. Then they came for me..." Opinions expressed are mine and do not represent those of Rockwell. --------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Obviously you can replace homosexuality in the above statement by anything from murder to sleeping late. That doesn't mean that the same people would accept those substitutions. The question is whether the relationships involved do in fact form an appropriate vehicle to represent Christ's relationship to humanity. This is at least *partly* an empirical question. In some cases types of human relationship have been rejected because over time they always seem to lead to trouble. I think that's the case with slavery. One can argue that in theory, if you follow Paul's guidelines, it's possible to have Christian slaveholders. But in practice, over a period of time, most people came to the conclusion that nobody can really have that degree of control over another and not abuse it. The message you were responding to was asking you to look at the results from Christian communities that endorse homosexuality. (Note: Christian homosexuals, not people you see on the news advocating some extremist agenda). You may not want to base your decision completely on that kind of observation, but I would argue that it's at least relevant. You can't answer the request by asking why you shouldn't look at the Incest association, because in fact there is no such association. If there were, it might be reasonable for you to look at it too. Of course that doesn't mean that the results of all such examinations would necessarily come out the same way. Part of why there aren't groups pushing all possible relaxed standards is that some of them do produce obviously bad results.

Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go."

Welcome. Hm. I get a little queasy around the phrase "aren't morally responsible", perhaps because I've heard it misused so many times. (I remember in college some folk trying to argue that a person who was drunk was not morally responsible for his actions.) In general, most folk can't control their dreams, but perhaps what you do all day and think about has some impact on them, hm? And I'm not sure what "actions" are in a dream. But I will note that Jesus does seem adamant about the fact that our thought-life is at least as important as our actions. Go lightly with this argument - we are all morally responsible for *who we are* and dreams might well be an important part of that. I don't know a thing about Out Of Body Experiences. I've had dreams, some fairly vivid ones; is an OOBE just a very vivid dream? I would argue that extreme interest in this sort of phenomena is a tad risky; it is probably much better to think about who Jesus is, and who we are in relation to that, than to cultivate a strong interest in dreams. Unless you feel plagued by dreams that are painful and out of control; then pray about it and/or get help. What on Earth is your definition of "often"? I know exactly one case of two people who had substantially the same dream at the same time, and as they were brothers who had spent the day doing the same things I could see why their dreams might be similiar. Anyway, the only "other plane" I know of is the spiritual realm. I don't think *anyone's* dreams, perhaps outside the occasional prophet's, represent actual actions on an alternate plane. If they were real actions, or conscious thoughts, then yes they would have direct moral significance. in a different environment, then different moral laws apply" is my guess of what you said.] I don't see the slightest hint in Christian writings that ones "environment" changes the way a person determines what is moral. For a Christian won't it *always* come down to "what Jesus would have us do?" Truth? I don't claim to be an expert in dreams. I'll note that the Bible doesn't talk much about dreams outside of the realm of God using them to speak to us, with the caveat that such messages are not always very clear, as it warns somewhere in the OT. Given that, I would not give them a lot of attention unless you feel your dreams are trying to tell you something.

I think you have are addressing the wrong issue. The situation is more like: we both see some elves. This is established as fact since we can both touch them etc. Then one of us says, the elves have always been with us. The other says, no no there was a time before elves were here. Which is the positive argument?

It isn't. It's usually treated as being about as reliable as any other single, uncorroborated source of information about a person for whom there is no other evidence. What do you mean when you say it contains mirables. I just opened mine and not a damned thing happened. Is there some special way to do this?

[material deleted] [deletions] I don't necessarily object to the secrecy but I do question it, since I see no Biblical reason why any aspect of Christian worship should involve secrecy. But I am interested in your claim that early Christian practices "parallel" Mormon temple ceremonies. Could you give an example? Also, why do they only parallel Mormon ceremonies? Why don't Mormon ceremonies restore the original Christian practices? Wasn't that the whole point of Joseph Smith's stated mission?

[email protected] (Isaac Kuo) states in reply to deleted article about no-knock searches, arrests In general no-knock raids are to preserve evidence, like drugs, which can be flushed down the toilet. They are not the standard way to arrest a violent felon like a bank robber. If there is no need to search or preserve evidence they will just surround the dwelling and order the suspect to come out with her hands up. If the suspect does not come out tear gas will be used. comment on the BD omitted It is not a method to apprehend criminals. It is a very dangerous method to obtain evidence that might be destroyed if a warrant is served in the normal way. It is the most dangerous way to arrest anyone. The cops are charging into a room and they don't know what is in it. It is much safer to surround the place and announce yourself. Cops are not cops _until_ they identify themselves as police officers. Most drug dealers and professional criminals are aware of the likelihood of arrest but they also know how the system works. If they are arrested they call their lawyer, post bail and hope for a plea bargain. If they pull a gun and shoot a cop during a raid they will be charged with first degree murder if they survive the raid. Drug dealers have guns for protection from their customers and other criminals, not to shoot cops. Cops are shot on no-knock drug raids because the criminals aren't aware that they are cops. No-knock raids on homes occupied by non-criminals are more likely to end in disaster. Mom and Pop citizen _KNOW_ that they have not committed any crime, they KNOW that anyone breaking into their house cannot be a cop because they have done nothing wrong. If they have the means to defend themselves they may because they KNOW that the housebreakers are criminals not cops. Cops and homeowners may die. The first reports from Waco stated that the ATF had a warrant to search for illegal weapons and also an arrest warrant if the illegal weapons were found. In this case the no-knock warrant was not called for. It is difficult to flush a gun down the toilet. The ATF could have surrounded the compound. A marked police car could have driven up to the entrance and uniformed officers could have knocked and served the warrant usual way. It this had happened and and Koresh refused the warrant or drove the cops off at gun point then most of the t.p.g folks would have kept quiet.

