Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82757
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Religion and homosexuality

> magarret@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (COMPUTER DUDETTE) writes:

>I just recently realized that I am bisexual, and also just recently returned to
>religion, and have a good friend who has pointed out to me that homosexuality
>is a sin in the bible.  Well, I don't see how it could be considered a sin,

First of all as far as I know, only male homosexuality is explicitly
mentioned in the bibles, so you're off the hook there, I think. In
any event, there are *plenty* of people in many denominations who
do not consider a person's sexual identification of gay/lesbian/bisexual
as an "immoral lifestyle choice"

>Also, I have always been a somewhat liberal feminist, and am pro-choice, and it
>seems that being pro-choice and being religious don't mix either.  I am told

This is another misconception. You are not being told the whole story.

My former minister is a lesbian, and I know personally and
professionally several openly gay and lesbian ministers. I am
a Unitarian-Universalist and like most others in my denomination,
am pro-choice. You needn't go looking to the Unitarian Universalists
(which is a liberal religion) for acceptance of your sexual
identification and pro-choice views, however; there are many of us
who believe in spirituality AND freedom of conscience.

Good Luck on your journey!

-- 
Daniel O'Connell
Meadville/Lombard Theological School
University of Chicago Divinity School
<dsoconne@uchicago.edu>

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82758
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: 5 Apr 93   God's Promise in Psalm 85: 8

In article <C50KDr.Duz@acsu.buffalo.edu> 
psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>	I will hear what God the LORD will speak:
>	for he will speak peace
>	unto his people, and to his saints:
>	but let them not turn again to folly.

Psalm85(JPS): For the leader. Of the Korahites. A psalm. O LORD, You
will favor Your land, restore Jacob's fortune; You will forgive Your
people's iniquity, pardon all their sins; Selah; You will withdraw all Your
anger, turn away from Your rage. Turn again, O God, our helper, revoke
Your displeasure with us. Will you be angry with us forever, prolong
Your wrath for all generations? Surely You will revive us again, so that
Your people may rejoice in You. Show us, O LORD, Your faithfulness;
grant us Your deliverance. Let me hear what God, the LORD, will speak;
He will promise well-being to His people, His faithful ones; may they
not turn to folly. His help is very near those who fear Him, to make His
glory dwell in our land. Faithfulness and truth meet; justice and
well-being kiss. Truth springs up from the earth; justice looks down
from heaven. The LORD also bestows His bounty; our land yields its
produce. Justice goes before Him as He sets out on His way.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82759
From: "David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Spreading Christianity (Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor)

   Not to be too snide about it, but I think this Christianity must
   be a very convenient religion, very maliable and suitable for
   any occassion since it seems one can take it any way one wants
   to go with it and follow whichever bits one pleases and
   reinterpret the bits that don't match with one's desires.  It
   is, in fact, so convenient that, were I capable of believing
   in a god, I might consider going for some brand of Christianity.
   The only difficulty left then, of course, is picking which sect
   to join.  There are just so many.
    
   Dean Kaflowitz

Yes, Christianity is convenient.  Following the teachings of Jesus
Christ and the Ten Commandments is convenient.  Trying to love in a
hateful world is convenient.  Turning the other cheek is convenient.  So
convenient that it is burdensome at times.

Dave.
 

=============================================================
--There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke. (Bob Dylan)
--Never let school interfere with your education.  (Mark Twain)
--Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated.  (Mark Twain)
--TACT is getting your point across without stabbing someone with it.
--Subtlety is saying what you mean, then getting out of the way before
it is understood.
--"If you were happy every day of your life you wouldn't be a human
being, you'd be a game show host." (taken from the movie "Heathers.")

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82760
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Subject: Re: Food For Thought On Tyre

af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes:
>PPS...Am I giving you too many clues?

Too many clues, not enough substance.  You ask a lot of
good questions, though, but they are questions *you* should
be worried about, not me.  I'm not the inerrantist here.

Let me know when you are ready to get serious.

dj

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82763
From: boylan@sltg04.ljo.dec.com (Steve Boylan)
Subject: Re: Christian Daemons? [Biblical Demons, the update]


In article <1993Apr1.024850.20111@sradzy.uucp>, radzy@sradzy.uucp
(T.O. Radzykewycz) writes:

> >>swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
> >>>  666, the file permission of the beast.
> 
> >radzy@sradzy.uucp (T.O. Radzykewycz) writes:
> >> Sorry, but the file permission of the beast is 600.
> >> 
> >> And the file permission of the home directory of the
> >> beast is 700.
> 
> boylan@sltg04.ljo.dec.com (Steve Boylan) writes:
> >Hey, radzy, it must depend on your system's access policy.
> >I get:
> >	$ ls -lg /usr/users
> >	total 3
> >	drwxrwxrwx 22 beast    system       1536 Jan 01  1970 beast
> >	drwxr-x--x 32 boylan   users        2048 Mar 31 09:08 boylan
> >	drwxr-xr-x  2 guest    users         512 Sep 18  1992 guest
> >	$ su
> >	Password:
> >	root $ su beast
> >	beast $ umask
> >	111
> >	beast $ ^D
> >	root $ ^D
> >	$ 
> 
> Just a minute....
> 
> 	$ grep beast /etc/passwd
> 	beast:k5tUk76RAUogQ:497:0:Not Walt Disney!:/usr/users/beast:
> 	$ mv /usr/users/beast/.profile /usr/users/beast/.profile,
> 	$ echo umask 077 >> /usr/users/beast/.profile
> 	$ cat > /usr/users/beast/.profile
> 	chmod 700 /usr/users/beast
> 	mv .mailrc .mailrc,
> 	echo beast logged in | mail radzy%sradzy@jack.sns.com
> 	mv .mailrc, .mailrc
> 	mv /usr/users/beast/.profile, /usr/users/beast/.profile
> 	^D
> 	$ chmod 777 /usr/users/beast/.profile
> 	$ cat /usr/users/beast/.profile, >> /usr/users/beast/.profile
> 
> <waits a while, finally gets mail.>
> 
> I think you made a mistake.  Check it again.
> 

I see . . . you're not running Ultrix!

	:-)

				- - Steve


--
Don't miss the 49th New England Folk Festival,
April 23-25, 1993 in Natick, Massachusetts!

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82766
Subject: CHRISTIAN DEVIL REVEALED!
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)

>For a while I was puzzled by the the concept of Adam and Eve coming to
>know good and evil.  This is how I resolved it.  Within God's universe
>each action evokes an equal and opposite reaction.  There can be no good
>without evil as an opposite.  So the issue is not what you do but to whom
>you give your allegiance.  That is why, even in this sinful state, when we
>perform an evil act while we are submitted to God He does not place that
>sinful act to our account (Rom 4:8) In the same vein you can perform all 
>the good deeds in the book, if your life is not under God's control you are 
>still sinning (see Rom 14:23).

Now, take a good look at at, an tell me man, there is no Christian
Devil? There is, is real, is a virus, a meme, infecting and possessing
the good people and keep 'em from becoming human beings with emphasis on
the being! Is not a matter of good people an evil people, is all good
people see, but some good people vexed of the Christian Devil. An it
can't be burn out or lynch out or rape out. Only wise up let I rise up.
Christian Devil is real man, how else can you explain five hundred years
of history, even more? Can only be explained by Christians invoke
Christian Devil.

you keep on knocking but you can't come in, i got to understand you've
been living in sin, but walk right in and sit right down, i'll keep
on loving you, i'll play the clown, but bend down low, let i tell you
what i know yah

i've been 'buked brothers and i've been stoned, woe, woe, woe, now i'm
hung by a tree in the the ganging on a few, woe, woe, woe, it doesn't
matter who the man is who lives the life he loves, it doesn't matter
what the man does or the honest life he loves, i want somewhere, i want
somewhere, hallelujah, hallelujah, somewhere to lay my head, woe is me

only ska beat in 'eaven man

stiff necked fools, you think you're cool, to deny me for simplicity, yes
you have gone, for so long with your love for vanity now, yes you have
got the wrong interpretation mixed up with vain imagination, so take jah
sun and jah moon and jah rain and jah stars, and forever yes erase your
fantasy, yeah, the lips of the righteous teach many, but fools die for
want of wisdom, the rich man's wealth is in his city, the righteous
wealth is in his holy place, so take jah sun and jah moon and jah rain
and jah stars, and forever yes erase your fantasy, destruction of the
poor is in their poverty, destruction of the soul is vanity, yeah, but i
don't want to rule ya, i don't want to fool ya, i don't want to school
ya, things you, you might never know about, yes you have got the wrong
interpretation mixed up with vain, vain imagination, stiff necked fools,
you think you're cool, to deny me for, oh simplicity

love to see, when yah move in the rhythm, love to see when you're
dancing from within, it gives great joy to feel such sweet togetherness,
everyone's doing and they're doing their best, it remind i of the days
in jericho, when we trodden down jericho wall, these are the days when
we'll trod true babylon, gonna trod until babylon fall

then I saw the angel with the seven seals saying, babylon throne going down

we weeping and we wailing tonight

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82767
Subject: Re: "Imaginary" Friends - Dragons & Mice
From: martini@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Sheilagh M.B.E. O'Hare)

He sounds really cute, Morte!  Kinds like _pete's dragon_, maybe smaller,
maybe a different species.. winge'd?  (shakespear wing-ED)

I've always hat a horde of mice to turn to for fun & sort of that kind of
mouse in Cinderella (walt disney).  I grew up sort of as an only child,
part time.. my siblings were 10-8-6 years older than me, so i was pretty
commonly a different sort of charater in their games (read: non speaking
hot cocoa-goffer, stand in (still silent) bad guy/good guy/etc), so my
mice were playmates, more than advisors.

Could curt, or whomever has a good list of books please post such list,
in all sorts of fields, like jungian, condensed buddist/etc philosophies,
multiple personailty disorders, or good fiction that has well worked
imaginary friends?

thanks,
sheilagh, wanting a bunch of library catalouge topics to search thru

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82771
From: mayne@pipe.cs.fsu.edu (William Mayne)
Subject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions

In article <7912@blue.cis.pitt.edu> joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
>[Many good points deleted. Anyone who missed it should see the original.]
>Lists like this that just toss a bunch of quotes together to
>make a bible verse salad just don't cut it.  Those of us who
>want to argue against inerrancy should find this sort of thing
>as embarassing as the fundies should find Josh McDowell.

True, except that I've known few fundies who had enough sense to
be embarrassed by Josh McDowell.

(Okay, maybe a cheap shot. But I'm in that kind of mood.)

Bill Mayne


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82772
From: af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.)
Subject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions


Someone posted a list of x number of alleged Bible contradictions.  As Joslin
said, most people do value quantity over quality.  Dave Butler posted some good
quality alleged contradictions that are taking a long time to properly exegete.

If you want a good list (quantity) - _When Critics Ask, A Popular Handbook On
Bible Difficulties_ by Dr. Norman Geisler deals with over 800 alleged contradictions.

Frank
-- 
"If one wished to contend with Him, he could not answer Him one time out
 of a thousand."  JOB 9:3

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82774
From: Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Subject: David Koresh - Messianic Cult???

Hello.


I just read my first newspaper in a while and noticed an article on a
'messianic cult' leader named 'David Koresh'.

I'd like to know more about this and what is going on with them.

Please email me as I don't normally read this newsgroup.  Thanks.


Thyagi@HouseofKaos.Abyss.com

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82775
From: lovall@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Daniel L. Lovall)
Subject: Re: Cannibalism was Albert Sabin

In article <zxmkr08.733955549@studserv> zxmkr08@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (C
ornelius Krasel) writes:
>In <f1q4yUc@quack.kfu.com> pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>
>>In article <1pk2d0$7q1@access.digex.net>
>>huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>>>In article <f1n#0EP@quack.kfu.com> pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes
:
>>>}Do you have any examples of ritual cannibalism, particulary amongst the
>>>}primates?
>>>Why the "ritual" qualifier?
>
>>I was thinking of instances were a particular food or foods or drinks
>>are used to symbolize or ritualize cannibalism. Do you know of any human
>>cultures that have this type of mythology? For example, where one might
>>eat a food as representative of the body of a god, thus ritualized
>>cannibalism in the absence of the original.
>
>I know of ritual cannibalism among tribes in Papua-Neuguinea (?).
>They used to eat the brain of killed opponents. Sometimes these brains
>contained infectious agents which lead to a disease called "Kuru".
>Since cannibalism was banished by the government, the number of Kuru
>cases has dropped sharply.
>
Oh, yeah?  Well---*I* know of ....

Anyways, cannibalism is much more commmon than those who feel that it is wrong
(and then point out that the fact that western civilisation doesn't do it is
PROOF positive that we are more advanced) would have us believe.  Cannibalism
is often used in funeral ceremonies as a way of keeping the deceased loved one
alive.  Many other cultures (including many American Indian cultures) eat/ate
the flesh of slain enemies, often as a way of showing respect for the valor of
the departed.  Hearts are often favored for this, as it contains the spirit.

Have you ever read or seen "Alive", which is the story of the Argentinian boys
soccer team that crashed in the Andes and then ate the bodies of those who died
in order to survive?  Finger lickin good.  How about the Twighlight Zone
episode "To Serve Man"?

If you want more info on this, a good place to start is on sci.anthropology

Now send me $20 and eat my flesh,

Dan
lovall@physics.purdue.edu





Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82776
From: ST002649@brownvm.brown.edu (Alex Gottschalk)
Subject: Re: 666, THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST, VIEWER DISCR

In article <C4J571.K3D@rice.edu>, swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
said:
>Posted on 27 Mar 1993 at 00:16:13 by Michael Parks Swaim
>In article <C4HIM1.BrF@cs.psu.edu> jdh@math.psu.edu (Jeremy D Hall) writes:
>>Well, I *WILL* do the math, and I get:  (6^6)^6=2,189,739,336
>>
>>This mean anything to anyone?  :^)

5*1=5 thus fitting in neatly with something else.
_________________________________________________________________________
...and everything under the sun is in tune...     "What was Jabba the 
nd the sun is eclipsed by the moon."               Hut smoking?"      
                           --Pink Floyd                   --Alex      
                             "Eclipse"                      curious   
______________________________________________________________________

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82777
From: Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Subject: ZOROASTRIANISM - SAN JOSE - (Merc News Article)

ZOROASTRIANISM
SAN JOSE, CA, USA
Monday April 5, 1993
San Jose Mercury News, Page 1
     [Reproduced without permission]

_3,700-year tradition still glows - 
           'Assimilation in U.S. threatens ancient Zoroastrian religion'_

By Jeanne Huber, Mercury News Staff Writer

   HIGH ON A HILLSIDE above San Jose, flames leap up 24 hours a day from a
gleaming brass urn in a temple - one of only four in the United States -
dedicated to one of the world's most ancient religions.

   With the flames go the prayers of about 1,200 Bay Area Zoroastrians that
their faith will survive this land.

   "There is a fear - a real fear, too," said Silloo Tarapore of Lafayette.
"We have one generation to do it or to die."

   Many immigrant groups struggle to maintain an identity in a strange land.
But for Zoroastrians, it is an especially poignant concern.

   Their religion has been around for perhaps 3,700 years, a heritage so deep
it scarcely seems comprehensible in a state where "historical sites" are
sometimes less than 100 years old.  It was the religion of the great Persian
Empire under kings Cyrus and Darius.  And tradition says that when Christ
was born about 500 years later, he was honored by a visit from three
Zoroastrian priests, the Magi.  Scholars say many key beliefs of Christians,
Jews and Muslims can be traced to the teachings of Zoroaster, the
Zoroastrian prophet.

   Yet, with only about 150,000 Zoroastrians in the entire world, they are 
a miniscule minority in every country in which they live.  Survival as a
people is very much on their minds.

   Ironically, local Zoroastrians fear that the almost unlimited tolerance
of the United States may do what hundreds of years of persecution followed
by nearly 1,000 years of benign religious segregation could not do: cause
their young people to stop thinking of themselves as Zoroastrians.

   Zoroastrians do not believe theirs is the only right religion, and they
actually shun the notion of trying to win converts.  So if their children
become totally assimilated, they say, it's their children - rather than
the world at large - who will be the losers.

   "It's important to have an identity," said Maneck Bhujwaia of San Jose,
a leader among Zoroastrians who came here from India.  "It's important
for everybody - Irish, Scottish, Americans.  It gives meaning to life.
You don't have to depend on the majority community to give you respect.
You can fall back on your own identity."

   For Zoroastrians, there's much to be proud of.

   Their prophet, Zoroaster, seeking to make sense of a culture in which
animal sacrifice to multiple gods was common, preached that there was
only one god, a good one.  Zoroastrians call their god Ahura Mazda, which
translates as Lord of Wisdom and Light.

_Good vs. evil_

   Zoroaster saw life as a constant struggle between good and evil, with
the good eventually winning.  Men and women could join in the battle for
good, he said, and he warned that they would inevitably suffer consequences
such as shame and sorrow if they did wrong.  He preached honesty, charity,
kindness to animals, respect for the environment, hard work, equality of
men and women - basic virtues preached by prophets of many religions.

   But Zoroaster was perhaps unusual in that he told his followers not to
follow him blindly.  He demanded they think for themselves.  In fact,
Joseph Campbell, the famous scholar of the history and meaning of myths,
traced the Western emphasis on individual thought to the Zoroastrians.

   Zoroastrians have many words for thought.  Their motto, leaded into a
stained glass window over the sacred fire at the temple on the slopes of
Mount Hamilton, is "Good thoughts, good words, good deeds."

   So it's not surprising that Zoroastrians value education highly.  In India,
where a contingent of Zoroastrians arrived in the ninth century to escape
persecution by Muslims in Iran, Zoroastrians claim 100 percent literacy;
the overall statistic in India is just 60 percent.

   About half of the Bay Area Zoroastrian community came here from India
and Pakistan, mostly to study at universities.  The other half fled from
Iran after the 1979 revolution made that a fundamentalist Islamic state
where others had no rights.

   Local Zoroastrians point with pride to ways their emphasis on "good
deeds" has improved life in every country they inhabit.  In San Jose,
the recent restoration of the Hotel Sainte Clarie came about because
Manou Mobedshahi, a San Francisco-based hotelier, passed the boarded-up
downtown landmark on his way to and from the temple.  At the temple's
dedication, the chief guest of honor was the mother of Zubin Mehta, the
Zoroastrian conductor of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra.

   The temple exists because of another good deed: the decision by an
Iranian emigre, the late Arbab Rustom Guiv, to buy land for six temples
in North America.  Besides the 10-acre site off Crothers Road on Mount
Hamilton, he paid for land in Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Toronto,
and Vancouver.  Until his gifts, there were no Zoroastrian temples on
this continent.

   Local Zoroastrians raised money to build the actual temple, and the
property already had a large house that they have converted to a
community center.

   The temple, dedicated a year ago on the birthday of the prophet 
Zoroaster, is a simple structure with gleaming white walls, vaulted 
ceilings and oak floors, partially covered with huge Oriental carpets.

   Its central feature is the fire, set in the middle of a partly-glassed-
in area at the center of the building.  Although Zoroastrians are 
sometimes called "fire worshippers," they actually consider fire just 
a symbol of God.  "It helps us concentrate, just like Christians use the 
cross and Muslims use the Holy Book," Bhujwala said.

   The biggest celebration of the years occurs in early spring.  For all
Iranians, including Zoroastrians, the New Year begins on the first day of
the season because of its symbolism as the start of new life.  With
Zoroaster's birthday just six days later, the combination of religious
and secular holidays creates something on par with what most of the
United States celebrates between Christmas and Jan. 1.

  For this year's celebration of the prophet's birthday, about 500 people
came to worship and revel.

   "The good things in life are not forbidden," Esfandiar Anoushiravani,
a leader of the Iranian members, had said beforehand, and what followed
proved him right.

   Inside the temple, worshipers filled every chair and sat or stood
around the edges of the room as about a half-dozen priests chanted
thanksgiving prayers around a table laden with braziers of smoking
sandalwood, glasses of milk and water, and a tray heaped with dried fruit
and nuts.

   Kids crowded around, grabbing handfuls of the treats.  "People eat the
fruit," Tarapore said.  "It's a way to participate in the ceremony."

_Santa Claus, sort of_

   The gathering even had a Santa Claus, Iranian style.  With flowing white
hair and a bag of gifts for the children, this Amownaroz wore green
symbolic of spring) and red.

   He was ushed in by a sort of spring clown, Hajefyrouz, who danced and
played a tambourine.

   The Zoroastrians from India were charmed.  "This is all new for us, too,"
one told a visitor who asked what was going on.

   A visitor, John A. Sabanovich of Folsom, said he became intrigued with
the religion years ago while on business trips to Iran.  Zoroastrians have
no procedure for accepting converts - a result, some say, of their
centuries of persecution in Iran followed by their promise to the Hindu
king who allowed them into India that they would not interfere with his
people's religion.

   But that does not stop Sabavich from joining in the celebrations at the
San Jose temple whenever he can.

   "When I first heard about this religion," he said, "I thought, my God,
this is what a religion should be.  They think for themselves and do good.

   "People who don't have a tradition, something to lean on, what's the
difference with the lower animals?"

------------------------------------------------ end of article ---- 

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82778
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions

joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
>
>I'm curious to know what purpose people think these lists serve.
>Lists like this seem to value quantity over quality, an "argument
>from article length."  And the list you have here is of poorer
>quality than most.

I agree, which is why I've asked for help with it.

The reason I'm working on this list is because I've recently had one
too many Christians tell me "the Bible contains no contradictions
whatsoever."  They believe that it's true, and that it describes
reality perfectly, and even predicts history before it happens.

Before I can carry on any sort of meaningful conversation with these
people, I've got to SHOW them, with concrete evidence, that the Bible
is not nearly as airtight as they thought.  I hope to do that with
this list.

Specifically: when I bring up the fact that Genesis contains two
contradictory creation stories, I usually get blank stares or flat
denials.  I've never had a fundamentalist acknowledge that there are
indeed two different accounts of creation.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82779
From: moskowit@panix.com (Len Moskowitz)
Subject: Re: Bhagavad-Gita 2.32

Kalki Dasa writes:

>These topics are all discussed in the Vedas. In fact, the original
>knowledge of all these topics comes from the Vedas. Therefore, they are
>not "newage" at all. They are rather old by any standards. Nor is the
>popularity they are currently experiencing something new. One would
>think that the Vedas would be very popular among "newagers," since all
>the things you mention above are thoroughly described in them.

Isn't that interesting?!  In the Jewish tradition you are incredibly
wrong!  They originate in the Torah and with Jewish ancestors,
specifically the Patriarch Abraham (z"l).  That knowledge was sent East
to India and China when Abraham gave "gifts" (the commentators to Jewish
scripture say this was the knowledge of the occult arts) to all the rest
of his children when he sent them away to the East.  This assured that
Isaac only, who remained with Abraham, would inherit his most important
spiritual gifts, what eventually became Judaism.

So you see, other religions can have very parochial views too.  By the
Jewish view, you are very mistaken, your scripture are not scripture,
your gods are not gods, your practices a jumble of errors that lead
people to idol worship and away from God.  That doesn't stop us from
respecting you to the extent of not trying to convert you or proselytize
you and being willing to dialog in a respectful manner.  We're content
to let you live the way you care to live as long as you leave us be.  We
are happy to co-exist as long as you give us the same right.

But your incredible rudeness and violent nature seems to preclude that.
Too bad.  Is this typical of your religion?

>However, there is one difference between the "newage" practitioner and
>the actual follower of the Vedic teachings: the typical "newager"
>desires to acquire all the material powers and opulences mentioned in
>the Vedas, without referring to their source, the Lord. He wants the
>kingdom of God without God. He wants personal power without the
>responsibility of acknowledging its source, without the Person from Whom
>that power comes. In other words, he is just plain selfish. 

You are a most presumptuous fellow!  How dare you presume that the
"typical" New Ager doesn't acknowledge God and is selfish.  What trite,
self-righteous, ego-ful garbage!  There are Buddhists, Christians, Jews,
and those of many other religions here on this newsgroups for whom your
words are simple slander.

> ...The Vedic
>follower, on the other hand, knows that no matter what one desires, one
>must worship God. And the Vedas give a complete description of exactly
>who is God, so that there can be no mistake in His identification. For
>this reason the parts of the Vedas that deal directly with the
>Personality of Godhead are not very popular among "newagers," and anyone
>who presents the complete Vedas as they are is branded as an
>"evangelist" (as if there is something wrong with that) even though he
>is simply presenting the unadulterated Vedic teachings.

Of course, from the Jewish perspective you are incredibly wrong.  We'd
say that there is no "godhead" -- just created beings who may be
enjoying a good laugh at your expense.

>A thief takes from others and says "this is mine." A "newager" takes
>from God and says "this is mine." Such a false mystic must be careful to
>avoid coming in contact with the real owner of the things he has stolen.
>Consequently, he invents an explanation for these things that
>conveniently omits the identity of their owner, the Lord. In other
>words, he lies about where he got them.

So not only are we selfish, we are also thieves and liars!  And you
expect any of us to pay attention to you and your "religion?"  Why not
call us more name?   Maybe then we'll all convert in gratefullness!

>However, the Lord is very merciful, and He sends His servants to remind
>the "newager" of his own identity as spirit soul, the eternal servant of
>God. Hence, although unwanted, the "evangelist" continues to broadcast
>the complete truth.

You delude yourself.

-- 
Len Moskowitz
moskowit@panix.com

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82781
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality

In article <1993Apr03.044958.15500@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
>understand what the words mean.  Someone who inflicts pain on themselves
>because they enjoy it is a masochist.
>
>And, no:  there is nothing wrong with it.  You may think it's gross or
>bizarre (and I might agree with you here), but my/your disgust is not equal 
>to it being morally wrong.

/(hudson)
/If someone inflicts pain on themselves, whether they enjoy it or not, they
/are hurting themselves.  They may be permanently damaging their body.

That is true.  It is also none of your business.  

Some people may also reason that by reading the bible and being a Xtian
you are permanently damaging your brain.  By your logic, it would be OK
for them to come into your home, take away your bible, and send you off
to "re-education camps" to save your mind from ruin.  Are you ready for
that?  





/(hudson)
/And why is there nothing wrong with it?  Because you say so?  Who gave you
/the authority to say that, and set the standard for morality?

Why?

Because: 
I am a living, thinking person able to make choices for myself.
I do not "need" you to show me what you think is the way; I have observed
too many errors in your thinking already to trust you to make up the
rules for me.

Because:
I set the standard for my *own* morality, and I permit you to do 
the same for yourself.  I also do not try to force you to accept my rules.

Because:
Simply because you don't like what other people are doing doesn't give you
the right to stop it, Hudson.  We are all aware that you would like for 
everyone to be like you.  However, it is obnoxious, arrogant thinking like 
yours, the "I-know-I'm-morally-right-so-I-can-force-it-on-you" bullshit 
that has brought us religious wars, pogroms against Jews, gay-bashing,
and other atrocities by other people who, like you, "knew" they were
morally right.





(me)
>What is it with you, Hudson?  You think you know better than other people,
>so you want to be able to tell them what they can and cannot do to 
>themselves?  Who died and made you God?  How come I can't do the same
>thing?  

/(hudson)
/Aren't you?  Aren't you indicating that I should not tell other people what
to do?  Aren't you telling me it is wrong for me to do that? 

It is not a moral standard that I am presenting you with, Hudson.  It is
a key to getting along in life with other people.  It is also a point of
respect:  I trust other people to be intelligent enough to make their
own choices, and I expect the same to be returned.  You, on the other
hand, do not trust them, and want to make the choice for them--whether
they like it or not.

It is also a way to avoid an inconsistency:  if you believe that you have 
the right to set moral standards for others and interfere in their lives, 
then you must, by logic, admit that other people have the same right of 
interference in your life.  
(Yes, I know; you will say that your religion is correct and tells you that
only agents acting in behalf of your religion have the right of interference.
However, other people will say that you have misinterpreted the Word of
God and that *they* are the actual true believers, and that you are
acting on your own authority.  And so it goes).





