Datasets:

dojo

/

newsgroups7_balanced

like 0

Follow

Galileo Internal Hub 1

I am going to stop reading the homosexuality posts, at least for a while, because of the repeated seemingly personal attacks on me via post/e-mail(mainly e-mail). If anyone has a specific comment, suggestion, and/or note that does not contain any name calling, etc. that they would like for me to read, send it to me via e-mail. I would like a copy of file mentioned by the moderator ragarding the exergetical issue of it. I attempted to get it via ftp but was unable.

No. No. The library at Alexandria was perhaps the greatest library ever built in the world. The Greeks had a love of wisdom, philo sophos, and this great love was reflected in the Alexandrian library. The Christians got a hold of it and began modifying and purging texts and then the Moslems invaded and either the Christians burned the library to keep it from falling into Moslems hands (far more likely since they were the book burners, not the Moslems), or it burned in the sack of the city or the Moslems burned it. Either way, a tremendous amount of information was lost. The destruction of the library of Alexandria was probably one of the greatest crimes of man against man. Actually, the Hebrew almah, (young woman), was translated as the Hellenistic Greek parthenos which may or may not be correctly translated into the modern and technical English term virgin. The Jews did not have the type of virginity cult that the Greco-Romans had in Artemis and Diana. The standard text used by Christians and Jews is the Masoretic Text. Jews of course use the text in its original Hebrew, without translation. Propaganda.

Recently an e-mail to me mentioned: (Technically, the messengers aren't even human so it *can't* be a case of "homosexuality" -- even of rape.) [...] The Jude reference to Sodom is also meaningful only in the context of the Sodomites' "lust" for the "other flesh" of angels. Again, application to homosexual behavior in general, or to the position of gay Christians is largeely specious. *** Are angels "flesh"? No. I feel that this is saying that it was because of their lust after other men, who are flesh( or of this world). what are other opinons on this? I haven't heard much about this verse at all. In Christ's Love, Bryan

OFM Comments: No disagreement at all that there is a VERY serious struggle going on. But Jesus more typically uses consequences as a threat. That's quite different from Hell Classic (TM). :-) Jesus doesn't sound like the usual hell-fire type of preacher. He attracts people through what he does. And the stongest example in Jesus preaching is in the parable of Lazarus and Dives, which is a parable! In any case, my point is that a fear-based response to Christ is not a freeing, life-affirming choice and isn't Good News in a meaningful sense. There are plenty of good reasons to follow Jesus that have nothing to do with fear or a literal hell, that still pertain to overcoming in the present struggle between God and the Disloyal Opposition. A faith based in fear is not built on Rock, as we should found our faith, but on ice. If the fear were removed, there would BE no foundation. That's basically why it matters to me. I think we have many Christians that DON'T have a solid basis for relating to the living Incarnate God. I cannot be fully open to the working of God in and through my life if my response to God is motivated on fear. Larry Overacker ([email protected]) --

From what I understand of my experience in looking up this word, and discussing it with a Greek-literate individual, the meaning of the word is rather clear. Basically it literally means "he who beds with a man" or "he who has sex with a man." The burden of proof is on the pro-homosexuality side of the argument to show that the word has an idiomatic meaning nor evident from its literal meaning. One can speculate all day long that it might mean something else, but we need evidence before we create new doctrines, and get rid of the historical understanding of the meaning of this word. Link Hudson.

So now you are saying that an Islamic Bank is something other than BCCI. Would you care to explain why it was that when I said "I hope an Islamic Bank is something other than BCCI", you called me a childish propagandist.

In the part of the posting you have so helpfully deleted, I pointed out that they used the wording from the English Bill of Rights apparently *changing* what they understood by it, and I asked why then should we, two hundred years later, be bound by what Keith Allan Schneider *thinks* they understood by it. So one cannot say "a cruel fate"? Your prevarications are getting increasingly unconvincing, I think.

Could you speak up? I can't hear you.... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What atheists are you talking about? IMNSHO, Abortion is the womans choice. Homosexual sex is the choice of the people involved. War is sometimes necessary. This leaves capital punishment. I oppose capital punishemnt because mistakes can happen (yes this thread went around with no resolution recently). As far as poplulation control, I think contraception and education are the best courses of action. That's because you are again making the assumption that all Atheists have some specific mindset. Mistakes can happen Bill, and I could be the victim of such a mistake.

That is indeed the present consensus. Contrary to what Dr. Fox has been saying, however, present consensus is *not* that the longer passage in Josephus about Jesus was inserted, but only that it was modified. There is no question that it was *at least* modified (based on what Origen says--that Josephus did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah), but I don't think the argument that it appears "out of context" is a very good one. (I haven't looked at the context for a while; perhaps somebody could give some of the sentences which precede and follow the Jesus passage.)

Hello. Hoping to net some netters who are in the helping professions (counseling, psychology, psychiatry, social work, therapy etc.) to network on some topics and consider the possibility of a sci.counseling.christian type newsgroup or list. The integration of psychology and counseling and theology is a subject of great debate and one of particular interest to me. If you're out there, please lemme know. Email me direct if you will so we can get to know one another off the news.

Not if you show that these hypothetical atheists are gullible, excitable and easily led from some concrete cause. In that case we would also have to discuss if that concrete cause, rather than atheism, was the factor that caused their subsequent behaviour.

Well, let me see if I can explain it. It's similar to collecting coins, or stamps, or campaign buttons, or coke bottles, or juke boxes, or model trains, or just about anything else that is collected (and just about everything is collected). In all cases, you might consider it something of an aberration; I mean, what purpose does it serve? Not much really; it's just a hobby. The collector yearns for diversity (not much use in having TWO of the same thing, except for trading/selling it), historical significance (this was the thingy used by so-and-so), technical significance (this is the only one that does such-and-such like this; this is the first one to do it this way), rarity, and so on. Some people use their collections, other people do not. As you state, you use your collection. In one sense, this diminishes the value of your collection as the items suffer wear and exposure. In another sense, it can enhance your own enjoyment of your collection. Some people collect firearms that they do not use; other people use some or all of the firearms they collect. It's just personal preference. Oops, 'personal preference' ... I guess we're not supposed to have that any more, are we?

The CLIPPER initiative is an announcement by Clinton that all the "secure" voice phones will use the same crypto chip, as a de-facto government standard. Problem is, the government is admitting that they hold the keys to break the code easily, and the Justice department will be using the keys to listen in on "illegal activities." Many people are really scared about such an initiative because it is a major step towards outlawing real crypto protection on things like email if you read the press release. The project was developed by NSA and given to NIST. It uses two keys S1 and S2 that the government claims are needed to break the code. They claim that these keys will be handed to two different companies, and when they get a warrant to do a wiretap (the chip is nicknamed the wiretap chip), they have to get the keys from both companies. People have poked holes through and through the press release official version and shown how it is nowhere near as nice as it sounds, and I have given the simplified version. People over on sci.crypt are really scared about this proposal it seems.

Is there room for nudists? After all, if you believe most upstanding moral churches, nudity IS a sin... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have been studying the Bible now for about a year. I love it, but I am not very familiar with the different denominations, or traditions, or common beliefs of various christian groups. I have heard various people (outside this news group) describe *idols* such as power, money, material possessions etc. These things are worshiped in some sense I suppose, but I never really gave idols much thought. Until now... I have been reading the postings in this news group (which I just found a few days ago), and I have a question... First, I'm not trying to question anyone's belief or try to push my views on anyone else (I haven't been at this long enough to have any views other than I cannot get to heaven by being good, I must understand that Christ bore my sins on the cross so that I could be saved and I need to repent, i.e. realize that every time I sin, I might as well stick a sharp stick in Christ's side because He took the punishment for my sins, when He died on the cross). In my studies, Mary never really comes up. I know who she is, but that's about it. It seems to me that a statue of Mary could be considered an idol? Do people pray to statues of Mary? It sounds like educated christians (more educated than myself I'm sure) believe Mary was sinless? Wow... I hoped to spend the summer convincing myself (one way or the other) about Tongues (I'm reading "Charismatic Chaos"). I guess I'll study Tongues in parallel with reading this news group. Any help you can give me will be appreciated. ------------------------------------------- [I don't think the issue is so much that people are more educated than you (though it may well be that they are), as that they come from a different tradition than yours. This is a discussion between Catholics and Protestants. Catholics generally believe that Mary was sinless. Protestants do not. The issue comes down to different sources of authority. Protestants generally limit themselves to the Bible as a source of doctrine. Since this isn't in the Bible (except in passages that no one would understand in this way if they didn't already believe it), Protestants don't accept it. Catholics see continuing revelation through the Church, though they believe the results are consistent with the Bible. I interpret your posting, not as a call for yet another argument about whether the Catholic Marian devotions are idolatry (an argument I am not prepared to see newed here), but as a sign of being interested in learning about traditions other than your own. Catholics are of course a major one, but by no means the only one. I generally consider the major traditions to be Catholic, Orthodox, and various subsets of Protestantism. Within Protestantism, it's a matter of how finely you want to cut things. These days I think the major division is between those who accept Biblical inerrancy and those who don't. There are also a number of major historical traditions, but in recent decades distinctions are tending to blur. I'd identify the major Protestant traditions as: Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican (they're sort of halfway between Catholic and Protestant), Wesleyan, Baptist, Holiness, Pentecostal, Church of Christ But there are a number of others. Historical distinctions tend not to be so important among the liberal churches anymore, and I think current trends in society and the Church are also tending to make conservatives seen themselves as allies from a general "evangelical" perspective. But differences among these various traditions are still quite marked. I think the best introduction to these issues is to read a good book on church history. Anyone who wants to understand the church really needs to understand how we got where we are now. A church history will normally show you where each of these traditions came from, and give a feeling for their nature. Unfortunately I'm away from my library at the moment, so I don't have anything specific to recommend.

no I'd recommend reading _Mormonism and Early Christianity_ by Hugh Nibley, particularly the articles on Christ's forty-day (post-resurrection) mission, baptism for the dead, early Christian prayer circles, and temples (2 articles). ..bruce.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bruce F. Webster | A religion that does not require the sacrifice CTO, Pages Software Inc | of all things never has power sufficient to [email protected] | produce the faith necessary unto life and #import <pages/disclaimer.h> | salvation. -- Joseph Smith

Yeah, but these were not the wives. The wives came from Nod, apparently a land being developed by another set of gods.

... Does it matter that the study (yes, singular) that showed LSD causing birth defects also holds true for aspirin? Does it matter that this study is flat-out wrong, and LSD does not give you a greater risk of having children with birth defects?