Paul's statement only asserts that that particular choice was not a matter of karmic fulfillment of the past, just as the fate of the man born blind (John 9) was not. There is no question here of the simplistic idea of karma as a machine that is the sole determiner of one's destiny. Even the eastern traditions, or many of them, do not say that, as one knowledgeable poster pointed out. And if in fact that Paul did not know about or believe in reincarnation does not say anything one way or another about it. Even John the Baptist, who Jesus says emphatically is Elijah (Matt 11:14), does not appear to have been aware of it, at least at the point at which he was asked. But it is interesting that his threefold denial -- to the question whether he is the Christ, the Prophet (i.e. Isaiah), or Elijah, is emphatic in the first case and very weak in the third. I would like to add once again that, while it is important to discuss the different passages that may point directly to the teaching of repeated earth lives, one way or another, what I really see as important in our time is that the subject be revisited in terms of the larger view of Christianity and Christian doctrine. For the most part, those who do accept it either reject the central ideas of Christianity or, if they are Christians, hold their conviction as a kind of separate treasure. I believe that Christianity has important new understanding to bring to bear on it, and vice versa, much that is central to Christianity takes on entirely new dimensions of meaning in light of repeated earth lives. It has a direct bearing on many of the issues frequently discussed in this newsgroup in particular. I have said openly that I have developed my views of repeated earth lives largely from the work of Rudolf Steiner. Not that I hold him as an authority, but the whole picture of Christianity becomes clearer in light of these ideas. Steiner indicated that the old consciousness of reincar- nation necessarily had to fade away that it could be renewed in later times, after a time of development of the Christ idea through the first two millenia after Christ's deed on Golgotha. In our own time, it becomes important that, having received the basic gospel of salvation, our understanding of life and of the human being can now grow to embrace the significance of this idea. For the discussions in this newsgroup, I have tried to focus on that which can be related as directly as possible to scripture and to fundamental Christian teaching and tradition.

The initiations ceremony for Knights ous is almost as secretive as that for the Mafia. What are the phases of initation and why the secretiveness?

ites: I realized that my generalizations would probably have problems under scrutiny from various Asian points of view. They need to be discussed in detail, indeed. But for the purposes of this newsgroup and thread thus far and in this newsgroup, I risked oversimpli- fication. My main purpose was to emphasize that I was not coming from a Buddhist or Hindu point of view. As you observed, the main context is that of Christianity. But by all means, add comments and corrections as you find them. I wrote a longer reply addressing some of your points, but decided to not post it. Perhaps it would be more appropriate for soc.religion. eastern. Instead I just add the following couple of items about karma and reincarnation as I see the matter from an anthroposophical and a Christian point of view. 1. Karma is not simple reward and punishment dealt out by a "judging deity". 2. Reincarnation is not the same as being born again. 3. Reincarnation is not the same as the resurrection of the body. 4. Reincarnation and karma do not contradict the fundamental teachings of Christianity about God, the fall, the being. incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ, his coming again, sin, grace, forgiveness, salvation, and the last judgement. Origen's work was mostly lost. He was not anathematized, to my knowledge, but his writing comes down largely in fragments and quotations from enemies. Perhaps someone else can comment on Origen. I don't know if there is a specific statement about reincarnation from him, but from what I do know about him he probably did hold to the teaching in one form or another. I don't know too much about the history of the idea of reincarnation in the Church. However, I heard an interesting story about Pope John Paul II from an astronomer who teaches at the University of Cracow. The Pope likes to go to Poland for a scientific conference every couple of years so he can relax and talk Polish to friends and fellow countrymen. My acquaintance, an anthroposophist, related the fact that Woitila knew about Steiner and Anthroposophy from his early days. Before he became a priest he was an actor in a dramatic company in Cracow whose leader was a pupil of Steiner and based his acting and directing methods on Steiner's indications. Part of the work was the study of the basic works of anthroposophy. Well, going to this conference with him a few years ago, the astronomer and another Polish anthroposophist thought they would ask the Pope what he thought about Anthroposophy. They chickened out at the last minute, but one of them did ask him what he thought about reincarnation. The Pope smiled and said, "Actually there have been quite a few good Catholics who believed in reincarnation," and he proceeded to name several from the earliest times to modern times. Then he changed the subject. My Polish friend did not say whether Origen was among those he mentioned. Gerry Palo ([email protected])

Are you sure you want to include Chalcedon here? I presume that you mean the description of Jesus as fully human and fully devine. Almost everyone would consider the majority of Copts and Armenians, and the Jacobites, as Christians, yet for 15 centuries it has been maintained that they disagree with the Formula of Chalcedon. Those that wouldn't consider them Christians are most likely to object that these communities don't require a personal commitment to Jesus, which is only tangentially related to the Formula of Chalcedon. -- Thanks, John Kolassa, [email protected]

Uh oh, Michael; you typed "hell" and capitalized it to boot! Now Peter Nyikos will explain that you're not a real Christian! BZZT! Sorry Michael--the Nyikos Inquisition pointed out that I was hell-bound after one mildly scurrilous pun on "revealing oneself." Admitting to masturbation--well, I'm just shocked!

Easy vs. Hard .....Easy on who? I had a rare very personal talk with my mother last year. She said that when she and my father were raising we four children, they did not try to raise us in this world as strictly as they were raised in their Norwegian Lutheran community. They felt that we would be alienated from them and it would create problems. In other words, my parent did the very tolerant, loving thing. They raised us without conflict, without what we saw as unreasonable demands and were always accepting, no matter what the circumstances. What happened was that I grew up believing in situation ethics and never absolutes. I believed in a loving God, and my concept of God never involved justice or punishment, nor was there any concept that I may someday be held responsible for the things that offended Him...sins that the "world" told me were OK. My parents are very good, honest and moral people. They raised four extremely honest children. Yet, before coming to a more complete knowledge of God (which includes the knowledge of justice and punishment)I committed what I now believe to be many, many grave sins. I lived with a partner outside of marriage, was married and divorced ( only after physical abuse and no apparent hope for change...but I shouldn't have married to person in the first place ) and more.... My parents felt they were doing the loving,kind thing by allowing us to be who we were, by not imposing their standards on us, and by accepting unquestioningly everything we did without judgement or counsel. Today, it is absolutely appalling for me to look back on what they *did* accept without a word. It takes courages to dare to help souls because you must speak up and say what is unpopular and difficult and what people do not want to hear. You must be able to say what is hard, and say it as Christ would, with love and compassion. It involves risk....perhaps someone you love may not want to hear and will stay away from you. This life is "but dust". As long as the comfort of this life is our highest priority, we will fail God and fail those with whom we come in contact. I wonder how many who engage in sex outside of marriage, who support the "right" to abortion, who engage in homosexuality, or who commit any of the range of sins that are plentiful in this time have ever heard from a quiet, thoughtful, loving friend that these things are *wrong*. No one ever told me that what I was doing was wrong, and I saw multitudes around me living the same way I was and they seemed like good, decent people. (wouldn't kick dogs or beat the elderly or babies..) It is more difficult for sinners without a genuine prayer life to hear the Holy Spirit than it is to hear a loving friend. Think about this the next time the Holy Spirit tells you that a friend is in error, but you don't want to "cause trouble". Righteous prayers is great power, but don't forget that we are we are Christ's lips and hands on earth. Don't be afraid to simply voice Truth when the situation calls for it. Say a fervent prayer and ask the Holy Spirit for Love and guidance. In more ways than we may realize, we *are* our brother's keeper.