(hudson)
/Who gave
/you the authority to set such a moral standard for me to tell me that I 
/cannot set a moral standard for others?


You can set all the standards that you want, actually.  But don't be surprised
if people don't follow you like rats after the Pied Piper.  

At the most basic form, I am not going to LET you tell me what to do;
and if necessary, I will beat you to a bloody pulp before I let you actually
interfere in my life.

Now, at a more humane level than that, I recognize that all people are
sentient beings possessed of intelligence and capable of reason.  I also
recognize that they, like I, appreciate being treated with respect and
allowed to make their own decisions.  


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82782
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality


(hudson)
>/These people hurt their own bodies.  Why can't they hurt other peoples bodies
>/too?  
>
(me)
>Because other people might not *want* to be hurt, Hudson.  And hurting
>them against their will is a violation of choice.

/(hudson)
/So. Why is someone elses will such a big deal if morality is all relative.


I don't believe I ever said that morality was all relative.

What I said was that I can make my mind up on my own, thank you, and that 
you don't have the right to tell others what to think.

I think that you will find that in most moral systems, there is 
a respect for human life and the dignity of the person.  It is all the
stuff besides these points that forms the core of the disagreement between 
primitive moral absolutists like yourself and the rest of us.



/(hudson)
/Maybe (the insane lover of pain might reason) if other people experienced
/enough pain, they might learn to enjoy it, too.  

Fine.  There is still the clinical definition of crazy.  And this also
involves a violation of free will, because the insane lover of your
little example would be inflicting pain on a non-willing subject.

Try again.




(hudson)
>/You have to have other premises to derive this.  
>
(me)
>No, you don't.  That is a patently false statement.

/(hudson)
/You have to have some sort of premise about choice or self-awareness.


No, you do not.  I demonstrated to you the example of the football
team which doesn't require premises about freedom of choice or 
sentience/self-awareness.  

As I said, you are wrong, and you don't seem to know much about moral 
systems.  If I were you, I would take David Bold's suggestion and do some 
reading on the subject before you try preaching about it.



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82783
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality


/(hudson)
/Yes you do.  Who is to say that it is immoral for onesself to experience
/pain or to be hurt in some other way.  Maybe unpleasant, but that doesn't
/say anything about morality.

It violates free will, Hudson.



(me)
>You can derive the immorality of hurting someone else entirely from selfish
>motives.  I can say, for example, that it is wrong to hurt other people
>because that makes them less productive members of society.

/(hudson)
/Why is making someone a less productive member of society immoral?

Hudson, you are screwing up again.  Morality does not (I say again, DOES
NOT) define only "right and wrong".  It also defines "acceptable social
behavior", without any overtones of good and evil.  Picking up your trash
is not really a right/wrong moral issue in the eternal sense of Good
and Evil.  Yet it is moral in the sense that it is acceptable social
behavior".  

Your definition of the word "morality" is what is causing you to trip over 
yourself here.




/(me)
/And since
/>I, selfish being that I am, want to maximize my gains from society, I will
/>not do anything to another member of society if that action might cut down
/>on how much benefit I can derive from society.

/(hudson)
/Why is your benefit somehow related to morality.

Again, your definition is causing you to shoot yourself in the foot.





/(hudson)
/What about if someone feels that their own personal benefit is enhanced
/more than it would be damaged by depleting the overall resources of society?
/Maybe something might hurt society, but it would help him immensly?

That is irrational thinking.  

There may also be people out there who think that death by atomic 
destruction is  a sublime and wonderful thing. I am not going to let them
execute that idea just because they want to do it. 

Simply because I let people make up their minds about what morals they
have doesn't prevent me from spotting and stopping a madman when I see
one, Hudson.  And even then, I will only stop him when he interferes 
with me and my life.  That is the difference between me and you:  you
want to interfere in people's lives even when they aren't affecting
you.  





/(hudson)
/The central character in Dostoevsky's novel, Crime and Punishment, 
/(R something or other) reasoned that if killed this old Jewish woman and
/stole her money to educate and establish himself financially, he could
/make a great contribution to society.  He reasoned that she was not of 
/much profit to society.  She just collected rents, and hoarded money.


One of the central points of any (that's ANY) moral system is that is
has to be internally consistent.  

By killing her, the character had to accept the premise that the ends
justify the means.  If he accepted that premise, then (in order to be
consistent), he must accept the idea that some day another person may
apply the same standard to HIS life.  Now, if he is unwilling to accept
this premise (which he will not be willing to accept), then he has
behaved inconsistently with his own moral standard.





/(me)
/[football example deleted]

/(hudson)
/Now suppose a freshman on the bench will only get to play if one of the
/players in the field/on the court is injured (or killed.)  This freshman
/wants to play in the big game so a talent scout can see him.  If he hurts
/a player on the team, it might slightly lessen the chances of the team to
/win, but he might gain great personal benefit.  So, operating on purely
/selfish (immorally selfish) motives, he arranges for a sniper to shoot a
/team player in the leg.  He gets to play in front of the talent scout.

/Did that freshman behave morally?

/Selfish intentions may sometimes generate (apparently) moral actions, but
/not always.



Two problems right off the bat:

1.  The problem with your analogy is that it doesn't address the goal
that I started with:  winning the game.  Playing in front of the talent
scout != winning the game.  Try creating the same analogy and keep the
ultimate goal the same, will you?

2.  The internal consistency question is also not addressed:  if the freshman
wants to do this to other people, then he has to accept the fact that
it may happen to him one day.  If he is unwilling, then he has violated
his own moral standard.




Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82784
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality


>/(hudson)
>/And from a materialistic point of view, it could be said that the nervous
>/system is just matter.  What is wrong with producing chemical reactions in
>/matter?  
>
>Because this matter is different.  It is alive, and self-aware.  And it
>feels pain.  

/(hudson)
/If all morality were relative- big hairy deal.

As I said, you appear to be the only person saying that all morality
is relative.  Most people I know do hold some absolutes in their
moral system.

I >>personally<< believe that the dignity of the individual and the right
of free will are absolutes.  I recognize that there are some moral
systems around which don't accept this; I reject them as dangerous
and anti-social (nazism, some forms of communism, fundamentalist
xtianity--no, that's not a slam).  But for the most part, almost
every moral system agrees on these two points.




(me)
>and the sky, and everything in it; everything that was created came out
>of God.  Everything, including this matter, is part of God.  Therefore, is 
>it wrong to put parts of God in a test tube and make It go through 
>reactions?  Isn't that a form of blasphemy?


/(hudson)
/Generally, Christians believe in a Creator-Creation distinction.  Other
/religions believe in one big whole.   I don't accept yor premises.

Too bad.  I know I'm right, so I get to enforce my view upon you whether
you like my premise or not.  And since you can't prove otherwise, there
isn't even an intellectual basis for your resistance to accepting my
viewpoint.





>/(hudson)
>/How long will it be before the "as long as it doesn't hurt someone else" 
>/becomes more and more relative until the only rule that is left is 
>/"I will do what I want to do, no matter who it hurts."
>
>There's a big jump between those two positions, and you know it very 
>well.  Don't play stupid.  I realize that you're trying to dispute
>what you call "popular morality" by using what you think is logic,
>but you're stretching this a bit too thin.

/(hudson)
/I don't think so.  once morality becomes relative, it degenerates.  I am
/saying that reasoning that it is generally evil to hurt other people is bad.
/(though I don't think it is sufficient.)  


Well, then answer me this:   you seem to be opposed to moral relativism
(as you call it) because it has the capacity to degenerate.  Obviously,
then, you would advocate a nonrelative (absolute) moral system.

Whose absolutist moral system do we choose?  

How do we come to this decision?

What about people who disagree with the chosen moral system?





/(hudson)
/But if morality is considered to
/be relative, and this rule isn't based on anything, but is just an arbitrary
/rule, people might abandon it.

Fine.  I can agree with most of what you typed here.  However, just because
morality gets based on something nonrelative does NOT mean that we have to
pick your xtianity as its base.

We can start a morality based on dignity of humans, freedom of choice,
tolerance, etc. and NEVER EVER rely on xtianity for anything.  Just because
someone has a consistent moral system based on true principles does not
mean that they have to involve xtianity in it.  Xtianity certainly does not
have a monopoly on principles of behavior; indeed, fewer religions are
guiltier of violating their own principles






Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82785
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality 


In article <1993Apr02.025636.23256@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
>/Why would it be immoral to hurt someone else?  
>
/(me)
>Because you wouldn't want it to happen to you.

/(hudson)
/Why does that make something immoral?



Because you are not being consistent.  Moral systems must be consistent.

A person who thinks they can inflict pain on others, but doesn't want it 
inflicted upon themselves, has a double standard.  And double standards are
a violation of *any* moral system.





(me)
>Morality defines how we interact with other people; the rules that we
>use to guide our daily affairs.  Our conduct towards our fellow man.  By
>realizing that we don't like pain, we can also realize that other people
>don't like it, either.  

/(hudson)
/Of course we don't like pain.  I don't like brussel sprouts.  Are brussel
/sprouts immoral?

Pain isn't immoral, stupid.  Pain itself is just a physiological
reaction.  

What >>is<< immoral is subjecting unwilling individuals to pain.

Or brussel sprouts, for that matter.






(hudson)
>/Is it immoral to produce these same chemical reactions in a test tube?
>
(me)
>It isn't the chemical reaction that is wrong, bozo.  It's making the human
>being UNDERGO THE EFFECTS of the chemical reaction.  Sorry; your cute
>little analogy didn't survive for very long under scrutiny.

/(hudson)
/Why would it be wrong to make humans undergo the effects of the reactions
/if humans are composed only of matter?  

What humans are composed of isn't the qualifying criteria of whether or
not something would be wrong.  




/(hudson)
/Is it wrong to make matter undergo chemical reactions?

Yes, if it is sentient matter.



/(me)
/>Nature is not a sentient force; there is no choice involved.  Therefore,
/>no question of morality.


/(hudson)
/I actually heard a geologist entertain the notion that matter had a will.
/There is some sentient force out there.  

Fine.  I have also heard that the government is encoding the DNA for 
a new race of superhumans in ordinary drinking water.  

What's your point?



/(hudson)
/If humans are made only of matter, then choices are also chemical reactions,
/so why is choice an important issue.

And if that is the case, then god is only an idea contained in the minds
of people (formed of matter) and on printed pages (also formed of matter)
and does not really exist.  

I can do the argumentem ad absurdium just as well as you can, but it 
won't prove any points for you or me.  Got anything relevant you want to 
talk about, or are you just playing cute little games?








Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82786
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions

In article <bskendigC51CqB.K0r@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>Specifically: when I bring up the fact that Genesis contains two
>contradictory creation stories, I usually get blank stares or flat
>denials.  I've never had a fundamentalist acknowledge that there are
>indeed two different accounts of creation.

That is because two creation stories is one of the worst examples of 
a difficulty with the Bible.  "were formed" can also be translated "had been
formed" in chapter two without any problems.  So the text does not demand
that there are two creation stories.  

Link Hudson.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82787
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality

In article <1993Apr5.165709.4347@midway.uchicago.edu> dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>But there is a base of true absolute morality that we can stand on.
>
>Note that if the majority of people remain unconvinced, this idea
>probably isn't worth very much in a pragmatic sense.

Maybe not to you.  But to those who stand on this base, He is 
precious.

Link


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82788
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Religion and homosexuality

In article <1993Apr5.182411.7621@midway.uchicago.edu> dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>First of all as far as I know, only male homosexuality is explicitly
>mentioned in the bibles, so you're off the hook there,

Actually, there is one condemnation of lesbian acts in the Bible, Romans
1:26.

I think. In
>any event, there are *plenty* of people in many denominations who
>do not consider a person's sexual identification of gay/lesbian/bisexual
>as an "immoral lifestyle choice"

There are plenty who don't read the Bible.
Or pray for that matter.

Link Hudson.



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82792
From: rps@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (raj.sharma)
Subject: Re: Bhagavad-Gita 2.32

A poster writes:

> In the Kingdom of God (Vaikuntha) the tigers do not eat other living
> beings. In the material world, everyone is trying to consume everyone
> else. Therefore we all (even tigers, who are by no means invincible)
> should try to get out of the miserable material situation and return to
> the Kingdom of God.

	Is the so-called material world "outside" the Kingdom of God?
	
> Right. But, unfortunately, acting like animals is the number one pastime
> of modern human beings.

	Aha, animals are inferior, and humans are superior.
	Huh?

	[Isn't the desire to be superior so "overwhelming?"]
	[that humans constantly "put down" even innocent animals.]
	

---raj

	[P.S. - Request: please e-mail a copy of any response to
	        raj, as he does not read trm regularly.]
	

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82793
From: lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: 666 - MARK OF THE BEAST - NEED INFO

On a slightly different note:

There are two buildings in NY state with big 666 numbers on the
roof :)

One in Manhattan and one near Garden City. The Garden City one
is a nice black unmarked building...


-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82794
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>
>>Specifically: when I bring up the fact that Genesis contains two
>>contradictory creation stories, I usually get blank stares or flat
>>denials.  I've never had a fundamentalist acknowledge that there are
>>indeed two different accounts of creation.
>
>That is because two creation stories is one of the worst examples of 
>a difficulty with the Bible.  "were formed" can also be translated "had been
>formed" in chapter two without any problems.  So the text does not demand
>that there are two creation stories.  

Really?  I don't get it... Genesis first says that God created the
earth, then the animals, then humans; then it turns around and says
that humans were created before animals!  How can you escape this
contradiction?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82795
From: hall@boi.hp.com (Hal Leifson)
Subject: Re: [lds] kermit's reply [was: Re: Tony Rose was : FREE BOOK OF MORMON

Robert Weiss (psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu) wrote:
:
 (lots of stuff about the Nicene Creed deleted which can be read in the
  original basenote.  I will also leave it up to other LDS netters to
  take Mr. Weiss to task on using Mormon Doctrine to declare the difinitive
  word on what the LDS Church teaches as doctrine.  Hopefully the LDS 
  netters will be amiable in their explanation.)

Since it would do no good to rebut what Mr. Weiss has stated on the origin
of the Nicene Creed and its status as devine and inspired (I say "no good"
because it cannot be proved through discussion or debate as to whether or not 
the authors of the Creed were inspired), I leave you (it will be some time 
before I post again) with the following thought authored by Eugene England, 
Professor of English at Brigham Young University.  Mr. England wrote the 
following as part of a book review section in This People's magazine (Spring 
1993 edition):

  "I conclude with a little sermon because I believe we will not be a Mormon--
  or human--family until we can get over labeling and rejecting each other 
  with terms like feminist or patriarchal, liberal or conservative (Christian 
  or non-Christian -- Hal 8^).  When we are tempted to draw a circle around
  a set of beliefs and traditions and styles and call it American, then exclude
  those who don't fit, it may be well to consider that perhaps the most central
  defining characteristic of a good American might be "one who doesn't draw
  exclusive circles" -- that the surest way of excluding ourselves from the 
  central American ideal is by excluding others.  And when we are tempted to
  draw a circle around "Mormon" or "Christian," to decide who is "orthodox"
  and who isn't by how much they agree with us, it might be well to consider
  that the central pillar of Christ's "orthodoxy" is our ability to love
  unconditionally those who are different and include them in our family.

  "I recently spent some time in a "Christian" bookstore in California. The
  service was excellent, the clerks and customers all smiling, neat, and
  well-scrubbed, and there were the expected wholesome offerings of scriptural
  commentaries, sentimental fiction, and collections of evangelistic sermons.
  But I was dismayed to find how much shelf space was given to attacking 
  others, often viciously---whether the political left, our modern American
  culture, or other religions.  A whole section was devoted to "Cults and the
  Occult," and as you might expect, Mormonism was right there under the same
  rubric and indictment (often by the same authors) as Satanism.  And I found
  I could either rent or buy (in English or Spanish) copies of The God Makers
  (that absurdly inaccurate, even libelous, but very popular and dangerous
  anti-Mormon film that uses exaclty the same techniques and even accusations
  of the Nazi films that scapegoated Jews in the 1930s).

  "It seems to me one major indication that a person is a genuine convert to
  Christ and his redemptive love is his lack of paranoia and anxiety ("Perfect
  love casteth out fear," I John 4:18).  I have always been pleased that the
  LDS Church has not engaged in attacks on other faiths, though I find a 
  disheartening increase in willingness of individual Mormons to engage in the
  same kinds of stereotyping and scapegoating---and even threats of coercive
  action---as the "religious right wing" has launched this year against the
  political left and American cultural and religious styles they don't like.
  It is a fearful irony that in so doing Mormons take common cause with the
  very people who have most slanderously attacked Mormons---people who would,
  if they had power, forcefully restrict Mormons' rights along with those of
  others they believe to be evil."


The above "sermon" was addressed to the LDS audience who usually subscribe
to This People's magazine, but would certainly apply to all of us who
rely on the mercies and grace of Jesus Christ to bring us back into His
arms.  

Even though the LDS Church claims devine authority to exercise the principles 
of the restored gospel---as in the days of Christ, the Church does not claim 
perfection and infallibility in how those with authoritative status have or do 
now lead the Church.  I, for one, do not wish to be labelled "Christian", if 
those who profess themselves as Christians attack my beliefs because they are 
intollerent (for example) of the way my religion may interpret Biblical 
scriptures of the same source to have a different meaning and implication 
than mainstream Christianity would give it.  Once again, being in the 
majority does NOT in and of itself PROVE anything except that your collective 
voice is louder.  That's really all the critics of the LDS Church have to stand
on in terms of the kind of Biblical interpretation used as proof to counter 
the LDS Church' interpretation!  Using someone elses biased research of truths 
and non-truths (whose to say what the mixture is?) as an authoritative tool to 
disprove or discredit is not being fair to anyone, least of all themselves. 
Let us simply agree to disagree, and share beliefs through adult discussion 
and conversation, thereby uplifting everyone.  

 
Hal Leifson -- signing off!

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82796
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Spreading Christianity (Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor)

"David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>    Not to be too snide about it, but I think this Christianity must
>    be a very convenient religion, very maliable and suitable for
>    any occassion since it seems one can take it any way one wants
>    to go with it and follow whichever bits one pleases and
>    reinterpret the bits that don't match with one's desires.  It
>    is, in fact, so convenient that, were I capable of believing
>    in a god, I might consider going for some brand of Christianity.
>    The only difficulty left then, of course, is picking which sect
>    to join.  There are just so many.
>     
>    Dean Kaflowitz
> 
> Yes, Christianity is convenient.  Following the teachings of Jesus
> Christ and the Ten Commandments is convenient.  Trying to love in a
> hateful world is convenient.  Turning the other cheek is convenient.  So
> convenient that it is burdensome at times.
> 
> Dave.

Some Christians take a 10% discount off the Ten Commandments.  Sunday
cannot be substituted for the Sabbath.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82797
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: 6 Apr 93   God's Promise in John 16:24



	Hitherto have ye asked nothing
	in my name:
	ask, and ye shall receive,
	that your joy may be full.

	John 16:24

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82798
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: [lds] Hal's reply

In article <C51nLs.7As@boi.hp.com>, hall@boi.hp.com (Hal Leifson) writes...

[...Dr. England's story deleted, it was a nice read the first time 
through...]]

>now lead the Church.  I, for one, do not wish to be labelled "Christian", if 
>those who profess themselves as Christians attack my beliefs because they are 
>intollerent (for example) of the way my religion may interpret Biblical 
>scriptures of the same source to have a different meaning and implication 
>than mainstream Christianity would give it. 

	It isn't so much a matter of 'interpretation' of Bible texts 
that sets Mormonism apart from orthodoxy as it is a matter of 
*fabrication*.

	About 20 years ago, _National Lampoon_ had some comic strips 
in them that were drawn by Neal Adams. They were called "Son o' God" comics. 
It was a parody of the Jesus in the Bible. In the comic, there were a 
group of thirteen Jewish kids from Brooklyn, and when one of them said 
the magic word, he turned into "Son o' God." He went from a myopic, 
curly headed, yarmulke wearing boy to a replica of the stylizied 
portraits of Jesus --- with long flowing brown hair and gentile 
features.	

	Now, if someone were to profess faith in this NatLamp Jesus, 
and claim that they were a Christian because they believed in this 
NatLamp Jesus, we would have to say that this was fallacious since 
this Jesus was a fabrication, and did not really exist.

	This is the exact same thing that the LDS do when they claim 
that they are Christian. They profess faith in Jesus, but the Jesus 
that they profess to have faith in is as much a fabrication as the 
NatLamp Jesus was.


=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82799
From: blowfish@leo.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: 666, THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST, VIEWER DISCR

In article <1pr3d3$doh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> ST002649@brownvm.brown.edu (Alex Gottschalk) writes:
>>>Well, I *WILL* do the math, and I get:  (6^6)^6=2,189,739,336
>>>This mean anything to anyone?  :^)
>5*1=5 thus fitting in neatly with something else.

Of course, 2+1+8+9+7+3+9+3+3+6 = 51, which, quite obviously is 23+23+5...
r.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82800
From: david@terminus.ericsson.se (David Bold)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality

Paul Hudson Jr (hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu) writes:

>I was not directly going to come up with a moral argument for the  existence
>of God.  Rather, I was trying to show the absurdity of atheistic materialist
>relatavists trying to embrace some common moral system as though it were
>absolute.  Man knows in his heart that there is right and wrong.  We have
>all inherited this knowledge.  

No matter how "absurd" it is to suggest that a common moral system created by
mankind is absolute, it is not contrary to reason to suggest that a common
moral system created by mankind is sensible. In fact, for the Bible to be of
any use to mankind as a moral code, it must be interpreted by mankind and a
workable moral system created for everyday use.

The Jewish Talmud is the result of centuries of Biblical scholars analysing
every word of the Torah to understand the morality behind it. The Children of
Israel were given a very strict set of Moral, Civil, Judicial and Ceremonial
Laws to follow and yet this was clearly not enough to cover every instance
of moral dilemma in their Society. For a Christian, the situation is no better.

It seems to me that the only code of morality that we have from the Judeo-
Christian God is that which is contained in the Bible (which we can see from
the diverse opinions in the Christian newsgroups is not clear). There may well
be an absolute morality defined by the Judeo-Christian God for mankind to
follow but it seems that we only have a subset simply because the concept was
written down by man.

This leads to the problem of defining morality for our society. If we take the
divine Morality then we have a code of practice which may be interpreted in many
different ways (as an example, consider the immolation of heretics in the
fifteenth century and the interpretation of the Bible which allows a man to do
that to another man under the precept to administer Justice). If we take an
agnostic Morality then we have a code of practice that can be modified to suit
society (with all the danger that this implies). Alternatively, we could take
the basis of the Judeo-Christian morality and interpret/extend this to create
and justify a code of morality which suits the society we live in and enables
the people to live Righteously (as many Christian and Non-Christian philosophers
have done).

Whatever the driving force behind the definition of morality for our society, I
think the important aspect is the result.

David.

---
On religion:

"Oh, where is the sea?", the fishes cried,
As they swam its clearness through.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82801
From: dotsonm@dmapub.dma.org (Mark Dotson)
Subject: Fragmentation


The primary problem in human nature is a "fragmentation of being."
Humans are in a state of tension, a tension of opposites. Good and
evil are the most thought provoking polarities that come to mind.

The Bible provides us with many examples of the fragmentation of
being. The warring opposites within us are a product of man's
rebellion against God, which is described so vividly in the pages of
the Scriptures.

Man was created with the order to become a god. Those were the words
of St.  Basil in the fourth century. What he was trying to say was
that God created man to be a partaker of the divine nature. In the
Eastern Orthodox Church, this is called "theosis," or "deification."

One can also say that man was created to be whole, i.e. spirit, soul,
and body operating in unison. The story of Adam and Eve is a picture
of the archetypal humans before obtaining moral consciousness. Theirs
was a harmonious relationship with each other, the world, and the
Creator. That innocent harmony was shattered when they disobeyed God,
their natural wholeness falling apart into two seemingly
irreconcilable halves. Immediately, guilt and fear was manifested in
their lives. They become bound to hardship, toil, and suffering.  This
is symbolized in their exile from the paradisiac state.

The beast in the jungle does not possess moral consciousness. If it
were to receive this self-awareness, the knowledge of good and evil,
its paradisiac state would also be destroyed.

Was it the intention of the Creator to leave man in this state of
innocence all the days of his existence on earth? Or was the gaining
of self-awareness carefully staged by God, who did not desire that His
masterpiece, mankind, be a blissful idiot?

God must have known that, for mankind to achieve any kind of moral
value, he must pass through a confrontation with the opposites. There
is no other way to achieve union with God.

Jesus Christ is the answer to the problem of the warring polarities.
He was the perfectly integrated individual, reconciling the opposites,
and making it possible for us to be integrated, i.e. to become God,
not in His essence, but in His energies.

The opposites is THE Christian problem. The Apostle Paul describes it
with the utmost precision in Romans 7:15-24. And he follows with the
answer to his dilemma in vs 25.

                                 Mark


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82802
From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com>
Subject: Re: Is THOU SHALT NOT KILL ever applied in the Bible?

In <1pdj4bINNrtr@crcnis1.unl.edu>, e_p@unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)  wrote:
#     Are there any places in the Bible where the commandment "Thou 
#     shalt not kill" is specifically applied?  That is, where someone 
#     refrained from killing because he remembered the commandment.

  No, for the excellent reason that there IS no such commandment.

  Aside from that, please note that the Abrahamic literary tradition
  is strong on narrative, light on dialog, and virtually nonexistent
  w/r/t introspection.

--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---
--- Author (and everything else!) of TMail  (DOS mail/news shell) ---

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82804
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Spreading Christianity (Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor)

In article <Yfk8p=q00WBM47T0sJ@andrew.cmu.edu>, "David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>    Not to be too snide about it, but I think this Christianity must
>    be a very convenient religion, very maliable and suitable for
>    any occassion since it seems one can take it any way one wants
>    to go with it and follow whichever bits one pleases and
>    reinterpret the bits that don't match with one's desires.  It
>    is, in fact, so convenient that, were I capable of believing
>    in a god, I might consider going for some brand of Christianity.
>    The only difficulty left then, of course, is picking which sect
>    to join.  There are just so many.
> 
> Yes, Christianity is convenient.  Following the teachings of Jesus
> Christ and the Ten Commandments is convenient.  Trying to love in a
> hateful world is convenient.  Turning the other cheek is convenient.  So
> convenient that it is burdensome at times.

Your last remark is a contradiction, but I'll let that pass.

I was addressing the notion of the Great Commission, which
you deleted in order to provide us with dull little homilies.
Thank you, Bing Crosby.  Now you go right on back to sleep
and mommy and daddy will tuck you in later.

Oh, and how convenient his bible must have been to Michael
Griffin, how convenient his Christianity.  "Well, I'll just
skip the bit about not murdering people and loving the sinner
and hating the sin and all that other stuff for now and
concentrate on the part where it says that if someone is doing
something wrong, you should shoot him in the back several times
as he tries to hobble away on his crutches."

I'll leave the "convert or die" program of the missionaries and
their military escorts in the Americas for Nadja to explain as
she knows much more about it than I.

Must be awfully convenient, by the way, to offer platitudes
as you have done, David, rather than addressing the arguments.

Dean Kaflowitz


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82806
From: caldwell@facman.ohsu.edu (Larry Caldwell)
Subject: Re: SUNDAY! THE DAY OF OUR LORD!

pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
	>dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
>>Exactly.  Sunday worship is in honor or the *SUN*, not the *SON* of God.
>
>Same thing, isn't it? It's pronounced the same? What other heavenly
>beings are resurrected? The moon? That would by lunacy, at least to a
>sunday worshiper.

I have heard that the sabbath was originally determined by the phases of
the moon, and had elements of moon worship.  Early stuff, Egyptian in nature.

-- 
-- Larry Caldwell  caldwell@ohsu.edu  CompuServe 72210,2273
Oregon Health Sciences University.  (503) 494-2232

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82807
From: ad354@Freenet.carleton.ca (James Owens)
Subject: Re: 666, THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST, VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED!