"Liberate" is the way an invader describes an invasion, including, if I'm not mistaken, the Iraqi liberation of Kuwait. Never invaded Nicaragua? Only with more word games: can you say "send in the Marines?" Oh, good: word games. If you let the aggressor pick the words, there's scarcely ever been a reprehensible military action. That's a convenient technique, much seen on alt.atheism: define those who disagree with you according to a straw-man extreme that matches virtually nobody. Very noble and patriotic. I'm sure the fine young Americans who carpet-bombed Iraqi infantry positions from over the horizon, destroyed Iraq's sewer and water infrastructure from the safety of the sky or further, or who bulldozed other Iraqi infantry into their trenches [or more importantly the commanders who ordered them to] were just thrilled to be risking death (if not risking it by much) in the defense of the liberty of ... well, wealthy Kuwaitis. Can't have those oil-fields under a tyrant's heel if that tyrant is antagonistic to US interests... Having pigeon-holed "peace-niks" (in this context, "people who disagree with me about the conduct of the Gulf War") into "peace-at-all-cost-hitler-supporting-genocide-abetting-wimps", you can now express righteous indignation when "they" refuse to fit this mold and question the conduct of the war on legitimate terms. HOW DARE THEY! Yes, hypocrisy indeed! Those violent peace-niks! (Care to list an example here?) Wow: instant '80's nostalgia! [Of course, "peace-nik" itself is a '50's Cold War derogatory term equating those who promote pacifism with Godless Pinko Communists]. Yes indeed, I felt my freedoms mightily threatened by Iraq...

[stuff deleted] Actually, you get a ton of weapons and ammunition, 70-80 followers, and hole up in some kind of compound, and wait for . . . . :-)

[ 2 good reasons deleted. AI] It's even worse than that -- "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it" (Deut. 4:2). Shall we rip out every page from our Bibles beginning from Joshua through Revelation?

Just a quick comment. As a baptist clergyperson, I find the idea of such a "baptism" (if the news report is in fact accurate, and they seldom are regarding religion) offensive. The pastor here seems to have a most unbaptist view of baptism- one that seems to demand the ceremony even when comprehension and choice are absent. We do baptize converts, but no one who has been deceived into hearing the word is likely to be a convert. If in fact the grace of God might work in such a situation, there is no harm done in waiting a day or two. Baptist believe in regenerate membership. Did this church include these half-baked (at best) converts into their church fellowship? Or do they somehow feel there is some validity in dunking them and turning them loose? This kind of "evangelism" is certainly not baptist, and probably not very christian, either.

... I have seen it used in an Orthodox church once, although I can't recall why. I found it odd, to say the least. Also, I object to the statement that the Orthodox DELETE the filioque from the original form of the Creed. The creed originally did NOT contain that phrase, and it is not present in the Greek original, which hangs by my desk. Not intending to start a flame war. We didn't need to delete what wasn't there. Larry Overacker ([email protected]) --

In <[email protected]> [email protected] (David Nye) Why? How? Might makes right? How can they force their morality on me? Why can't I do what I want? Who are they to decide? What if I disagree? Good point, but it is being immoral in our opinion. We don't let them choose, we make the decision that their actions are wrong for them. For someone to lay claim to an alternative I admit to lean toward the idea of an innate moral sense, but have little basis for it as of yet. How far can such a concept be extended? and Do you mean that we could say it would be wrong for us to do such a thing but not him. After all, he was behaving morally in his own eyes and doing what he chose. On what basis do we condemn other societies besides, here's the buzz words, on the idea that there are some actions wrong for all humans in all societies? Holding that morality is subjective does not mean Why not? Do we have to be objective suddenly? MAC -- **************************************************************** Michael A. Cobb "...and I won't raise taxes on the middle University of Illinois class to pay for my programs." Champaign-Urbana -Bill Clinton 3rd Debate [email protected]

but theology is full of reason even if it is, as we believe, based on false premises etc etc. hold on there: no meaning to "consciousness" or "mind" or "self"?! what illogicality? since when is, for instance, (non-behaviourist) psychology a pipe dream? Surely the major purpose of the science of psychology is to understand the workings of the mind. "manifestations of the mundane" sounds rather transcendental to me. In fact "matter", "energy", "space" and "time" are well measured but mysterious concepts. Does an atheist really have to believe in your reductionism or be cast out as not following the true faith?!

Well, you're going to have to practice, but you're getting the hang of it. Soon we're going to have to give you a new nickname. Try these on for size: Tammy "Lucky Seven" Healy Tammy "Pass the falafel" Healy Tammy "R Us" Healy Tammy "Learning by Doing" Healy Maddi "Never a Useful Post" Hausmann -- Maddi Hausmann [email protected] Centigram Communications Corp San Jose California 408/428-3553

Why is the NT tossed out as info on Jesus. I realize it is normally tossed out because it contains miracles, but what are the other reasons? MAC -- **************************************************************** Michael A. Cobb "...and I won't raise taxes on the middle University of Illinois class to pay for my programs." Champaign-Urbana -Bill Clinton 3rd Debate [email protected]

From: [email protected] There are many indications that would have taken place had Saddam been wanting or planning on going into Saudi Arabia. There were none. This has been openly stated by ex-Pentagon analysts. Pull. From: [email protected] Actually, reports from other mid-east countries showed that Hussein was ready to make concessions due to the sanctions. We just didn't want him to - we wanted to crush him, as well as battle-test all these high tech toys we've built over the years. From: [email protected] We're also hypocrites of the first magnitude. Obviously, we don't give a shit about freedom and democracy. All we care about is our oil. Oh, and the excuse, now that the Soviets are gone from the board, to keep a sizable military presence in the gulf region. Care to make bets about when ALL our troops will come home? Basically, Saddam was OK with us. He was a killer, who tortured his own people, used gas on them, and other horrors - he was a brutal dictator, but he was OUR brutal dictator. Once he said "fuck you" to the US, he became the next Hitler. The same for Noriega. He was a bastard, but he was OUR bastard...until he changed his mind and went his own way. Then we had to get rid of him. David Hunt - Graduate Slave | My mind is my own. | Towards both a Mechanical Engineering | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and Carnegie Mellon University | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>> | Jewish homeland! ====T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=========T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D===== Email: [email protected] Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"

Perhaps it's prophetic that the week "Where are they now?" appears and I can claim to be a still-active old-timer, my news software gets bit rot and ships outgoing articles into a deep hole somewhere... Anyway, here's a repost: These days you don't have to fall far behind... Last Monday (admittedly after a long weekend, but...) I had 800+ messages just in those few days. Aside from a hiatus while changing jobs last Fall I've been here since 1990. Hell, Norway? The rubber room at the funny farm? Seminary? It is not given to us to know...

I found this little gem, I don't know if anyone has any interest/comments... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi everyone, I'm a commited Christian that is battling with a problem. I know that romans talks about how we are saved by our faith not our deeds, yet hebrews and james say that faith without deeds is useless, saying' You fools, do you still think that just believing is enough?' Now if someone is fully believing but there life is totally lead by themselves and not by God, according to Romans that person is still saved by there faith. But then there is the bit which says that God preferes someone who is cold to him (i.e. doesn't know him - condemned) so a lukewarm Christian someone who knows and believes in God but doesn't make any attempt to live by the bible. Now I am of the opinion that you a saved through faith alone (not what you do) as taught in Romans, but how can I square up in my mind the teachings of James in conjunction with the lukewarm Christian being 'spat-out' Can anyone help me, this really bothers me.-- in Christ, Will -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --Adam

: >But if entertainment (company) sell computer programs saying they are virus : >safe. Doesn`t they have burden of proof that viruses don`t exist in their : >floppies ? : I don't think so. The assumption is there. If it turns out that : their software has a virus, then it is up to you to prove that fact : to a court to get any damages. You are theoretically suppossed to : be able to get damages for that, but you have to give some evidence : that the virus came from that software. But since the computer : company is the defendent, they are uninvolved until proven guilty. All right. I'm not and won't be lawyer. What about doctors? I going to fly aeroplane (or drive car). Doctors have to look for different kind of illnesses in me before I get permission to fly an aeroplane. They have burden of proof that "harmful illnesses don't exist in me", do they ? (I'm just questioning my belief that believers have the burden of proof.) : Please, not Pascal! NOOOOO!! ;) Oh! Are you those bug-generator C-programmers ? :-) Turbo Pascal is the BEST and FASTEST for edit-run-edit-run cycles ! ----------------------- [email protected] ------------------- Kari Tikkanen ! . . -#- ! b ! begin

Hi, What presentation package would you recommend for a Bible teacher? I've checked out Harwards Graphics for Windows. I think its more suitable for sales people than for preachers or Bible teachers to present an outline of a message. I'm looking for one that: * is great for overhead projector slides. * has or imports clip arts * works with Word for Windows or imports Word for Windows files. * works with inkjet printers If you know of any that meets part or all of the above, please let me know. Please email your response as I don't keep up with the newsgroup.

So instead you are asking individual citizens to place themselves at risk by assuming that everyone who claims to be a cop, actually is a cop. Around here the police have actually made public service announcements saying that if you are a lady driving by yourself at night and you see blue lights flashing behind you. Do not pull over until you reach a well lit, preferably occupied place, gas station etc. It wouldn't be murder, it would be self defense.

They must be theists in disguise. In any event, we don't _need_ to create religious parodies: just look at some actual religions which are absurd. And now . . . Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey.

[email protected] (Bryan Whitsell) sent in a list of verses which he felt condemn homosexuality. [email protected] (Michael Siemon) wrote in response that some of these verses "are used against us only through incredibly perverse interpretations" and that others "simply do not address the issues." [remainder of my post deleted] The moderator then made some comments I would like to address: If you are referring to the terms "effeminate" and "homosexuals" in the above passage, I agree that the accuracy of the translation has been challenged. However, I was simply commenting on the charge that it is an "incredibly perverse" interpretation to read this as a condemnation of homosexuality. Such a charge seems to imply that no reasonable person would ever conclude from the verse that Paul intended to condemn homosexuality; however, I think I can see how a reasonable person might very well take this view of the verse. Therefore I do not believe it is "incredibly perverse" to read it in this way. Actually, I wasn't thinking of the church at all. After all, a couple doesn't have to be married by a minister. A secular justice of the peace could do the job, and the two people would be married. My point was that it is easy to find a biblical basis for heterosexual marriage, but where in the Bible would one get a Christian marriage between two people of the same sex? And if you do see a biblical basis for same-sex marriages, how willing would gay Christians be to "save themselves" for such a marriage and to never have sexual intercourse with anyone outside of that marriage relationship? Please note that I am not trying to imply that gay Christians would not be willing to be so monogamous, I am genuinely interested in hearing opinions on the subject. I have heard comments from gays in the past that lead me to believe they regard promiscuity as one of the main points of being homosexual, yet I tend to doubt that gays who want to be Christian would advocate such a position. So what is the gay view? - Mark

When an alleged private revelation attracts sufficient attention, the Church may investigate it. If the investigation indicates a likelihood that the alleged private revelation is in fact from God, it will be approved. That means that it can be preached in the Church. However, it is still true that no one is required to believe that it came from God. A Catholic is free to deny the authenticity of even the most well attested and strongly approved private revelations, such as those at Fatima and Lourdes. (I suspect that few if any Catholics do reject Fatima and Lourdes, but if any do their rejection of them does not mean they are not orthodox Catholics in good standing.) It may be a bit much to say that a Catholic is free to deny what happened at Fatima. That's a bit strong, it is sort of like saying that a Catholic is free to deny that Hong Kong exists. What a Catholic *is* free to do is to deny the truth of Fatima, without being called a heretic. You can be labeled other things for such an offense, but not a heretic. Theologians make a basic distinction as far as the degree of assent one must give to events like Fatima and Lourdes. Things revealed by God through Jesus Christ or His Apostles must be given the assent due to a revelation of God: total and unswerving. Fatima and Lourdes demand our assent as much as any other well-attested event in human history. Perhaps a bit more, given the approval of the Church. "Approval" of an apparition by the Church principally means that whatever happened was in harmony with the Catholic Faith. I personally think of private revelations as our Lord's way of telling us what to do at particular periods in history. He gave us all the doctrines, etc., 2000 years ago, but we can always use some help in knowing how exactly to apply what He gave us. Catholic devotion to the Sacred Heart was a result of a series of apparitions to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, for example. The problem at the time was extreme moral rigorism that was turning our Lord into someone without a heart.