I'm wondering if anyone knows the answer to a rather trivial question which I've been thinking about: What was the process used to divide the Bible into verses. I believe Jerome divided the New Testament, but I've never seen any discussion of *how* he did this. It seems rather arbitrary, as opposed to, for example, making each sentence a verse.

I just received some new information regarding the issue of BCCI and whether it is an Islamic bank etc. I am now about to post it under the heading "BCCI". Look for it there!

Probably not! The jesus freak's post is probably JSN104@PSUVM. Penn State is just loaded to the hilt with bible bangers. I use to go there *vomit* and it was the reason I left. They even had a group try to stop playing rock music in the dining halls one year cuz they deemed it satanic. Kampus Krusade for Khrist people run the damn place for the most part....except the Liberal Arts departments...they are the safe havens. -wdb

This will not, of course, deter the several die-hard Koreshies on this net, who will probably claim that the Tarrant County medical examiner (Dr. Peerwani) was coerced by the FBI into faking this evidence. Either that, or they'll claim the FBI shot them. The rest of us might contemplate the difficulty of determining the cause of death from a corpse that has been reduced to a Krispy Kritter. ************************************************************ * The_Doge of South St. Louis * * Dobbs-Approved Media Conspirator(tm) * * "One Step Beyond" -- Sundays, 3 to 5 pm * * 88.1 FM St. Louis Community Radio * * "You'll pay to know what you *really* think!" * * -- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs" * ************************************************************