UN Resolution 666 guarantees humanitarian aid will get into Irag during
the Gulf War.  Is this war over? Is aid getting in, or are they still
trying to smoke out Saddam?  Is this the Middle East?  Are we talking
religious war here?  Am I ranting?
-- 
                                     James Owens  ad354@Freenet.carleton.ca
                                     Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82808
From: lance@wolves.Durham.NC.US (Lance A. Brown)
Subject: Re: Religion and homosexuality

In article <C4uzus.FKp@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
>lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>> Unlike kleptomaniacs and adulterers homosexuals hurt no one by having sex
>> with the same sex. 
>
>What about the homosexual whose family does not accept that decision and
>is hurt (emotionally) by it?

Good question.  I don't have a nice concise answer, though.  What about the
child whose parents are crushed emotionally because he/she starts a carerr
doing something they greatly dislike.  It is the same kind of harm, and
is probably "caused" by the same thing:  The desire of the child to be 
true to his or her self.

What is more important, being true to yourself or burying that truth within
you in order to maintain peace in the family?

hard question, no good answer.

Lance

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82810
From: af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.)
Subject: BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS ANSWERED (Judas)


I posted this several days ago for Dave Butler.  He may have missed it - my
Usenet board has changed a little.  Just in case he missed it, here it is again.


Dave Butler writes...
 
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
>Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: NEW BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS [Fallaciously] ANSWERED (Judas)
Date: Thu Apr  1 20:52:11 1993
 
"I can basically restrict this post to showing the type of evidence Mr DeCenso
has presented, and answering his two questions (and a couple of his spurious
insults and false claims)."
 
MY REPLY...
O.K.
 
DB...
[By the way Mr DeCenso, you really should have looked in the index of your
Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich Greek lexicon.  You would have found that the word in
Acts for "lot" is "kleros," not "CHORION" as stated by Mr Archer, and nowhere
in the very large discussion of kleros in done the to "Theological Dictionary
of the New Testament" by Bromley, is the meaning "burial plot" discussed.  It
discusses the forms of "kleros" (eg: kleros, kleroo, etc), and the various
meanings of "kleros" (eg: "plot of land," and "inheritance"), but mentions
nothing about CHORION or "burial plot." (Why does this not surprise me?) Thus
it would seem to be a very good thing you dumped Archer as a reference.]
 
DB later corrected himself...
_____________________________________________________________________
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
>Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: NEW BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS [Fallaciously] ANSWERED (Judas)
Date: Fri Apr  2 02:32:11 1993
 
I owe the group an apology.  It is my habit to check my articles before and
after their submission for errors.  In my last article I stated:
 
> (By the way Mr DeCenso, you really should have looked in the index of your
> Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich Greek lexicon.  You would have found that the word in
> Acts for "lot" is "kleros," not "CHORION" as stated by Mr Archer, and nowhere
> in the very large discussion of kleros in done the to "Theological Dictionary
> of the New Testament" by Bromley, is the meaning "burial plot" discussed.  It
> discusses the forms of "kleros" (eg: kleros, kleroo, etc), and the various
> meanings of "kleros" (eg: "plot of land," and "inheritance"), but mentions
> nothing about CHORION or "burial plot." (Why does this not surprise me?) Thus
> it would seem to be a very good thing you dumped Archer as a reference).
 
I was wrong. I admit that I do not have a handle on Greek grammar, and thus
confused "kleros", the second to last word in Acts 1:17 as being the plot of
land discussed.  In actuality it is "chorion", which is the last word Acts
1:18.  Unfortunately my Greek dictionary does not discuss "chorion" so I
cannot report as to the nuances of the word.
 
I don't know if someone else would have caught this, though I am sure that
someone would be able to do so, but I have an aversion to disseminating
mistakes, especially when someone else might use that mistake to prove a point"
 
_____________________________________________________________________
 
MY REPLY...
Vary noble of you Dave.  I didn't want to have to go to x number of sources to
show you wrong.  (Although I am researching CHORION a little).
 
DB...
"Of course the only other reference Mr DeCenso has given is Bullinger.  And
Bullinger uses such ridiculous exegisis that when I accused Mr DeCenso of
actually believing Bullinger, he replied that I misquoted him:
 
>> "And you maintain that you find such exegesis convincing?  Oh dear."
>
> My Reply...
> Your misquotes of me are astounding, Dave.  Read the beginning of this part
of > my response to see what I REALLY said in my posting of this article.
 
 [Actually Mr DeCenso, you said that there was "benefit" to our argument, in
  that it caused to to rediscover Bullinger's exegisis.  I did not realize
  that you would find such garbage beneficial, unless you were convinced by
  it]."
 
MY REPLY...
Thank you for correcting your restating of my points.
 
DB...
"and Mr DeCenso also replied:
 
> Dave, these are not necessarily my views; they are Bullinger's.  WE will
> discuss the land issue in later posts, I'm sure.  I'm only responding to
>this one you have directed re: Bullinger's views because it's enjoyable.
 
Thus I apologize for thinking that even Mr DeCenso could find such "drek"
convincing....he should specify which parts of Bullinger he finds convincing
and quit hiding behind a disingenuous mask of "This is what Bullinger
believed, not necessarily what I believe." So which is it Mr DeCenso? Do you
find the exegisis convincing or not?)"
 
MY REPLY...
One of my purposes in debating these alleged contradictions with you and
others is to diseminate many different views of possible reconciliations
raised by various Bible scholars and students alike.  When I present MY VIEWS,
I will clearly distinguish them from now on.
 
DB...
"Of course without Archer and Bullinger we find that Mr DeCenso has presented
no Greek exegisis at all, and Mr DeCenso has made a big thing about my not
referring back to the actual Greek.  Thus we find this demand on his part for
quality Greek exegisis to be a hypocritical requirement."
 
MY REPLY...
Good point.  But in your declaring that these passages are contradictory, you
have produced only superficial reasonings and observations. Nor have you dug
deeper.  I'm glad you have begun in this post.  I will begin Greek studies on
these passages in more depth than I thought necessary, as well.
 
DB...
"It would be appropriate to look at what Mr DeCenso has actually USED as
evidence.  Now we know what he claims for a standard, as he has stated it
often enough:
 
> (a) the text itself
> (b) parallel passages
> (c) other pertinent Scriptures
> (d) historical context
> (e) historical content
> (f) other pertinent historical info
> (g) cultural context
> (h) cultural content
> (i) other pertinent cultural info
> (j) grammatical construction
> (k) Hebrew and Greek word studies
> (l) etc.
 
But are these actual standards he has used, or simply empty hyperbole.  Let's
see, he has used (a), and since he is trying to reconcile it to other
passages, we see that he has also used (b).  On the other hand he has
presented no use of:
 
(d) historical context                or
(e) historical content                or
(f) other pertinent historical info   or
(g) cultural context                  or
(h) cultural content                  or
(i) other pertinent cultural info     or
(j) grammatical construction          or even
(k) Hebrew and Greek word studies [remember, Archer and Bullinger don't count]
 
Thus we find his vaunted criteria for exegisis is just empty mouthings."
 
MY REPLY...
Question:  Do you find such criteria important?  If so, do you plan on starting
to use them to the best of your ability, or will you continue to present
shallow observations (I don't mean this in a bad way).
At this point in our _debates_, I have not found it necessary to present a
total exegetical analysis of these passages, since we seem to keep beating
around the bush and not getting into the core of the verses.  I do not believe
it necessary to use many of the above criteria to refute your arguments re:
Judas in Acts and Matthew, but I will do my best from this point on to use
several of the above criteria, since you desire me to.  I hope you will also.
It will greatly enhance our study of these passages.
 
DB...
"The only thing he has actually used, beyond the passage itself, is any other
passage.  Thus Mr DeCenso should be honest and note that most of his list is
red herring and his only real criteria seems to be:
 
> (a) the text itself
> (b) parallel passages
 
MY REPLY...
The reason is simple...you are mistating the passages.  You claim that the
PASSAGES contradict one another; I do not see the PASSAGES contradicting one
another.
(1) They may very well be complimentary, as many scholarly sources mention;
(2) Matthew may not be presenting Judas' death, as you claim.  But we'll look
at your defense of this later.
 
Also, the "reward of iniquity" in the Acts PASSAGE may not be the 30 pieces of
silver in Matthew's PASSAGES.  (Although you have a valiant attempt later at
stating why you believe it is).
 
At this beginning stages in our debates, we are laying some Scriptural
groundwork, which will be expanded upon through deeper exegesis.
 
DB...
"Of course the only reason I can see to so drastically reinterpret a passage
as he has done with Judas' death, is to make it agree with another passage so
that both could be considered correct."
 
MY REPLY...
One of the reasons I have given a different exegetical view of the passages is
that you seem to think the majority of scholarship is wrong in concluding these
passages are complimentary.  However, I see no problem in Tony Rose's
explanation of Judas' death...
 
_____________________________________________________________________
 
HOW WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THE INACCURACY BETWEEN JUDAS HANGING
HIMSELF IN MATTHEW 27:5 AND "FALLING HEADLONG HE BURST OPEN"
=============================================================
 
This question of the manner in which Judas died is one with which we are
constantly confronted in our travels. Many people point to the apparent
discrepancy in the two accounts as an obvious, irreconcilable error.
Some have gone so far as to say that the idea of an inerrant Bible is
destroyed by these contradictory accounts. However, this is not the case at
all.
Matthew relates that Judas hanged himself, while Peter tells us he fell and
was crushed by the impact. The two statements are indeed different, but do
they necessarily contradict each other?
Matthew does not say that Judas did not fall; neither does Peter say that
Judas did not hang himself. This is not a matter of one person calling
something black and the other person calling it white. Both accounts can be
true and supplementary.
A possible reconstruction would be this: Judas hanged himself on a tree on the
edge of a precipice that overlooked the valley of Hinnom. After he hung there
for some time, the limb of the tree snapped or the rope gave way and Judas
fell down the ledge, mangling his body in the process.
The fall could have been before *or* after death as either would fit this
explanation. This possibility is entirely natural when the terrain of the
valley of Hinnom is examined.  From the bottom of the valley, you can see
rocky terraces 25 to 40 feet in height and almost perpendicular.
There are still trees around the ledges and a rocky pavement at the bottom.
Therefore, it is easy to conclude that Judas struck one of the jagged rocks on
this way down, tearing his body open. It is important to remember that we are
not told how long Judas remained hanging from the tree or how advanced
was the decomposition of his body before his fall.
Louis Gaussen relates a story of a man who was determined to kill himself.
This individual placed himself on the sill of a high window and pointed a
pistol at his head. He then pulled the trigger and leaped from the window at
the same time.
On the other hand, a person could say that this man took his life by shooting
himself, while another could rightly contend he committed suicide by jumping
form the tall building. In this case, both are true, as both are true in the
case of Matthew's and Peter's accounts of the death of Judas. It is merely a
situation of different perspectives of the same event.
 
_____________________________________________________________________
 
Your only reason for rejecting this is, I believe, your attempt to discredit
inerrancy.  You haven't related how this is IMPOSSIBLE or highly unlikely.
Here's what you said in an earlier post...
 
_____________________________________________________________________
DB [quoting Tony Rose]...
> There are still trees around the ledges and a rocky pavement at the bottom.
> Therefore, it is easy to conclude that Judas struck one of the jagged rocks
> on this way down, tearing his body open. It is important to remember that we
>                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> are not told how long Judas remained hanging from the tree or how advanced
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> was the decomposition of his body before his fall.
 
"The added text in this version is so heavy that, assuming you are truly so
opposed to such tactics, you should find it not credible.  But you seem to
find Tony Rose's eisegesis satisfactory, while clearly rejecting David
Joslin's."
 
_____________________________________________________________________
 
Here, you discredit Tony's explanation based on what you deem too "heavy" for
the passages.  But you haven't addressed why you feel that way.  You can say
it's a vain attempt to reconcile the contradiction, but that doesn't tell me it
didn't happen, nor have you shown why you reject that possibility.
 
Questions:  Is Matthew lying or is Luke lying?  Or are they both lying?  Or
are either or both of them misinformed?  Why do you think there is such an
alleged contradiction?  I do not think you have ever told us what you believe
in this respect.
 
DB...
"At present though, Mr DeCenso only asks two questions of me:
 
> (1) You claim Acts and Matthew contradict one another in representing Judas'
>     death.  I ask you again to provide evidence that Matthew stated Judas
>     died in the hanging.
> (2) You claim that the 30 pieces of silver in Matthew that Judas threw down
>     in the temple and the chief priests used, is the "reward of iniquity"
>     in Acts that pictures Judas in some way purchasing a field with;
>     therefore there is a contradiction.  Prove that the 30 pieces of silver
>     and the "reward of iniquity" are one and the same.
 
Actually I find question (1) to be a rather stupid request, but I will answer
it because he now restricts himself to two points.  First I would point out
that hanging is a very efficient manner for ending a life.  In fact it is a
bit of a fluke when someone survives hanging (except in fantasy cowboy
movies), and even then it usually referred to as an attempted hanging."
 
MY REPLY...
I work at an agency that investigates child abuse and neglect.  Today, I got a
call re: a child that attempted suicide by hanging himself because his mother
is on crack.  He failed in his attempt and is in a child's psych ward at a
local hospital.  Hanging attempts are not always successful.
 
To assume that because most hangings are successful, this one was also is
"begging the question", if I may quote you.
 
[Last night, listening to _The Bible Answer Man_ broadcast, The Christian
Research Institute's show, one of the scholars on there used several of these
terms that you use.  I am not all that familiar with them.  The man on the BAM
show teaches Comparative Religion and Logic.  It was interesting]
 
DB...
"This is so prevalent that, so that to say a man hung himself with no other
qualifiers is synonymous with stating that he killed himself."
 
MY REPLY...
Qualifiers are important at times, as we'll see in an OT passage I'll mention
below.
Does hanging ALWAYS have this outcome?  Did Matthew, who is the only source we
have re: Judas hanging himself, state that Judas died as a result?  To say it's
synonymous means it has the same meaning as.  A boy (age 14) hung himself.  But
he lived.  This is only one of probably thousands of documented cases we can
discover.
 
DB...
"Now I am not alone in this thought; in fact, since Mr DeCenso so respects
Christian scholarly (including Greek scholars) opinion, I did some research."
 
MY REPLY...
Thank you, Dave.
 
DB...
"Interestingly, not one of the Christian references I read, interpreted the
hanging as being anything but a fatal suicide.              ^^^^^^^^^^^
 
MY REPLY...
[^^^ above, mine]
So it's OK to use Christian sources to back your points?  What about Tony's
position.  Do you value it or even consider it as a valid possibility?
 
Also, is it possible that the sources you read may be wrong, or lying, or
deceived in other parts of their books?  If so, should we do, as we have done
with Archer, toss them to the side and not value anything they say, including
their "interpretation" of the hanging of Judas?  I am sure _you_ would find
some errors and maybe even some deception in those sources.
 
You also noted they "interpreted" the hanging as meaning he died.  Although
that is very possibly true, do you find that in the text itself?  Remember,
that's the first criteria we must examine.
 
DB...
"This included:
 
    "The Biblical Knowledge Commentary" by Woodward and Zuck"
 
MY REPLY...
Which I own.  It's a good source of commentary info.  But not inerrant.
 
DB...
    "The Interpreters on Volume Commentary on the Bible" by Laydon
    "The one volume Bible Commentary" by J R Dunelow
    "Word meanings of the Testament" Ralph Earl
    "The Abingdon Bible Commentary" published by Abingdon
    "Harpers Bible Commentary" by William Neal
     (Actually I could have presented many more as well)
 
MY REPLY...
I appreciate your doing this research, Dave.  Maybe we are getting somewhere
in how we both should approach these alleged contradictions - more in depth
study.
 
DB...
"In each case, these references specifically describe that the interpretation
of Matt 27:5 as successful, suicide and thus I can only conclude that the
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Greek word "apagchw"(ie: hang oneself) is translated as a successful hanging."
 
MY REPLY...
[^^^ above, mine]
No you can't only conclude this, although, as Tony says, this was a highly
probable outcome.  But Matthew does not state death as being a result.
 
The Greek word is APAGCHO.  Matthew 27:5 is it's only occurrence in the New
Testament.
 
In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT used at the time of Jesus),
it's only used in 2 Samuel 17:23 : "Now when Ahithophel saw that his advice was
not followed, he saddled a donkey, and arose and went home to his house, to his
city. Then he put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died; and he
was buried in his father's tomb."             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
Notice that not only is it stated that Ahithophel "hanged himself" [Gr. Sept.,
APAGCHO], but it explicitly adds, "and died".  Here we have no doubt of the
result.
In Matthew, we are not explicitly told Judas died.
 
Also, there is nothing in the Greek to suggest success or failure.  It simply
means "hang oneself".
 
DB...
"But Mr DeCenso, you are more than welcome to disagree and show more reputable
                                                                     ^^^^^^^^^
Christian scholars that insist that the hanging was not successful."
 
MY REPLY...
[^^^above, mine]
"Reputable"?  You mean ones that have never erred?
As far as   insisting that the hanging was unsuccessful, that can't be done,
even by me. ^^^^^^^^^
 
As I said in an earlier post...
 
_____________________________________________________________________
Although I still agree with Tony's exegesis as being the most probable
explanation regarding Judas' death (taking into account several criteria),
I've recently noticed some new things in Matthew.
 
MAT 27:5-8 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed,
and went and hanged himself. But the chief priests took the silver pieces and
said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because they are the
price of blood." And they consulted together and bought with them the potter's
field, to bury strangers in. Therefore that field has been called the Field of
Blood to this day.
 
First of all, notice that the text does not say that Judas died as a result of
hanging. All it says is that he "went and hanged himself." Luke however, in
Acts, tells us that "and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all
his entrails gushed out." This is a pretty clear indication (along with the
other details given in Acts - Peter's speech, the need to pick a new apostle,
etc.) that at least after Judas' fall, he was dead. So the whole concept that
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Matthew and Luke both recount Judas' death is highly probable, but not clear
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
cut.
^^^
_____________________________________________________________________
 
I also wrote...
 
_____________________________________________________________________
MY REPLY...
 
Here we have a stickler, Dave, that I have to say I just recently noticed.
Let's look at the passage in Matthew:
 
MAT 27:4 saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." And they said,
"What is that to us? You see to it!"
 
MAT 27:5 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed,
and went and hanged himself.
 
MAT 27:6 But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said, "It is not
lawful to put them into the treasury, because they are the price of blood."
 
MAT 27:7 And they consulted together and bought with them the potter's field,
to bury strangers in.
 
MAT 27:8 Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.
 
Notice verse 5..."Then he...went and hanged himself."
Matthew does not say Judas died, does it?  Should we assume he died as a
result of the hanging?                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What does Acts say?
ACT 1:18 (Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and
falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.
 
ACT 1:20 "For it is written in the book of Psalms: 'Let his dwelling place be
desolate, And let no one live in it'; and, 'Let another take his office.'
 
Here we may have a graphic explanation of Judas' death....So, my line of
reasoning to dispel your contradiction myth re:the "two" accounts of Judas'
death is this...Matthew doesn't necessarily explain how Judas died; he does
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
say Judas "hanged himself", but he didn't specifically say Judas died in the
hanging incident.               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
However, Acts seems to show us his graphic demise.  Therefore, there is no
contradiction between Matthew and Acts re: Judas' `death'.
 
.......
 
MY REPLY...
...we do know from Matthew that he did hang himself and Acts probably records
his death.  Although it's possible and plausible that he fell from the hanging
and hit some rocks, thereby bursting open, I can no longer assume that to be
the case.  Therefore, no contradiction.  Matthew did not say Judas died as a
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
result of the hanging, did he?  Most scholars believe he probably did, but...?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
______________________________________________________________________
 
I quoted all that to show that I highly regard the scholars' explanations, but
in looking at the texts initially, we can't assume Judas died.  It is, however,
highly probable.                            ^^^^^^
 
DB...
"By the way, while all agree that Judas died from the hanging, the books had
different ways of dealing with the contradiction we are discussing.  One
simply ignored it entirely and simply referred back to Matthew's version as
the correct version in both Matt and Acts.  "The Biblical Knowledge Commentary"
suggested the hypotheses that Judas hung and then when he rotted, his belly
exploded (which doesn't explain his headlong fall), or that his branch or rope
broke, and he fell to his death and his gut gushed out (which doesn't explain
how a hanging man, would fall headlong rather than feet first)."
 
MY REPLY...
The outcome of any fall is dependent upon many factors...how high the person
was suspended before the fall, any obstructions such as tree branches that may
have deviated the fall, how steep an incline of rocky surfaces the victim fell
upon, thus possibly rolling or bouncing of several rocks, etc.  In a
superficial examination of the Acts passage and the Matthew passage, we are not
given a lot of info on the geographical specifics, but Tony in the above quoted
post gave us some...
 
_____________________________________________________________________
A possible reconstruction would be this: Judas hanged himself on a tree on the
edge of a precipice that overlooked the valley of Hinnom. After he hung there
for some time, the limb of the tree snapped or the rope gave way and Judas
fell down the ledge, mangling his body in the process.
The fall could have been before *or* after death as either would fit this
explanation. This possibility is entirely natural when the terrain of the
valley of Hinnom is examined.  From the bottom of the valley, you can see
rocky terraces 25 to 40 feet in height and almost perpendicular.
There are still trees around the ledges and a rocky pavement at the bottom.
Therefore, it is easy to conclude that Judas struck one of the jagged rocks on
this way down, tearing his body open.
_____________________________________________________________________
 
DB...
Now truthfully, I do not see what is comforting about Matthew confusing the
source of the Potter's field prophesy, but on the other hand the author is
correct: Matthew does make that confusion.  Of course a Biblical inerrantist
who claim that every word of the Bible is guaranteed true by God, will have to
thereby add one more contradiction to the death of Judas (ie: where the
prophesy of the Potter's field came from)."
 
MY REPLY...
Please, when we are done with this study on his death, remind me to discuss
this with you.
 
DB...
As to your second question Mr DeCenso, you ask how we could be sure that the
money with which Judas purchased the land, was indeed for the betrayal, rather
than some other source.  I would point out that in Acts, where it specifically
mention "the reward of iniquity" [Acts 1:18], it also specifically mentions
what act of iniquity they were talking about (ie: Acts 1:16 "...concerning
Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus.").  Now I would point out
that when the Bible describes an act of "iniquity," and then immediately
discusses "*the* reward of iniquity," it would be rather inane to suggest that
it was an action of iniquity other than the one discussed."
 
MY REPLY...
Dave, we are getting somewhere, aren't we!
 
ACT 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples
(altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said,
ACT 1:16 "Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy
Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide
to those who arrested Jesus;
ACT 1:17 "for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry."
ACT 1:18 (Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and
falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.
ACT 1:19 And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem; so that field
is called in their own language, Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood.)
ACT 1:20 "For it is written in the book of Psalms: 'Let his dwelling place be
desolate, And let no one live in it'; and, 'Let another take his office.'
 
Notice that in verse 16, the word "iniquity" is not used.  Rather, it states
that Judas "became a guide to those who arrested Jesus".
But the writer DID NOT stop there...vs. 17, "for he was numbered with us and
obtained a part in this ministry."  What part did Judas play in their ministry?
         ^^^^^^
JOH 12:6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a
thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it.
JOH 13:29 For some thought, because Judas had the money box, that Jesus had
said to him, "Buy those things we need for the feast," or that he should give
something to the poor.
 
So, now we know what part Judas played - he was a treasurer, per se.
Right after Peter stated that Judas played a part in this ministry (treasurer,
according to John), THEN Luke adds the parenthetical explanation of "wages of
iniquity" - money that should have been put into the ministry, but was stolen
by Judas to purchase a field.  I believe this is a better exegetical
explanation of what the "wages of iniquity" are.  What do you think, Dave?
 
DB...
"Now since I have given you clear answers (and even references), perhaps you
could unequivocally state what type of inerrantist you are (instead of asking
me what type I think you are, as you did to Mr Joslin)."
 
MY REPLY...
I will gladly admit that I am a Complete Inerrantist, although I do not have
that big a problem with the Limited Inerrancy view.

Frank
-- 
"If one wished to contend with Him, he could not answer Him one time out
 of a thousand."  JOB 9:3

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82812
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Spreading Christianity (Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor)

In article <C51puA.K2u@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
> "David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> >    Not to be too snide about it, but I think this Christianity must
> >    be a very convenient religion, very maliable and suitable for
> >    any occassion since it seems one can take it any way one wants
> >    to go with it and follow whichever bits one pleases and
> >    reinterpret the bits that don't match with one's desires.  It
> >    is, in fact, so convenient that, were I capable of believing
> >    in a god, I might consider going for some brand of Christianity.
> >    The only difficulty left then, of course, is picking which sect
> >    to join.  There are just so many.
> >     
> >    Dean Kaflowitz
> > 
> > Yes, Christianity is convenient.  Following the teachings of Jesus
> > Christ and the Ten Commandments is convenient.  Trying to love in a
> > hateful world is convenient.  Turning the other cheek is convenient.  So
> > convenient that it is burdensome at times.
> 
> Some Christians take a 10% discount off the Ten Commandments.  Sunday
> cannot be substituted for the Sabbath.


Make that 20%.  Where did I see that poll recently about the
very religious and adultery?  Was it this newsgroup or alt.atheism
or some other place?

Dean Kaflowitz


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82813
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Subject: Re: NEW BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS [Fallaciously] ANSWERED (Judas)

I produced an error last week about CHORION:

>> (By the way Mr DeCenso, you really should have looked in the index of your
>> Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich Greek lexicon.  You would have found that the word in
>> Acts for "lot" is "kleros," not "CHORION" as stated by Mr Archer, and nowhere
>> in the very large discussion of kleros in done the to "Theological Dictionary
>> of the New Testament" by Bromley, is the meaning "burial plot" discussed.  It
>> discusses the forms of "kleros" (eg: kleros, kleroo, etc), and the various
>> meanings of "kleros" (eg: "plot of land," and "inheritance"), but mentions
>> nothing about CHORION or "burial plot." (Why does this not surprise me?) Thus
>> it would seem to be a very good thing you dumped Archer as a reference).
> 
> I was wrong. I admit that I do not have a handle on Greek grammar, and thus
> confused "kleros", the second to last word in Acts 1:17 as being the plot of
> land discussed.  In actuality it is "chorion", which is the last word Acts
> 1:18.  Unfortunately my Greek dictionary does not discuss "chorion" so I
> cannot report as to the nuances of the word.

I abhor publishing trash (I abhor it of myself even more than I do from
others, but since I do not present myself as an authority on the subject, I do
not feel dishonest, though I do openly admit ignorance and incompetence in
this example).  Thus I felt honor bound to do a better set of research
specifically on the word.  First it should be noted that Greek grammar is not
as tough as I first assumed (it is not nontrivial by any means, and I still am
not competent with it, but it is not as opaque as I had thought).  It turns
out that while the Index for the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich "Greek Lexicon" renders
each verse in order, each word within a verse is put in greek alphabetical
order.  Thus while the the meaning of the verse is decipherable, the syntax is
far from clear.  On the other hand, a Greek-English Intralinear Bible makes
things a lot more comprehendable.  And yes, the word for field in Acts 1:18 is
indeed "chorion." 

Now I've checked several Greek-English lexicons:

	"Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament," Louw and Nida
	"Robinson's Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament"
	"Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament," Grimm
	"Word study Concordance," Tynsdale
	"A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and other 
	 early Christian Writings," Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich
	"The New Analytical Greek Lexicon," Perschbacher

In each case the meaning of the word Chorion was given variously as:

	A space, place, region, district, field, area, "country place," 
	land, farm, estate, "a bit of tillage", and similar meanings.

Nowhere do any of these books mention anything about "grave." As some of these 
books go into great detail, I would be very surprised to find that these books 
are all inadequate and Mr Archer is the only competent scholar in Greek.  I 
think it more likely that Mr Archer's investigations into "contradictions" to 
be once again, as your friend said it, "lacking in substance," and thus Archer 
is again shown worthless as an expert witness (By the way Mr DeCenso, I would 
have honorably presented my results on this matter, even if I had found them
to support Mr Archer's contentions). 