Bill, ever heard of secular humanism? Please check out what this stands for, and then revise your statements above. Cheers, Kent

> Between Adam and Eve and Golgotha the whole process of the fall > of man occurred. This involved a gradual dimming of > consciousness of the spiritual world. This is discernable in > the world outlooks of different peoples through history. The > Greek, for example, could say, "better a beggar in the land of > the living than a king in the land of the dead." (Iliad, I > think). I would not swear that nothing of the sort is found in the Iliad, but the first passage I thought of was the Odyssey 11:480 or thereabouts (my copy has no line numbers). The ghost of Acchilles speaks (Robert FitzGerald translation): > Better, I say, to break sod as a farm hand > for some poor country man, on iron rations, > than lord it over all the exhausted dead. The next passage I thought of was from Ecclesiastes 9:4 + A living dog is better than a dead lion. > On the other hand, there is one notion firmly embedded in > Christianity that originated most definitely in a pagan source. > The idea that the human being consists essentially of soul > only, and that the soul is created at birth, was consciously > adopted from Aristotle, whose ideas dominated Christian thought > for fifteen hundred years and still does today.... Surely Aristotle had little influence on Christian thought before about 1250 AD.

[ref to Rev 12:7-12 deleted] Also read Ezek 28:13-19. This is a desctiption of Lucifer (later Satan) and how beautiful He was, etc, etc Grant

Zoroaster is far older than Daniel. If anything, one could claim that, in a sense, Daniel is a descendant of Zoroaster; as Daniel, though being Hebrew, has assimilated into Zoroastrianism and has successfully introduced the religion into the Tanakh of Judaism. [However, the majority of the book is in Hellenistic Aramaic (not Babylonian Aramaic) and only has Kethuvim or Writing status.] Ref: Encyclopedia of Religion, Mircea Eliade: DANIEL, or, in Hebrew, Daniyye'l; hero of the biblical book that bears his name. Daniel is presented as a Jew in the Babylonian exile who achieved notoriety in the royal court for his dream interpretations and cryptography and for his salvation from death in a lion's pit. He also appears in the last chapters of the book as the revealer of divine mysteries and of the timetables of Israel's restoration to national-religious autonomy. As a practitioner of oneiromancy in the court, described in Daniel 1-6 (written in the third person), Daniel per- forms his interpretations alone, while as a visionary-apocalyptist, in Daniel 7-12 (written in the first person), he is in need of an angel to help him decode his visions and mysteries of the future. It is likely that the name Daniel is pseudonymous, a deliberate allusion to a wise and righteous man known from Ugaritic legend and earlier biblical tradition. (Ez. 14:4,28:3). The authorship of the book is complicated not only by the diverse narrative voices and content but by its language: Daniel 1:1-2:4a and 8-12 are written in Hebrew, whereas Daniel 2:4b-7:28 is in Aramaic. The language division parallels the subject division (Daniel 1-6 concerns legends and dream interpretations; 7-12 concerns apocalyptic visions and interpretations of older prophecies). The overall chronological scheme as well as internal thematic balances (Daniel 2-7 is chiliastically related) suggest an attempt at redactional unity. After the prefatory tale emphasizing the life in court and the loyalty of Daniel and some youths to their ancestral religion, a chronological ordering is discernable: a sequence from King Nebuchadrezzar to Darius is reported (Dn. 7-12). Much of this royal dating and even some of the tales are problematic: for example, Daniel 4 speaks of Nebuchadrezzar's transformation into a beast, a story that is reported in the Qumran scrolls of Nabonidus; Belshazzar is portrayed as the last king of Babylon, although he was never king; and Darius is called a Mede who conquered Babylon and is placed before Cyrus II of Persia, although no such Darius is known (the Medes followed the Persians, and Darius is the name of several Persian kings). Presumably the episodes of Daniel 2-6, depicting a series of monarchical reversals, episodes of ritual observances, and reports of miraculous deliverances were collected in the Seleucid period (late fourth to mid-second century BCE) in order to reinvigorate waning Jewish hopes in divine providence and encourage steadfast faith. The visions of Daniel 7-12, reporting events from the reign of Belshazzar to that of Cyrus II (but actually predicting the overthrow of Seleucid rule in Palestine), were collected and published during the reign of Antiochus IV prior to the Maccabean Revolt, for it was then (beginning in 168 BCE) that the Jews were put to the test concerning their allegiance to Judaism and their ancestral traditions, and many refused to desecrate the statues of Moses and endured a martyr's death for their resolute trust in divine dominion. All of the visions of Daniel dramatize this dominion in different ways: for example, via images of the enthronement of a God of judgment, with a "son of man" invested with rule (this figure was interpreted by Jews as Michael the archangel and by Christians as Christ), in chapter 7; via zodiacal images of cosmic beasts with bizarre manifestations, as in chapter 8; or via complex reinterpretations of ancient prophecies, especially those of Jeremiah 25:9-11, as found in Daniel 9-12. The imagery of the four beasts in chapter 7 (paralleled by the image of four metals in chapter 2), representing four kingdoms to be overthrown by a fifth monarchy of divine origin, is one of the enduring images of the book; it sur- vived as a prototype of Jewish and Christian historical and apocalyptic schemes to the end of the Middle Ages. The role and power of this imagery in the fifteenth and sixteenth century work of the exegete Isaac Abravanel, the scientist Isaac Newton, and the philosopher Jean Bodin and among the Fifth Monarchy Men of seventeenth century England, for example, is abiding testimony to the use of this ancient topos in organizing the chiliastic imagination of diverse thinkers and groups. The schema is still used to this day by various groups predicting the apocalyptic advent. The encouragement in the face of religious persecution that is found and propagandized in Daniel 11-12 contains a remarkable reinterpretation of Isaiah 52:13-53:12, regarding the suffering servant of God not as all Israel but as the select faithful. Neither the opening stories about Daniel and the youths nor the final martyrological allusions advocate violence or revolt; they rather advocate a stance of piety, civil disobedience, and trustful resignation. Victory for the faithful is in the hands of the archangel Michael, and the martyrs will be resurrected and granted astral immortality. Persumably the circles behind the book were not the same as the Maccabean fighters and may reflect some proto-Pharisaic group of hasidim, or pietists. The themes of resistance to oppression, freedom of worship, preservation of monotheistic integrity, the overthrow of historical dominions, and the acknowledgement of the God of heaven recur throughout the book and have served as a token of trust for the faithful in their darkest hour.

I asked around in one of the areas you suggested yourself, and presented the information I got. No mention of US landmines was given. Okay, so you are going to blindly believe in things without reasonable evidence? I didn't realize you were a theist. I am doubting a claim presented without any evidence to support it. If you are able to present real evidence for it, then great. But unsupported claims, or even claims by such and such news agency will not be accepted. If you want to stick to the sheer impossible, instead of the merely difficult, then fine. The statement that if such a fact is classified, then you can't prove it, is a simple matter of pragmatics and the law. If you have access to classified information that you know to be classified, and you reveal it, there is a good chance that you or someone else (the person who revealed it to you), is going to jail. I never said that you couldn't prove it to my satisfaction, I merely said that it was difficult. (Who said I try and make things easy for people I am arguing with :) (Unless of course, they need the handicap).

When Robert refers to the "orthodox", he is talking about the Historical position of the Christian Faith. Such things are derived from Biblcal texts through the centuries by the apocolic fathers of the faith. You are right that people read things differently in the Bible, and this is alright in parts like parables and such forth. However, when it comes to the essential doctrines of the Historical Orthodox Christan Beliefs, there is only one correct way to read it. For example, either the doctrine of the Trinity is true, or it is false. Yes, people read the texts differently, but only one position is true. They both cannot be. According to the text, the doctrine is true and has always existed.

You are right, Michael. In John 3:5, Jesus says, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit." That's really what He said, and He meant it. That verse is the definition of baptism. I don't have the law book in front of me, but there is a canon law that urges parents to baptize their children within one week of birth for the very reason that you state.

For those who pray in tongues, When is it appropriate for you to pray/speak in tongues and why? I just would like to gain more knowledge about this subject.

Ever since I was a kid and learned to tell when I was in a dream I have used my dreams for fantasies or working out problems. In my dreams I have done everything from yell at my mom to machine-gunning zombies, not to mention myriad sexual fantasies. I have deliberately done things that I would never do in real life. I understand the need to control ones thoughts, but I always felt that dreams were format free, no morals, no ethics, no physical laws, (though sometimes I would have to wake myself up to go to the bathroom.) Is this an incorrect attitude? Rather than weakening my inhibitions, I could argue that I got certain things "out of my system" by experiencing them in dreams. By analyzing a dream I can determine if I have a problem with a certain situation, i.e. in a dream something will be exagerated that I can then contemplate and see if it really bothers me or not. I can't believe that other people don't do the same. It seems silly to attach moral significance to dreams. I think that this is entirely different from out of body experiences, which I have never had. Contradictions welcome.

Great start. I realize immediately that you are not interested in discussion and are going to thump your babble at me. I would much prefer an answer from Ms Healy, who seems to have a reasonable and reasoned approach to things. Say, aren't you the creationist guy who made a lot of silly statements about evolution some time ago? Duh, gee, then we must be talking Christian mythology now. I was hoping to discuss something with a reasonable, logical person, but all you seem to have for your side is a repetition of the same boring mythology I've seen a thousand times before. I am deleting the rest of your remarks, unless I spot something that approaches an answer, because they are merely a repetition of some uninteresting doctrine or other and contain no thought at all. [..] I have to congratulate you, though, Bill. You wouldn't know a logical argument if it bit you on the balls. Such a persistent lack of function in the face of repeated attempts to assist you in learning (which I have seen in this forum and others in the past) speaks of a talent that goes well beyond my own, meager abilities. I just don't seem to have that capacity for ignoring outside influences.