The following partial summary of a Theory of the Universe includes a little-known description of the CREATION of our Solar System: LARSONIAN Astronomy and Physics Orthodox physicists, astronomers, and astrophysicists CLAIM to be looking for a "Unified Field Theory" in which all of the forces of the universe can be explained with a single set of laws or equations. But they have been systematically IGNORING or SUPPRESSING an excellent one for 30 years! The late Physicist Dewey B. Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, which he calls the "Reciprocal System", is built on two fundamental postulates about the physical and mathematical natures of space and time: (1) "The physical universe is composed ENTIRELY of ONE component, MOTION, existing in THREE dimensions, in DISCRETE UNITS, and in two RECIPROCAL forms, SPACE and TIME." (2) "The physical universe conforms to the relations of ORDINARY COMMUTATIVE mathematics, its magnitudes are ABSOLUTE, and its geometry is EUCLIDEAN." From these two postulates, Larson developed a COMPLETE Theoretical Universe, using various combinations of translational, vibrational, rotational, and vibrational- rotational MOTIONS, the concepts of IN-ward and OUT-ward SCALAR MOTIONS, and speeds in relation to the Speed of Light (which Larson called "UNIT VELOCITY" and "THE NATURAL DATUM"). At each step in the development, Larson was able to MATCH objects in his Theoretical Universe with objects in the REAL physical universe, (photons, sub-atomic particles [INCOMPLETE ATOMS], charges, atoms, molecules, globular star clusters, galaxies, binary star systems, solar systems, white dwarf stars, pulsars, quasars, ETC.), even objects NOT YET DISCOVERED THEN (such as EXPLODING GALAXIES, and GAMMA-RAY BURSTS). And applying his Theory to his NEW model of the atom, Larson was able to precisely and accurately CALCULATE inter- atomic distances in crystals and molecules, compressibility and thermal expansion of solids, and other properties of matter. All of this is described in good detail, with-OUT fancy complex mathematics, in his books. BOOKS of Dewey B. Larson The following is a complete list of the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson's books about his comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe. Some of the early books are out of print now, but still available through inter-library loan. "The Structure of the Physical Universe" (1959) "The Case AGAINST the Nuclear Atom" (1963) "Beyond Newton" (1964) "New Light on Space and Time" (1965) "Quasars and Pulsars" (1971) "NOTHING BUT MOTION" (1979) [A $9.50 SUBSTITUTE for the $8.3 BILLION "Super Collider".] [The last four chapters EXPLAIN chemical bonding.] "The Neglected Facts of Science" (1982) "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" (1984) [FINAL SOLUTIONS to most ALL astrophysical mysteries.] "BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER" (1988) All but the last of these books were published by North Pacific Publishers, P.O. Box 13255, Portland, OR 97213, and should be available via inter-library loan if your local university or public library doesn't have each of them. Several of them, INCLUDING the last one, are available from: The International Society of Unified Science (ISUS), 1680 E. Atkin Ave., Salt Lake City, Utah 84106. This is the organization that was started to promote Larson's Theory. They have other related publications, including the quarterly journal "RECIPROCITY". Physicist Dewey B. Larson's Background Physicist Dewey B. Larson was a retired Engineer (Chemical or Electrical). He was about 91 years old when he died in May 1989. He had a Bachelor of Science Degree in Engineering Science from Oregon State University. He developed his comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe while trying to develop a way to COMPUTE chemical properties based only on the elements used. Larson's lack of a fancy "PH.D." degree might be one reason that orthodox physicists are ignoring him, but it is NOT A VALID REASON. Sometimes it takes a relative outsider to CLEARLY SEE THE FOREST THROUGH THE TREES. At the same time, it is clear from his books that he also knew ORTHODOX physics and astronomy as well as ANY physicist or astronomer, well enough to point out all their CONTRADICTIONS, AD HOC ASSUMPTIONS, PRINCIPLES OF IMPOTENCE, IN-CONSISTENCIES, ETC.. Larson did NOT have the funds, etc. to experimentally test his Theory. And it was NOT necessary for him to do so. He simply compared the various parts of his Theory with OTHER researchers' experimental and observational data. And in many cases, HIS explanation FIT BETTER. A SELF-CONSISTENT Theory is MUCH MORE than the ORTHODOX physicists and astronomers have! They CLAIM to be looking for a "unified field theory" that works, but have been IGNORING one for over 30 years now! "Modern physics" does NOT explain the physical universe so well. Some parts of some of Larson's books are FULL of quotations of leading orthodox physicists and astronomers who agree. And remember that "epicycles", "crystal spheres", "geocentricity", "flat earth theory", etc., ALSO once SEEMED to explain it well, but were later proved CONCEPTUALLY WRONG. Prof. Frank H. Meyer, Professor Emeritus of UW-Superior, was/is a STRONG PROPONENT of Larson's Theory, and was (or still is) President of Larson's organization, "THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF UNIFIED SCIENCE", and Editor of their quarterly Journal "RECIPROCITY". He moved to Minneapolis after retiring. "Super Collider" BOONDOGGLE! I am AGAINST contruction of the "Superconducting Super Collider", in Texas or anywhere else. It would be a GROSS WASTE of money, and contribute almost NOTHING of "scientific" value. Most physicists don't realize it, but, according to the comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson, as described in his books, the strange GOOFY particles ("mesons", "hyperons", ALLEGED "quarks", etc.) which they are finding in EXISTING colliders (Fermi Lab, Cern, etc.) are really just ATOMS of ANTI-MATTER, which are CREATED by the high-energy colliding beams, and which quickly disintegrate like cosmic rays because they are incompatible with their environment. A larger and more expensive collider will ONLY create a few more elements of anti-matter that the physicists have not seen there before, and the physicists will be EVEN MORE CONFUSED THAN THEY ARE NOW! Are a few more types of anti-matter atoms worth the $8.3 BILLION cost?!! Don't we have much more important uses for this WASTED money?! Another thing to consider is that the primary proposed location in Texas has a serious and growing problem with some kind of "fire ants" eating the insulation off underground cables. How much POISONING of the ground and ground water with insecticides will be required to keep the ants out of the "Supercollider"?! Naming the "Super Collider" after Ronald Reagon, as proposed, is TOTALLY ABSURD! If it is built, it should be named after a leading particle PHYSICIST. LARSONIAN Anti-Matter In Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, anti-matter is NOT a simple case of opposite charges of the same types of particles. It has more to do with the rates of vibrations and rotations of the photons of which they are made, in relation to the vibrational and rotational equivalents of the speed of light, which Larson calls "Unit Velocity" and the "Natural Datum". In Larson's Theory, a positron is actually a particle of MATTER, NOT anti-matter. When a positron and electron meet, the rotational vibrations (charges) and rotations of their respective photons (of which they are made) neutralize each other. In Larson's Theory, the ANTI-MATTER half of the physical universe has THREE dimensions of TIME, and ONLY ONE dimension of space, and exists in a RECIPROCAL RELATIONSHIP to our MATERIAL half. LARSONIAN Relativity The perihelion point in the orbit of the planet Mercury has been observed and precisely measured to ADVANCE at the rate of 574 seconds of arc per century. 531 seconds of this advance are attributed via calculations to gravitational perturbations from the other planets (Venus, Earth, Jupiter, etc.). The remaining 43 seconds of arc are being used to help "prove" Einstein's "General Theory of Relativity". But the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson achieved results CLOSER to the 43 seconds than "General Relativity" can, by INSTEAD using "SPECIAL Relativity". In one or more of his books, he applied the LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION on the HIGH ORBITAL SPEED of Mercury. Larson TOTALLY REJECTED "General Relativity" as another MATHEMATICAL FANTASY. He also REJECTED most of "Special Relativity", including the parts about "mass increases" near the speed of light, and the use of the Lorentz Transform on doppler shifts, (Those quasars with red-shifts greater than 1.000 REALLY ARE MOVING FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT, although most of that motion is away from us IN TIME.). In Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, there are THREE dimensions of time instead of only one. But two of those dimensions can NOT be measured from our material half of the physical universe. The one dimension that we CAN measure is the CLOCK time. At low relative speeds, the values of the other two dimensions are NEGLIGIBLE; but at high speeds, they become significant, and the Lorentz Transformation must be used as a FUDGE FACTOR. [Larson often used the term "COORDINATE TIME" when writing about this.] In regard to "mass increases", it has been PROVEN in atomic accelerators that acceleration drops toward zero near the speed of light. But the formula for acceleration is ACCELERATION = FORCE / MASS, (a = F/m). Orthodox physicists are IGNORING the THIRD FACTOR: FORCE. In Larson's Theory, mass STAYS CONSTANT and FORCE drops toward zero. FORCE is actually a MOTION, or COMBINATIONS of MOTIONS, or RELATIONS BETWEEN MOTIONS, including INward and OUTward SCALAR MOTIONS. The expansion of the universe, for example, is an OUTward SCALAR motion inherent in the universe and NOT a result of the so-called "Big Bang" (which is yet another MATHEMATICAL FANTASY). THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION I wish to recommend to EVERYONE the book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", by Dewey B. Larson, 1984, North Pacific Publishers, (P.O. Box 13255, Portland, Oregon 97213), 456 pages, indexed, hardcover. It contains the Astrophysical portions of a GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe developed by that author, an UNrecognized GENIUS, more than thirty years ago. It contains FINAL SOLUTIONS to most ALL Astrophysical mysteries, including the FORMATION of galaxies, binary and multiple star systems, and solar systems, the TRUE ORIGIN of the "3-degree" background radiation, cosmic rays, and gamma- ray bursts, and the TRUE NATURE of quasars, pulsars, white dwarfs, exploding galaxies, etc.. It contains what astronomers and astrophysicists are ALL looking for, if they are ready to seriously consider it with OPEN MINDS! The following is an example of his Theory's success: In his first book in 1959, "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE", Larson predicted the existence of EXPLODING GALAXIES, several years BEFORE astronomers started finding them. They are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of Larson's comprehensive Theory. And when QUASARS were discovered, he had an immediate related explanation for them also. GAMMA-RAY BURSTS Astro-physicists and astronomers are still scratching their heads about the mysterious GAMMA-RAY BURSTS. They were originally thought to originate from "neutron stars" in the disc of our galaxy. But the new Gamma Ray Telescope now in Earth orbit has been detecting them in all directions uniformly, and their source locations in space do NOT correspond to any known objects, (except for a few cases of directional coincidence). Gamma-ray bursts are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of the GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson. According to page 386 of his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", published in 1984, the gamma-ray bursts are coming from SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS in the ANTI-MATTER HALF of the physical universe, which Larson calls the "Cosmic Sector". Because of the relationship between the anti-matter and material halves of the physical universe, and the way they are connected together, the gamma-ray bursts can pop into our material half anywhere in space, seemingly at random. (This is WHY the source locations of the bursts do not correspond with known objects, and come from all directions uniformly.) I wonder how close to us in space a source location would have to be for a gamma-ray burst to kill all or most life on Earth! There would be NO WAY to predict one, NOR to stop it! Perhaps some of the MASS EXTINCTIONS of the past, which are now being blamed on impacts of comets and asteroids, were actually caused by nearby GAMMA-RAY BURSTS! LARSONIAN Binary Star Formation About half of all the stars in the galaxy in the vicinity of the sun are binary or double. But orthodox astronomers and astrophysicists still have no satisfactory theory about how they form or why there are so many of them. But binary star systems are actually a LIKELY CONSEQUENCE of the comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson. I will try to summarize Larsons explanation, which is detailed in Chapter 7 of his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" and in some of his other books. First of all, according to Larson, stars do NOT generate energy by "fusion". A small fraction comes from slow gravitational collapse. The rest results from the COMPLETE ANNIHILATION of HEAVY elements (heavier than IRON). Each element has a DESTRUCTIVE TEMPERATURE LIMIT. The heavier the element is, the lower is this limit. A star's internal temperature increases as it grows in mass via accretion and absorption of the decay products of cosmic rays, gradually reaching the destructive temperature limit of lighter and lighter elements. When the internal temperature of the star reaches the destructive temperature limit of IRON, there is a Type I SUPERNOVA EXPLOSION! This is because there is SO MUCH iron present; and that is related to the structure of iron atoms and the atom building process, which Larson explains in some of his books [better than I can]. When the star explodes, the lighter material on the outer portion of the star is blown outward in space at less than the speed of light. The heavier material in the center portion of the star was already bouncing around at close to the speed of light, because of the high temperature. The explosion pushes that material OVER the speed of light, and it expands OUTWARD IN TIME, which is equivalent to INWARD IN SPACE, and it often actually DISAPPEARS for a while. Over long periods of time, both masses start to fall back gravitationally. The material that had been blown outward in space now starts to form a RED GIANT star. The material that had been blown OUTWARD IN TIME starts to form a WHITE DWARF star. BOTH stars then start moving back toward the "MAIN SEQUENCE" from opposite directions on the H-R Diagram. The chances of the two masses falling back into the exact same location in space, making a single lone star again, are near zero. They will instead form a BINARY system, orbiting each other. According to Larson, a white dwarf star has an INVERSE DENSITY GRADIENT (is densest at its SURFACE), because the material at its center is most widely dispersed (blown outward) in time. This ELIMINATES the need to resort to MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES about "degenerate matter", "neutron stars", "black holes", etc.. LARSONIAN Solar System Formation If the mass of the heavy material at the center of the exploding star is relatively SMALL, then, instead of a single white dwarf star, there will be SEVERAL "mini" white dwarf stars (revolving around the red giant star, but probably still too far away in three-dimensional TIME to be affected by its heat, etc.). These will become PLANETS! In Chapter 7 of THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION, Larson used all this information, and other principles of his comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, to derive his own version of Bode's Law. "Black Hole" FANTASY! I heard that physicist Stephen W. Hawking recently completed a theoretical mathematical analysis of TWO "black holes" merging together into a SINGLE "black hole", and concluded that the new "black hole" would have MORE MASS than the sum of the two original "black holes". Such a result should be recognized by EVERYone as a RED FLAG, causing widespread DOUBT about the whole IDEA of "black holes", etc.! After reading Physicist Dewey B. Larson's books about his comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, especially his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", it is clear to me that "black holes" are NOTHING more than MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES! The strange object at Cygnus X-1 is just an unusually massive WHITE DWARF STAR, NOT the "black hole" that orthodox astronomers and physicists so badly want to "prove" their theory. By the way, I do NOT understand why so much publicity is being given to physicist Stephen Hawking. The physicists and astronomers seem to be acting as if Hawking's severe physical problem somehow makes him "wiser". It does NOT! I wish the same attention had been given to Physicist Dewey B. Larson while he was still alive. Widespread publicity and attention should NOW be given to Larson's Theory, books, and organization (The International Society of Unified Science). ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PROPULSION I heard of that concept many years ago, in connection with UFO's and unorthodox inventors, but I never was able to find out how or why they work, or how they are constructed. I found a possible clue about why they might work on pages 112-113 of the book "BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER", by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson, which describes part of Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe. I quote one paragraph: "As indicated in the preceding chapter, the development of the theory of the universe of motion arrives at a totally different concept of the nature of electrical resistance. The electrons, we find, are derived from the environment. It was brought out in Volume I [Larson's book "NOTHING BUT MOTION"] that there are physical processes in operation which produce electrons in substantial quantities, and that, although the motions that constitute these electrons are, in many cases, absorbed by atomic structures, the opportunities for utilizing this type of motion in such structures are limited. It follows that there is always a large excess of free electrons in the material sector [material half] of the universe, most of which are uncharged. In this uncharged state the electrons cannot move with respect to extension space, because they are inherently rotating units of space, and the relation of space to space is not motion. In open space, therefore, each uncharged electron remains permanently in the same location with respect to the natural reference system, in the manner of a photon. In the context of the stationary spatial reference system the uncharged electron, like the photon, is carried outward at the speed of light by the progression of the natural reference system. All material aggregates are thus exposed to a flux of electrons similar to the continual bombardment by photons of radiation. Meanwhile there are other processes, to be discussed later, whereby electrons are returned to the environment. The electron population of a material aggregate such as the earth therefore stabilizes at an equilibrium level." Note that in Larson's Theory, UNcharged electrons are also massLESS, and are basically photons of light of a particular frequency (above the "unit" frequency) spinning around one axis at a particular rate (below the "unit" rate). ("Unit velocity" is the speed of light, and there are vibrational and rotational equivalents to the speed of light, according to Larson's Theory.) [I might have the "above" and "below" labels mixed up.] Larson is saying that outer space is filled with mass- LESS UN-charged electrons flying around at the speed of light! If this is true, then the ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PROPULSION fields of spacecraft might be able to interact with these electrons, or other particles in space, perhaps GIVING them a charge (and mass) and shooting them toward the rear to achieve propulsion. (In Larson's Theory, an electrical charge is a one-dimensional rotational vibration of a particular frequency (above the "unit" frequency) superimposed on the rotation of the particle.) The paragraph quoted above might also give a clue to confused meteorologists about how and why lightning is generated in clouds. SUPPRESSION of LARSONIAN Physics The comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson has been available for more than 30 YEARS, published in 1959 in his first book "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE". It is TOTALLY UN-SCIENTIFIC for Hawking, Wheeler, Sagan, and the other SACRED PRIESTS of the RELIGION they call "science" (or "physics", or "astronomy", etc.), as well as the "scientific" literature and the "education" systems, to TOTALLY IGNORE Larson's Theory has they have. Larson's Theory has excellent explanations for many things now puzzling orthodox physicists and astronomers, such as gamma-ray bursts and the nature of quasars. Larson's Theory deserves to be HONESTLY and OPENLY discussed in the physics, chemistry, and astronomy journals, in the U.S. and elsewhere. And at least the basic principles of Larson's Theory should be included in all related courses at UW-EC, UW-Madison, Cambridge, Cornell University, and elsewhere, so that students are not kept in the dark about a worthy alternative to the DOGMA they are being fed. For more information, answers to your questions, etc., please consult my CITED SOURCES (especially Larson's BOOKS). UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT partial summary is ENCOURAGED.