By the way, among these lexicons, (eg: Robinson's) is the definition of
"agros," the word used in Matthew 27 to describe the field bought.  The word
"agros" is defined as "a field in the country." Chorion is specifically noted
as a synonym to agros.  This is significant, as it is evidence of how silly
Bullinger's exegisis was, which stated that the word for "field" in Matthew
(ie: agros) is different from the word for "field" in Acts (ie: chorion), and
thus we must be talking about two different fields (Of course you already
admit how stupid Bullinger's exegisis is, but this was a small serendipity
which drives the point home). 

So as of now, unless Mr DeCenso show compelling reasons to believe otherwise
(eg: a reputable scholar with reputable references), I consider this 
particular issue closed.  See Mr DeCenso, now you can go on to answer
questions about the denials of Peter, the day of the Crucifixion, Tyre, and 
the fact that the author of Matthew quoted from the wrong prophet in
discussing the "Potter's Field."
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

    Precise knowledge is the only true knowledge, and he who does not teach
    exactly, does not teach at all.
				Henry Ward Beecher
				American Clergyman
				as recorded by George Seldes

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82814
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Subject: Re: NEW BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS [still not] ANSWERED (Judas)

Mr DeCenso, in spite of requiring Scholarly opinion on the hanging of Judas,
rejects that the scholarly opinion of the those scholars and then rephrases
those scholars opinion on the subject:

> ...we do know from Matthew that he did hang himself and Acts probably records
> his death.  Although it's possible and plausible that he fell from the hanging
> and hit some rocks, thereby bursting open, I can no longer assume that to be
> the case.  Therefore, no contradiction.  Matthew did not say Judas died as a
>                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> result of the hanging, did he?  Most scholars believe he iprobably did, but..?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I quoted all that to show that I highly regard the scholars' explanations, but
> in looking at the texts initially, we can't assume Judas died.  It is, 
> however, highly probable.                   ^^^^^^

and 

> Also, there is nothing in the Greek to suggest success or failure.  It simply
> means "hang oneself".

Actually, if you do further research as to the Greek word "apacgw," you will
find that it does denote success.  Those scholars did indeed have an excellent
reason to assume that the suicide was successful.  As I pointed out, I
recently checked several Lexicons:

	"Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament," Louw and Nida
	"Robinson's Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament"
	"Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament," Grimm
	"Word study Concordance," Tynsdale
	"A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and other 
	 early Christian Writings," Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich
	"The New Analytical Greek Lexicon," Perschbacher

A couple simply stated "hanged oneself", and a couple were more explicit 
and stated that "apacgw" means specifically "kill yourself by hanging." A
couple also noted that the meaning of one the root words for "apacgw" is
"strangle, throttle or choke" (which pretty much invalidates the guy who
suggested to David Joslin that Judas was hung upside down).  One of the best
references though, "Robinson's Greek and English Lexicon of the New
Testament," not only stated the translation, it gave both the root words, the
literal translation, related greek words which use the same roots, and also
other presented specific examples of the word in greek literature (to give
further context).  

The word "apagchw" has two root words: "gchw" is the "to strangle" root, and
the root word "apo" means literally "away." This root words is included in
words which denote a transition.  It can mean a transition in place (eg: the
greek word "apagello" means to send a message).  "Apo" can also denote a
change in state and specifically the change from life to death.  Robinson
specifically makes comparison to the word "apokteiuo," which means "to kill."
In literal meaning the word "apacgw" means "to throttle, strangle to put out
of the way," and implicitly denotes a change in life state (ie: away from
life, to death).  So while the word "apacgw" does mean "to hang," it
specifically denotes a death as well.  Thus Robinson is quite specific when he
state that it means "to hang oneself, to end one's life by hanging." He then
notes the the use of "apacgw" in Homers Odessy 19:230 to denote context.  He
presents that example of "apacgw" as being used to explicitly mean "suicide by
hanging." Now since there is a perfectly good word for strangling, without the
added denotation of "death," and as you insist that the Bible was written by
God, and every word is precicely correct, you are stuck with the complete
meaning of "apacgw" (ie: Since the word "apacgw" was used, then death is
denoted as the result). 

By the way, I note that Mr DeCenso also presents an example of "apacgw":

> In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT used at the time of Jesus),
> it's only used in 2 Samuel 17:23 : "Now when Ahithophel saw that his advice 
> was not followed, he saddled a donkey, and arose and went home to his house,
> to his city. Then he put his household in order, and hanged himself, and 
> died; and he was buried in his father's tomb."   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^ 
> Notice that not only is it stated that Ahithophel "hanged himself" [Gr. Sept.,
> APAGCHO], but it explicitly adds, "and died".  Here we have no doubt of the
> result.
> In Matthew, we are not explicitly told Judas died.

Note Mr DeCenso, as you say, the Septuagint was a translation from Hebrew to
Greek, and you have not shown the original meaning of the Hebrew (ie" the the
Hebrew say "and died"), and thus whether it was simply echoed in the Greek. 
It should also be pointed out that, regardless of the added "and died", the
correct translation would still be "apacgw," as the man did indeed die from
strangulation (redundant, but correct).  Further, we have evidence that the
Septuagint was repeatedly rewritten and reedited (which included versions
which contradicted each other), and such editing was not even necessarily
executed by Greeks.  Thus I am not sure that you can use the Septuagint as it
now stands, as a paragon of ancient greek.  So, what you really need to prove
your point Mr DeCenso, is an example, in ancient greek, of someone committing
"apacgw" and surviving.  Otherwise I would see you as simply making worthless
assertions without corresponding evidence. 

Now I would note Mr DeCenso, that everytime I go out of my way to research it
one of your apparently contrived exegisis, I pretty much find it false.  Thus,
I think that if you are going to add to the text, something over and above
what the source clearly says, then you had better have an explicit Greek or
historical source to justify it. 

By the way, as to Mr Rose's statement about trees around the Potter's Field:

> There are still trees around the ledges and a rocky pavement at the bottom.

Unless Mr Rose can show that these trees are two thousand years old, or that
there are 2000 year old stumps there, or has a 2 thousand year old description
of the area which mentions such trees, then it is inappropriate for him to
assert that the present placement of trees prove the location of the trees two
thousand years ago (after all, things change). 

Now as to your other argument, ie: that the money Judas used is not the same
as the 30 silvers:

> As to your second question Mr DeCenso, you ask how we could be sure that the
> money with which Judas purchased the land, was indeed for the betrayal, rather
> than some other source.  I would point out that in Acts, where it specifically
> mention "the reward of iniquity" [Acts 1:18], it also specifically mentions
> what act of iniquity they were talking about (ie: Acts 1:16 "...concerning
> Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus.").  Now I would point out
> that when the Bible describes an act of "iniquity," and then immediately
> discusses "*the* reward of iniquity," it would be rather inane to suggest that
> it was an action of iniquity other than the one discussed."
> 
>  
> Notice that in verse 16, the word "iniquity" is not used.  Rather, it states
> that Judas "became a guide to those who arrested Jesus".
> But the writer DID NOT stop there...vs. 17, "for he was numbered with us and
> obtained a part in this ministry."  What part did Judas play in their ministry?
>          ^^^^^^

True, Peter (or the author of Acts) does not specifically call Judas' betrayal
"an iniquity," but for that matter, neither does John specifically call Judas'
actions "an iniquity" either.  Further John 13:29 did not say that Judas took
the money box, but rather said:

    "Some thought that because, Judas had the money box, Jesus was telling
     him "Buy what we need for the feast"; or that he should give something
     to the poor, So after receiving the morsel he immediately went out, and
     it was night."

Note that it is said that Judas left, it does not say that he took the money
box.  Thus when I see your explanation it still seems to me you would choose
the a an unproven iniquity, mentioned by another author, in a different
book, written at a different time, over the iniquity explicitly mentioned by
the author of acts.  I find this forced and contrived. 

Of course this particular argument becomes moot, since we have have seen
evidence that "apacgw" means suicide.  You see, since Judas' hanging was
successful, he could not have spent the money mentioned in John 13:29, because
Matthew and Mark explicitly say the betrayal was on the high holy day (ie:
Passover), and thus he could not have spent the money before killing himself
the next day.  Thus the money which bought the "Field of Blood" would have to
have been the 30 pieces of silver (Of course he got the 30 pieces of silver
that night as well, and thus couldn't have spent that either.  Oh dear, I
believe that the house of cards is comming down). 

Maybe we should at this point, discuss now whether Jesus was crucified on
Friday or Saturday as that is now part of the argument about Judas.

By the way, as to where the prophesy of the Potter's field came from (ie: the
mention of it in Matthew), you say:

> Please, when we are done with this study on his death, remind me to discuss
> this with you.

I am reminding you now to discuss it now. It's all part of the same verse we
are discussing, and I wish you would quit procrastinating and sidestepping 
these issues.
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

	A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
				David Hume, Philosopher
				An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding

    PS. I would note again, that you are not stating that that Bible
    is not possibly inerrant; you are stating that it *IS* inerrant.
    Since you have been, by your own admission, presenting merely "possible"
    reconciliations (I of course don't rate them that highly), then the 
    best you can do is say that the Bible is "possibly" inerrant, not that 
    it *is* inerrant.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82815
Subject: Re: "Imaginary" Friends - Info and Experiences
From: patb@bnr.co.uk (Patrick Brosnan)

In article <1993Apr2.041929.24320@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kditto@nyx.cs.du.edu (Kimborly Ditto) writes:
>
>Concerniong this thread...
>
>Has anyone ever seen "Drop Dead Fred" ??  THis movie seems to tipify the
>"imaginary friend" theme rather well.  I LOVED the movie, as i had an
>imaginary friend when i was a kid and it borught back great memories.  
>
>Seriously, if you have a chance, see "Drop Dead Fred".  It'll make ya
>think.  especially the end.
>
>Blessings!
>--Kim
>


-- 
Patrick Brosnan.  <patb@bnr.co.uk> || ...!mcsun!ukc!stc!patb
Northern Telecomm, Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB. 
Phone : +44 81 945 2135 or +44 81 945 4000 x2135
"Oh, Flash, I love you - but we've only got 14 hours to save the universe."

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82816
From: jmeritt@mental.mitre.org
Subject: God's promise of Peace

PSA 145:9  The LORD is good to all: and his  tender  mercies  are
over all his works.

JER 13:14  And I will dash them one against another, even the fa-
thers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor
spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82818
From: jmeritt@mental.mitre.org
Subject: God's promise to the righteous

Ps.92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."

Isa.57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 82819
From: dan@Ingres.COM (a Rose arose)
Subject: Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
: In article <1993Mar30.001428.7648@pony.Ingres.COM> dan@Ingres.COM (a Rose arose) writes:
: 
: Seriously, though, Griffen didn't save the lives of children, and he did
: destroy the life of a man, so on the most superficial of levels, he's scum.
: 

I almost agree, but Griffen is not scum.  Scum has no guilt or freedom to
choose anything.  Griffen does.  God did not make scum when he made Griffen.
He made a precious person and this person chose to do wrong.  The same goes
for Dr. Gunn.

: But if you are to examine it more closely, Griffen would have preferred that
: these children were born -- yet AFTER their birth, did Griffen have any 
: assistance to offer them?  Did Griffen intend to support them, educate them,
: raise them up to be useful citizens?  Did he have any intent whatsoever
: to help these children after birth?
: 

Here's the real problem.  Americans have become so insensitive to the needs
of others and so completely wrapped up in themselves that they cannot see
straight or think clearly enough to make even the slightest and most obvious
moral decisions based on reality.

If a man abandons a woman to care for their child on her own, he is not
considered to be a very respectable or decent man by anyone.  This man has
fled his responsibility, has behaved like a lazy coward, and has turned
away from his responsibility to his wife and child.

However, if a woman decides to kill her unborn child to release her burden,
she is not thought of in the same way.  When the man abandons, the woman
suffers but the child is free to grow up and live a happy and normal life.
When the woman abandons, the child is diced or killed with saline or vacuumed
out, and the man has no choice, and the man sometimes suffers so badly that
he wishes he could trade places with his child.

Ths root of this whole problem is selfishness--the arrogance that says, "My
feelings and desires are supreme and your well being is not worth dung."
And when you come down to it, this is the substance of what hell is made of.
It's the reason a loving God can throw selfish people to the devil and his
demons for all of eternity.  Let any one of us unrepentant into heaven, and
we'll ruin it the first chance we get.

: Now, I don't really know the answer to these questions, but I've got a real
: good guess.
: 

And, it's probably right.

: And I wouldn't call *that* 'benevolent', either.
: 

It is a move in the right direction.  As it is now, we don't see our
responsibility because we kill it and get it out of sight.  The media
backs us completely.  Real responsibility does not sell.  The only
"responsibility" that sells in the marketplace is that which is just
enough to make us "feel responsible" without showing anything that
might show us our own true irresponsibility.  We want to "feel" like
good people, but we want nothing with *being* good people.  Just give
me the freedom to say "I'm good", and the rest of the world can burn.
Rape and kill my children and throw my parents to the places where
poor old folks rot until they're dead.  I'll hate my brother and sister
if I wish and I'll cheat on my wife or husband.  Screw the government,
because it screws me, and don't talk to me about giving to the church
because church people are all a bunch of money grubbing hypocrites.
But, I'm a good person.  At least I admit what I do.  At least I love
myself and we all know that is the greatest love in the world--not that
a man lay down his life for his brother...That sounds too "christian".

At the root, this is the substance of what hell is made of.

We've become a self indulgant, backslidden society no longer responsible
to our children, to our parents, to our families, to our government, or
to our God.  This is the root behind justification of every evil, of every
corruption in government, of every slanderous remark, of every lie, and
of every murder.  Society cannot continue to live like this long.  it will
have to destroy itsself soon, and perhaps in the end, that will be the
biggest blessing this world can hope to see.

Why do people see so much evil in trying to turn this situation around?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
	"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."

		- Susan B. Anthony,
		  The Revolution July 8, 1869


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83437
From: peavler@fingal.plk.af.mil (Ninja Gourmet)
Subject: Scarlet Horse of Babylon (was Daemons)

In article <1qilgnINNrko@lynx.unm.edu>, blowfish@leo.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
|> Its easy...
|> 667 >is< the neighbor of the beast (at 666)-
|> the beast lives at the end of a cul-de-sac.
|> r.

I noticed this dead horse in your Keywords line. Is this the famous scarlet horse
of Babylon that the Beast (that's 666 for you illuminatti) rides on in those
wonderful mediaeval manuscripts. If so, I fear your announcement that the old
girl is dead may be premature. I bet $20 on her to place in the 6th race at The
Downs last Sunday, and she slid in a bad fifth. So she is not dead. She is just
comatose. (like god that way, I suppose).

Ninja Gourmet
Will fight for food. 

-- 
Jim Peavler			My opinions do not exist.
peavler@plk.af.mil		That is why they are called
Albuquerque, NM				MY opinions.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83438
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Language and agreement

m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:

Mr. Meritt, please state explicitly the inductive argument which leads
you to conclude Mr. Tice thinks it "OK" to take biblical quotes out of
context in some other t.r.m. articles.

Also, please explain why you rely on inductive reasoning (with its
implicit uncertainty) in determining Mr. Tice's opinions when the man
is himself clearly available for questioning.

Finally, please indicate whether you agree (yes or no) with the
following statement:

   The word "agree" and the phrase "not disagree" are identical in
   meaning.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83439
From: king@ctron.com (John E. King)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is oxymoronic?



Andrew A. Houghton"  writes:  

>I'm still waiting to hear a good response from a christian type..  how
>is christ's word (as quoted by Paul) reconciled with current christian
>beliefs?

Almost one third of the world's population claim to be Christian.  But
any similarity between their beliefs and lifestyle to the first century
model is purely coincidental.  At Luke 18:8 it states, "...nevertheless,
when the son of man returns, will he really find the faith on the earth?"


Jack


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83440
From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Subject: Objective Values 'v' Scientific Accuracy (was Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is)

Frank, I tried to mail this but it bounced.  It is fast moving out
of t.a scope, but I didn't know if t.a was the only group of the three
that you subscribed to.
Apologies to regular t.a folks.

In article <1qjahh$mrs@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:

>Science ("the real world") has its basis in values, not the other way round, 
>as you would wish it.  

You must be using 'values' to mean something different from the way I
see it used normally.

And you are certainly using 'Science' like that if you equate it to
"the real world".

Science is the recognition of patterns in our perceptions of the Universe
and the making of qualitative and quantitative predictions concerning
those perceptions.

It has nothing to do with values as far as I can see.
Values are ... well they are what I value.
They are what I would have rather than not have - what I would experience
rather than not, and so on.

Objective values are a set of values which the proposer believes are
applicable to everyone.

>If there is no such thing as objective value, then science can not 
>objectively be said to be more useful than a kick in the head.

I don't agree.
Science is useful insofar as it the predictions mentioned above are
accurate.  That is insofar as what I think *will be* the effect on
my perceptions of a time lapse (with or without my input to the Universe)
versus what my perceptions actually turn out to be.

But values are about whether I like (in the loosest sense of the word) the 
perceptions :-)

>Simple theories with accurate predictions could not objectively be said
>to be more useful than a set of tarot cards.  

I don't see why.
'Usefulness' in science is synonomous with 'accuracy' - period.
Tarot predictions are not useful because they are not accurate - or
can't be shown to be accurate.
Science is useful because it is apparently accurate.

Values - objective or otherwise - are beside the point.

No?

tommy

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83441
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Subject: Re: Food For Thought On Tyre

king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
>Not exactly.  The prophesy clearly implies that people would
>still be living in the area, but by the same token it would
>never be "rebuilt".  Obviously , if people are still there they
>would live in houses, correct?  Their "nets" implies a fishing
>village.  This is exactly what it has become -- a far cry from
>its original position of stature .

Looking at [1] we find that during Roman times "Tyre vied with Sidon
for first place in the intellectual life of the period"; that Tyre was
the seat of a Christian bishop, eventually with 14 dioceses under it;
that "the most magnificent church of its kind in all Phoenecia" was the
basilica built in Tyre ca. 314; that Tyre was well known for its
exports of glassware, wine, white marble, and dyed cloth; that Tyre,
along with other seaports, "provided outlets for South Arabian, Indian
and even Chinese trade"; that Tyre had to accomodate its growing
population by "following a perpendicular, rather than horizontal, line
of growth" (because it was running out of land to build on); that Tyre
established colonies of its own.  None of this sounds like a "small
fishing village" by any stretch of the imagination.

Centuries later, under the Abbasids, Tyre had "opulent and flourishing
bazaars" and buildings of 5-6 stories.  During this period, Tyre was
"noted for its export of sugar, beads, and, as of old, glassware."
During the Crusades, Tyre was the second-most flourishing city held
by Franks.  (There is a lot more, but I got tired of writing.)

In [2] we read the following description of modern Lebanon: "other
*major cities* in Lebanon include Tripoli, Sidon, Tyre, Baalbek and
Zahlah."  [my emphasis]  This source also discusses the impact of
the Lebanese Civil War, and the Israeli military actions (1978, 1982)
on the trading ports of Tyre and Sidon.  It notes that after Israel's
withdrawel in 1984, "Tyre appeared to enjoy a revival of its local
economy."

If Tyre is such an insignificant little fishing village at present,
why is it always called a city (or, above, a "major city")?  Why
does it show up on all the maps?   When population figures for cities
in Lebanon are given, why is Tyre always one of the cities on the
list (even if the list is only a dozen cities long)?

[1] Philip K. Hitti, _Lebanon in History: From the earliest times to
the present_, NY, St. Martins, 1967.  

[2] Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, _Lebanon: a
country study_, edited by Thomas Collelo, 1989.

>>In the early 1980's Tyre had over 22,000 people.
>
>So far I've seen stated figurers ranging from 15,000 to 22,000.
>Let's assume the latter one is correct.  By modern standards
>we are talking about a one-horse town.

A one-horse town?  Sounds like a lot of work for one horse.
(Anyway, Tyre is connected by roads to the mainland.  They
may even use cars these days. :-) 

The 1991 Encyclopedia Britannica says "Pop. (1982 est.) 23,000."  
Most other references give figures in the 14-17 thousand range.
(One atlas gives the population of Tyre as 60,000; the same
source give comparatively high figures for Sidon and Beirut, also,
so I doubt that it is a typo.  Perhaps these were figures for
the cities and their surrounding areas.)  I don't doubt that the
population of Tyre has fluctuated over the last few decades.  In
particular, the 1982 Israeli military action hurt Tyre quite a bit.   

>> After Alex the G it fell once more in the 1200's, I believe.  What
>>other times did it fall that you were thinking of? 
>
>To Egypt (250 bce); to the Seleucids (198 bce); Rome (63 bce); after
>Rome it fell to various Arab contingents until 1124 ce when it was
>captured in the Crusades;  it was then recaptured again by the Muslims
>in 1291 ce and subsequently pillaged; then the French, Turks, British,
>and today, Lebanon.

I thought you were talking about times that Tyre was destroyed.
Don't most, if not all, of these apply not just to Tyre but to 
the other cities in the area?  Sidon, for example?  Can you make
a case for Tyre having been singled out?

>>Well, it recovered enough to have a thriving commerce in the dye
>>"Tyrian purple" in Roman times. 
>
>This is correct, but they were under Roman domination, and the 
>majority of the created wealth was siphoned off.  The prophesy
>hold true.

They had a good deal of autonomy under the Seleucids. From [2]:
Tyre "receiv[ed] the rights [of autonomy] from Antiochus Ephiphanes
and from 125 BC onward enjoy[ed] complete autonomy. She started a
large series of coins, occasionally in gold ..."

The descriptions of Tyre under the Romans don't seem to fit
your characterization, either.  And under the Abbasids it seems
to have been allowed to flourish.  I still think you are stretching
when you try to describe Tyre as having been nothing but a small
fishing village.

>Who is Josh McDowell.

A Christian apologist whose standards of scholarship are quite low.
He happens to quote the same source you quote (Nina Jidejian,
_Tyre through the Ages_, Beirut, Dar El-Mashreq Publishers, 1969).
The same sentence, in fact.  He defends the fulfillment of the
prophecy using the same argument you are using, an argument that
I haven't seen in print anywhere else, which is why I jumped to
the conclusion that you were quoting Josh.

(I tried to find the Jidejian book, but it isn't listed in Books
in Print.  Can you tell me more about it? Her descriptions are so
much at odds with everything else I've read; I'm curious to know why.)

dj

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83442
From: rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com
Subject: "Ex-Gay"? (was: HOMOSEXUALITY Fact & Fiction)

Tony-

While I honestly believe you believe you are doing a "good thing" by posting
that piece of propaganda, I believe the more people believe that the more they
will feel justified in their blatant persecution of gay oriented people.  I
have seen the film called "The Gay Agenda" and along with my church we found
it to be horrifying.  Not because of what was actually shown (cleaver use of
editting can create any image one wants to portray), rather becaseu we are familia
familiar with how widely it was actively distributed and how many naive people
are actually believing the garbage found within it.  The truth is that neither
you nor I can fully speak for anyone who calls themself gay, but knowing as
many as I do and knowing their testimonies and witnessing thier faith and life
I have to say that the report you posted is a very biased report, something
obviously claimed against gays as well.  The truth is that unless YOU are
innately gay you cannot know what harm you are causing.  I speak as an
abolitionist who supports affirming gay rights in our society.  I do not
support wild sex or any other misrepresentations perpetrated by Christian
Fundamentalist extremists, but I know people who are not the sexual deviants
your report paints them to be.  It is no mistake that the APA removed
homosexuality from it's list of mental illnesses, it is also no mistake that
there are many Christians and homophobes who long to bring it back to the list.
I do not feel threatened by gays, I don't understand why others are.

The following is an article concerning two of the more popular ex-gay min-
istries:  Exodus International & Homosexuals Anonymous.

THE FOUNDER OF AN "EX-GAY" SUPPORT GROUP CHOOSES HOMO OVER HETERO

by Robert Pela (from Gay oriented magazine ADVOCATE)

In December 1985, David Caligiuri received one of The Advocate's homophobia rewaa
awards: the A Prayer A Day Keeps the Lust Away citation.  As director of FREE
INDEED, a national ex-gay ministry, Caligiuri was singled out for offering
discontented gays and lesbians "a way out of the homosexual death-style"
through prayer.  "I'd like to give the award back," Caligiuri now laughs, "I'm
no longer deserve it."
  Caligiuri's eight year involvement with the national "ex-gay" movement peaked
with his founding of the Phoenix chapter of Homosexuals Anonymous (HA) as well
as Free Indeed.  He has since abandoned his pulpit and now says that the ex-
gay movement is a fruitless effort based on deception.  "There's no reality
in it," he says, "I was selling a product, and my product was a lie."
  Headed up by national ministries like Exodus International and Courage, the
organizations of the ex-gay movement rely on the tenents of born-again
Christianity to convince disatisfied homosexuals -- usually young gay men who
are just coming out -- that they can shed their sexuality by suppressing their
sexual urges and embracing Christianity.  "We offer support to people who are
seeking to leave the sin of homosexuality," explains Bob Davies, director of
Exodus.  He ventures that "about 80% of those seeking to abandon their homo-
sexuality are men."
  "Anybody who is involved in the ex-gay ministry is misguided and is wasting
their time," says Lisa Seeley, a former "redeemed lesbian" who worked with
Caligiuri as HA and appeared with him on the Sally Jessy Raphael show.  "These
organizations are for people who are spiritually and emotionally wounded."
  "It's possible to change your identity or your behavior," says sex educator
Brian McNaught, author of _On Being Gay_. "But it's really impossible to
change your orientation.  These people are no longer calling themselves gay,
but they continue to have same-sex erotic feelings."
  Caligiuri says he founded Free Indeed after an ominous week in 1981 when all
hell broke loose in his personal life.  A few days after his lover ended both
their romance and their business partnership, Caligiuri was sexually assaulted
by a man he picked up in a bar.  "I was really drunk," he recalls, "and I
went home with this guy.  He tied me up and raped me.  He left me tied up all
night, and the next morning he raped me again."
  When Caligiuri was eventually freed by the attacker, he returned home to the
home he shared with his ex-lover.  "He had another man there with him,"
Caligiuri recalls.  "I thought at this time, 'If this is what being gay is
about, I don't want to be this way anymore."
  Caligiuri vowed that if he could find a way out, he would share his discovery
with others.  He organized an antigay contingent to demonstrate at Phoenix's
gay pride parade in June 1985, and a few months later Free Indeed held its
first public protest.  At a meeting to promote a gay civil rights ordinance,
Free Indeed members loudly blasted gays, telling them ther were sinners headed
for hell.
  Free Indeed began receiving about a hundred telephone calls a week, thanks
in part to a deceptive listing in the local yellow pages.  "We were listed
under Lesbian and Gay Alternative Services," Caligiuri says, "so people
thought we were a gay information switchboard.  People would call to find out
where the local bars were, and we'd preach to them about the sins of homo-
sexuality."  Ruses like this are typical of the movement, Caligiuri says,
adding, "They'll do anything to reach these people."
  "David used to go on radio and say really stupid things," recalls Peter
Kelly, a counselor at Phoenix's Catholic diocese AIDS program, "like that
he knew he was gay when he started wearing pastel colors."
  Caligiuri's family first found out about his ministry when they saw him on
Raphael's syndicated talk show in 1985.  "They were relieved," he recalls.
"They figured that if they had to have a gay person in the family, better
that I should be a 'reformed' gay person."
  But Caligiuri was hardly reformed.  "By the time I appeared on Sally's
show," "I'd started having sex with men again.  Men would call our hotline
and tell me about thier latest sin: sex with their pastor, sex with their
father.  I was horny all the time."
  Unable to risk going to gay bars, where he might be recognized from his
numerous television appearances, Caligiuri says he "used to go to bookstores
and get blowjobs."  When he wasn't working the bookstores, he was sleeping
with other "reformed" homosexuals.
  "I didn't realize it at first, but a lot of the HA leaders were having sex
with one another," Caligiuri says.  "We'd go to conferences in other cities,
and we'd be paired up in hotel rooms.  Everybody was sleeping with everybody
else."
  By the time he appeared on 'AM Philadelphia' television show in May 1988,
Caligiuri was having anonymous sex a couple times a week.  When the show's
host asked him if he ever "acted on temptation," his answer was a lie.
  Caligiuri's duplicity began to take it's toll on him, however.  He was
suffering from chrinic fatigue syndrome and candidiasis, a dibilitating
yeast infection, and this led to his escape from the sect.  "I was too sick
to go to church," he explains.  "The more time I spent away from those people
the more I began to feel like myself.  I began to remember who I used to be."
  Late in 1991, Caligiuri turned Free Indeed phone lines over to a local
church and closed the ministry's doors.  "I'd convinced myself that there
is no need in the world for ex-gay people," he says.
  Today, Caligiuri, 31, is studying alternative spiritualities ("I'm interest-
ed in belief systems that aren't judgemental."), considering romance ("But
not with a CHristian!"), and searching for a new project to devote himself to.
"I feel compelled to commit myself to gay causes," he says.  "I want to
eventually stop feeling guilty about what I did and make up for the damage I
may have brought to our community."