It is possible that the individual saw a true prophetic vision, but that he interpreted the scale of time and space according to his material con- sciousness, translating the supersensible perceptions of a plane above that of time and space into an immediate worldly context -- and getting it wrong. Not that he did it rationally, but rather that unconsciously the perceptions became clothed in material images, instead of remaining in the realm of the potential and not-yet-time-space-bound. This difficulty of translating prophetic vision into a concrete when and where has always been difficult, even for the prophets of old. That is why their prophecies are so often subject to multiple interpretations. Likewise, the Apostles seemed to feel that the return of the Lord was to be "very soon" in the sense of perhaps the same generation. Yet the meaning of "very soon" has proven to be different than they could grasp. Prophetic vision tends to telescope time, so that things that are far off appear to be very close. Another possibility is that the vision was one of a real event preparing to happen, again in the realm of the potential-but-not-yet-manifest and which was thwarted by other forces, including possibly an act of divine mercy. There are many concrete prophecies being made these days by devout and sincere and sober Christians (and others too). It seems that great coming events are really casting their shadow before their arrival in these "apocalyptic" times. The various predictions (I'm talking about those that appear to be sincere and sober) are hard to accept, yet hard to ignore com- pletely. One has the feeling "something is about to start to get ready to begin to commence to happen". We are living, as the Chinese saying goes, in interesting times. As for how to discriminate, the Bible doesn't help much. There is an Old Testament passage (I forget where it is) that says you will know whether a prophet is true by whether or not his prophecy comes to pass. That helps eliminate the failures after the fact, but in the case of an earth- quake it is small comfort. It seems to me that all prophecies that give specific times and places and events should be suspect, not in that they are necessarily false, but in the sense stated above, that all such visions are subject to mistranslation from the plane of prophetic vision to the plane of earthly time and space. For what it is worth, Rudolf Steiner once was asked whether a modern initiate could see into the future and predict coming events. His answer was that it would be possible but then he would have to withdraw from active parti- cipation in them, including proclaiming what he saw. If this is in fact a spiritual law, then the answer to your question about how to discriminate is that the one who makes such prophecies is probably violating that law, knowingly or unknowingly, and as such his message should be considered a priori to be dubious. I.e. I would expect that those capable of making true predictions and giving accurate expression to them would not do so in the way that the prophet of the Oregon earthquake did. However, I can sympathize with the person who published the prophecy. Given the same overwhelming experience that he apparently had, I too might feel impelled, and even commissioned by God to tell my fellow human beings about what I had seen. Gerry Palo ([email protected])

Well, the best thing to do is to read the book "Parallel Universes" by Dr. Fred Wolf. In essence, Dr. Wolf says that one interpretation of the sub-atomic particle/wave duality is that what we perceive as a wave is actually an infinate number of parallel universes overlaid, and in each of these universes there is a particle in a different location. When we do something to make a particle "appear," we are actually causing all the parallel universes to collapse into one. Apparently this is one line of thought on the nature of QM, that is going through some of the scientific community. Dr. Wolf (and many others) claim that somehow the collapse is caused by the mental effort of observing the particle. This implys that mind is more than merely a biological phenomenon. He then extrapolates that if mind is an integral part of the universe, then perhaps consciousness is the element that gives order and form to the universe(s) it/themself(s). It all gets rather interesting, but what I find facinating is that this would explain the phenomenon of "magick" as practiced in my religion. Dr. Wolf speculates that the ordering functionality of mind could be caused by the selection of a future from an infinite number of possible futures; he says that this might be done by some sort of communication between ones current, and possible future selves. I have long speculated that if magick is not merely a form of self delusion then perhaps it could be caused by some sort of a selection of one of many possible futures. I realize that this gets pretty bizarre, but it never hurts to keep an open mind and at least file it all away as another possibile explaination of the world in which we find ourselves. After all, the more we learn about the universe in which we live, the more we learn that it is truly a very strange place.

But it's STILL HAPPENING. That's the entire point. Only last month, John Major hailed it as a great victory that he had personally secured a sale of arms to Saudi Arabia. The same month, we sold jet fighters to the same Indonesian government that's busy killing the East Timorese. It's all very well to say "Oops, we made a boo-boo, better clean up the mistake", but the US and UK *keep* making the *same* mistake. They do it so often that I can't believe it's not deliberate. This suspicion is reinforced by the fact that the mistake is an extremely profitable one for a decrepit economy reliant on arms sales. No, I thought both were terrible.

: This figure, is far below all the other figures I have seen. If it : is indeed accurate, then how do you explain the discrepancy between : that figure, and other figures from international organizations? : Most figures I have seen place the hit ratio close to 70%, which is : still far higher than your 35%. Or does your figure say a bomb : missed if the plane took off with it, and the bomb never hit the target, : regardless of whether or not the bomb was dropped? Such methods : are used all the time to lie with statistics. Answering the last sentence, claimed that they had a success rate of 80% without initially explaining, until pressed, that this meant that 80% of the aircraft came back having dropped their bombs somewhere, regardless' of whether they had hit the intended target, or indeed anything al all.

Ah, you taking everything as literal quotation. No wonder you're confused. First, can I ask that we decide on a definition of "objective"? And? I'd guess that it might be. It may be the case that some people are unable to evaluate complex moral issues. Rather than leaving them to behave "immorally", it might be better to offer them an abstract (nonexistent objective) system of ethics which they can strive towards, coded into rules which they don't have to derive for themselves. I tend to feel that this is pretty much what we all have as morality anyway...

Meng, I have a better prayer: Dear God, Please save the world from the likes of these!!!

Anyone from Alabama knows it should be: Is "The Bear" Catholic? Does a Pope shit in the woods?

: But how do we know that you're representing the REAL Christians? : ;-) : Bill, you're an asshole. Get lost. Maddi, I see that you still can't grasp the obvious, is it because your are devious by nature, or can you only find fault with an argument by misrepresenting it? I plainly said that I was stating the Christian position as I understand it, I did not say whether I agree with it since my point was that the only flaws in that position are those atheists invent. I have never claimed to be an expert on anything and especially Christianity, but I have made it an object of pretty intense study over the years, so I feel qualified to discuss what its general propositions are. What offends you is that I have exposed the distortions and misrepresentations of Christianity you contrive and then rail against, (which seems more like the classical strawman dodge than what I said) This leaves you with nothing but to attack but me. As usual, you avoid the larger issues by picking away at the insignificant stuff, why not find one particular thing in my post that we can discuss, or can you even tell me what the issues are?

I wouldn't punish him with eternal torture if he didn't love me. But then I;m a decent chap. It seems your god isn't. I've looked, and he wasn't. Another promise broken. Lying bastard! How do you know what effort I have and have not given? Can anyone eaplain what he's just said here? Peter

I certainly agree with the last paragraph. Also, Jesus;s statements on hell can be treated as totally symbolic, allegorical or as parables, as was much of his other teaching. There's more than enough hell here on earth that we are freed from by following Jesus that the rest just doesn't mattter to me. And the fact that we can be free of the hell here is the best gift God offers. Eternal life begins for us now and we do not wait to start partaking of the divine nature and journeying on the path to deification. Larry Overacker ([email protected]) --

I have no problem with the idea that catechumens be dismissed before the Eucharist. They were not considered qualified to participate. Does the dismissal in the early church mean that the eucharist was a secret? I mean, was it: you don't have to stay; from now on, only the membership can participate; you really don't have to hang around; yes, I know you're obliged to keep up attendance to qualify, but now is an exception, okay? or was it: you may not stay; what happens next is secret When we have had reason to conduct business meetings after church, we've made it clear that only members can vote. But we've always been happy for non-members to stay and observe. Do you have evidence for intentional secrecy? (Other than rumours, which will always happen when you have an underclass doing things not approved of by those in power?)

: 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. Scott, Until this paragraph I would willingly amend my earlier statements, since your point(s) are well made and generally accurate. This last part though slips into hyperbole. Since I've discussed my objections to such generalizations before, I really don't feel I need to do it again. If you haven't seen those posts, ask Maddi, she saves everything I write.

1) They are religious parodies, NOT atheistic paradies. 2) Please substantiate that they are parodies, and are outrageous. Specifically, why is the IUP any more outrageous than many religions? --- Private note to Jennifer Fakult. "This post may contain one or more of the following: sarcasm, cycnicism, irony, or humor. Please be aware of this possibility and do not allow yourself to be confused and/or thrown for a loop. If in doubt, assume all of the above.

: Are you saying that their was a physical Adam and Eve, and that all humans are direct decendents of only these two human beings.? Then who were Cain and Able's wives? Couldn't be their sisters, because A&E didn't have daughters. Were they non-humans? Okay all humans are direct descendents of of a bunch of hopeful monsters. The human race didn't evolve from one set parents, but from thousands. Do you really base your atheist on -this-? : Considering that something like 4 out of 5 humans on this planet don't know instinctively that the Christian god exist, the claim of instinctive knowledge doesn't look like it hold much water. Or are you saying that the 4 billion non-Christians in the world must fight this instinctive urge to acknowledge God and JC. Did I say that people were Christians by nature or did I say that Christians hold that everyone knows of the God the Christians worship. I would have thought the distinction obvious, sorry. Read my post again and see what I -really- said; from what you've written, I think you are just being agumentative. Also your word-wrap is screwed up or you need to shift to 80 columns text ...

I didn't say to visit some "nice" homosexuals. I said "visit some congregations of Christians..spirit-filled believers.." Praise the Lord that we are all members of the same body. Let us agree to disagree.

comments : ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ There is a BIG difference between the status of what you refer to as Alexandrians (actually, this includes all Oriental Orthodox Churches and not only Copts) and that of Nestorians. The Oriental Orthodox Churches never even "shelter" Eutyches (the advocator of Monophysitism) but on the contrary, it condemned (and still does condemn) him and his heresy. That is why the Eastren (Chalcedonian) Orthodox Church held talks with the Oriental (non-Chalcedonian) that started 30 years ago and still continueing till today, but they have converged on many issues the most imporatant of which is Christology (I have more details of the inter-Orthodox dialogue, in case anyone is interested). So I do not see how the "Alexandrians" and the Nestorians are in a similar position. Peace,

The peaceful attempt to serve the warrant was met with gunfire. Due process was not served because the Branch Davidians wanted it that way. *You* think on that. -- "Milk is for babies; when you're a man, you drink beer" - Arnold

Some people might think it takes faith to be an atheist... but faith in what? Does it take some kind of faith to say that the Great Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist? Does it take some kind of faith to say that Santa Claus does not exist? If it does (and it may for some people I suppose) it certainly isn't as big a leap of faith to say that these things (and god) DO exist. (I suppose it depends on your notion and definition of "faith".) Besides... not believing in a god means one doesn't have to deal with all of the extra baggage that comes with it! This leaves a person feeling wonderfully free, especially after beaten over the head with it for years! I agree that religion and belief is often an important psychological healer for many people and for that reason I think it's important. However, trying to force a psychological fantasy (I don't mean that in a bad way, but that's what it really is) on someone else who isn't interested is extremely rude. What if I still believed in Santa Claus and said that my belief in Santa did wonderful things for my life (making me a better person, allowing me to live without guilt, etc...) and then tried to get you to believe in Santa too just 'cuz he did so much for me? You'd call the men in white coats as soon as you could get to a phone.