This discussion on "objective" seems to be falling into solipsism (Eg: the recent challenge from Frank Dwyer, for someone to prove that he can actually observe phenomena). Someones even made the statement that science is "subjective" and that even atom are "subjective." This is getting a bit silly and the word "objective" is losing all meaning. Lets start by remembering the definition of "objective" which has been already presented: objective ADJ. 1. Of or having to do with a material object as distinguished from a mental concept. 2. Having actual existence. 3.a. Unenfluenced by emotion or personal prejudice. b. Based on observable phenomenon. The Objectivity of a thing is not based on whether everyone agrees on that thing (eg: the world is objectively round, regardless of the fact that there exist flat earthers), but rather whether it is based observable and verifiable phenomenon (instead of being based solely on peoples wishes, feeling, mental processes, etc). Thus atoms, being based on very observable and repeatable phenomenon, are indeed considered to be objective rather than subjective. Even weird, high energy physics is based on observable phenomenon (even though that observation can change the outcome). Nor are those observable phenomenon affected by emotion, or personal prejudice (eg: chemical reactions do not change to the whims of different people). Thus to say that science is not objective (ie: objectively verifiable) is a bit silly, as that is the point of science. Now I will agree that science is not objectively "good;" I will not thereby conclude though that science is not objective. Now some examples things which are "objective": A D-12 tractor is larger than the average breadbox. Chlorophyll is green. Seawater contains salt. There exists ozone in the atmosphere (at least presently). Ozone blocks ultraviolet light. Ultraviolet light increases the incidents of skin Cancer. "Good" on the other hand is a value judgement. It doesn't seem to have an existence apart from what we give it (unless someone can objectively show the existence of an omnipotent entity which has defined "good"). We cannot quantify it, touch it or collect it in any concrete sense (eg: I have a bag full of "good"). Now we do sometimes attempt to give the word "good" an objective meaning, e.g. "good" has been used to denote strength, resiliency, speed, etc. That though, is a subjective definition, as some might not see "strength" and etc, as necessarily "good" (eg: strength inspired by Naziism is not generally viewed as "good"). As to a morality, I cannot say that I have ever seen a morality strictly based on verifiable observable phenomenon. The closest I have seen is some form of the "Golden Rule," which concludes that it is best not to deliberately piss people off, as they will likely then involve themselves in your life, in a manner you won't like. This is verifiable; when you "get in someone's face," they will often retaliate. Another objective fact about morality is that a more powerful group can enforce their morality on a weaker group, and thus can at times, ignore that form of the "Golden Rule" without fear of reprisal. Now as to whether this enforcing of morality is "good" or "bad," is quite subjective. By the way, remember that subjective does not mean that a thing cannot be formally stated, or even commonly agreed upon; it only means that that it is not verifiable from observable phenomena, or has a physical existence unto itself. Also note that I have not stated that there is no such thing as an objective morality, or that I could not accept any such a morality; I have simply stated that I have seen no evidence of any such morality. One other thing to notice, "objective" is many times used as synonymous with "true" and/or "absolute," and "subjective" sometimes has the connotation of "false" and/or "relative." Tain't necessarily so. For instance, when a conclusion is based on objective, but insufficient evidence, then it can be both objective and false. As to "absolute," it is easy to note that while we can objectively show that TNT is explosive, but that does not absolutely mean that all TNT will explode, and thus objective is not necessarily absolute either. On the other hand, something subjective can also be either "absolutist," or "true." For instance, there are some theists who are specifically "absolutist" in their morality, even though they have only subjective evidence to back it up. Further, many a scientist and detective has been motivated by subjective reasons (eg: a "gut feeling" or "hunch"), to investigate a phenomena or situation, and gather the objective evidence necessary to support a true hypothesis. On the whole though, I would have to agree that objective evidence is much more trustworthy than subjective evidence. Later, Dave Butler