---end article---

Caligiuri's tory is by no means unique and I have read several other articles
of former leaders and founders of 'ex-gay' ministries who have said very similar th
similar things.  Fortuantely not all of them have left Christianity, but have
come to realize that God loves them despite the attitudes of others.  Some,
like Chris Glaser, director of the Presbyterian "Lazarus Project" of West
Hollywood Presbyterian Church have actually been working with the gay community
to bring them into the sheepfold of Christ and encouraging real ethical values
of sexuality within the sphere of being gay.  I have also, as I said talked and become
and become close friends with many who once attended such groups as "Love In
Action" and others, who either once claimed to have been "reformed" or who
were too honest with themselves to live a lie, no matter who was disappointed
in them.  Some were even encouraged to marry as a way of "sealing" their
new heterosexuality, only to eventually start hitting the bars, bathhouses
and bookstores, since these were usually activities under the concealment of
night and one-night-stands of promiscuous behavior meant no continuous "sin"
through a committed relationship.  This is a horrible trap which the CHurch
has dumped on the backs of the truly gay oriented people, and the very inno-
cent victims in these cases are the wives and children of such marriages.  Yet
the church insists that there are only two options they are willing to allow
gay people: 1) heterosexuality or 2) celebacy.  This is sad.  What is also
mrtifying, is in the cases of those who cannot suppress their desires and
fear for thier sanity in such a mixed up confusion that the church forces on
them, they may even opt for 'suicide' or surgical dampering of the brain
functions.  In the past lobotomies and heavey drug suppressants were common-
place.  There are now becoming available more and more literature on the
threat of coercive Christianity toward gays, such as Sylvia Pennington's
_"Ex-Gays?  There Are None_. and others.  There are also a great many fact
based books being written to help people trapped in this confusion such as
Maury Johnston's _Gays Under Grace_, and Chris Glaser's _Come Hom!_.  I
seriously recommend those for people seeking help for this persecution and
self-acceptance.

Thank you.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83444
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Food For Thought On Tyre

In article <1qh4m5INN2pu@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E.
King) wrote:
> Not exactly.  The prophesy clearly implies that people would
> still be living in the area, but by the same token it would
> never be "rebuilt".  Obviously , if people are still there they
> would live in houses, correct?  Their "nets" implies a fishing
> village.  This is exactly what it has become -- a far cry from
> its original position of stature .

Let's see, if Alexander destroyed Tyre, and people move back, and
they construct houses, and after a while 14000 people live there
and still call it Tyre, it is not considered to be rebuilt. Instead
it's considered to be 'just-some-people-that-got-together-for-fishing-
and-they-needed-houses' place.

> So far I've seen stated figurers ranging from 15,000 to 22,000.
> Let's assume the latter one is correct.  By modern standards
> we are talking about a one-horse town.

Sigh, I was never born in a city then (my home town has 10.000
people). I have to consult my city and inform them that it's from
now a fishing village. When this city (Kristinestad) was founded
in the 17:th century about 1000 people lived there, so the norms
were even more bizarre for dumb Swedish queens who founded cities
along the coast of Finland.

I would like to know why Paul thought is was worth mentioning the 
small fishing place of Tyre in Acts. Again, maybe he was a keen
fisherman and wanted to visit the shores of Tyre? :-)

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83445
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>
>Brian Kendig contorts . . .
>
>>	It can not be a light which cleanses
>>	if it is tainted with the blood
>>	of an innocent man.
>
>. . . now showing how Brian Kendig is in the dark of the 
>most fundamental basic of the Old Testament.  Concepts like
>santification and Lev. 17:11 must be foreign to you.  Too bad
>you are not interested in understanding.  Too bad you prefer
>blurting folly even to your own shame.

  Lev 17:11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given
  it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is
  the blood that makes atonement for the soul.

The Old Testament was very big on the "eye for an eye" business.  It
makes sense that Leviticus would support physical injury to "repay"
moral wrongdoing.

I know about sanctification.  I've been taught all about it in Sunday
school, catechism class, and theology classes.  But even after all
that, I still can't accept it.  Maybe I'm still not understanding it,
or maybe I'm just understanding it all too well.

From the bottom of my heart I know that the punishment of an innocent
man is wrong.  I've tried repeatedly over the course of several years
to accept it, but I just can't.  If this means that I can't accept the
premise that a god who would allow this is 'perfectly good', then so
be it.

>     What ignorance you can show us next?  I guess I'll wait
>till tomorrow.

If you can explain to me why the death of Jesus was a *good* thing,
then I would be very glad to hear it, and you might even convert me.
Be warned, however, that I've heard all the most common arguments
before, and they just don't convince me.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83447
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
>Plus questions for you:  why do subjectivists/relativists/nihilists get so 
>het up about the idea that relativism is *better* than objectivism? 

To the degree that relativism is a more accurate decription of the
truth than is objectivism, it provides more power and ability to
control events.

Assuming, for the moment, that morals _are_ relative, then two
relativists can recognize that neither has a lock on the absolute
truth and they can proceed to negotiate a workable compromise that
produces the desired results.

Assuming that there is an absolute morality, two disagreeing 
objectivists can either be both wrong or just one of them right; there
is no room for compromise.  Once you beleive in absolute morals,
you must accept that you are amoral or that everyone who disagrees
with you is amoral.

Given a choice between a peaceful compromise or endless contention,
I'd say that compromise seems to be "better".

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietzsche

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83449
From: rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com
Subject: "Ex-Gays?" (follow-up)

I would like to apologize for the typos in the previous post.

In retrospect I would also like to quote another source: Douglas C.
Haldeman from his 1991 book _Homosexuality_

THERAPY INEFFECTIVE

Recently the founders of yet another prominent "ex-gay" ministry, Exodus
International, denounced their conversion therapy procedures as ineffective.
Michael Busse and Gary Cooper, cofounders of Exodus International and lovers
for 13 years, were involved with the organization from 1976 to 1979.  The
program was described by these men as "ineffective . . . not one person was
healed."  They stated that the program often exacerbated already prominent
feelings of guilt and personal failure among the counselees; many were
driven to suicidal thoughts as a result of the failed "reparative therapy."

The previous article quoted in the last posting is from THE ADVOCATE, June
30, 1992 called "The Ex-Ex-Gay" by Robert Pela.

Some personal thoughts:

It is of no great astonishment that there is a concerted effort by a major
portion of the Church to control and mandate change of a minority among
its ranks.  This was the momentum behind the Spanish Inquisition, only all
they required was a confession of faith (after much torture) and then, to
save their souls they would dispatch them to heaven through death.  Even
later, the Bible was used vigorously to defend slavery, oppression and
segragation of African-Americans, even to the justification of lynchings.
Today's scholars are just a bit more slick in their approach.  The tool is
still coersion, but now it is mostly by means of brainwashing and mind
control, convincing people that they should see themselves as less than
God sees them, then maintaining a cultic hold on them until it is felt
thier mind-conditioning is complete.  Sure, no one is "physically" forced
to stay in this "reparative therapy" but sheer social pressure is enough for
many to keep themselves in this new found bondage of self-hate.

As an abolitionist I advocate the abolishment of oppression and persecution
against gays in all facets of civil life.  A person should be judged by
the contibution, or non-contribution to the society in which they live,
not by some high-brow standard of conformity imposed by those who haven';t
a clue what is in their heart.

For those who seek more information about Gays and groups that accept them
please contact your nearest chapter of PFLAG (Parents & Friends of Lesbians
And Gays) who will be more than happy to assist you.  This is a group of
people comprised of Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals, their parents and friends
who have formed a support group for help and understanding.  Try talking to
a parent of a gay son or daughter and learn some "first-hand" real life and
loving understanding.  God's love and understanding for Gay people is no
less abundant.

Thank you.
PAX

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83450
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: 15 Apr 93   God's Promise in John 1:12



	But as many as received him,
	to them gave he power
	to become the sons of God,
	even to them that believe on his name:

	John 1:12

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83451
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Food For Thought On Tyre

I was curious to check out how many San Jose Mercury News mentioned
Tyre (1990-92). Here's the outcome from the research (condenced versions,
copyright San Jose Mercury news):

---
  Bombings in the two largest cities in southern Lebanon killed 11 people
and 
wounded 80 others. A car bomb blew up in Tyre, killing 10 people and
wounding 
75. A man was killed and five others seriously wounded in an explosion in 
Nabatiye.
---
  An Israeli navy patrol boat attacked and sank a rubber guerrilla boat off

southern Lebanon early today, killing the two men aboard, the army command 
said.
  
     It said in a communique that a Dvora patrol boat opened fire on the 
motorized rubber dinghy north of Tyre after identifying it as hostile. The
army 
said no one on the Israeli boat was injured. The affiliation of the slain 
guerrillas was not immediately known.
---
  Rival factions of the guerrilla group led by terrorist mastermind Abu
Nidal 
battled Sunday in Tyre, Lebanon, with machine guns and rocket-propelled 
grenades, killing at least four people and wounding 15, police said.
---
 Lebanon's mainstream Shiite Muslim militia said Thursday that it had 
uncovered a network of tunnels in a southern Lebanese village where it said
pro-
Iranian kidnappers had held Western hostages.
  
     Officials of the militia, Amal, led local journalists through the
catacomb-
like alleys and showed them two cells with iron doors at the village, 
Kawthariyet al Siyad, near Tyre, the ancient port city, about 40 miles
south of 
Beirut.
  
     The officials said they were certain that U.S. Marine Lt. Col. William
R. 
Higgins was detained there shortly after he was seized by gunmen on a road 
outside Tyre in February 1988.
--------------
...anyway, I counted 20 articles during these 3 years of reporting. I also
found out the possible reason why the numbers for the inhabitants of the
city is defined between 14000 and 24000. It seems that Tyre is one of the
places
where people from Libanon flee to during more extensive bombings, so
there's
a constant flow of refugees entering and leaving Tyre (articles mentioned
thousands of people entering and leaving this place).

I counted 0 articles for my home town, Kristinestad, so from now I will
consider this place to be a fishing village :-).

Cheers,
Kent

---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83453
From: irfan@davinci.ece.wisc.edu (Irfan Alan)
Subject: A TREATISE ON THE MIRACLES OF MUHAMMAD SAW, PART-1

DROPLET VOL 1, No 11, Part 1

A  D R O P L E T
From The Vast Ocean Of The Miraculous Qur'an

Translations from the Arabic and Turkish Writings of 
Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, The Risale-i Noor

VOL 1, No 11, Part 1
------------------------------------------------------------------


   		 NINETEENTH LETTER  

		 MU'JIZAT-I AHMEDIYE RISALESI 
(A TREATISE ON THE MIRACLES OF MUHAMMAD SAW)       
(SAW: PEACE AND BLESSINGS BE UPON HIM)

In His Name (ALLAH) , Be He (ALLAH) Glorified!
There is Nothing But Glorifies His (ALLAH's) Praise.

In The Name Of  Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful

   "He is who has sent His Messenger with
guidance and the religion of truth  to make it
supreme over all religion:  and sufficient is Allah
as a Witness.  Muhammad is the Messenger of
Allah, and those who are with him are firm
against the unbelievers and merciful among
each other.  You will see them bowing and
prostrating  themselves, seeking Allah's grace
and His pleasure.  Their mark is on their face
the sing of prostrafion; this is their similitude in
the Torah and Indgil." [the Our'an 48:28-29]

   Since the Nineteenth and Thirhy-first Words
concerning the mission of Muhammad (SAW) prove his
prophethood with decisive evidences, we assign the
verification of that subject to those Words.
   As a supplement to them, we will merely show here
in Nineteen Signs, some  of the flashes of that great
truth.

   FIRST SIGN:  The Owner and Master of this universe
does everything with knowledge, disposes every affair
with wisdom, directs everything all-seeingly, treats
everything all-knowingly, and arranges in everything with
His will and wisdom such causes, purposes and uses that
are apparent to us.  Since the One who creates knows,
surely the One who knows will speak, since He will
speak, surely He will speak to those who have
consciousness, thought, and speech.  Since He will speak
to those who have thought, surely He will speak to
humankind, whose make-up and awareness are more
comprehensive of all conscious beings.  Since He will
speak to humankind, surely He will speak to the most
perfect of mankind and those most worthy of address and
highest in morality, and who are qualified to guide
humanity; then He will certainly speak to Muhammad (SAW), 
who, as friend and foe alike testify, is of the highest 
character and morality, and who is obeyed by one fifth
of humanity, to whose spiritual rule half of the globe has
submitted, with the radiance of whose light has been
illumined the future of mankind for thirteen centuries, to
whom the believers, the luminous segment of humanity,
renew their oath of allegiance five times a day, for
whose happiness and peace they pray, for whom they call
down Allah's blessings and bear admiration and love in
their hearts.

   Certainly, He will speak to Muhammad (SAW),
and Indeed He has done so;  He will make him the
Messenger, and Indeed He has done so; He will make
him the guide for the rest of humanity, and Indeed He
has done so.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
To be continued In$a Allah.
Your Br. Irfan in Islam.



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83454
From: david@terminus.ericsson.se (David Bold)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality

In article Fo2@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU, pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:

<Moral Driver distinctions deleted>

>>In this case, the Driver does not evolve but simply Is. There would
>>probably not be any manifestation in an infant  because the Moral
>>Code has not been learnt yet (ie. the object upon which the Driver
>>acts upon). 
>
>Without manifestation, though, how can the Driver be detected? For
>all purposes it seems not to exist until Moral Coding begins.
>Actually, I agree with your notion of a Driver, except that I think
>it's not moral but pre- (and super-)moral. It is, as I mentioned
>earlier in this thread, a primal sense of connection, a pre- and
>post-natal umbilical the awareness of which is expressed in a
>partial, fragmented way that accomodates (and forms, in return) the
>language and customs of a given culture. This halting, pidgin-english
>expression is, I think, what we come to call 'morality'. 

Compare the Driver to an urge such as Jealousy, where there is an urge
and an "object". The jealousy does not technically exist until the object
is apparent. However, the capacity to be jealous is presumably still there
even though it is not detectable.

Your description of the Unbilical took me three passes to understand (!) but
I get the gist and I have to tentatively agree. I think our two definitions
can sit side by side without too much trouble, though. I haven't attempted to
define the reason behind the Moral Driver (only hinted through the essence of
each Moral). Your definition hints that animals are also capable of a
similar morality - Simians have a similar Social Order to ourselves and it is
easy to anthropomorphize with these animals. Is this possible or have I
misunderstood?

>
>>>>If my suggestion holds true then this is the area where work must be
>>>>carried out to prevent a moral deterioration of Society,
>
>>>What kind of work, exactly?
>
>>Well, here you have asked the BIG question. [...]
>>I have a slight suspicion that you were hoping I would say
>>something really contentious in this reply (from your final question).
>
>No, not at all. I was just wondering if you subscribed to some
>particular school of psycho-social thought and rehabilitation, and if
>perhaps you had a plan. I'd have been interested to hear it. 
>

My p.s. thoughts falls roughly in line with John Stuart Mill and
his writings on Utilitarianism. I have no particular plan (except to do
my bit - personal ethics AND social work). My opinion (for what it is worth)
is that the Authority for each Moral must be increased somehow, and that this
will probably take several generations to be effective. I don't think that the
list of Morals has changed for Society significantly, though . The Authority element
may come from our authority figures and roles models (see Eric Berne and his
transactional analysis work [+ Mavis Klein] for references) and this is what
gives rise to a deterioration of moral standards in the long term.

I've had some more thoughts on my definitions:

I've was thinking that I should add Moral Character to the list of definitions
in order to get a dynamic version of the Moral Nature (ie. the interplay of
the Moral Code and associated Authorities). A suitable analogy might be a
graphic equaliser on a HiFi system - the Moral Nature being the set of
frequencies and the chosen 'amplitudes', and the Moral Character being the
spectrum over time.

Conscience is a little more difficult because I can't define it as the
reasoning of a person between actions in the context of his Moral Nature
because Conscience seems to cut in most of the time unbidden and often
unwanted. I think Conscience is manifest when a decision is made at a given
time which compromises one's Moral Nature. My Conscience fits in more with
Freud's SuperEgo (plus the Moral Driver) with the stimulous being the
urges or Freud's Id. The reasoning that I mentioned before is Freud's Ego,
I suppose. If the Moral Driver is part of the Id then the reason why
Conscience cuts in unbidden is partially explained. The question is "what
provides the stimulous to activate the Moral driver?". I think I need some
more time with this one.

That's about it for now!

David.

---
On religion:

"Oh, where is the sea?", the fishes cried,
As they swam its clearness through.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83455
From: "David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

After tons of mail, could we move this discussion to alt.religion?
=============================================================
--There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke. (Bob Dylan)
--"If you were happy every day of your life you wouldn't be a human
being, you'd be a game show host." (taken from the movie "Heathers.")
--Lecture (LEK chur) - process by which the notes of the professor
become the notes of the student without passing through the minds of
either.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83456
From: system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Subject: Bhagavad-Gita 2.44

                                TEXT 44

                       bhogaisvarya-prasaktanam
                           tayapahrta-cetasam
                        vyavasayatmika buddhih
                          samadhau na vidhiyate
  
bhoga--to material enjoyment; aisvarya--and opulence; prasaktanam--for
those who are attached; taya--by such things;
apahrta-cetasam--bewildered in mind; vyavasaya-atmika--fixed in
determination; buddhih--devotional service to the Lord; samadhau--in
the controlled mind; na--never; vidhiyate--does take place.
    
                              TRANSLATION

	In the minds of those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and
material opulence, and who are bewildered by such things, the resolute
determination for devotional service to the Supreme Lord does not take
place.
  
                                PURPORT

	Samadhi means ``fixed mind.'' The Vedic dictionary, the Nirukti,
says, samyag adhiyate 'sminn atma-tattva-yathatmyam: ``When the mind is
fixed for understanding the self, it is said to be in samadhi.''
Samadhi is never possible for persons interested in material sense
enjoyment, nor for those who are bewildered by such temporary things.
They are more or less condemned by the process of material energy.

Bhagavad-Gita As It Is
Books of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami


       ---------------------------------------------------------
      |                Don't forget to chant:                   |
      |                                                         |
      |  Hare Krishna Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |       Hare Rama Hare Rama, Rama Rama Hare Hare          |
      |                                                         |
      |    Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA      |
      |          (system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us)           |
       ---------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83457
From: david@terminus.ericsson.se (David Bold)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality

In article 17570@freenet.carleton.ca, ad354@Freenet.carleton.ca (James Owens) writes:
>
>In a previous article, david@terminus.ericsson.se (David Bold) says:
>
>>
>>I don't mean to be rude, but I think that you've got hold of the wrong
>>end of a different stick...
>>
>>David
>
>I had a look at your posting again and I see what you mean!  I was so
>intent on explaining how Jung thought we could be more moral than God that
>I overlooked your main line of thought.
>
>You seem to be saying that, God being unknowable, His morality is unknowable.

Yep, that's pretty much it. I'm not a Jew but I understand that this is the
Jewish way of thinking. However, the Jews believe that the Covenant between
YHWH and the Patriarchs (Abraham and Moses, in this case) establishes a Moral
Code to follow for mankind. Even the Jews could not decide where the boundaries
fall, though.

As I understand it, the Sadducees believed that the Torah was all that was
required, whereas the Pharisees (the ancestors of modern Judaism) believed that
the Torah was available for interpretation to lead to an understanding of
the required Morality in all its nuances (->Talmud).

The essence of all of this is that Biblical Morality is an interface between
Man and YHWH (for a Jew or Christian) and does not necessarily indicate
anything about YHWH outside of that relationship (although one can speculate).

>
>The first thing that comes to mind is that man is supposed to be created
>in His image, so there is an argument that we are committed to whatever
>moral code He follows as part of trying to live up to that image.  If we
>are supposed to live by Christ's example, you would be hard pressed to
>argue that God is a "do what I say, not what I do" kind of guy.

The trouble with all of this is that we don't really know what the "created
in His image" means. I've heard a number of different opinions on this and
have still not come to any conclusion. This rather upsets the Apple Cart if
one wants to base a Life Script on this shaky foundation (to mix metaphors
unashamedly!) As to living by Christ's example, we know very little about
Jesus as a person. We only have his recorded utterances in a set of narratives
by his followers, and some very small references from comtemporary historians.
Revelation aside, one can only "know" Christ second-hand or worse.

This is not an attempt to debunk Christianity (although it may seem that way
initially), the point I`m trying to make is that we only really have the Bible
to interpret, and that interpretation is by humanity. I guess this is where
Faith or Relevation comes in with all its inherent subjectiveness.

>
>Metaphysically, if there are multiple moral codes then there is no
>Absolute moral code, and I think this is theologically questionable.

No. There may be an absolute moral code. There are undoubtably multiple
moral codes. The multiple moral codes may be founded in the absolute moral
code. As an example, a parent may tell a child never to swear, and the child
may assume that the parent never swears simply because the parent has told
the child that it is "wrong". Now, the parent may swear like a trooper in
the pub or bar (where there are no children). The "wrongness" here is if
the child disobeys the parent. The parent may feel that it is "inappropriate"
to swear in front of children but may be quite happy to swear in front of
animals. The analogy does not quite hold water because the child knows that
he is of the same type as the parent (and may be a parent later in life) but
you get the gist of it? Incidentally, the young child considers the directive
as absolute until he gets older (see Piaget) and learns a morality of his own.

David.

---
On religion:

"Oh, where is the sea?", the fishes cried,
As they swam its clearness through.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83460
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1qjahh$mrs@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <pww-140493214334@spac-at1-59.rice.edu> pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker) writes:
>#In article <1qie61$fkt@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank
>#O'Dwyer) wrote:
>#> Objective morality is morality built from objective values.

>#But where do those objective values come from? How can we measure them?
>#What mediated thair interaction with the real world, a moralon? Or a scalar
>#valuino field?

>Science ("the real world") has its basis in values, not the other way round, 
>as you would wish it.  If there is no such thing as objective value, then 
>science can not objectively be said to be more useful than a kick in the head.
>Simple theories with accurate predictions could not objectively be said
>to be more useful than a set of tarot cards.  You like those conclusions?
>I don't.

I think that you are changing the meaning of "values" here. Perhaps
it is time to backtrack and take a look at the word.

value n. 1. A fair equivalent or return for something, such as goods
or service. 2. Monetary or material worth. 3. Worth as measured in 
usefulness or importance; merit. 4. A principle, standard, or quality
considered inherently worthwhile or desirable. 5. Precise meaning, as
of a word. 6. An assigned or calculated numerical quantity. 7. Mus. 
The relative duratation of a tone or rest. 8. The relative darkness or
lightness of a color. 9. The distinctive quality of a speech or speech
sound. 

In context of a moral system, definition four seems to fit best. In terms
of scientific usage, definitions six or eight might apply. Note that
these definitions do not mean the same thing.

In my mind, to say that science has its basis in values is a bit of a
reach. Science has its basis in observable fact. Even the usages of the
word "value" above do not denote observable fact, but rather a standard
of measurement. I would conclude that science does not have its
basis in values, and so your statement above fails. In fact, if one
concludes that a scientific set of measurements (values) are based on
systems derived from observation, then it must follow that in a
scientific context, there is no such thing as there is no such thing as
"objective values."

Back to the present. This has nothing to do with a moral system anyhow.
Just because the word "values" is used in both contexts does not mean
that there is a relationship between the two contexts.

If one is to argue for objective values (in a moral sense) then one must
first start by demonstrating that morality itself is objective. Considering
the meaning of the word "objective" I doubt that this will ever happen.

So, back to the original question:

And objective morality is.....?

If you can provide an objective foundation for "morality" then that will
be a good beginning.

>-- 
>Frank O'Dwyer                                  'I'm not hatching That'
>odwyer@sse.ie                                  from "Hens",  by Evelyn Conlon

eric

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83461
From: jmeritt@mental.MITRE.ORG (Jim Meritt - System Admin)
Subject: An invisible God!

 God CAN be seen:
        "And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts."
        (Ex. 33:23)
        "And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his
        friend." (Ex. 33:11)
        "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."
        (Gen. 32:30)
God CANNOT be seen:
        "No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
        "And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man
        see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
        "Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)

Pick what you want!

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83463
From: m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Kind, loving, merciful and forgiving GOD!

In article <8846@blue.cis.pitt.edu> joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
}m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
}>}(a) out of context;
}>Must have missed when you said this about these other "promises of god" that we keep
}>getting subjected to.  Could you please explain why I am wrong and they are OK?
}>Or an acknowledgement of public hypocrisy. Both or neither.
}
}So, according to you, Jim, the only way to criticize one person for
}taking a quote out of context, without being a hypocrite, is to post a
}response to *every* person on t.r.m who takes a quote out of context?

Did I either ask or assert that?  Or is this your misaimed telepathy at work again?

}>BTW to David Josli:  I'm still waiting for either your public
}>acknowledgement of your
}>telepathy and precognition (are you a witch?) or an appology and retraction.
}
}Can you wait without whining? To pass the time, maybe you should go
}back and read the portions of my article that you so conveniently
}deleted in your reply.  You'll find most of your answers there.  

Nope:  In particular:
>once he realized that he had
Example of telepathy?

>responding Jim's threa
What threat.  Produce it.

>Jim again, still mystified
More telepathy?  Or maybe just empathic telepathy, capable of determining emotional states.

>Jim, trying to
More telepathy.  How do you know "trying"?!?!?

>Jim, preparing to
Precognition?  Substantiate.  

All this taken from your Message-ID: <8257@blue.cis.pitt.edu>.




Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83467
From: <KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:    Catholic Right & Pat Robertson

The Roman Catholic conservatives are coming out in the open to line
up with Pat Robertson and his ultra Right Wing Christian Coalition.
Former Secretary of Education William Bennet, a Roman Catholic, stood
beside the Christian Coalition's spokesman Ralph Reed at a March 3
conference in Washington.  The purpose of the conference was to
publish results of a Christian Coalition poll which was designed
to prove that the Republican party would lose major support if it
backed away from the "Family Values" positons of the '92 convention.

Conservative Catholics have swung behind Robertson's organization
with political expertise, legal assistance and high tech communications
support.

The Catholic Campaign for  American, designed as a Catholic version
of the Moral Majority, was founded by Marlene Elwell and Tom Wykes.
Ms. Elwell has been with Robertson since the days of his Freedom
Council in 1985 and worked for him in his presidential bid in 1988.

Ms. Elwell was hired by Domino's Pizza magnate, Tom Monaghan, in 1989
to manage Legatus, a "nonpolitical", Catholic businessmen's group.
Membership is limited to Catholics who head corporations with a least $4
million in annual revenues.  Relying on a network of wealthy contacts
at Legatus, Elwell and Wykes had little trouble forming and funding the
Catholic Campaign.