I wrote that I thought that 2 Peter 1:20 meant, "no prophecy of Scripture (or, as one reader suggests, no written prophecy) is merely the private opinion of the writer." Tony Zamora replies (Sat 8 May 1993) that this in turn implies that it is not subject to the private interpretation of the reader either. I am not sure that I understand this. In one sense, no statement by another is subject to my private interpretation. If reliable historians tell me that the Athenians lost the Pelopennesian War, I cannot simply interpret this away because I wanted the Athenians to win. Facts are facts and do not go away because I want them to be otherwise. In another sense, every statement is subject to private interpretation, in that I have to depend on my brains and expereience to decide what it means, and whether it is sufficiently well attested to merit my assent. Even if the statement occurs in an inspired writing, I still have to decide, using my own best judgement, whether it is in fact inspired. This is not arrogance -- it is just an inescapable fact.

<Yawn> Another right-wing WASP imagining he's an oppressed minority. Perhaps Camille Paglia is right after all. "I would not have any argument or problem with a peace-nik if they [...] stayed out of all conflicts or issues"? I bet you wouldn't. You'd love it. But what makes you think that sitting back, saying nothing about defense issues, and letting people like you make all the decisions is anything to do with "their ideals"?

: I heard on the radio today about a Christian student conference where : Christians were called to "repent" of America's "national" sins, such : as sexual promiscuity. : : To which I reply: ...whoa there! : : How can I repent of _someone else's_ sin? I can't. : : And when I claim to "repent" of someone else's sin, am I not in fact : _judging_ him? Jesus equipped us to judge activities but warned us : not to judge people. "Judge not that ye be not judged." : : C. S. Lewis made the same point in an essay after World War II, : when some Christian leaders in Britain were urging "national repentance" : for the horrors (sins???) of World War II. : -- I see your point, but I cannot more strongly disagree. To repent means to turn around. We, as a nation, have behaved incredibly arrogantly toward God condoning, encouraging, and even forcing folks to participate in activity directly opposed to the written Word of God. We have arrogantly set our nation far above the God who created it and allowed us the luxury of living in this land. We have set a bad example for other nations. We've slaughtered unborn children by the millions. We have stricken the name of God from the classroom. We've cheated God out of the honor due Him at every turn, and we owe God an apology every bit as public as our sins have been. When Jesus said "Judge not that ye be not judged", he was not addressing those like John the Baptist who had repented and were calling others to repent. He was addressing those who remained in sin while heaping down condemnation on others for their sins. His message to us all was to remove the log from our own eye before removing the speck from our brother's. But He also said to rebuke and to reprove. Don't forget that this is a command too. Our problem today is that we tend to judge and condemn as though we were rebuking and we tend to neglect bringing folks back to the Lord with the excuse that we don't want to judge anyone. In truth, what we need to do is to judge less and call others to repent more and to be able to distinguish between the two in our own motives. Call sin what it is and do so openly. Let it's charge fall correctly where it should. But instead of running someone into hell over it, pull them out of their hellward path and onto the heavenward path. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "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."

A religion is a cult which if those in power belong to it. Actually, they're all bull shit.

"This is your god" (from John Carpenter's "They Live," natch)

(st) Stephen Tice (km) Ken McVay (st)Seems to me Koresh is yet another messenger that got killed (st)for the message he carried. (Which says nothing about the (km)Seems to be, barring evidence to the contrary, that Koresh was simply (km)another deranged fanatic who thought it neccessary to take a whole bunch of (km)folks with him, children and all, to satisfy his delusional mania. Jim (km)Jones, circa 1993. I think there's plenty of evidence to the contrary - six "rescued" Davidians consistantly recounted that the Federal tank knocked over a barrel of propane. These guys haven't exactly been spending time together, plotting an elaborate and consistent story. It would be contradictory for Koresh to go for "mass suicide" - remember that Koresh's death was the opening of the sixth seal - the signal that Armageddon had begun. His army (the people in the compound) would then fight the powers of evil and win, ending in the Rapture. The fire wiped out his army. I read earlier that Koresh was planning to walk out of the compound and blow himself up with a grenade - that would jibe better with his teachings. (st)In the mean time, we sure learned a lot about evil and corruption. (st)Are you surprised things have gotten that rotten? (km)Nope - fruitcakes like Koresh have been demonstrating such evil corruption (km)for centuries. I'd think you'd be the last one to support gassing people and burning them to death for their religious beliefs. Corrupt? Evil? I don't know. We'll never know. And when you start calling people fruitcakes about their religious beliefs, that's dehumanizing people. We saw what happened when many Germans started believing that Jews were subhuman. In one neat stroke, they destroyed all the evidence that could have pointed to wrongdoing. And killed all the witnesses, including 12 children whose last view of life was choking and pain, followed by burning them alive. I am extremely saddened that this tragedy occurred. I'm furious that they used my money to do it.

Oh boy, get a small baby and figure out how much brain power they have the first 6 months.... Cheers, Kent

Do we attach some meaning of the Israelites entering "the promised land" to Christianity? I submit God did not hold the children responsible when the adults chose to follow the bad report of the 10 spies over Joshua and Caleb. This is recorded for us in Deuteronomy 1:39 "Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it." At least to me it seems there was/is an age, or point in maturity where they were/are held responsible, and could not enter the "Promised Land", younger ones were not held to the same "rules", at least not by God.

[email protected] (Gerry Palo) For my money the primary danger of anti-cult groups is that they are every bit as wacky as the groups they oppose and that by and large they have no compunctions about printing lies, half-truths and misleading innuendos as part of their exposes. A recent book on cults I picked up by a "Christian" author quite simply mixed in all non-Christian religions (except the Jews) and various New Age groups with various fringe groups of dubious intent and legality. Given the record of American Christianity, any group that falls into the category of fundamentalist or born-again is automatically into the Inquisition business. It is an unavoidable affliction of those who have a proprietary license on The Truth (tm). And let's not forget that Jonestown and the Branch Davidians are just as much a part of the Christian tradition as the Missouri Synod Lutherans, and may in fact be the Massadas of true Christian believers. I am far more concerned about the encroachment of overtly Christian indoctrination into public schools than I am about yoga classes there. For those concerned with religious freedom without a selective inquisitiorial bent: People for the American Way P.O. Box 96200 Washington, DC 20077-7500 Americans United for Separation of Church & State 8120 Fenton Street Silver Spring, MD 20910-9978

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

Brian, have you checked out what your priests told you in the Bible to see whether they were telling you the truth? Did you know that according to the Bible, there shouldn't even be such things as "priests" anymore? Do you know why the preisthood was established in the Old Testament to begin with and the reasons why after Jesus, there were no priests--that is until the Roman Catholic Church 300 years later devised the doctrine of transubstantiation by ignoring the whole concept beyond the book of Hebrews? You said you analyzed the Bible very closely. I think you are lying. For if you had, I would think you would have at least got the doctrine of hell straight.

#In article <[email protected]> # #>|>#>#Theism is strongly correlated with irrational belief in absolutes. Irrational #>|>#>#belief in absolutes is strongly correlated with fanatism. # #(deletion) # #>|Theism is correlated with fanaticism. I have neither said that all fanatism #>|is caused by theism nor that all theism leads to fanatism. The point is, #>|theism increases the chance of becoming a fanatic. One could of course #>|argue that would be fanatics tend towards theism (for example), but I just #>|have to loook at the times in history when theism was the dominant ideology #>|to invalidate that conclusion that that is the basic mechanism behind it. #> #>IMO, the influence of Stalin, or for that matter, Ayn Rand, invalidates your #>assumption that theism is the factor to be considered. # #Bogus. I just said that theism is not the only factor for fanatism. #The point is that theism is *a* factor. That's your claim; now back it up. I consider your argument as useful as the following: Belief is strongly correlated with fanaticism. Therefore belief is *a* factor in fanaticism. True, and utterly useless. (Note, this is *any* belief, not belief in Gods) #>Gullibility, #>blind obedience to authority, lack of scepticism, and so on, are all more #>reliable indicators. And the really dangerous people - the sources of #>fanaticism - are often none of these things. They are cynical manipulators #>of the gullible, who know precisely what they are doing. # #That's a claim you have to support. Please note that especially in the #field of theism, the leaders believe what they say. If you believe that, you're incredibly naive. #>Now, *some* #>brands of theism, and more precisely *some* theists, do tend to fanaticism, #>I grant you. To tar all theists with this brush is bigotry, not a reasoned #>argument - and it reads to me like a warm-up for censorship and restriction #>of religious freedom. Ever read Animal Farm? #> #That's a straw man. And as usually in discussions with you one has to #repeat it: Read what I have written above: not every theism leads to #fanatism, and not all fanatism is caused by theism. The point is, #there is a correlation, and it comes from innate features of theism. No, some of it comes from features which *some* theism has in common with *some* fanaticism. Your last statement simply isn't implied by what you say before, because you're trying to sneak in "innate features of [all] theism". The word you're groping for is "some". #Gullibility, by the way, is one of them. No shit, Sherlock. So why not talk about gullibility instead of theism, since it seems a whole lot more relevant to the case you have, as opposed to the case you are trying to make? #And to say that I am going to forbid religion is another of your straw #men. Interesting that you have nothing better to offer. I said it reads like a warm up to that. That's because it's an irrational and bogus tirade, and has no other use than creating a nice Them/Us split in the minds of excitable people such as are to be found on either side of church walls. #>|>(2) Define "irrational belief". e.g., is it rational to believe that #>|> reason is always useful? #>|> #>| #>|Irrational belief is belief that is not based upon reason. The latter has #>|been discussed for a long time with Charley Wingate. One point is that #>|the beliefs violate reason often, and another that a process that does #>|not lend itself to rational analysis does not contain reliable information. #> #>Well, there is a glaring paradox here: an argument that reason is useful #>based on reason would be circular, and argument not based on reason would #>be irrational. Which is it? #> #That's bogus. Self reference is not circular. And since the evaluation of #usefulness is possible within rational systems, it is allowed. O.K., it's oval. It's still begging the question, however. And though that certainly is allowed, it's not rational. And you claiming to be rational and all. At the risk of repeating myself, and hearing "we had that before" [we didn't hear a _refutation_ before, so we're back. Deal with it] : you can't use reason to demonstrate that reason is useful. Someone who thinks reason is crap won't buy it, you see. #Your argument is as silly as proving mathematical statements needs mathematics #and mathematics are therfore circular. Anybody else think Godel was silly? #>The first part of the second statement contains no information, because #>you don't say what "the beliefs" are. If "the beliefs" are strong theism #>and/or strong atheism, then your statement is not in general true. The #>second part of your sentence is patently false - counterexample: an #>axiomatic datum does not lend itself to rational analysis, but is #>assumed to contain reliable information regardless of what process is #>used to obtain it. #> # #I've been speaking of religious systems with contradictory definitions #of god here. # #An axiomatic datum lends itself to rational analysis, what you say here #is a an often refuted fallacy. Have a look at the discussion of the #axiom of choice. And further, one can evaluate axioms in larger systems #out of which they are usually derived. "I exist" is derived, if you want #it that way. # #Further, one can test the consistency and so on of a set of axioms. # #what is it you are trying to say? That at some point, people always wind up saying "this datum is reliable" for no particular reason at all. Example: "I am not dreaming". #>|Compared the evidence theists have for their claims to the strength of #>|their demands makes the whole thing not only irrational but antirational. #> #>I can't agree with this until you are specific - *which* theism? To #>say that all theism is necessarily antirational requires a proof which #>I suspect you do not have. #> # #Using the traditonal definition of gods. Personal, supernatural entities #with objective effects on this world. Usually connected to morals and/or #the way the world works. IMO, any belief about such gods is necessarily irrational. That does not mean that people who hold them are in principle opposed to the exercise of intelligence. Some atheists are also scientists, for example. #>|The affinity to fanatism is easily seen. It has to be true because I believe #>|it is nothing more than a work hypothesis. However, the beliefs say they are #>|more than a work hypothesis. #> #>I don't understand this. Can you formalise your argument? # #Person A believes system B becuase it sounds so nice. That does not make #B true, it is at best a work hypothesis. However, the content of B is that #it is true AND that it is more than a work hypothesis. Testing or evaluating #evidence for or against it therefore dismissed because B (already believed) #says it is wronG/ a waste of time/ not possible. Depending on the further #contents of B Amalekites/Idolaters/Protestants are to be killed, this can #have interesting effects. Peculiar definition of interesting, but sure. Now show that a belief in gods entails the further contents of which you speak. Why aren't my catholic neighbours out killing the protestants, for example? Maybe they don't believe in it. Maybe it's the conjunction of "B asserts B" and "jail/kill dissenters" that is important, and the belief in gods is entirely irrelevant. It certainly seems so to me, but then I have no axe to grind here.