(Deletion) It has. There is a guy running around in Switzerland who claims to have been conceived similarly. His mother says the same. His father is said to be a bit surprised. But anyway, there have been a lot of Messiahs, and many have had a similar story about their birth. Or their death. A list of Messiahs could be quite interesting. I would wonder why an omnipotent god pulls such stunts instead of providing evidence for everyone to check. And the whole question is absurd. Wouldn't you feel bad if you'd find out that stones are sentient, and that you have stepped on them all your life? And wouldn't you feel bad when you'd see the proof that Jesus was just a plot of Satan? You've forgotten the pride factor. The argument is a fallacy. It is like "thanks for reading this far" on the end of a letter. Most religions claim that they won't fizzle because they contain some eternal truth. So does Christianity. Since there are old religions it is no wonder to find old religions that have it that they would last.

I'm for the moment interested in this notion of the 'leap of faith' established by Kierkegaard. It clearly points out a possible solution to transcendental values. What I don't understand is that it also clearly shows the existentialism system where any leap to any transcendental direction is equal. In other words I might not jump off the cliff mentioned above, but at the same time I will decide to what direction I will go. Actually I will do it just now. Cheers, Kent

This all would also implicate that in order for the sinning 2 month old baby to get forgivance, he or she has to ask for help from Jesus. Somehow I find this a little bit amuzing. Cheers, Kent