The Campaign's list of national committee members includes U.S. Rep.
Robert K. Dornan, Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum, the lovely
Pat Buchanan and Rev. Richard J. Neuhaus.   Also on the national
committee is Keith Fournier, a Catholic who heads Pat Robertson's
American Center for Law and Justice.  Another Catholic, Thomas
Patrick Monaghan, senior counsel of Robertson's ACLJ, is also an
active supporter of the Catholic Campaign.

The board of directors includes Frank Shakespeare, broadcasting exec
and former U.S. ambassador to the Pope, Wall Street executive Frank
Lynch, former Reagan official Richard V. Allen, Bishop Rene Gracida
of Corpus Christi and Mary Ellen Bork, wife of unsuccessful Supreme
Court nominee Robert Bork.

In the Winter 1992 issue of _Campaign Update_ the organization's
quarterly newsletter, Rocco L. Martino, a Philadelphia business
executive wrote: "Separation of church and state is a false premise
that must finally be cast aside and replaced by the true meaning of
our constitution."

Oh yes, the organization's "national ecclesisatical advisor" is
Catholic politician Cardinal John J. O'Connor of New York.

Jack Carroll

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83468
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1qjclt$nh7@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:

> [...]
>
> [as I recall, I first entered the fray on this matter in response to
> an assertion by Simon Clippingdale that morality was relative.

Oops! Quite right. I got so busy that I saved Frank's last post back then,
intending to respond when I could, and I sort of forgot. I'll try to do it
soon if anyone's still interested, and probably even if they're not.

> Is he therefore trying to sell something?  I don't think so. ]

Well, yes, maybe I am. I'm trying to have people buy and take on my opinions,
thus causing said opinions to spread in time-honoured memetic virus mode until
the world is a veritable paradise. So how about it, folks? As they say over
here, You Know It Makes Sense.

> Frank O'Dwyer                                  'I'm not hatching That'
> odwyer@sse.ie                                  from "Hens",  by Evelyn Conlon

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83469
From: ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1qjbn0$na4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <kmr4.1571.734847050@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>#	You have only pushed back the undefined meaning. You must now define 
>#what "objective values" are.
>
>Really?  You don't know what objective value is?  If I offered the people
>of the U.S., collectively, $1 for all of the land in America, would that 
>sound like a good deal?  
Well, that would depend on how much we wanted the US and how much
we wanted the $1, wouldn't it?
-Ekr

-- 
Eric Rescorla                                     ekr@eitech.com
             Would you buy used code from this man?
        

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83470
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <C5HqxJ.JDG@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> lis450bw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (lis450 Student) writes:
>Hmmmm.  Define objective morality.  Well, depends upon who you talk to.
>Some say it means you can't have your hair over your ears, and others say
>it means Stryper is acceptable.  _I_ would say that general principles
>of objective morality would be listed in one or two places.

>Ten Commandments

>Sayings of Jesus

>the first depends on whether you trust the Bible, 

>the second depends on both whether you think Jesus is God, and whether
>  you think we have accurate copies of the NT.

Gong!

Take a moment and look at what you just wrote. First you defined
an "objective" morality and then you qualified this "objective" morality
with subjective justifications. Do you see the error in this?

Sorry, you have just disqualified yourself, but please play again.

>MAC
>

eric

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83471
From: ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1qjd3o$nlv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <sandvik-140493230024@sandvik-kent.apple.com# sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>#In article <1qie61$fkt@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank
>#O'Dwyer) wrote:
>#> Objective morality is morality built from objective values.
>#
>#You now pushed down the defintion of objectivity into realm of
>#objective values. So you need to explain that as well, as well
>#as the objective sub-parts, the objective atoms, quarks...
>Firstly, science has its basis in values, not the other way round.
You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it
means.
Perhaps you should explain what you think "science has it's basis
in values" means. The reason why people DO science is that
they value it's results. That does not mean that science has
it's basis in values. Any more than DES stops working if I stop
valuing my privacy.

>So you better explain what objective atoms are, and how we get them
>from subjective values, before we go any further.
See above.

-Ekr


-- 
Eric Rescorla                                     ekr@eitech.com
             Would you buy used code from this man?
        

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83472
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <C5Hr14.Jxw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> lis450bw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (lis450 Student) writes:
>My definition of objective would be absolute, or fixed, rather than
> 
>  subjective, or varying and changing.
>

Lets see what the dictionary has to say:

objective adj. 1. As having to do with a material object as distinguished
from a mental concept. 2. Having actual existance. 3.a. Uninfluenced
by emotion or personal prejudice. b. Based on observable phenomenon.

eric


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83473
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Subject: Re: Kind, loving, merciful and forgiving GOD!

m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
>joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
>}m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
>}>}(a) out of context;
>}>Must have missed when you said this about these other "promises of god" that we keep
>}>getting subjected to.  Could you please explain why I am wrong and they are OK?
>}>Or an acknowledgement of public hypocrisy. Both or neither.
>}
>}So, according to you, Jim, the only way to criticize one person for
>}taking a quote out of context, without being a hypocrite, is to post a
>}response to *every* person on t.r.m who takes a quote out of context?
>
>Did I either ask or assert that?  Or is this your misaimed telepathy at work again?

(1)  Stephen said you took a quote out of context
(2)  You noted that Stephen had not replied to some other t.r.m article
     (call it A) that took a quote out of context
(3)  But the lack of evidence for X does not constitute evidence for the
     lack of X  (a common creationist error)
(4)  So the fact that Stephen did not reply to A does not justify the
     conclusion that Stephen condoned taking quotes out of context in A
(5)  You asked Stephen to explain why you were wrong and they were OK,
     or to acknowledge that he was being a hypocrite.  
(6)  Both of the choices you give Stephen assume that he condoned
     taking quotes out of context in A.
(7)  I assumed you were being logical, and that the sentence that begins
     "Could you please explain ..." was not a nonsequitur, but was intended
     to follow from the sentence that preceded it.
(8)  Therefore, I concluded that you believed that (2) implied that Stephen
     condoned taking quotes out of context in A
(9)  But we've already seen that (2) does not imply this
(10) Therefore, you were incorrect to believe that (2) implied that Stephen
     thought it was okay to take quotes out of context in A, and were 
     making an error of a kind that is frequently made by creationists.

Is that better Jim?   It's called an argument.  If you disagree with it,
explain why the argument is not sound.  (I admit that my assumption in (7)
may have been a bit hasty.)  If you agree with it, just say "yup."

dj
"Yup." -- Jim's e-mailed response when I pointed out, in a posted article,
that one of his arguments was a straw man argument, reminiscent of a
frequent creationist ploy.  (3/22/93)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83476
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <1993Apr17.010734.23670@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:
> The truth is, is that it is not some sort of magic spell.  The truth
> is is that you do not understand it, and enjoy not understanding it.

I'm curious about this statement, is it a known understanding amongst
Christian believers that people who don't understand the Christian
doctrines are enjoying this state? I come from a background with 
a heavy Christian teaching (Lutheran church), and consider myself
knowledgeable with the basic understandings of Christianity. At the 
same time I'm *not* proud of things I don't understand or know of at
this point of time. Ignorance is not bliss!

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83477
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Clarification of personal position

In article <C5MuIw.AqC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu
(Darius_Lecointe) wrote:
> I will repeat my position here.  Worshipping on Sunday has never been a
> sin.  As a child I attended services on Saturday and Sunday--at the SDA
> church and at the Pentecostal church across the street.  I might even go to a
> Baptist church next week.  I worship God every day, and every Christian 
> should.  Even if we can prove that Christians should meet on Sunday (and
> we can't) we can never prove that violation of the Sabbath is not a sin
> any longer.  Nor can we prove that violation of Sunday is a sin.  We
> cannot use the Sabbath commandment for that purpose.

My online Bible is on a CD, but I don't own a CD-ROM system for the
time being, so I can't search for the famous cite where Jesus explicitly
states that he didn't want to break existing (Jewish) laws. In other
words technically speaking Christians should use Saturday and not Sunday
as their holy day, if they want to conform to the teachings of Jesus.

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83478
From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: scientology???

> i need some brief information on scientology (or applientology as frank zappa
> would call it) anyone have the time to send me some info on ol' l.ron and the b
> asics of what scientology is all about would be appreciated---p.s.i am not inte
> rested in any propaganda

I've taken the liberty of passing your name and address to your local org
(Scientology office).  They'll be contacting you in a few days.  I also
threw in a small contribution, so they'd know you're serious.    :-)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83479
From: mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <30136@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:
>Atoms are not objective.  They aren't even real.  What scientists call
>an atom is nothing more than a mathematical model that describes 
>certain physical, observable properties of our surroundings.  All
>of which is subjective.  
>
>-jim halat

This deserves framing.  It really does.  "[Atoms] aren't even real."

Tell me then, those atoms we have seen with electron microscopes are
atoms now, so what are they?  Figments of our imaginations?  The
evidence that atoms are real is overwhelming, but I won't bother with
most evidence at the moment.
-- 
***************************************************************************
* mccullou@whipple.cs.wisc.edu * Never program and drink beer at the same *
* M^2                          *  time.  It doesn't work.                 *
***************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83481
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!


Kent:

     You say that

>There are about 4-10 competing Rosicrucian orders existing today,
                      ^^^^^^^^^
>most of them are spin-offs from OTO and other competing organizations
>from the 19th century France/Germany. Maybe I should write an article
                        Please don't!  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>about all this, I spent some time investigating these organizations
>and their conceptual world view systems.

     Name just three *really* competing Rosicrucian Orders. I have
probably spent more time than you doing the same. 

     None of them are spin-offs from O.T.O. The opposite may be the
case. 

Study Harder,

Tony

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83482
Subject: Re: "lds" Rick's reply
From: <ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET>


Robert Weiss (psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu) writes:

#Rick Anderson replied to my letter with...
#
#ra> In article <C5ELp2.L0C@acsu.buffalo.edu>,
#ra> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) says:
#ra>

(...)

# Just briefly, on something that you mentioned in passing. You refer to
# differing interpretations of "create," and say that many Christians may
# not agree. So what? That is really irrelevant. We do not base our faith
# on how many people think one way or another, do we? The bottom line is
# truth, regardless of popularity of opinions.

It may be "irrelevant" to you and *your* personal beliefs (or should I say
"bias"?), but it is relevant to me and many others.  You're right, "the
bottom line IS truth," independant from you or anyone else.  Since you
proclaim "truths" as a self-proclaimed appointee, may I ask you by what
authority you do this?  Because "it says so in the Bible?"  --Does the
Bible "say so," or is it YOU, or someone else, who interprets whether a
scripture or doctrine conforms to your particular liking or "disapproval"?

Excuse moi, but your line of "truths" haven't moved me one bit to persuade
me that my beliefs are erroneous.  Of all the "preachers" of "truth" on
this net, you have struck me as a self-righteous member of the wrecking
crew, with no positive message to me or other latter-day saints whatsoever.
BTW, this entire discussion reminds me a lot of the things said by Jesus
to the pharisees: "ye hypocrite(s) . . . ye preach about me with your lips,
but your hearts are far removed from me..."

# Also, I find it rather strange that in trying to persuade that created
# and eternally existent are equivalent, you say "granted the Mormon
# belief..." You can't grant your conclusion and then expect the point to
# have been addressed. In order to reply to the issue, you have to address
# and answer the point that was raised, and not just jump to the
# conclusion that you grant.

Sophistry.  Look who's talking: "jumping to conclusions?"  You wouldn't do
that yourself, right?  All YOU address is your own convictions, regardless
whether we come up with any Biblical scriptures which supports our points
of view, because you reject such interpretations without any consideration
whatsoever.

#
# The Bible states that Lucifer was created.  The Bible states that Jesus
# is the creator of all. The contradiction that we have is that the LDS
# belief is that Jesus and Lucifer were the same.

A beautiful example of disinformation and a deliberate misrepresentation
of lds doctrine.  The former KGB would have loved to employ you.
Jesus and lucifer are not "the same," silly, and you know it.

(...)

# The Mormon belief is that all are children of God. Literally. There is
# nothing symbolic about it. This however, contradicts what the Bible
# says. The Bible teaches that not everyone is a child of God:

Correction: it may contradict would YOU think the Bible says.  The Bible
indeed does teach that not all are children of God in the sense that they
"belong to" or follow God in His footsteps.  Satan and his followers have
rebelled against God, and are not "children (=followers/redeemed) of God,"
but it doesn't mean that they were not once created by God, but chose to
separate themselves from those who chose to follow God and His plan of
salvation.

#
#        The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the
#        kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked "one";
#        (Matthew 13:38)

So?  --This illustrates nicely what I just said: the children of the
kingdom are those who have remained valiant in their testimony of Jesus
(and have shown "works of repentance, etc.), and the children of the
wicked one are those who rebelled against God and the lamb.  The issue
of satan's spirit-offspring (and those who followed him) has not been
addressed in this and other verses you copied from your Bible.  You
purposefully obscured the subject by swamping your "right" with non-
related scriptures.

(...lots of nice scriptures deleted (NOT Robert W. copyrighted) though...)

#ra> > We are told that, "And this is life eternal, that they might know
#ra> > thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
#ra> > (John 17:3). Life eternal is to know the only true God. Yet the
#ra> > doctrines of the LDS that I have mentioned portray a vastly
#ra> > different Jesus, a Jesus that cannot be reconciled with the Jesus of
#ra> > the Bible. They are so far removed from each other that to proclaim

Correction: "my" Jesus is indeed different than your Jesus, and CAN be
reconciled with the Jesus in the Bible.  --Not your interpretation of Him,
I concur, but I honestly couldn't care less.

#ra> > one as being true denies the other from being true. According to the
#ra> > Bible, eternal life is dependent on knowing the only true God, and
#ra> > not the construct of imagination.

In this single posting of yours, I've seen more "constructs of imagination"
than in all of the pro-lds mails combined I have read so far in this news
group.  First get your lds-facts straight before you dare preaching to us
about "the only true God," whom you interpret according to your own likes
and dislikes, but whose image I cannot reconcile with what I know about
Him myself.  I guess your grandiose self-image does not allow for other
faiths, believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ, but in a different
way or fashion than your own.  Not that it really matters, the mission
and progress of the lds church will go on, boldly and nobly, and no mob
or opponent can stop the work from progressing, until it has visited
every continent, swept every clime, and sounded in every ear.

#  This is really a red herring. It doesn't address any issue raised, but
#  rather, it seeks to obfuscate. The fact that some groups try to read
#  something into the Bible, doesn't change what the Bible teaches.

Sigh.  "What the Bible teaches"?  Or: "what the bible teaches according to
Robert Weiss and co.?"  I respect the former, I reject the latter without
the remotest feeling that I have rejected Jesus.  On the contrary.  And by
the way, I do respect your interpretations of the Bible, I even grant you
being a Christian (following your own image of Him), as much as I am a
Christian (following my own image of Him in my heart).

(...)

#  Most of the other replies have instead hop-scotched to the issue of
#  Bruce McConkie and whether his views were 'official doctrine.' I don't
#  think that it matters if McConkie's views were canon. That is not the
#  issue.  Were McConkie's writings indicative of Mormon belief on this
#  subject is the real issue. The indication from Rick is that they may
#  certainly be.

The issue is, of course, that you love to use anything to either mis-
represent or ridicule the lds church.  The issue of "official doctrine"
is obviously very important.  McConkie's views have been controversial
(e.g. "The Seven Deadly Heresies" has made me a heretic!  ;-) at best,
or erroneous at worst ("blacks not to receive the priesthood in this
dispensation").  I respect him as someone who has made his valuable
contribution to the church, but I personally do NOT rely on his personal
interpretations (his book "Mormon Doctrine" is oftentimes referred to
as "McConkie's Bible" in mormon circles) on mormon doctrine.  I rather
look to official (doctrinal) sources, and... to Hugh Nibley's books!
(The last comment is an lds-insider reference.)  Summarizing: McConkie
was a wise man who contributed undoubtedly far more to the kingdom of
God than I have, but whose views are by no means dogma or accepted
doctrine, some of it clearly belongs to personal interpretation and
speculation.  But having said this, I find McConkie (even in his most
biased and speculative moments) far more thought-provoking than the
trash coming from your proverbial pen.  I'm somewhat appalled that I have
allowed myself to sink as low as you in this posting...

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu


Casper C. Knies              isscck@byuvm.bitnet
Brigham Young University     isscck@vm.byu.edu
UCS Computer Facilities

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83483
From: russpj@microsoft.com (Russ Paul-Jones)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is 

In article <1993Apr16.193723.19050@asl.dl.nec.com> duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy) writes:
>
>How does one falsify any origin theory? For example, are a forever existing
>universe or abiogenesis strictly falsifiable?

The same way that any theory is proven false.  You examine the predicitions
that the theory makes, and try to observe them.  If you don't, or if you
observe things that the theory predicts wouldn't happen, then you have some 
evidence against the theory.  If the theory can't be modified to 
incorporate the new observations, then you say that it is false.

For example, people used to believe that the earth had been created
10,000 years ago.  But, as evidence showed that predictions from this 
theory were not true, it was abandoned.

-Russ Paul-Jones
russpj@microsoft.com

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83484
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is oxymoronic?

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article <1qcq3f$r05@fido.asd.sgi.com>, by livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com 
> (Jon Livesey):
> > If there is a Western ethic against infanticide, why
> > are so many children dying all over the world?
> 
> The majority of the world isn't "Western".

Superficially a good answer, but it isn't that simple.  An awful lot of the
starvation and poverty in the world is directly caused by the economic
policies of the Western countries, as well as by the diet of the typical
Westerner.  For instance, some third-world countries with terrible
malnutrition problems export all the soya they can produce -- so that it can
be fed to cattle in the US, to make tender juicy steaks and burgers.  They
have to do this to get money to pay the interest on the crippling bank loans
we encouraged them to take out.  Fund-raising for Ethiopia is a truly bizarre
idea; instead, we ought to stop bleeding them for every penny they've got.

Perhaps it's more accurate to say that there's a Western ethic against
Western infanticide.  All the evidence suggests that so long as the children
are dying in the Third World, we couldn't give a shit.  And that goes for the
supposed "Pro-Life" movement, too.  They could save far more lives by
fighting against Third World debt than they will by fighting against
abortion.  Hell, if they're only interested in fetuses, they could save more
of those by fighting for human rights in China.

And besides, Suzanne's answer implies that non-Western countries lack this
ethic against infanticide.  Apart from China, with its policy of mandatory
forced abortion in Tibet, I don't believe this to be the case.


mathew

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83485
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> In article <1qg8bu$kl5@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon
> Livesey) writes:
> #And this "objective morality" is........?
> 
> And here, children, we have a person playing the "objective morality doesn't 
> exist, show me one" game.  You can play this with just about anything:
> 
> And this "objective medicine" is.....?
> And this "objective physics" is.....?
> And this "objective reality" is.....?

Precisely.

There's no objective medicine; some people get marvellous results from
alternative therapy, others only respond to traditional medicine.

There's no objective physics; Einstein and Bohr have told us that.

There's no objective reality.  LSD should be sufficient to prove that.

> One wonders just what people who ask such questions understand by the term 
> "objective", if anything.

I consider it to be a useful fiction; an abstract ideal we can strive
towards.  Like an ideal gas or a light inextensible string, it doesn't
actually exist; but we can talk about things as if they were like it, and not
be too far wrong.


mathew

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83486
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> (b) I am neither a Christian nor a theist, but I believe in objective
> morality in preference to a relativist soup of gobbledegook.

Well, there are two approaches we can take here.  One is to ask you what this
objective morality is, assuming it's not a secret.

The other is to ask you what you think is wrong with relativism, so that we
can correct your misconceptions :-)


mathew

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83487
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> I am not a Christian, however I suspect that all flavours of 
> Christianity hold that (a) objective morality exists and (b) their
> particular interpretation of scripture/revelation/TV is a goodly glimpse
> of it.  That they may all disagree about (b) says nothing about the truth 
> or falsehood of (a).

Actually, they generally claim that (b) their particular interpretation of
scripture/revelation *is* this objective morality.  That there are two
conflicting versions of this objective morality does tell us something about
(a).  It tells us at least one fake objective morality exists.

The next logical step is to deduce that any given religion's objective
morality could be the fake one.  So caveat emptor.


mathew
-- 
Atheism: Anti-virus software for the mind.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83488
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1993Apr17.162105.3303@scic.intel.com> sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth J. Bradley) writes:

>Ifone simply says "God did it", then that is not falsifiable.

	Unless God admits that he didn't do it....

	=)


---  

  " I'd Cheat on Hillary Too."

   John Laws
   Local GOP Reprehensitive
   Extolling "Traditional Family Values."





Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83490
Subject: Re: "lds" Rick's reply
From: <ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET>


Robert Weiss (psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu) writes:

#Rick Anderson replied to my letter with...
#
#ra> In article <C5ELp2.L0C@acsu.buffalo.edu>,
#ra> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) says:
#ra>

(...)

# Just briefly, on something that you mentioned in passing. You refer to
# differing interpretations of "create," and say that many Christians may
# not agree. So what? That is really irrelevant. We do not base our faith
# on how many people think one way or another, do we? The bottom line is
# truth, regardless of popularity of opinions.

It may be "irrelevant" to you and *your* personal beliefs (or should I say
"bias"?), but it is relevant to me and many others.  You're right, "the
bottom line IS truth," independant from you or anyone else.  Since you
proclaim "truths" as a self-proclaimed appointee, may I ask you by what
authority you do this?  Because "it says so in the Bible?"  --Does the
Bible "say so," or is it YOU, or someone else, who interprets whether a
scripture or doctrine conforms to your particular liking or "disapproval"?

Excuse moi, but your line of "truths" haven't moved me one bit to persuade
me that my beliefs are erroneous.  Of all the "preachers" of "truth" on
this net, you have struck me as a self-righteous member of the wrecking
crew, with no positive message to me or any other Latter-day Saint...
BTW, this entire discussion reminds me a lot of the things said by Jesus
to the pharisees: "ye hypocrite(s) . . . ye preach about me with your lips,
but your hearts are far removed from me..."

# Also, I find it rather strange that in trying to persuade that created
# and eternally existent are equivalent, you say "granted the Mormon
# belief..." You can't grant your conclusion and then expect the point to
# have been addressed. In order to reply to the issue, you have to address
# and answer the point that was raised, and not just jump to the
# conclusion that you grant.

Sophistry.  Look who's talking: "jumping to conclusions?"  You wouldn't do
that yourself, right?  All YOU address is your own convictions, regardless
whether we come up with any Biblical scriptures which supports our points
of view, because you reject such interpretations without any consideration
whatsoever.

#
# The Bible states that Lucifer was created.  The Bible states that Jesus
# is the creator of all. The contradiction that we have is that the LDS
# belief is that Jesus and Lucifer were the same.

A beautiful example of disinformation and a deliberate misrepresentation
of lds doctrine.  The former KGB would have loved to employ you.
Jesus and lucifer are not "the same," silly, and you know it.

(...)

# The Mormon belief is that all are children of God. Literally. There is
# nothing symbolic about it. This however, contradicts what the Bible
# says. The Bible teaches that not everyone is a child of God:

Correction: it may contradict would YOU think the Bible says.  The Bible
indeed does teach that not all are children of God in the sense that they
"belong to" or follow God in His footsteps.  Satan and his followers have
rebelled against God, and are not "children (=followers/redeemed) of God,"
but it doesn't mean that they were not once created by God, but chose to
separate themselves from those who chose to follow God and His plan of
salvation.

#
#        The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the
#        kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked "one";
#        (Matthew 13:38)

So?  --This illustrates nicely what I just said: the children of the
kingdom are those who have remained valiant in their testimony of Jesus
(and have shown "works of repentance, etc.), and the children of the
wicked one are those who rebelled against God and the lamb.  The issue
of satan's spirit-origin (and of those who followed him) has not been
addressed in this and other verses you copied from your Bible.  You
purposefully obscured the subject by swamping your "right" with non-
related scriptures.

(...lots of nice scriptures deleted (NOT Robert W. copyrighted) though...)

#ra> > We are told that, "And this is life eternal, that they might know
#ra> > thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
#ra> > (John 17:3). Life eternal is to know the only true God. Yet the
#ra> > doctrines of the LDS that I have mentioned portray a vastly
#ra> > different Jesus, a Jesus that cannot be reconciled with the Jesus of
#ra> > the Bible. They are so far removed from each other that to proclaim

Correction: "my" Jesus is indeed different than your Jesus, and CAN be
reconciled with the Jesus in the Bible.  --Not your interpretation of Him,
I concur, but I honestly couldn't care less.

#ra> > one as being true denies the other from being true. According to the
#ra> > Bible, eternal life is dependent on knowing the only true God, and
#ra> > not the construct of imagination.

In this single posting of yours, I've seen more "constructs of imagination"
than in all of the pro-lds mails combined I have read so far in this news
group.  First get your lds-facts straight before you dare preaching to us
about "the only true God," whom you interpret according to your own likes
and dislikes, but whose image I cannot reconcile with what I know about
Him myself.  I guess your grandiose self-image does not allow for other
faiths, believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ, but in a different
way or fashion than your own.  Not that it really matters, the mission
and progress of the lds church will go on, boldly and nobly, and no mob
or opponent can stop the work from progressing, until it has visited
every continent, swept every clime, and sounded in every ear.

#  This is really a red herring. It doesn't address any issue raised, but
#  rather, it seeks to obfuscate. The fact that some groups try to read
#  something into the Bible, doesn't change what the Bible teaches.

Sigh.  "What the Bible teaches"?  Or: "what the bible teaches according to
Robert Weiss and co.?"  I respect the former, I reject the latter without
the remotest feeling that I have rejected Jesus.  On the contrary.  And by
the way, I do respect your interpretations of the Bible, I even grant you
being a Christian (following your own image of Him), as much as I am a
Christian (following my own image of Him in my heart).

(...)

#  Most of the other replies have instead hop-scotched to the issue of
#  Bruce McConkie and whether his views were 'official doctrine.' I don't
#  think that it matters if McConkie's views were canon. That is not the
#  issue.  Were McConkie's writings indicative of Mormon belief on this
#  subject is the real issue. The indication from Rick is that they may
#  certainly be.

The issue is, of course, that you love to use anything to either mis-
represent or ridicule the lds church.  The issue of "official doctrine"
is obviously very important.  McConkie's views have been controversial
(e.g. "The Seven Deadly Heresies" has made me a heretic!  ;-) at best,
or erroneous at worst ("blacks not to receive the priesthood in this
dispensation").  I respect him as someone who has made his valuable
contribution to the church, but I personally do NOT rely on his personal
interpretations (his book "Mormon Doctrine" is oftentimes referred to
as "McConkie's Bible" in mormon circles) on mormon doctrine.  I rather
look to official (doctrinal) sources, and... to Hugh Nibley's books!
(The last comment is an lds-insider reference.)  Summarizing: McConkie
was a wise man who contributed undoubtedly far more to the kingdom of
God than I have, but whose views are by no means dogma or accepted
doctrine, some of it clearly belongs to personal interpretation and
speculation.  But having said this, I find McConkie (even in his most
biased and speculative moments) far more thought-provoking than the
trash coming from your proverbial pen.  I'm somewhat appalled that I have
allowed myself to sink as low as you in this posting...

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu


Casper C. Knies              isscck@byuvm.bitnet
Brigham Young University     isscck@vm.byu.edu
UCS Computer Facilities

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83491
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!! (NOT!)

In article <sandvik-160493205451@sandvik-kent.apple.com> 
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <1993Apr16.181605.15072@ra.royalroads.ca>,
>mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
>> This brings up another question I still have to ponder:  why is there so 
>> much anti-Semitism?  Why do people hate Jews?  I don't hate Jews.  I consider
>> them to be like anyone else, sinners we all are.
>I don't know, I don't care about ethnical rights and wrongs myself,
>but it's evident that Christians consider Jews no longer to be the 
>sole selected group of God's people -- while Jews consider this to
>be the case.

Christian anti-Semitism comes from the obvious fact that the Jews should
know the Hebrew Scriptures better than anyone else, yet they did not
convert to Christianity en mass, thus rejecting "Christian Love."