The above article is a good short summary of traditional Christian teaching concerning the death of Mary. Also very good is "Re: Question about the Virgin Mary" by Micheal D. Walker. He tells the story very well. I would like to add that in the Eastern Orthodox Church we celebrate "The Dormition (or falling asleep) of the Theotokos (the mother of God)". The Icon for this day shows Mary lying on a bed surrounded by the Apostles who are weeping. Christ, in his resurrected glory, is there holding what seems to be a small child. This is, in fact, Mary's soul already with Christ in Heaven. The Assumption of Mary is one more confirmation for us as Christians that Christ did indeed conquer death. It forshadows the general resurrection on the last day. The disciples were not surprised to find Mary's body missing from the grave. She was the Mother of the Savior. She was the first of all Christians. She gave birth to the Word of God. If it were not for her we would not be saved. This is why we pray in the Orthodox Church, "Through the prayers of the Theotokos, Savior save us."

Since this is alt.atheism, I hope you don't mind if we strongly disagree... : The fact is God could cause you to believe anything He wants you to. : But think about it for a minute. Would you rather have someone love : you because you made them love you, or because they wanted to : love you. The responsibility is on you to love God and take a step toward : Him. He promises to be there for you, but you have to look for yourself. Indeed, "knock and it shall be opened to you". Dan, why didn't this work? I firmly believed in god for 15 years, but I eventually realised I was only deluding myself, fearful to face the truth. Ultimately, the only reason what kept me believing was the fear of hell. The mental states I had sillily attributed to divine forces or devil's attempts to destroy my faith were nothing more than my imagination, and it is easy to achieve the same mental states at will. My faith was just learned fear in a disguise. : Those who doubt this or dispute it have not givin it a sincere effort. God is demanding too much. Dan, what was it I believed in for 15 years? If sincere effort is equivalent to active suspension of disbelief - what it was in my case - I'd rather quit. If god does not help me to keep the faith, I can't go on. Besides, I am concerned with god's morality and mental health. Does she really want us to _believe_ in herself without any help (revelations, guidance, or anything I can feel)? If she has created us, why didn't she make the task any easier? Why are we supposed to love someone who refuses to communicate with us? What is the point of eternal torture for those who can't believe? I love god just as much as she loves me. If she wants to seduce me, she'll know what to do. : Simple logic arguments are folly. If you read the Bible you will see : that Jesus made fools of those who tried to trick him with "logic". : Our ability to reason is just a spec of creation. Yet some think it is : the ultimate. If you rely simply on your reason then you will never : know more than you do now. Your argument is of the type "you'll know once you try". Yet there are many atheists who have sincerely tried, and believed for many years, but were eventually honest enough to admit that they had lived in a virtual reality. What else but reason I can use? I don't have the spiritual means Christians often refer to. My conscience disagrees with the Bible. I don't even believe I have a soul. I am fully dependent on my body - indeed, I _am_ this body. When it goes up with flames, so does my identity. God can entertain herself with copies of me if she wants. : To learn you must accept that which you don't know. What does this mean? To learn you must accept that you don't know something, right-o. But to learn you must _accept_ something I don't know, why? This is not the way I prefer to learn. It is unwise to merely swallow everything you read. Suppose I write a book telling how the Great Invisible Pink Unicorn (tm) has helped me in my daily problems, would you accept this, since you can't know whether it is true or not? Note that the GIPU is also omnipotent, omnipresent, and loves just about everyone. Besides, He (and She) is guiding every writer on this planet, you and me, and not just some people who write legendary stories 2000 years ago. Your god is just one aspect of His and Her Presence. Petri

The last time we discussed homosexuality, I asked whether anyone could identify any other act besides homosexual intercourse that the Bible prohibited, but which might in some circumstances bring no apparent harm to anyone. Put another way, the question is whether homosexual intercourse is the only act that Christians are supposed to believe is immoral solely on the basis that God says it is, with no insight being offered as to *why* it is immoral. No one could answer my question in either form from the Bible. (I did get an interesting response based on Roman Catholic theology). However, I think now that I can at least answer my first question. Link Hudson pointed me to it in his recent comments about sleeping with one's aunt. Incest is held to be immoral in every society, that is, there are some degrees of relationship where marriage (and thus, intercouse) is prohibited. The Bible is no exception. The trouble is that it may be difficult to see *why* a particular relationship qualifies as incestuous. Societies differ as to how they define incest. Genetic reasons are sometimes offered, but all the Biblical cases cannot be dealt with that way. Why can't a man sleep with his step mother--assuming that his father is dead and that he has "married" her? How does this case differ from the *duty* to marry one's brother's childless wife. Are these two cases parallel? Does the Bible prohibit some incestuous marriages and homosexual marriages for the same reason, perhaps that God knows they are not good for us and yet we are incapable of understanding why. P.S. Please don't bother writing me to tell me that I am a homophobe, as some did last time. My mind is not made up on these questions. You don't know whether I am homophobic or not. You don't know me. To call me or anyone else a homophobe without knowing the person may be as much an expression of bigotry as some homophobic remarks.

From: dhammers@pacific.? (David Hammerslag) How do you (Mormons) reconcile the idea of eternal marriage with Christ's statement that in the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage (Luke, chapt. 20)? Footnotes in some bibles reference this verse to the Book of Tobit. Tobit is in the Septuagint. Goodspeed published it in a book called "The Apocrypha". Most any bookstore will have this. At any rate, the Jews of Christ's day had this book. It is a story mostly centered around the son of Tobit who was named Tobias. There was a young lady, Sarah, who had entered the bridal chamber with seven brothers in succession. The brothers all died in the chamber before consumating the marriage. Tobias was entitled to have Sarah for his wife (3:17) because Tobias was her only relative and "...she was destined for [Tobias] from the beginning" (6:17). Tobias took her to wife and was able to consumate the marriage. The seven husbands would not have her as a partner in heaven. That does not eliminate Tobias, her eighth husband. Tobit is a fun and interesting story to read. It's kind of a mythical romance. It's a little shorter than Esther. The LDS also have scriptures that parallel and amplify Luke 20. Most notably Doctrines and Covenants 132:15-16. "Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world. "Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory."

In the Monday, May 10 morning edition of the San Jose Mercury News an article by Sandra Gonzales at the top of page 12A explained convicted killer David Edwin Mason's troubled childhood saying, "Raised in Oakland and San Lorenzo by strict fundamentalist Christian parents, Mason was beaten as a child. He once was tied to a workbench and gagged with a cloth after he accidently urinated on his mother when she walked under his bedroom window, court records show." Were the San Jose Mercury news to come out with an article starting with "Raised in Oakland by Mexican parents, Mason was beaten...", my face would be red with anger over the injustice done to my Mexican family members and the Mexican community as a whole. I'm sure Sandra Gonzales would be equally upset. Why is it that open biggotry like this is practiced and encouraged by the San Jose Mercury News when it is pointed at the christian community? Can a good christian continue to purchase newspapers and buy advertising in this kind of a newspaper? This is really bad journalism.