I see what you are getting at (or at least I think I do). Correct me if I am mistaken, but I *think* you are asking me if I still believe that we should uphold all of the Laws pertaining to capital punishment for such things as adultery, rape and other heinous crimes. As you may recall, Jesus was confronted by this same question in regards to the adultress who was caught in the act and brought before Jesus. And His reply, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Jesus does not deny the sentence that is to due for this violation of the Law. What do you think of this? Agreed. :) Agreed also. If one is to use the Bible as a reference, one must always be open to different interpretations. As a Christian, I have the Spirit of God to verify what I believe in the Word. If what the Spirit tells me is not backed up in scripture then the spirit I am communicating with is not of God. After all, Jesus tells us to "test the spirits" to know for sure that it is from God. I obey what the Spirit of God tells me to do. The Spirit will not violate anything that is written in the Bible because that is the Word of God. I do not worship pastors, preachers, my wife, my mother or my father. What they tell me does not carry the weight of what God tells me to do and His commands are rienforced in the Bible. Eternal damnation is the consequence of the choice one makes in rejecting God. If you choose to jump off a cliff, you can hardly blame God for you going *splat* at the bottom. He knows that if you choose to jump, that you will die but He will not prevent you from making that choice. In fact, He sent His Son to stand on the edge of the cliff and tell everyone of what lies below. To prove that point, Jesus took that plunge Himself but He being God was able to rise up again. I have seen the example of Christ and have chosen not to jump and I'm trying to tell you not to jump or else you'll go *splat*. You don't have to listen to me and I won't stop you if you decide to jump. I only ask that you check it out before taking the plunge. You owe it to yourself. I don't like seeing anyone go *splat*. God be with you,

being gay and Christianity are not compatible should I would absolutly love to have the time and energy to do so. The problem is to be totally fair I would have to go throught this type of search on every issue I belive in. I don't have the time, resources, or ability to do what you ask. Maybe you should pray that God gives me the opportunity instead of simply discrediting me because I have not been able to talk to every gay christian.

#Frank, unless you didn't realize it, you are just now involved #in a debate where we have various opinions, and each entity #has its own frame where the opinion is expressed. I think I #don't need to state the dreadful r-word. So, it's _sometimes_ correct to say that morality is objective, or what? After all, I could hardly be wrong, without dragging in the o-word. For your part, when you say that relativism is true, that's just your opinion. Why do folk get so heated then, if a belief in relativism is merely a matter of taste? (to be fair, _you_ have been very calm, I get the impression that's because you don't care about notions of objectivity in any flavour. Right?)

The 24 children were, of course, killed by a lone gunman in a second story window, who fired eight bullets in the space of two seconds...

Hmm...are you a Taoist? Imposing limits *does* do something useful...it gives you something to go beyond. I tend to be a bit critical of any stratification of Taoism. I especially tend to frown on any suggestion that "orthodoxy" or "classics" have any special place in Tao. So rather than debate what "Taoism *REALLY* means" you are suggesting that we take someone else's word for it and work thusly? I'd rather not, thank you. Whereas you, of course, have a clear idea of what the word means? Can you tell the Tao? :-) Wonderful idea. Only if you choose to define failure in that way. Or to define it at all.

: However greatly we extoll Mary, it is quite obvious that she is in no : way God or even part of God or equal to God. The Assumption of our : Blessed Mother, meant that because of her close identification with the : redemptive work of Christ, she was Assumed (note that she did not : ASCEND) body and soul into Heaven, and is thus one of the few, along : with Elijah, Enoch, Moses (maybe????) who are already perfected in : Heaven. Obviously, the Virgin Mary is far superior in glorification to : any of the previously mentioned personages. As I said, it is a provocative thought. From "Answer to Job": The logical consistency of the papal declaration cannot be surpassed and it leaves Protestantism with the odium of being nothing but a _man's religion_ which allows no metaphysical representation of woman. ...Protestantism has obviously not given sufficient attention to the signs of the times which point to the equality of women. But this equality requires to be metaphysically anchored in the figure of a "divine" woman, the bride of Christ. Just as the person of Christ cannot be replaced by an organization, so the bride cannot be re- placed by the Church. The feminine, like the masculine, demands an equally personal representation. The dogmatizing of the Assumption does not, however, according to the dogmatic view, mean that Mary has attained the status of a goddess, although, as mistress of heaven...and mediatrix, she is functionally on a par with Christ, the king and mediator. At any rate, her position satisfies the need of the archetype. [par. 753-4] : Jung should stick to Psychology rather than getting into Theology. Jung made it clear that he was talking about psychology, not theology. His comments had to do with the psychological _image_ of God and its function in the human psyche, not about the actual existence or nature of God.

[writing to someone else] Can we get back to using the terms "strong Atheist" and "weak Atheist" rather than this "hard Atheist" and "soft Atheist". I can imagine future discussions with Newbies where there is confusion because of the multiplication of descriptions. [rest deleted]

Marhaba Nabil, If we posit two minds in Christ, the mind of the logos and the mind of the human Jesus, then we must admit two wills. A mind is not a mind without a will. I know this has been dealt with in past Church prnouncements, but there is a philosophical problem here that should examined. T. V. Morris argued that the Incarnation can be seen like this: _____________ (Mind of Logos) ( _______ ) ( ( ) ) Here, the mind of Jesus is circumsribed by God the ( ( Human ) ) Son. God the Son has complete access to the human ( ( Mind ) ) mind but the human mind only has access to the mind ( ( ) ) of God the Son when the Son allows access. This ( (_______) ) explains why Jesus said even he did not know the (_____________) time of the kingdom. The human will acted in accordance with the divine will according to free human decision. But if the human will would have decided differently than what was intended the divine will would have interceded, but this was never the case. He employs some very interesting analogies to support the one person/two mind theory. The ideas of a completely healthy version of split personality from the field of psychology, and the intriguing ideas of being in a dream, seeing yourself acting, knowing that is you, but also being omniscient. The one hypostasis would be the unity of the two minds. Agreed. But I am still waiting for Morris and others to respond to the lingering problem of two minds making two persons. Christian analytic philosophers are breaking new ground in explicating the rationality of Theism and the Incarnation. ==================================== Ted Kalivoda ([email protected]) University of Georgia, Athens Institute of Higher Ed.

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, Ephesians 2:14

no its not. its due to the fact that there are two issues here: Religion and religion. religion is personal belief system. Religion is a memetic virus. people loudly proclaiming their beliefs are crossing the border from religion -> Religion. people that want to "save" others are firmly entrenched in Religion ("memoids"). rule #1 of not practicing Religion is to shut the fuck up, unless you discuss it politely. this means that the motive behind the conversation is not only your self-gratifying wish to spread the word. religion is something that ultimately comes from within a person, and reflects their value judgements. Religion is something that is contracted from others and does not reflect the persons value judgements (other than perhaps "i think i'll be brainwashed today"). Religion is a drug... i believe you can discuss religion. however, the post that started this off was not intented as discussion, it was more a proclamation of someones Religion.

We have reached the point in our society when there are certain crimes that are so heinous that to merely be accused with them one is automaticly considered guilty and deemed not to have any natural rights much less civil rights. Among these are drug abuse, sexual perversion, and political incorrectness. Today Billary accused Koresh of having SEX with infants. He had been accused of a number of differing crimes (inconsistantly) over the last two months, but this is the first time I have heard that one. I had heard child abuse but this is somewhat stronger. It is fairly obvious that Koresh was hiding behind the children; and ironicly considering his apocalyptic dread, believed enough in the American People's inherent goodness to believe he was protected. It is truly amazing that all these people who 60 days ago had never heard of the Branch Davidian now believe that he was suicidal, crazy, a child abuser and a immenant danger to others based solely on what the Government spokespersons had said. Remember that these people have an awful lot to loose if it is found that they have screwed up. But they don't have as much to lose as David Koresh and his followers lost. For in our society as it stands murder is not one of the heinous crimes.

You can tell your friend from me that I was in a publisher's warehouse one time and saw thousands of copies of The Joy of Cooking and every one of them was syllable-perfect. I have since sold all I own and become a follower of The Joy of Cooking. The incident I mentioned convinced me, once and for all, that The Joy of Cooking is inspired by god and the one true path to his glory.

Several replies to my post have said that I should get to know Christian homosexuals before judging them. I maintain that I was not judging them by saying that homosexuality is wrong. I would like to look at the responces to my post and make a general sterotypical evaluation of the people who responded to the side of Christianity and homosexuality being compatible (admitedly not all are homosexuals but I know that many are from their e-mail responces). I don't normally make sterotypical assumptions about groups of people, but since I have been asked to by many of the opposing veiw point I will. So far people have made wild assumptions, put me down because I don't have the resources of others, and even reverted to name calling. If you don't think this is an acurate representation then those of you who are homosexual Christians show me the diffrence.

"broken" Again, as the original poster of the article, I apologize if it implied that atheism = brokenness. Such was not my intent and I apologize for any hurt feelings in the process.

: : If the Bible is such incredible proof of Christianity, then why aren't : the Muslims or the Hindus convinced? : : If the Qur'an is such incredible proof of Islam, then why aren't the : Hindus or the Christians convinced? If God exists, why aren't atheists convinced? --

Dear fellow Christians, I had a dinner last night with a bible study group which I am in. We had a discussion about the difference between Christianity and Islam. And I was shocked to hear that our bible study teacher said that Mohammad was indeed a prophet but of Satan. I said, "What??" I did not believe that, because I have some moslem friends who are so kind and nice, even sometimes I feel I wish I could be like them (in my point of view, they don't sin as much as I do). How come if they were under Satan, they could have such personalities. To tell you the truth, I don't know much about Islam. But I know that they believe in God, they believe in the day of judgement. Now I'm asking you what your opinions about Islam and its teaching. IMPORTANT : I do not want to discuss whether they are saved or not. I do not want to discuss about politic related to Islam. P.S: I post this in bit.listserv.christia, soc.religion.christian, and bit.listserv.catholic. In Christ, our Lord, Smile......... Jesus loves you....... Tabut Torsina [email protected] [Let me start by saying that this is not the right newsgroup for a discussion of Islam, since there's a group for that. But I suspect the point your teacher was making was not specifically about Islam. Indeed it's going to be impossible to see what he was getting at within your groundrules, since the question of whether non-Christians are saved is at the heart of it. The classic Christian view, which I think most people believed until the last century or so, was that Christianity (and of course Judaism) was the only religion founded by God, and that all other religions worshipped false gods, and came from Satan. This is more or less a corollary of another traditional view that no one but Christians (and possibly Jews) will be saved. This need not mean that there's no truth in any other religion, nor that all of their members are intentionally Satanic. After all, in order to be an effective snare, Satanic alternatives would have to be attractive. Thus they might contain all kinds of truth, wisdom and spiritual insights. They would be missing only one thing -- knowledge of salvation through Christ. If this is the background of your teacher's remarks -- and I suspect it is -- that means that a discussion of Islam is not necessarily relevant. The point is not that there's anything intrinsically wrong with it. It may teach a fine code of behavior, and its practitioners may all be wonderful people. But if salvation requires being a follower of Christ, it could still be a Satanic invention. This is a reasonable deduction from the classic Protestant position. Christianity says that salvation isn't a matter of being kind and nice. Those are good things, and we should encourage them. But no one is able to do them enough to be saved. Salvation requires Christ. (Please forgive me for doing this in Protestant terms. There's a Catholic equivalent to this that has similar implications, but in different terms.) A religion may be quite attractive in all visible ways. But if it doesn't have Christ, it's like a diet that consists of food that looks wonderful, tastes great, but is missing some essential food element so that you end up dying. Let me be clear that I am not specifically advocating this position. What I'm trying to do is (as usual) to clarify issues. Indeed it is now relatively uncommon for Christians to believe that all other religions are Satanic. Most Christians regard such beliefs as an unfortunate vestige of the past. This is part of a general move within Christianity in the last century or so to a non-judgemental God. Christians now find it hard to believe that God would allow anybody other than a really rotten person to end up in hell, and they find it hard to envision that real malignant spiritual forces are at work in the world doing things like creating superficially attractive alternatives to Christianity. Whether there is actually a sound basis for the shift is a decision that people need to make for themselves.

BR> From: [email protected] (Bill Rawlins) BR> Newsgroups: alt.atheism BR> Organization: DGSID, Atlanta, GA BR> The problem is that most scientists exclude the BR> possibility of the supernatural in the question of BR> origins. Is this is a fair premise? I utterly BR> reject the hypothesis that science is the highest form of BR> truth. It is better than the crap that the creationists put out. So far all they have been able to manage is distortions and half-truths. (When they are not taking quotes out of context...) BR> Some of these so-called human-like creatures were BR> apes. Some were humans. Some were fancifully BR> reconstructed from fragments. The genetic code has shown more about how man is realted to primates that the fossil record. (A little detail the creationists try and ignore.) BR> Good deeds do not justify a person in God's BR> sight. An atonement (Jesus) is needed to atone BR> for sin. Who says? Your Bible(tm)? I would be surprised if *ANY* Christian followed all of the rules in the Bible. (Most of them just pick and choose, according to the local biases.) BR> My point: God is the creator. Look's like we agree. Where is your proof? How do you know it was *YOUR* God? BR> I'll send you some info via e-mail. BR> Regards, Bill. Why not post them? I would be interested in seeing them myself.