Sorry about the delay in responding, due to conference paper deadline panic. [Alarming amounts of agreement deleted :-)] That ("complicated") isn't in fact where P(H) > P(HG) comes from; it's more the other way around. It's from P(H) = P(HG) + P(HG') where G' is the complement of G and by axiom, P(anything) >= 0, so P(HG') >= 0, so P(H) >= P(HG). In a sense, HG is necessarily more "complicated" than H for any H and G, so I may be splitting hairs, but what I'm trying to say is that irrespective of subjective impressions of how complicated something is, P(H) >= P(HG) holds, with equality if and only if P(HG') = 0. Well, "P(x | A) = P(x | B)" means that x is as likely to be observed if A is operative as it is if B is operative. This implies that observing x does not provide any useful information which might allow us to discriminate between the respective possibilities that A and B are operative; the difference reduces to the difference between the (unknown and unhelpful) prior probabilities P(A) and P(B): P(x | A) = P(x | B) ==> P(A | x) = k P(A), and P(B | x) = k P(B) where k = P(x | A) / P(x) = P(x | B) / P(x). So A and B are "equally consistent with the data" in that observing x doesn't give any pointers as to which of A or B is operative. In the particular case where A = H and B = HG, however, we know that their prior probabilities are ordered by P(H) >= P(HG), although we don't know the actual values, and it's this which allows us to deploy the Razor to throw out any such HG. That's certainly true, but the particular point here was whether or not a `divine component' actually underlies the prevalence of religion in addition to the memetic transmission component, which even the religious implicitly acknowledge to be operative when they talk of `spreading the word'. Now it seems to me, as I've said, that the observed variance in religious belief is well accounted for by the memetic transmission model, but rather *less* well if one proposes a `divine component' in addition, since I would expect the latter to conspire *against* wide variance and even mutual exclusion among beliefs. Thus my *personal* feeling is that P(x | HG) isn't even equal to P(x | H) in this case, but is smaller (H is memetic transmission, G is `divine component', x is the variance among beliefs). But I happily acknowledge that this is a subjective impression. Not that I'm a statistician as such either, but: The idea is that both theism and atheism are compatible with all of the (read `my') observations to date. However, theism (of the type with which I am concerned) *also* suggests that, for instance, prayer may be answered, people may be miraculously healed (both are in principle amenable to statistical verification) and that god/s may generally intervene in measurable ways. This means that these regions of the space of possible observations, which I loosely termed "appearances of god/s", have some nonzero probability under the theistic hypothesis and zero under the atheistic. Since there is only so much probability available for each hypothesis to scatter around over the observation space, the probability which theism expends on making "appearances of god/s" possible must come from somewhere else (i.e. other possible observations). All else being equal, this means that an observation which *isn't* an "appearance of god/s" must have a slightly higher probability under atheism than under theism. The Bayesian stuff implies that such observations must cause my running estimate for the probability of the atheistic hypothesis to increase, with a corresponding decrease in my running estimate for the probability of the theistic hypothesis. Sorry if that's still a bit jargonesque, but it's rather difficult to put it any other way, since it does depend intimately on the properties of conditional probability densities, and particularly that the total area under them is always unity. An analogy may (or may not :-) be helpful. Say that hypothesis A is "the coin is fair", and that B is "the coin is unfair (two-headed)". (I've used A and B to avoid confusion with H[heads] and T[tails].) Then P(H | A) = 0.5 } total 1 P(T | A) = 0.5 } P(H | B) = 1 } total 1 P(T | B) = 0 } The observations are a string of heads, with no tails. This is compatible with both a fair coin (A) and a two-headed coin (B). However, the probability expended by A on making possible the appearance of tails (even though they don't actually appear) must come from somewhere else, since the total must be unity, and it comes in this case from the probability of the appearance of heads. Say our running estimates at time n-1 are e[n-1](A) and e[n-1](B). The observation x[n] at time n is another head, x[n] = H. The estimates are modified according to P(H | A) e[n](A) = e[n-1](A) * -------- = e[n-1](A) * m P(H) and P(H | B) e[n](B) = e[n-1](B) * -------- = e[n-1](B) * 2m P(H) Now we don't know P(H), the *actual* prior probability of a head, but the multiplier for e(A) is half that for e(B). This is true every time the coin is tossed and a head is observed. Thus whatever the initial values of the estimates, after n heads, we have n e[n](A) = m e[0](A) and n e[n](B) = (2m) e[0](B), and since e[k](A) + e[k](B) = 1 at any time k, you can show that 0.5 < m < 1 and thus 1 < 2m < 2. Hence the estimate for the fair-coin hypothesis A must decrease at each trial and that for the two-headed coin hypothesis B must increase, even though both hypotheses are compatible with a string of heads. The loose analogy is between "unfair coin" and atheism, and between "fair coin" and theism, with observations consistent with both. A tail, which would falsify "unfair coin", is analogous to an "appearance of god/s", which would falsify atheism. I am *not* claiming that the analogy extends to the numerical values of the various probabilities, just that the principle is the same. Quite so, but this type of theism is what I might call "the G in the HG", in terms of our Ockham's Razor discussion, and I'd bin it on those grounds. The hypotheses don't have to be falsifiable, and indeed in my `model', the theism isn't falsifiable. You don't have to. We don't need, in the above analogy, to know *any* prior probabilities to deduce that the updating multiplier for the fair-coin hypothesis is less than unity, and that the corresponding multiplier for the two-headed coin hypothesis is greater than unity. You don't need to know the initial values of the running estimates either. It's clear that after a large number of observations, P(fair-coin) approaches zero and P(two-headed-coin) approaches unity. All you need to know is whether P(x | Ha) is larger than P(x | Ht) for observed x, and this follows from the assumptions that there are certain events rendered *possible* (not necessary) under Ht which are not possible under Ha, and all else is equal. Any observations you like; it really doesn't matter, nor affect the reasoning, provided that there are some possible observations which would count as "appearances of god/s". Examples of this might be a demonstration of the efficacy of prayer, or of the veracity of revelation. OK, we'll downgrade "*does* interact" to "*may* interact", which would actually be better since "does interact" implies a falsifiability which we both agree is misplaced. I'll explain, but bear in mind that this isn't central; all I require of a theism is that it *not* make the prediction "Appearances of god/s will never happen", as does atheism. (Before somebody points out that quantum mechanics doesn't make this prediction either, the difference is that QM and atheism do not form a partition.) Predictions include such statements as "Prayer is efficacious" (implying "If you do the stats, you will find that Prayer is efficacious"), or "Prayer is *not* efficacious", or "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." I don't think we have any problems of misunderstanding here. That's fine; I don't claim that theism is false, merely that the [finite number of] observations available to me so far suggest that it is, and that as I continue to observe, the suggestion looks better and better. I think you are; an "appearance of god/s" is sufficient to falsify atheism, whereas in general the corresponding theism is unfalsifiable. No: by way of a counterexample, let X = "the coin is fair", or more accurately (so that not(X) makes sense) "the two sides of the coin are different". This is unfalsifiable by tossing the coin; even a string of heads is consistent with a fair coin, and you have to go to an infinite number of tosses to falsify X in the limit. Its converse is falsifiable, and is falsified when at least one head and at least one tail have appeared. Oops. Sorry. Mea culpa. We agree here. "The Rapture will not happen on October 28 1992." Said Rapture would have falsified atheism to my satisfaction had it happened, although its failure to happen does not, of course, falsify any theisms other than those which specifically predicted it. "No phenomenon which requires the existence of one or more gods for its explanation will ever be observed." That about sums the whole thing up. Cheers Simon

Sounds like more of the same. Gods were used to describe almost everything in the past. As we come to understand the underpinnings of more and more, the less we credit to a god. Now, the not-so-well understood elements (at least by the author) includes quarks and tectonic drift. I guess that's better than describing the perceived patterns of stars in the sky as heroes being immortalized by the gods. Kinda sounds like old-earth creation--It seems that life did, indeed, evolve from a common ancestor. What caused that initial common ancestor? Are we going to hear another debate on causeless events? ;-)

There is no reason to believe that Paul's thorn in the flesh was a sin in his life. That makes little sense in the light of Paul' writings taken in totality. He writes of how he presses for the mark, and keeps his body submitted. No doubt Paul had to struggle with the flesh just like every Christian. Paul does associate his thorn with a Satanic messenger, and with physical infirmities and tribulation, but not with a sin in his life.

[reply to [email protected] (Keith M. Ryan)] Jeez, can't he get anything straight. I told him to wait for three days. GOD

Last night CNN reported that FBI has infrared pictures showing that the fires started in three places at the same time. That would indicate something not resembling an accident. Cheers, Kent

Wrong about what? I think they are correct in thinking that a well-placed bomb or six would get headlines, but I think they are wrong if they think that you can set off bombs and still be a Buddhist. Maybe what we are seeing here is that Chinese cultural genocide against the Tibetans has worked well enough that some Tibetans are now no longer Buddhist and are instead willing to behave like the Chinese occupiers. Every action is its own reward. On the other hand, people who are aware of the occupation are mostly full of admiration for the peaceful way that Tibetans have put up with it. And what does it cost us to admire them? Zip. Yes they are, and whether this serves them well or not depends on whether they want Buddhist principles or political independence. And without political independence can they preserve their cultural and religious traditions? The Chinese would certainly refer to them as terrorists, just as the Hitler regime used to refer to European resistance movements as terrorists. Better off in what way? As proponents of pacifism or as proponents of political autonomy? And better off in what time-scale? The Soviet Empire practised cultural genocide against something like a hundred small minorities, some of which resisted violently, and some of which did not, but in the end it was the Soviet Empire that collapsed and at least some of the minorities survived. Now some of the minorities are fighting one another. Is that because they have to, or because violent resistance to an oppressive Empire legitimized violence?

I have not seen this book, though I have had several people quote it in support of some tendentious assertions they were making, so I have become curious about it. I don't want to malign this Hislop fellow, whoever he may be, as I have only heard the arguments at second hand, but both of the arguments seemed to turn on false etymology that SEEMED to be derived from Hislop. I would be interested in knowing more about these things. The first one claimed that the word "church" was derived from the Greek "cyclos", and that it was therefore related to the worship of "Circe". I don't know if Hislop is the source of this assertion, but it does seem to be based on false etymology. The second claimed an etymological relationship between "Ishtar" and "Easter", which seemed to be even more fanciful and far-fetched than some of the wilder notions of the British Israelites. Regarding the latter, as far as I have been able to find out, "Easter" is derived from the old English name for April - "Eosturmonath". The Venerable Bede mentioned that this was associated with a goddess called "Eostre", but apart from that reference I have not been able to find out anything more about her. It also seems that the term "Easter" is only used by the English and those they evangelized. The Germans, for example, also use the term "Ostern", but Germany was evangelized by English missionaries. So I would be interested in any evidence of "Easter" being used for Pascha by people who do not have any kind of connection with the ancient Anglo- Saxons and their offshoots. Such evidence might support the claims of those who appear to derive the theory from Hislop.

[to Benedikt Roseneau ] #In article <[email protected]> # #>#The information of that is invariant under your child being a son or #>#a daughter and singing about Santa Claus. Wasn't your argument that #>#"there has to be more"? #>More than what? #More than we assume. Which is what, exactly? #>(a) Most of the people I debate disagree with my premises. Hardly debate #> otherwise. # #Your favorite point that we sense so it hs to be there has been challenged #more than once. When I did it, you said, "good question", and did not #address it. I've addressed "it" (your caricature is not my "favourite point", needless to say) at length in a previous outing, and am currently discussing it with Eric Rescorla. #>(b) There's little point in responding the same points everywhere; I do #> my best to give everyone the courtesy of a reply. # #You still repeat that point. I do? Curious, since I believe that was the first time I've ever made it. Not that repetition would imply much more than your seeming inability to understand; you ask me the same question, I'll give you the same answer, especially when in this case, I know the answer to be true. I do my best to give everyone the courtesy of a reply, but if everyone is making the same points, and I'm pushed for time, then I try to respond what I believe are the strongest formulations of those points. If that doesn't include your post, tough; this is USENET, and life is tough all over. #>(c) Since there's a great deal of responses this isn't always feasible; I #> do my best to honestly answer questions put to me. # #You drop out of debates with some posters and continue with others. You appear #with the same issue every n months, and start the dicussion at the beginning #again. I've only debated this issue twice in a.a, and occasionally in t.a. The first was in response to Simon Clippingdale's positive assertion that disagreement about moral values inexorably acknowledges that morals are relative. It doesn't. Now, Simon has dropped out of the debate for some time; I take that to mean that he is either busy, or bored with the topic. I certainly do not accuse him of dishonesty. Do you? #>(d) I can't always understand what you say # #Neither can't I understand you all the time. Usually, one asks what the other #side means. Usually, one does. Usually you're clear, but sometimes you aren't and I ask you what you mean; other times you seem to get extremely uptight and I feel that I'm debating against line noise. Sometimes I get tired, and sometimes I have other things I'd rather do. Again, this is USENET, and life is tough all over. You're going to have to deal with it. #>(e) You're starting to get personally insulting; I may not even put your name #> in the hat in future. # #That's supposed to be a threat? No, that's a simple statement, and an assertion that I am not answerable to those who offer me baseless insults. For example, those who accuse me of lying about my personal beliefs, while also complaining that I don't answer their questions. #>#Like that you what you sense is evidence for the sensed to be there. #>#If only everything would be so easy. #> #>What almost everyone senses is evidence for the sensed to be there. #>Because to all intents and purposes, it *is* there. #> #We had that argument. For one, your claim that everyone senses it #is not founded, and you have been asked to give evidence for it often. #And then, the correct statement would be it is reason to assume that it #is there unless evidence against it has been found. I have no problem with the second statement. I have provided an argument that almost everyone senses that Freedom is valuable - the only cogent objection to this came from jon livesey, and was offered by some other people too: essentially, that people disagree about fuzzy concepts such as Freedom. It's a good point, and I'm thinking about it. # #Your trick is to say, I feel A is not right, and so do many I know, #therefore A is absolutely right. It neglects the possibility that #these people consider A to be right as an effect of the same process, #restricting the claim of its absoluteness to those who have been subject #of that process. In other words, refutes it. You make the ontological #claim, you have to prove it. Nonsense. My "trick" is to say: I feel that A is better than B and so does almost any disinterested person I ask. Best evidence is therefore that A really is better than B, subject to the assumption that we can establish to our mutual satisfaction what we mean by A and B, and that the resulting system of values is self-consistent. Now get this: "really is better" is an idealisation, a fictional model, in the same sense that "real material existence" is a fictional model. It may or may not correspond to something true. It is nonetheless a useful _assumption_. Far more useful than the equally assumed relativist "trick", to wit: I feel that A is better than B, and so does almost any disinterested person I ask. However, if even one person disagrees that A is better than B, or if even one person dissents from mutually agreed definitions of A and B, then it is the case that B is better than A for that person, and nothing more can be said. I say this is useless because it inexorably implies that a supermajority seeking to maximise A cannot morally take action against someone seeking to maximise B (e.g. a terrorist). To do that would be to claim that a supermajority's carefully considered morality would be better than the terrorist's - which would, of course, be true, but a no-no for an ethical relativist. To claim that ethical relativism implies anything else is simply weasel words, and an example of compartmentalisation to rival anything in the world of religion. #>#For a similar argument, I sense morality is subjective, it does not #>#hurt me to do things that are considered to be objectively wrong by #>#others. #> #>If you mean that you do things that some others consider objectively #>wrong, and it turns out not to be the case for you - of course this #>is possible. It is neither evidence for subjectivism, nor evidence #>against objectivism (except sometimes, in a pragmatic sense). #> #It serves as a counterexample for that everything that is subject to #judgements is absolute. And as long as you don't provide evidence for #that there is something universally agreed upon there is no reason to #believe your hypothesis. I've done this: freedom, with the proviso that I still have to answer jon's objection that fuzzy concepts like freedom have no objective meaning. #Further, in order to make morality absolute, universal, or objective, #you would have to show that it is independent of humans, or the attributes #above look quite misleading. Not really. What evidence is there that _anything_ exists independently of humans? You'll be hard pressed to find any that isn't logically equivalent when applied to values. #>An analogous set of premises would be: #> #>Premise 1: Some people believe that objectively speaking the shortest #> route from my house to a bar is through the main entrance #> of the estate, and down the Malahide road. #> #>Premise 2: I checked it out, and found that the shortest route from my #> which is much closer. #> #>You would never deduce from these that there is no shortest route from my #>house to a bar; yet that is seemingly how you derive your relativist claim, #>using premises which are logically no different. #> # #No. Morals are a matter of belief so far. The people still believe that the #shortest way is through the main entrance. No agreement on *belief* here. #And in order to have an analogy you would have to show that there is a #shortest way and that there is a method to convince everyone of that it #is the shortest way indeed. In other words, your analogy works only when #one assumes that your premises are right in the first place. If not, it is #a fallacy. And if this were an argument for objectivism, you'd be right. It isn't, though, it's a demonstration that the argument you gave me is neither argument *against* objectivism, nor argument *for* relativism. Your gimmick is to assume in the first place that values aren't real, and to use this to "prove" that values aren't real. In other words, you beg the question against me.

This response originally fell into a bit bucket. I'm reposting it just so Bill doesn't think I'm ignoring him. Bill, I'm sorry to have been busy lately and only just be getting around to this. Apparently you have some fundamental confusions about atheism; I think many of these are well addressed in the famous FAQ. Your generalisms are then misplaced -- atheism needn't imply materialism, or the lack of an absolute moral system. However, I do tend to materialism and don't believe in absolute morality, so I'll answer your questions. An atheist judges value in the same way that a theist does: according to a personal understanding of morality. That I don't believe in an absolute one doesn't mean that I don't have one. I'm just explicit, as in the line of postings you followed up, that when I express judgment on a moral issue I am basing my judgment on my own code rather than claiming that it is in some absolute sense good or bad. My moral code is not particular different from that of others around me, be they Christians, Muslims, or atheists. So when I say that I object to genocide, I'm not expressing anything particularly out of line with what my society holds. If your were to ask why I think morality exists and has the form it does, my answer would be mechanistic to your taste -- that a moral code is a prerequisite for a functioning society, and that humanity probably evolved morality as we know it as part of the evolution of our ability to exist in large societies, thereby achieving considerable survival advantages. You'd probably say that God just made the rules. Neither of us can convince the other, but we share a common understanding about many moral issues. You think you get it from your religion, I think I get it (and you get it) from early childhood teaching. I think you've been reading the wrong sort of comic books, but in prying through the gobbledygook I basically agree with what you're saying. I do believe that my mental reactions to stimuli such as "God commanded the genocide of the Canaanites" is mechanistic, but of course I think that's true of you as well. My reaction has little to do with whether God exists or even with whether I think he does, but if a god existed who commanded genocide, I could not consider him good, which is supposedly an attribute of God. Hmm. Yes, I think some heavy FAQ-reading would do you some good. I have as much place discussing values etc. as any other person. In fact, I can actually accomplish something in such a discussion, by framing the questions in terms of reason: for instance, it is clear that in an environment where neighboring tribes periodically attempt to wipe each other out based on imagined divine commands, then the quality of life will be generally poor, so a system that fosters coexistence is superior, if quality of life is an agreed goal. An absolutist, on the other hand, can only thump those portions of a Bible they happen to agree with, and say "this is good", even if the act in question is unequivocally bad by the standards of everyone in the discussion. The attempt to define someone or a group of people as "excluded from discussion", such that they "cannot participate", and their opinions given "no weight whatsoever" is the lowest form or reasoning (ad hominem/poisoning the well), and presumably the resort of someone who can't rationally defend their own ideas of right, wrong, and the Bible. -- Jim Perry [email protected] Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC These are my opinions. For a nominal fee, they can be yours.

Mathew: Could you let us know when this happened, so I can see if my version is as up-to-date as possible? I try to re-save the FAQs once in a while, but otherwise I ignore their regular postings, so I wouldn't generally notice such a change. And I like to stay current. Thanks,

which Kenneth Engel challenges: I will wimp out and admit that I never liked the metaphor of Jesus "paying" for our sins in the sense that many Christians accept as literal. The point is that God understands the suffering we go through, not just intellectually like when we watch the Somalians on TV, but _really_ understands, He can "feel" our pain. This fact is manifested by Jesus' life. We can argue that someone in history might have suffered more than Jesus, we can think of more horrible torture than crucifixion, we can think of cases of betrayal and fruitless effort leading to worse despair, but the main point is that Jesus is in the trenches with us, He is in everyone, whatever I do to the least of humanity I do to Him, and whatever I do for the least of humanity I do for Him. Now, to reconcile this with the existence of hell is beyond my capabilities, but that wasn't my goal. Thankfully our moderator is surprising. As I re-read this I must admit that this is more of a description of my faith than an explanation, but perhaps that's all I can do, hopefully that's all I have to do.

I can certainly see opposing the "Amen" -- but that doesn't require opposing a moment of silence. Does anybody else besides me see a vicious circle here? I guarantee you the people who want school prayer aren't going to back off when they can't even manage to get a quiet moment for their kids to pray silently.

On Sunday 9 May 1993, Kenneth Engel writes (in substance): We are told that the penalty for sin is an eternity in Hell. We are told that Jesus paid the penalty, suffering in our stead. But Jesus did not spend an eternity in Hell. This objection presupposes the "forensic substitution" theory of the Atonement. Not everyone who believes in the Atonement understands it in those terms. For an expansion of this statement, send the messages GET GEN04 RUFF GET GEN05 RUFF GET GEN06 RUFF GET GEN07 RUFF to [email protected] or to [email protected] Note that the character after the "GEN" is a zero. If you want to read my opun from the beginning, start with GEN01.

What? Absolutely not. No way. Asimov was a lifelong atheist, and said so many times, right until his death. Judging from the many stories he told about his own life, he felt culturally closest to Judaism, which makes sense. He was born Jewish.

No, that's the point of evolution, not the point of "natural morality". Unless, of course, as I have suggested several times already, "natural morality" is just a renaming. But your "yes?" is actually stronger than this. You are agreeing that "every time an organism evolves cooperative behaviour" you are going to call it a "natural morality." Bee dance is a naturally developed piece of cooperative behaviour.