>No wonder this caused anti-Semitism. One might even
>wonder that if Christianity didn't do this separation, would anti-Semitism
>have even started?

I don't see why not. Where are the rest of the tribal people? What
happened to the tribes of the Americas? Culture is seen as different and
undesirable in the West, particular in the US with its failed "melting
pot concept." Most tribes have been hunted to extinction, the Hebrew
tribe is one of the few survivers from the Neolithic. Of course it
becomes difficult at times to separate Christianity from the Western
experience, so perhaps you are right, perhaps it would have been a better 
world if the cultural experiment in Christianity never happened.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83492
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Flaming Nazis

In article <1993Apr18.020655.14233@news.cs.brandeis.edu> deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>Okay, I'll bite. I should probably leave this alone, but what the heck...
>
>In article <1993Apr14.124301.422@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>, 
>gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>>In article <TT3R2B5w165w@brewich.hou.tx.us> popec@brewich.hou.tx.us
>>(Pope Charles) writes:
>>
>>>Rhoemer was the name of the guy responsible for much of the uniforms, 
>>>and props used by the early Nazis in their rallies and such.
>>
>>The name is Roehm, not Rhoemer.  And Hitler does claim that he came up
>>with the Swastika business.
>
>But didn't he credit the actual flag design to a party member - some dentist or
>other? I believe he gives such credit in Mein Kampf.
>
>>>He was killed in an early Nazi purge. He and many of his associates
>>>were flaming homosexuals well know also for their flamboyant orgies.
>>
>>I have been trying to find if there is any actual evidence for this
>>common assertion recently.  Postings to such groups as soc.history and
>>soc.culture.german has not uncovered any net.experts who could provide
>>any. 
>
>Well, I'm no expert, but all of the histories of Nazi Germany assert this. They
>make reference to several scandals that occurred long before "the night of the
>long knives". The impression that I got was that homosexuality in portions of
>the SA was common knowledge. Also, a book (by a homosexual author whose name
>escapes me at the moment) called "Homosexuals in History" asserts that Roehm
>and Heines were homosexuals, as well as others in Roehm's SA circle.

[Rest deleted.  Can anybody out in a.p.h help out?]

Find out about "the night of the brown shirts".
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83494
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Christians above the Law? was Clarification of personal position

In article <C5MuIw.AqC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> 
dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
>... other good stuff deleted ...
>You can worship every day of the week.  The issue is not whether
>Christians are at fault for going to church on Sunday or for not going to
>church on Saturday.  Attending a church service does not mean you have
>recognized the holiness of that day (my apologies to  Paul Hudson).  The
>question is "On what authority do we proclaim that the requirements of the
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>fourth commandment are no longer relevant to modern Christians?"  Please
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>note that the commandment does not command you to go to church, only to
>keep it holy unto the Lord by refraining from doing on it what only serves
>to give you pleasure and satisfaction.

When are we going to hear a Christian answer to this question? 

In paraphrase: 

On what or whose authority do Christians proclaim that they
are above the Law and above the Prophets (7 major and 12 minor) and not 
accountable to the Ten Commandments of which Jesus clearly spoke His opinion 
in Matthew 5:14-19? What is the source of this pseudo-doctrine? Who is
the pseudo-teacher? Who is the Great Deceiver?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83495
From: zxmkr08@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Cornelius Krasel)
Subject: Re: The _real_ probability of abiogenesis (was Re: Albert Sabin)

In <1qc6tiINNhie@ctron-news.ctron.com> king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:

>adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:

>>1) We're not just talking about proteins.  In fact, we shouldn't be
>>talking about proteins at all, since (if I have to say this again I'm
>>goint to be really upset) *nobody*claims*that*proteins*appeared*de*
>>*novo*
>>the proteins did not form randomly.
>> 

>Before I repond to 2.), Andy, please clarify 1.).  You state that
>proteins did not form randomly.  That seems to be my point.  

Well, I am not Andy, but if you had familiarized yourself with some of
the current theories/hypotheses about abiogenesis before posting :-), you
would be aware of the fact that none of them claims that proteins were
assembled randomly from amino acids. It is current thinking that RNA-
based replicators came before proteinaceous enzymes, and that proteins
were assembled by some kind of primitive translation machinery.

Now respond to 2. :-)
--Cornelius.
-- 
/* Cornelius Krasel, Department of Physiological Chemistry, U Tuebingen    */ 
/* email: krasel@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de                             */
/* "People are DNA's way of making more DNA." (R. Dawkins / anonymous)     */

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83496
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: An invisible God!

In article <1993Apr17.152833.7811@maths.tcd.ie> 
pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:
>jmeritt@mental.MITRE.ORG (Jim Meritt - System Admin) writes:
>> God CAN be seen:
>>        "And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts."
>Wot? God's a mooner? 

Such lunacy!

>(Gee, maybe there's something in this Christianity thing after all -
>maybe God is John Belushi from "Animal House")

The SuperNatural One wants to have a personal relationship with you.
JHVH-1, come quick!

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83497
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Ignorance is BLISS, was Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <sandvik-170493104859@sandvik-kent.apple.com> 
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>Ignorance is not bliss!

Ignorance is STRENGTH!

Help spread the TRUTH of IGNORANCE!

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83498
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Christians above the Law, was Clarification of personal position

In article <sandvik-170493104641@sandvik-kent.apple.com> 
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>My online Bible is on a CD, but I don't own a CD-ROM system for the
>time being, so I can't search for the famous cite where Jesus explicitly
>states that he didn't want to break existing (Jewish) laws. In other
>words technically speaking Christians should use Saturday and not Sunday
>as their holy day, if they want to conform to the teachings of Jesus.

Who said Christians want to conform to the teachings of Jesus?

"You are the light of the world. A city can't be hidden lying on a
mountaintop. Nor do people light a candle and cover it with a big
basket; they put it up on a tall candlestick where it can shine for
everyone in the house. That's how your light must shine in front of the
world, so that people see your good deeds and give credit to your Father
in the skies. Don't think I came to dissolve The Law [Torah aka First
Five Books] or The Prophets: [7 major plus 12 minor] I didn't come to
dissolve them, I came to fulfill them. I assure you, till the sky and
the earth go away, not one letter or punctuation mark of The Law will
ever go away until everthing has come to pass. So anyone who dissolves
even one of the smallest commandments and teaches others the same way,
will be known as the lowest in the kingdom of the skies; whereas anyone
who keeps the commands and teaches them too, will be known as someone
great in the kingdom of the skies."  Matt5:14-19, Gaus, ISBN:0-933999-99-2

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83499
From: buddha@iastate.edu (Scott H Vann)
Subject: The bad press Islam has recieved.


	I recently read an article in a local paper written by an Islamic
  person who was upset with the way Islam has been portrayed by western media.
  When a terrorist action takes place in the middle east, it is always played
  up as an Islamic Terrorist.  However, when the a Serbian terrorist attacks
  the Croations, its not a Christian terrorist, its just a terrorist.
	I have often tried to explain this to some close friends who believe
  the press, that Islam is somehow tied to violence.  Often times you hear
  things like "They just don't value human life like we do..." and so on.
  I was wondering if anyone out there had any suggestions for how we can
  change this image, or how I can help my friends to see that this is just 
  hype.  I would appreciate any serious suggestions or comments via e-mail,
  and I'm not interested in hearing about how right the press is.

					-Scott Vann
					buddha@iastate.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83500
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Spreading Christianity (Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor)

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

->I addressed most of the key issues in this very long (284 lines) post
->by Dean Kaflowitz in two posts yesterday.  The first was made into the
->title post of a new thread, "Is Dean Kaflowitz terminally irony-impaired?"
->and the second, more serious one appeared along the thread
->"A Chaney Post, and a Challenge, reissued and revised"

if you're so insecure about people reading your posts
that you feel the need to write new posts announcing
what you wrote in old, posts, why bother? accept it
PHoney, you're a laughingstock.




Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83501
From: alamut@netcom.com (Max Delysid (y!))
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!

In article <1qppef$i5b@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes:
>
>     Name just three *really* competing Rosicrucian Orders. I have
>probably spent more time than you doing the same. 
>
>     None of them are spin-offs from O.T.O. The opposite may be the
>case. 

Can we assume from this statement that you are >unequivocally< saying that
AMORC is not a spin off of OTO? .. and that in fact, OTO may well be a spin
off of AMORC??
i would be quite interested in hearing what evidence you have to support this
claim. 

>Study Harder,

Study Smarter, not Harder! :-)



-- 
--->|<-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<---|--->  More. More of Everything. More of Everything for Everybody.
  <-|-> "Real total war has become information war, it is being fought now..."
<---|---> !MaX! Delysid - alamut@netcom.com - ALamutBBS 415.431.7541 1:125/51
--->|<-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83503
From: dickeney@access.digex.com (Dick Eney)
Subject: Re: Swastika (was: Hitler - pagan or Christian?)

The observation that the Tree of Life would rotate clockwise in the
northern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the southern probably doesn't
give enough consideration to the feebleness of the Coriolis force compared
to, say, the phototropism of vegetation.  A much more likely explanation
is the classic one: that the clockwise swastika is the Sun-wheel, because
the sun progresses across the sky that way.  (Although that's not the
historical way it happened; clocks were first made as little imitation
images of the sun moving thru the heavens.  So it's more valid to talk of
the clock going sunwise, but do the engineers listen to me?  Of course
not.)  Anyway, there is still much uncertainty about whether the
anti-swastika goes counter-sunwise because that represents Evil, or
because it is the Sun's twin-opposite, the Moonwheel.  The use of anti-Sun
to represent Evil may be because humans are so strongly visually-oriented,
but I'm not going to try to settle THAT one just now.
-- Diccon Frankborn (dickeney@access.digex.com)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83504
From: dickeney@access.digex.com (Dick Eney)
Subject: Re: Swastika (was: Hitler - pagan or Christian?)

RE: Red, wwhite, and black, the colors of the Imperial German war-flag --

Go further back still.  There are +XVIII Prussian drinking songs
celebrating the red, the white and the black -- the colors, as Fletcher
Pratt points out, of blood and iron.
-- Diccon Frankborn

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83505
From: dickeney@access.digex.com (Dick Eney)
Subject: Re: Flaming Nazis

The trouble with trying to find out the truth is that Roehm and his
buddies were ACCUSED OF being flaming faggots, one of the pretexts for the
Night of Long Knives in which Roehm and most of the SA wing of the NSDAP
were purged.  Since the accusers thereafter controlled the records,
anything bearing on the subject -- true or not -- has to be considered
tainted evidence.  The available data suggest that Roehm and his crowd,
the SA -- Sturmabteilung, "Storm Troopers" -- left the world a better
place when they departed, but concrete particulars are still no more than
more or less shrewd guesses.  
-- Diccon Frankborn

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83506
From: Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Subject: Re: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars

930418

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. [Honestly.]
The word of Sin is Restriction. [Would I kid you?]


Does one man's words encompass the majestic vision of thousands
of individuals?  Quoting a man is not the same as quoting the
Order.  Taken out of context, words can be interpreted much
differently than had one applied them within the confines of
their original expression.

I think this is the case regarding Hymenaeus Beta, Frater Superior 
of the Order to which I belong.  When he included that bit
from Merlinus X' he did us all a service.  He showed us the extremes
to which Order members have been known to go in their fervor.
I have little knowledge regarding Reuss' background, but surely
he was an unusual man, and he was an important force in the Order 
for many years.

Yet as people change so do Orders change, and while we look back
so carefully at the dirty laundry of O.T.O. remember that this is
only the surface skim and that many perspectives are now encompassed
which extend beyond any one individual.  I hope to show that there
was and is much room for a difference of opinion within the Order
itself, perhaps by testing the limits myself.


Let us examine this issue a bit more closely....

"In 1895, Karl Kellner (1850-1905), a wealthy Austrian industrialist
and paper chemist, as well as a high-grade Mason, founded the Ordo
Templi Orientis.  Kellner had traveled widely in the East, where he
met three adepts who instructed him specific magical practices.  
Kellner's efforts to develop the Order were later assisted by Franz
Hartmann, Heinrich Klein and Theodore Reuss, who had worked together
prior to joining the O.T.O.  The Order was first proclaimed in 1902
in Reuss's Masonic publication, 'Oriflamme'.  On Kellner's death,
Reuss succeeded him as Outer Head [O.H.O.].  The 'Jubilee' edition of
the 'Oriflamme', published in 1912, announced that the Order taught
secret of sexual magic.
 
"Theodore Reuss was an interesting character.  Born June 28, 1855 in
Augsburg, he entered Masonry in 1876.  He was a singer, journalist and
possibly a spy for the Prussian political police, infiltrating the Socialist
League founded by Karl Marx's daughter and her husband.  Reuss was
later associated with William Wynn Westcott, a leader of the Golden
Dawn, who later introduced him to John Yarker.  Yarker chartered Reuss to
found the Rites of Memphis and Mizraim in Germany.  After several
attempts to concretize various Masonic Rites, Reuss settled on the
development of the O.T.O.

"The Order experienced reasonably steady growth under Reuss' leadership.
For example, he chartered Papus in France, Rudolph Steiner in Berlin
and H. Spencer Lewis in the USA.  In 1912, the historic meeting between
Reuss and Crowley occurred.  Crowley wrote that Reuss came to him and
accused him of revealing Order secrets.  When Crowley looked at it afresh,
the initiated interpretation of sexual magick unfolded itself to him for
the first time.  Reuss appointed Crowley as Supreme and Holy King of all
the English speaking world, and it was this authorization that he invoked
when publishing the material of the Equinox.

"Reuss resigned as Outer Head of the Order in 1922 after suffering a
stroke and named Crowley his successor.  All was well until 1925 when
_The Book of the Law_ was translated into German.  There was a break
in the continuity of the Order.  Manyk members split with the new O.H.O.
over the book, which Crowley was actively promulgating through the Order.
He had earlier revise dthe Order rituals at Reuss's request, deeply
infusing the doctrines of the New Aeon revelation."

_An Introduction to the History of the O.T.O._, by Ad Veritatem IX'

Within _Equinox III:10_, Edited by 
  Hymenaeus Beta, Frater Superior, Rex Summus Sanctissimus,
    Caliph of the United States of America,
      Published by Samuel Weiser, 1990.



There are many possible reasons that our Frater Superior included this
material in _Equinox III:10_.  And this is the real point, is it not?
Why did he wish to publish such things about the history of his own
organization?  Does he represent a dogmatic threat to the principle
of Thelema?  Or is he exercising his True Will and putting forth very
complex pictures with no easy answers?  A picture which leaves room
for very many interpretations.

It is quite easy for me to see, for example, that all of O.T.O. derived
out of the dribble of faltering Masonry, purchased by clever hucksters
with an ounce of courage and some writing ability to aid them.  And I
can take that all the way down to our present Caliph, whose feeble
support of the 'Law of Thelema' is laughable at best.

Would I be thrown out of the Order for speaking in this way?  
Will I?  
I think not.
Why?  Because my Frater will see it as a perspective, an interjection
I am using as an example.  My illustration shows that we may express things
in the context of a larger work and the true significance of this may be
quite difficult to apprehend at first.

So it may be with OTO and Merlinus X'.  Please look O.T.O. more carefully.
I do not support Reuss's words myself, as I am not qualified to assess
them, and I am critical of their pomposity.  If I who am a member of
the Order take such a stand and am allowed to continue doing so, then
what can this say about the health of the Order?  Does it mean that
the Order has 'gone soft' and abandoned its moral principles?  Or
does it mean that it is strong in its ability to let the will of
universal kinship arise on its own, not shackled by some dogmatic
requirement?  How shall we resolve these two possibilities?


I find a high calibre of individual associated with Ordo Templi Orientis.
They are often quite intelligent and sometimes very well versed in arcane
or usual information.  They are quite often artists and geniuses.  
Having met some 20 longstanding members in the SF Bay Area (many who are or
were very heavily involved with the Order), I can vouch for the integrity
of the organization as it stands.

I have sometimes questioned the policy of Hymenaeus Beta.  In these moments 
I followed my intuition, and I've found little to stop me from requesting
a Second initiation from a different O.T.O. body.  I'm happily participating
in social groups (Feasts or Initiations) and have come to know the Gnostic
Mass well enough for my tastes.
 

This doesn't make me an authority on Order politics and explanations, however.
I can only hypothesize and relay to you what I understand based on my
limited contact with other members.

I urge you not to take the words of Merlinus X too far.  There are many
ways to interpret words, and many people who have become involved with
the Order feel very strongly about the sanctity of personal freedom
and the preservation of individual vision.

I welcome other comment on this issue and will be writing more in response
to other posts in this thread.


Invoke me under my stars.  Love is the law, love under will.

I am I!

Frater (I) Nigris (DCLXVI) CCCXXXIII

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83507
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin
From: rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota)

In article <1993Apr15.231515.19982@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
>In article <C5FtJt.885@sunfish.usd.edu>, rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota) writes:
>|> In article <1993Apr10.213547.17644@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
>|> 
>|> [earlier dialogue deleted]
>|> 
>|> >|> Perhaps you should read it and stop advancing the Bible as evidence relating 
>|> >|> to questions of science.  
>|> 
>|> [it = _Did Jesus exist?_ by G. A. Wells]
>|> 
>|> >     There is a great fallacy in your statement. The question of origins is
>|> >     based on more than science alone.  
>|> 
>|> Nope, no fallacy.  Yep, science is best in determining how; religions handle
>|> why and who.
>
>        The problem is that most scientists exclude the possibility of the
>        supernatural in the question of origins.  Is this is a fair premise?

Not entirely.  Its not a premise, its a conclusion.  Second, that scientists
(for the most part) exlude the possibility is not a problem, its a necessity. 
Scientists are empircists, not theologians.

>        I utterly reject the hypothesis that science is the highest form of
>        truth.

So do scientists, and long before you did.  Clearly you have a deep and 
fundamental misunderstanding of science.

>|> 
>|> >     If you met a man who could walk on
>|> >     water, raise people from the dead, claimed to be the Son of God, and
>|> >     then referred to the inviolability of the scriptures, this would affect
>|> >     your belief in the origin of man.  (I can expand on this.)  
>|> 
>|> Nope, wouldn't affect my knowledge (not belief) of origins of anatomically
>|> modern humans.  If that man could show me something better, I'd change, even if 
>|> it was the biblical story in exact detail.  But then I would ask, "Why in the
>|> world did your father endow us with intellect and reason, and then proceed to
>|> fool us.  I mean, the bible says nothing about the human-like creatures that we
>|> know exist.
>
>        Some of these so-called human-like creatures were apes.  Some were
>        humans.  Some were fancifully reconstructed from fragments.

Absolutely and utterly false (except for some were AMHs). Lucy (Australopithecus
afarensis, ca. 3 to 3.25 mya) is 40% complete, and about 80% taking into 
consideration bilateral symmetry.  Lucy walked upright and bipedally, just 
like humans, and the two share a remarkably similar dental pattern.  Her
cranial morphology is unlike humans or modern apes.  There are hundreds of 
other specimens of this and other species, of which only some are *partially* 
reconstructed.  They exist Bill.  You can touch them, feel them, hold them.  
But forget hominids.  The earth, the universe, the cultural record all look and 
test out as ancient indeed.  They are not reconstructions.  Has God has tricked
us here too?  It won't go away, Bill.
  

>
>|> 
>|> I doubt any of us will meet a man like this.  But, Bill, if your version of all
>|> this is absolutely correct, I'm still no worried about my salvation.  I'll
>|> probaby make it (I don't steal, murder, covet, etc, and I like to help other
>|> people).  All I did was use the reason and intellect your god provided. 
>|> He or she - benevolent and loving - will understand my dilemma, don't you
>|> think? 
>           Good deeds do not justify a person in God's sight.
>           An atonement (Jesus) is needed to atone for sin.

So *you* and other fundamentalists say.  What about the billions who don't 
say so?  Beware of people who say they have the truth, Bill, and reconsider
each time you think you do.

>|> 
>|> >  Science and
>|> >  the Bible are not in contradiction.  God can supercede the scientific
>|> >  "laws" as man understands them.  Creation is a good example.  God has the
>|> >  power to create something out of nothing, order out of chaos.
>|> 
>|> Haven't been on t.o. long, but I have a feeling, Bill, that the veterans will
>|> agree with you here.  No contradiciton, and god *can* do anything at will.  So,
>|> what's the beef? (or more properly, "where's")
>
>     My point: God is the creator.  Look's like we agree.

That was not your point, Bill.  Your point above was God *has* the power ....
Scientists generally agree with that.  That's a far cry from saying God did.
Please attempt to understand your own posts.
 
>|> 
>|> >    If the title of the book you mentioned has anything to do with the 
>|> >    substance of the book, it must be a real laugher.  Of course Jesus existed,
>|> >    and there are volumes of evidence to back it up.  I can give many if you
>|> >    are interested.
>|> 
>|> Its not a laugher, Bill.  Its a scholarly book that many happen to disagree
>|> with.  I am definitely (and seriously) interested in confirmation.  I know of
>|> the bible, inferences therefrom (e.g., prophecies), apocrypha, the Koran and
>|> others.  What I am interested is independent evidence.  Do you have any?  I
>|> know of Josephus, but this is almost certainly an insertion.  Also I know of a
>|> few Roman documents (e.g., Pliny), but these deal only with early Christians.
>|> Do you have any independent evidence?  I am most interested.  Please Email or 
>|> post.  Thanks, and best regards.
>
>     I'll send you some info via e-mail.
>     Regards, Bill.

I have your info, and I have replied - several days ago.  Hope you have it.  
Somehow your post above appeared at my server only today.


Rich Fox, Anthro, Usouthdakota

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83508
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!

In article <sandvik-160493205355@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, 
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes...

>(stephen) wrote:
>> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) quotes ML...

>> >> Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied
>> >> only to God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We
>> >> are living in the age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable
>> >> by death.  There is repentance and there is salvation through our
>> >> Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just for a few chosen people.  Salvation
>> >> is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile alike. 
>> >
>> >Jews won't agree with you, Malcolm.
>> 
>> Which Jews KS? 
> 
>Most religious Jews with the exception of the Messianic ones and 
>atheists/agnostics, Malcolm.

KS, I see you're wanting Malcolm's response. Allow me one last inter-
jection then please:

Distinguishing among the religious Jews, you've excepted the Messianic
for obvious reasons. Specifically, are you saying it's these religious 
Jews, who trace their lineage back to Abraham by blood and orthodoxy, 
rather than by faith, who won't agree?  Orthodox Jews?  

As to the a/a (if I understand your direction), the issue remains 
unproven I suspect, considering how atheists and agnostics so often 
look to reason. Atheist, it is reasonable to conclude will not agree.
For agnostics, a poll seems in order. Who knows?  Myself, I'm not so 
sure the atheists can be counted out. 

For the orthodox, I wonder how many would follow Moses, or Abraham,
or David in accepting God's Word? Is the particular covenant to which
one adheres, more important than God promisimg? I reckon for many it
depends on the ongoing dialogue. Under these considerations, you might 
understand why I think it's premature to assert who will and won't agree.

   |
-- J --
   |
   | stephen


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83509
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is oxymoronic

In article <930416.140529.9M1.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> 
mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>Not, of course, The Greatest Salesman in the World. That was Jesus, wasn't it?
>No, J.R. "Bob" Dobbs.

Definitely, J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, numero uno, top dog, not one can touch, not
one can knock Bob out of the box. Bob kills me mon! Everyday!

But close El Segundo (el subliminal) is the infamous Paul (birthname Saul) the
Evangeline who became famous as a result of his numerous trampoline act 
tours of the eastern Mediterranean.

Jesus on the other hand was duped, a pawn of the Con, fell pray to the
Holywood Paradox (ain't nothing but a sign in the hills!). Like many
Afro-Asians, Jesus found the earth all too pink! And to think that after
his death, the Con changed him into a tall blond Holywood sun god! And I 
do mean that in the kindest way possums! Now Jesus does gigs with Hendrix, 
Joplin, Morrison, Lennon, Marley, Tosh, etc. Mostly ska beat jah-know!

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83510
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin
From: rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota)

In article <1993Apr15.225657.17804@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
>|> >|> 
>|> However, one highly biased account (as well as possibly internally 
>|> inconsistent) written over 2 mellenia ago, in a dead language, by fanatic
>|> devotees of the creature in question which is not supported by other more 
>|> objective sources and isnt  even accepted by those who's messiah this creature 
>|> was supposed to be, doesn't convince me in the slightest, especially when many
>|> of the current day devotees appear brainwashed into believing this pile of 
>|> guano...
>
>       Since you have referred to the Messiah, I assume you are referring
>        to the New Testament.  Please detail your complaints or e-mail if
>        you don't want to post.  First-century Greek is well-known and
>        well-understood.  Have you considered Josephus, the Jewish Historian,
>        who also wrote of Jesus?  In addition, the four gospel accounts
>        are very much in harmony.  

Bill, I have taken the time to explain that biblical scholars consider the
Josephus reference to be an early Christian insert.  By biblical scholar I mean
an expert who, in the course of his or her research, is willing to let the
chips fall where they may.  This excludes literalists, who may otherwise be
defined as biblical apologists.  They find what they want to find.  They are
not trustworthy by scholarly standards (and others).

Why an insert?  Read it - I have, a number of times.  The passage is glaringly
out of context, and Josephus, a superb writer, had no such problem elsewhere 
in his work.  The passage has *nothing* to do with the subject matter in which 
it lies.  It suddenly appears and then just as quickly disappears.

Until you can demonstrate how and why the scholarly community is wrong about
the Josephus insert, your "proof" is meaningless and it should not be repeated
here.  What's more, even if Josephus happened to be legitimate, it would "prove"
nothing.  Scholars speak of the "weight of evidence."  Far more independent
evidence would be required to validate your claim.  Until forthcoming, your
belief is based on faith.  That's OK, but you exceed your rights when you pass
faith off as fact.

As for the gospels, there are parallels, but there are also glaring
inconsistencies and contradictions.  Shouldn't a perfect canon be perfect? 
Shouldn't there be absolutely no room for debate?  I suggest you read _Gospel 
Fictions_ by Randel Helms, and _The Unauthorized Version_ by Robin Fox (for 
Herb Huston, no known kinship or familial relationship, but we do indeed share 
an evolutionary ancestry).

The fact that there are inconsistencies, gaps and contradictions does not deny
your position.  On the other hand, neither do the gospels "prove" your faith. 
Independent evidence is necessary, and I know of none (which we have already
discussed, and so far you have not provided any).  Until then, its faith. 
Moreover, you have committed a fundamental error in logic.  You have attempted
to "prove" your claim with that which you want to prove.  Its no different than
saying "I am right because I say so."  

Your logic is full of circles.  It reminds me a bit of the 1910 Presbyterian 
General Assembly.  The assembly defined five fundamentals (this is where
"fundamentalist" came from) of orthodox Protestant Christianity, to wit: 1)
Jesus performed miracles, 2) Jesus was born of a virgin, 3) Jesus was bodily
resurrected, 4) Jesus' crucifixion atoned for human sin, and - here is the
clincher - 5) the bible is the inerrant word of God.  Presbyterians construe
"inerrant" broadly as spritually inerrant.  Fundamentalists take the
first four as literally true, and then validate them with a literally inerrant
bible, which contains the first four, and which is the only thing known to 
contain the first four.  

Smoke and mirrors and wands and hand waving if ever there was!

Its faith, Bill.  You don't have any more or better truths than anyone else. 
Whatever works for you.  Just don't foist it on others. 

Regards,

Rich Fox, Anthro, Usouthdakota

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83511
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Ignorance is BLISS, was Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <f1682Ap@quack.kfu.com>, pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
wrote:
> In article <sandvik-170493104859@sandvik-kent.apple.com> 
> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >Ignorance is not bliss!
 
> Ignorance is STRENGTH!
> Help spread the TRUTH of IGNORANCE!

Huh, if ignorance is strength, then I won't distribute this piece
of information if I want to follow your advice (contradiction above).


Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83512
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1qme79$c0k@kyle.eitech.com> ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1qm36b$gn2@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>In article <1qktj3$bn9@squick.eitech.com> ekr@squick.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>#In article <1qkn1t$59l@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>
>>#Like I said before, DES works whether I value my privacy or
>>#not.
>>
>>O.K., which DES?  The abstract function DES? that stops working in any 
>>important sense if no-one cares for the importance of truth, mathematics, 
>>meaning, information, etc.  A DES chip or DES s/w?  That stops working in any 
>>important sense if no-one values science, objective reality, etc.   DES
>>does not work in a value vacuum.  Nothing else does, either.
>
>This is just truth by blatant assertion. Your "in any important sense"
>seem to be just weasel words. Imagine that I have a box which
>accepts 16 bytes and uses the first 8 to ECB the second 8.
>It still does a perfect job of DESing, whether or not any input
>is being made at the time--whether or not anyone values mathematics..

If no-one looks at the results, or acknowledges their correctness, in what
meaningful sense can the chip be said to "work"?? Does flibozity exist?
By "flibozity", I mean a particular, extremely complex configuration of 
physical phenomena, which no-one, absolutely NO-ONE cares about in the 
slightest. Does it exist, Eric?

Getting back to the question of whether the DES chip "works", doesn't "work" 
mean something like "achieving the desired/expected effect"? Note the way 
intentionality subtly underlies that definition. Even if we take the 
definition as "expected", instead of "desired", can you deny that conformance 
to expectations is itself a value of sorts, namely the scientific values of 
accuracy-of-prediction and reproducibility-of-results?

The phenomenologist Husserl, for one, considered Intentionality to be the
primary ontological "stuff" from which all other ontology was built --
perceptions, consciousness, thoughts, etc. Frank is by no means alone in
seeing intentionality (or "values", as he puts it) underlying all human
experience, even the so-called "objective" experiences, such as 
measurements of the natural world, or the output of your DES chip.

								- Kevin

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83513
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is 

In article <1993Apr15.010329.23133@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>[Followups set out of talk.abortion...]
>
>In article <C5Fuo2.FF8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>>Am I reading this thread wrong or is this just another bemoaning of the fact
>>that Christianity has a code of objective morality?
>
>Please define this "objective morality".
>
>While you're at it, please state the theory of creationism.

Still searching for an irrelevant issue in which to mire a pro-lifer, I see.
Slimy tactic.

								- Kevin

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83514
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1qlvh1$fh0@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> In article <1qkn25$k@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> 
|> #Do you mean it's moral to use force on someone who advocates
|> #the use of force?
|> 
|> With a few provisos, yes.  Minimum force, for a start. And, it
|> depends on what is being forced (on either side).   
|> 
|> #Or do you mean that sometimes we have to use force on such
|> #people out of necessity or self-defence, while recognizing
|> #that our own actions in doing so are not moral?
|> 
|> My opinion is that our actions would be moral, and it would be
|> immoral not to act if action would be both necessary and effective.  
|> Again, there many caveats and provisios.
|> 
|> Note, my usage of "my opinion" is an admission that I don't have a lock
|> on morals, not that there is no truth about morality to have a lock on.

You're admitting a lot more than that.  You are admitting that
your morals are situational.   You are admitting that the actions
of other people and the situation you are in help to determine
how you judge the moral significance of one of your own actions.

If you employ X degree of force, that's not moral, but if you employ
X degree of force, but previously someone else has employed Y degree
of force, and the situation is thus-and-so, that *is* moral.

This is quite different from saying "Employing force on other people
is immoral, period.   Unfortunately, from time to time we are obliged
to do this immoral thing for reasons of self-preservation, and so
we have to bear the moral consequences of that.

For what it's worth - and yes, I know you claim to be an agnostic -
it's this ability to re-label things from "immoral" to "moral" 
that I find one of the *least* attractive qualities of the religious
mind.

jon.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83515
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1qm069$fm8@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> In article <1qkndq$k@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> #In article <1qjbn0$na4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> #|> In article <kmr4.1571.734847050@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
|> #|> #	You have only pushed back the undefined meaning. You must now define 
|> #|> #what "objective values" are.
|> #|> 
|> #|> Really?  You don't know what objective value is?  If I offered the people
|> #|> of the U.S., collectively, $1 for all of the land in America, would that 
|> #|> sound like a good deal?  
|> #
|> #You mean that if you can find a ridiculous price, the rest of
|> #us are supposed to conclude that an objectively correct price
|> #exists?
|> 
|> I said nothing about the price.  I asked if the deal was good.  It isn't.

So it was a complete non-sequitur, is that it?     How does coming
up with a derisory deal tell us anything about the existence of
"objective" values.

You're asking us to accept that the deal you offered would be turned
down, and we believe that, not because we appeal to objective values
but becasue we know, or think we know, something about people.

All the people we know exhibit *subjective* values that would lead
them to reject a deal of $1 for all of the land in America.

Great.   Now, so what?

jon. 

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83516
From: lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: The bad press Islam has recieved.

In article <buddha.735157446@du248-07.cc.iastate.edu> buddha@iastate.edu (Scott H Vann) writes:
>
>	I recently read an article in a local paper written by an Islamic
>  person who was upset with the way Islam has been portrayed by western media.
>  When a terrorist action takes place in the middle east, it is always played
>  up as an Islamic Terrorist.  However, when the a Serbian terrorist attacks
>  the Croations, its not a Christian terrorist, its just a terrorist.
>	I have often tried to explain this to some close friends who believe
>  the press, that Islam is somehow tied to violence.  Often times you hear
>  things like "They just don't value human life like we do..." and so on.
>  I was wondering if anyone out there had any suggestions for how we can
>  change this image, or how I can help my friends to see that this is just 
>  hype.  I would appreciate any serious suggestions or comments via e-mail,
>  and I'm not interested in hearing about how right the press is.

Very easily. Show them pictures of crime scenes perpetrated by Christian
terrorists in this country, if that doesn't convince them have them talk
to the victims of Christian terrorism. 

A brutal act of terrorism inspired by Christian propoganda was recently
commited on your very campus. 

Its very simple religious extremists of all religions put no value on
human life. Christian and Islamic fundamentalists put advancing there
religion above all else, even if doing so violates the religion itself.

P.S. I'm not saying all Christians are terrorists, I'm using "Christian
     terrorist" in the same way the media uses Islamic terrorist.
-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83517
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!



Kent: With all due respect, how can I take you seriously, when you have
the NAMES wrong in the 1st place? E.g.:

>
>The San Jose RC (Ordo Rosae Crucis) 

	There is no such thing. The correct name is Ancient & Mystical
Order Rosae Crucis, abbreviated AMORC.

>...and the Rocicrusian
>order created by Max Heindel.

	There is no such thing either. It's the Rosicrucian Fellowship.
And they clearly state that they DO NOT pretend to descend from the
Order of the Fama Fraternitatis.

>In addition there are many splinter groups
>all around Europe that all claim some connection with the original
>group supposedly founded in the middle ages.

The Lectorium? And who else?

>Some Freemason groups
>also have Rosicrucian-like separate groups, even if they are far
>from the ideologies the RC groups have somehow in common.

These are NOT Rosicrucian "orders". They are Masonic study groups, none
of which *claims* to be descendant of the original Order.

>
>We might compete about how much time we have spent with this :-). Let
>me start, I was part of the ORC for about 8 years.
>Kent
>
What is ORC? If you mean AMORC, you didn't even learn the correct
name?!

Tony


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83518
From: alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!

alamut@netcom.com (Max Delysid (y!)) writes:

> In article <1qppef$i5b@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony
> >
> >     Name just three *really* competing Rosicrucian Orders. I have
> >probably spent more time than you doing the same. 
> >
> >     None of them are spin-offs from O.T.O. The opposite may be the
> >case. 
> 
> Can we assume from this statement that you are >unequivocally< saying that
> AMORC is not a spin off of OTO? .. and that in fact, OTO may well be a spin
> off of AMORC??
> i would be quite interested in hearing what evidence you have to support this
> claim. 
> 
> 

Well, there is a fair amount of evidence floating around that indicates
that OTO has been around since at least the late 1800s, long before
Crowley ever heard of it, how long has AMORC been around? (yes, I know
that they claim to have existed as an organization clear into prehistory,
but I doubt that they have any organizational paperwork
as a non-profit that can be carbon-dated to 20,000 BC)
                                             A.Lizard

-------------------------------------------------------------------
A.Lizard Internet Addresses:
alizard%tweekco%boo@PacBell.COM        (preferred)
PacBell.COM!boo!tweekco!alizard (bang path for above)
alizard@gentoo.com (backup)
PGP2.2 public key available on request

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83519
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!


In a previous article, alamut@netcom.com (Max Delysid y!)) says:

>
>Can we assume from this statement that you are >unequivocally< saying that
>AMORC is not a spin off of OTO? 

Absolutely. Lewis didn't care for the 1921 O.T.O. charter from Reuss. He had
in mind something completely diferent. Crowley and Lewis were very
different persons, as you probably know.

>.. and that in fact, OTO may well be a spin
>off of AMORC??

No. My overstatement, sorry :-)

>>Study Harder,
>Study Smarter, not Harder! :-)
>
I ALWAYS DO.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83520
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!


ON the subject of how many competing RC orders there are, let me point out the
Golden Dawn is only the *outer* order of that tradition.  The inner order is
the Roseae Rubeae et Aurae Crucis.  That's Ruby Rose and Gold Cross, in rough
translation.  The G.'.D.'. is a Rosicrucian order, as are all derivative
groups.  Of course, real Rosicrucians never admit to being Rosicrucian.

Enjoy the journey!
                      --Br'anArthur
                                      Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)

******************************************************************************
Closed minds don't want to know.        --JJObermark

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83522
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!


In a previous article, ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe) says:

>
>ON the subject of how many competing RC orders there are, let me point out the
>Golden Dawn is only the *outer* order of that tradition.  The inner order is
>the Roseae Rubeae et Aurae Crucis.  
>

	Just wondering, do you mean the "Lectorium Rosicrucianum"?
Warning: There is no point in arguing who's "legit" and who's not. *WHICH*
Golden Dawn are you talking about?

	Just for the sake of argument, (reflecting NO affiliation)
I am going to say that the TRUE Rosicrucian Order is the Fraternitas
Rosae Crucis in Quakertown, Penn.,

	Any takers? :-)

Fraternally,

Tony

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83523
From: irfan@davinci.ece.wisc.edu (Irfan Alan)
Subject: A TREATISE ON THE MIRACLES OF MUHAMMAD SAW, PART-2


The following is an introduction as to who is Muhammad SAW
as will be covered with this treatise.

MUHAMMAD peace and blessings of Allah be upon him (SAW)
is the last prophet of Islam.  He is the Prophet who is revealed
the last Holy Scripture, Qur'an, by Allah SWA (all praise be to Him)
through the Arch Angel Gabriel.  He is the seal of all prophets
till the day of judgement as stated in the Qur'an by Allah
SWA (all praise be to Him).  Muhammad SAW lived between
571-632 AC.  All other prophethoods claimed after Muhammad SAW,
is a treason against Islam, against Qur'an, against the message
of Allah SWA.  Muhammad SAW is from the seed of Ishmael, another
messenger of Allah and son of Abraham also a messenger of Allah.
He is the Messenger that previous holy scriptures foretold his
coming.  The above mentioned verse from the Qur'an is from 
Chapter 33, Verse 40 whose rough translation is as follows:

	Muhammad is not the father of any of your men,
	but (he is) the messenger of Allah, and the seal
	of the prophets, and Allah has full knowledge of
	all things.

---------------------
Commentary on the above verse:  When a document is sealed,
it is complete, and there can be no further addition.  The 
Holy Prophet Muhammad SAW closed the long line of Messengers.
Allah's teaching is and will always be continuous, but there
has been and will be NO Prophet after Muhammad SAW.  The later
ages will want thinkers, and revivers, not Prophets.  This is not
an arbitrary matter.  It is a decree full of knowledge and wisdom,
"for Allah has full knowledge of all things."

----------------------
DROPLET VOL 1, No 11, Part 2

A   D R O P L E T
From The Vast Ocean Of The Miraculous Qur'an

Translations from the Arabic and Turkish Writings of 
Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, The Risale-i Noor

VOL 1, No 11, Part 2
------------------------------------------------------------------
   		 NINETEENTH LETTER  

		 MU'JIZAT-I AHMEDIYE RISALESI 
(A TREATISE ON THE MIRACLES OF MUHAMMED SAW)       

(continued from Droplet Vol 1, No 11, Part 1)

   SECOND  SIGN:   The  Noble  Messenger  (SAW)
declared His prophethood, and presented to humanity a
decree as the Glorious Qur'an and manifest miracles
which number, according to the scholars, one thousand.
The occurrence of those miracles in their entirety is as
certain as the fact that He declared himself prophet.  In
fact, as a shown by the words of the  most obstinate
unbelievers quoted in various places of the Wise
Our'an, even they could not deny the occurrence of His
miracles, but only called them -hasha wa kella!-(Allah forbids) 
sorcery, in order to satisfy themselves, or to deceive their
followers.  The miracles of Muhammad (SAW) have the
certainty of confirmation by consensus of Ulema (scholars
of Islam) to the hundreth degree.
   The Miracle is the conformation by the CREATOR of
the universe of His declaration of Prophethood; it has the
effect of the words,'You have indeed spoken the truth !'
   Suppose that you said in the assembly of a ruler,
while being observed by Him, 'The true ruler has
appointed me to such and such position.  'At a time when
you were asked to prove your claim, the word 'Yes'
uttered by the ruler would sufficiently support you.  Or, if
the ruler changed his usual practice and attitude at your
request, this would confirm your claim even more soundly
and more definitely than would the word 'Yes.'
   In the same way, ALLAH's Most Noble Messenger
claimed: 'I am the envoy of the CREATOR of this
universe.  My proof is that He will change His unbroken
order at my request and my prayer.  Now look at my
fingers:  He makes them run like a fountain with five
spigots.  Look at the moon: by a gesture of my finger, He
splits it in two.  Look at that tree: to affirm me, and to bear
witness to me, it moves and comes near to me.  Look at
this food: although it is barely enough for two or three
men, it satisfies two or three hundred.  'Further he shows
hundreds of similar miracles.  However, the evidences  of
the veracity of this high being and the proofs of his
prophethood are not restricted to his miracles.  All his
deeds and acts, his words and behavior, his moral
conduct and manners, his character and appearance
prove to the attentive his truthfulness and seriousness.
Indeed, many people  such  as  Abdullah  b. Salam,  the
famous scholar of the Children of Israel, came to belief
merely by seeing him, and said, 'No lie can hide in this
face, nor can any fraud be found in it!'
   Although many of the  researchers have concluded
that the proofs of the prophethood of Muhammad and his
miracles number about one thousand, there are
thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of proofs  of
his prophethood.  And hundreds of thousands of
truth-seeking men (muhakkikiin) with varying opinions
have affirmed his prophethood in an equal number of
ways.
   The Wise Our'an alone demonstrates thousands of
the proofs of his prophethood, in addition to its own forty
aspects of miraculousness.  Since prophethood is as a
phenomenon of humanity, and hundreds of thousands of
individuals who claimed prophethood and performed
miracles have lived and passed away; then, the
prophethood of Muhammad (SAW) is of a certanity
superior to that of the prophethood of all the others.  For
whatever evidences, qualities  and attributes  became the
means of the prophethood and messengership of all the
messengers such as Jesus (AS) and Moses (AS), they
are all owned in a more perfect and comprehensive
fashion by Muhammad (SAW).  And since the causes and
means of prophetic authority exist more perfectly in the
person of Muhammad (SAW), this authority is to be found
in him with more certanity than all the other prophets.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
To be Continued Allah Willing.
Irfan Alan, A Servant of Islam.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83524
From: magney@cco.caltech.edu (Michael Agney)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <1993Apr15.010329.23133@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>[Followups set out of talk.abortion...]
>>
>>In article <C5Fuo2.FF8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>>>Am I reading this thread wrong or is this just another bemoaning of the fact
>>>that Christianity has a code of objective morality?
>>
>>Please define this "objective morality".
>>
>>While you're at it, please state the theory of creationism.

>Still searching for an irrelevant issue in which to mire a pro-lifer, I see.
>Slimy tactic.

>								- Kevin

Well, when you crosspost to talk.origins, what do you expect?

-- 
| Michael Agney          | Just because you're paranoid | 
|                        | doesn't mean they're not out |
|                        | to get you.                  | 
| magney@cco.caltech.edu |                              |

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83525
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)

In article <C5p660.36t@sunfish.usd.edu>, rfox@charlie.usd.edu writes...
>In article <1993Apr15.225657.17804@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
>>|> >|> 
>>|> However, one highly biased account (as well as possibly internally 
>>|> inconsistent) written over 2 mellenia ago, in a dead language, by fanatic
>>|> devotees of the creature in question which is not supported by other more 
>>|> objective sources and isnt  even accepted by those who's messiah this creature 
>>|> was supposed to be, doesn't convince me in the slightest, especially when many
>>|> of the current day devotees appear brainwashed into believing this pile of 
>>|> guano...
>>
>>       Since you have referred to the Messiah, I assume you are referring
>>        to the New Testament.  Please detail your complaints or e-mail if
>>        you don't want to post.  First-century Greek is well-known and
>>        well-understood.  Have you considered Josephus, the Jewish Historian,
>>        who also wrote of Jesus?  In addition, the four gospel accounts
>>        are very much in harmony.  
> 
>Bill, I have taken the time to explain that biblical scholars consider the
>Josephus reference to be an early Christian insert.  By biblical scholar I mean
>an expert who, in the course of his or her research, is willing to let the
>chips fall where they may.  This excludes literalists, who may otherwise be
>defined as biblical apologists.  They find what they want to find.  They are
>not trustworthy by scholarly standards (and others).
> 
>Why an insert?  Read it - I have, a number of times.  The passage is glaringly
>out of context, and Josephus, a superb writer, had no such problem elsewhere 
>in his work.  The passage has *nothing* to do with the subject matter in which 
>it lies.  It suddenly appears and then just as quickly disappears.

I think this is a weak argument.  The fact is, there are *two* references to
Jesus in _Antiquities of the Jews_, one of which has unquestionably at least
been altered by Christians.  Origen wrote, in the third century, that
Josephus did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, while the long passage
says the opposite.  There is an Arabic manuscript of _Antiquities of the
Jews_ which contains a version of the passage which is much less gung-ho
for Jesus and may be authentic.
   There is no question that Origen, in the third century, saw a reference
to Jesus in Josephus.  There are no manuscripts of _Antiquities_ which
lack the references.

It is possible that it was fabricated out of whole cloth and inserted, but
I don't think it's very likely--nor do I think there is a consensus in
the scholarly community that this is the case. (I know G.A. Wells takes
this position, but that's because he takes the very small minority view
that Jesus never existed.  And he is a professor of German, not of
biblical history or New Testament or anything directly relevant to
the historicity of Jesus.)

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83526
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!

ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes:


>In a previous article, ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe) says:

>>
>>ON the subject of how many competing RC orders there are, let me point out the
>>Golden Dawn is only the *outer* order of that tradition.  The inner order is
>>the Roseae Rubeae et Aurae Crucis.  
>>

>	Just wondering, do you mean the "Lectorium Rosicrucianum"?
>Warning: There is no point in arguing who's "legit" and who's not. *WHICH*
>Golden Dawn are you talking about?

No, I don't mean the LR, whatever that is.  As for which GD, I'm using _The
Complete Golden Dawn System of Magic_ as my source, so (unless Regardie is
lying) I'm pulling the name out the the original order's rituals.  The
multiple modern groups are part of why I through in the comment about all
the "spin-offs".

>	Just for the sake of argument, (reflecting NO affiliation)
>I am going to say that the TRUE Rosicrucian Order is the Fraternitas
>Rosae Crucis in Quakertown, Penn.,

As a member of the Religious Society of Friends (my membership is in the
Urbana-Champaign (IL) Friends Meeting) I find that amusingly ironic. :)

>	Any takers? :-)

Not me--I don't want to belong to *anything* which runs around claiming to
be the TRUE whatever.  I find that disgusting. :(

Enjoy the journey!
                      --Br'anArthur
                                      Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)

******************************************************************************
Closed minds don't want to know.        --JJObermark

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83527
From: house@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- objectively subjective) writes:

>Question:  Is there any effective difference between:

>"Objective values exist, and there is disagreement over what they are"

>and

>"Values are subjective?"

>I don't see any.

The first means that some aspect of reality contains objective values.
The second means that values are a reference to some preference of the
individual.  In the first case, it is possible that some future discovery
might invalidate certain views re what objective values are.

--

Ron House.                 USQ
(house@helios.usq.edu.au)  Toowoomba, Australia.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83528
From: deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane)
Subject: Re: Flaming Nazis

In article <1qsami$3h7@access.digex.net>, dickeney@access.digex.com (Dick Eney)
writes:
>The trouble with trying to find out the truth is that Roehm and his
>buddies were ACCUSED OF being flaming faggots, one of the pretexts for the
>Night of Long Knives in which Roehm and most of the SA wing of the NSDAP
>were purged. 

Stop! Hold it! You have a few problems here. Official history says that 
the first accusations of homosexuality in the SA came from OUTSIDE of the Nazi 
party, long BEFORE the Nazis ever came to power. So this objection is a red
herring, even if established history is wrong on this point. Moreover, none of 
the histories I've read ever made mention of Hitler or anyone else ever using 
homosexuality as a pretext for purging Roehm. A point I saw reiterated was that
Hitler and the party covered up these accusations. If you are going to accuse
official history of being a fabrication, you should at least get your facts
right. The pretext for purging Roehm was that he was planning to use the SA in
a coup against Hitler. Nowhere is there mention of using allegations of
homosexuality as a pretext for the purge, nor as a justification afterwards (it
is possible that the histories I've read have not mentioned this, but I doubt
it - would it be in Hitler's best interest to admit to the world that his
former right hand man was a homosexual?). 

Anyway, as I said before, it is always possible that I have missed references 
to the Nazis making use of charges of homosexuality against the SA after the 
night of the long knives - but this does not prove that they were false. Even 
the Nazis could tell the truth when it was to their advantage. In any case, 
this does not deal with accusations of homosexuality in the SA during the 
1920's.

>Since the accusers thereafter controlled the records,
>anything bearing on the subject -- true or not -- has to be considered
>tainted evidence. 

Ah, yes. I forgot this was being posted to alt.conspiracy. I can smell the
paranoia from here. Since the Nazis never officially charged Roehm with 
homosexuality (at least, not according to what I've read), I'd like to know 
what tainted "evidence" you are talking about. Since the accusations were made 
by persons outside of the Nazi party, long before it came to power, and those 
accusations were common knowledge to journalists and others in Germany in the 
1920's and 30's, just how would it be possible for the Nazis to go back in 
time and plant "tainted" evidence? How exactly does one doctor newspapers 
which were circulated around the world, without the discrepancies being 
obvious? What actual incidences of Nazi doctoring evidence on this matter
do you know about? And what about the testimony of people who were involved in 
these matters, some of whom were not Nazis? And what is the point of making a 
false accusation of homosexuality if you do not publicize it? Since the point 
here seems to be to discredit established history, then the burden of proof 
falls on the revisionist. The revisionists had better do their homework 
before making accusations. Otherwise they simply look like conspiracy nuts.

>The available data suggest that Roehm and his crowd,
>the SA -- Sturmabteilung, "Storm Troopers" -- left the world a better
>place when they departed, 

This is just about the *only* thing we agree on. 

I suspect that the notion that there might have been bad people - Roehm and 
his SA buddies - who were homosexuals must disturb some people. The feeling
seems to be that if a nasty individual is accused of homosexuality, that this
must be an attempt to bash homosexuals. This fear - often justified - is what
lies behind this distrust of official history, or so it seems to me. But this
is not a good justification for trashing accepted accounts of this subject. If 
you really think that historians are so incompetent, why don't you write them 
and ask where they got their sources on this subject, if you can't tell from 
their footnotes? I'm a graduate student in history. Writing to professors and
tracking down sources is old hat. But my time is limited and this is not my
specialty - and neither you nor anyone else have said anything that would
cast one shred of doubt on existing evidence. I'm not going to waste my time
trying to debunk someone's paranoia. Do the research yourself.

>but concrete particulars are still no more than
>more or less shrewd guesses.  
>-- Diccon Frankborn

Given that you already consider all evidence "tainted", what on earth would
constitute concrete particulars? And since when have concrete particulars been
considered "shrewd guesses"?

I suggest that those who do not trust popular historians (Irving et al) -
historians writing for a popular audience do not, as a rule, provide copious 
footnotes - should try instead reading academic historians, who usually 
provide footnotes to all their sources in immmense detail. This is the place 
to start looking. Assuming that one really wants to know the truth.

I'll bet the folks on alt.pagan are tired of this subject already. My
apologies - we seem to have gone off on a bit of a tangent. I forget which gods
are responsible for keeping strings within appropriate newsgroup subject
boundaries...
                                                                       
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
David Matthew Deane (deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu)
"...Be in me as the eternal moods of the bleak wind...Let the Gods speak softly
of us in days hereafter..." (Ezra Pound)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83529
From: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Subject: Re: Clarification of personal position (Jesus and the Law)

sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>My online Bible is on a CD, but I don't own a CD-ROM system for the
>time being, so I can't search for the famous cite where Jesus explicitly
>states that he didn't want to break existing (Jewish) laws. In other
>words technically speaking Christians should use Saturday and not Sunday
>as their holy day, if they want to conform to the teachings of Jesus.

I think the passage you're looking for is the following.

Matthew 5:17    "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the 
prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. 
Matthew 5:18   For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, 
not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 
Matthew 5:19   Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments 
and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he 
who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of 
heaven. 
Matthew 5:20   For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of 
the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 

There are several problems with this.  The most serious is that the
Law was regarded by Jews at the time (and now) as binding on Jews, but
not on Gentiles.  There are rules that were binding on all human
beings (the so-called Noachic laws), but they are quite minimal.  The
issue that the Church had to face after Jesus' death was what to do
about Gentiles who wanted to follow Christ.  The decision not to
impose the Law on them didn't say that the Law was abolished.  It
simply acknowledged that fact that it didn't apply to Gentiles.  This
is a simple answer, which I think just about everyone can agree to.
(A discussion of the issue in more or less these terms is recorded
in Acts 15.)

However there's more involved.  In order to get a full picture of the
role of the Law, we have to come to grips with Paul's apparent
rejection of the Law, and how that relates to Jesus' commendation of
the Law.  At least as I read Paul, he says that the Law serves a
purpose that has been in a certain sense superceded.  Again, this
issue isn't one of the abolition of the Law.  In the middle of his
discussion, Paul notes that he might be understood this way, and
assures us that that's not what he intends to say.  Rather, he sees
the Law as primarily being present to convict people of their
sinfulness.  But ultimately it's an impossible standard, and one that
has been superceded by Christ.  Paul's comments are not the world's
clearest here, and not everyone agrees with my reading.  But the
interesting thing to notice is that even this radical position does
not entail an abolition of the Law.  It still remains as an
uncompromising standard, from which not an iota or dot may be removed.
For its purpose of convicting of sin, it's important that it not be
relaxed.  However for Christians, it's not the end -- ultimately we
live in faith, not Law.

While the theoretical categories they use are rather different, in the
end I think Jesus and Paul come to a rather similar conclusion.  The
quoted passage from Mat 5 should be taken in the context of the rest
of the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus shows us how he interprets the
Law.  The "not an iota or dot" would suggest a rather literal reading,
but in fact that's not Jesus' approach.  Jesus' interpretations
emphasize the intent of the Law, and stay away from the ceremonial
details.  Indeed he is well known for taking a rather free attitude
towards the Sabbath and kosher laws.  Some scholars claim that Mat
5:17-20 needs to be taken in the context of 1st Cent. Jewish
discussions.  Jesus accuses his opponents of caring about giving a
tenth of even the most minor herbs, but neglecting the things that
really matter: justice, mercy and faith, and caring about how cups and
plates are cleaned, but not about the fact that inside the people who
use them are full of extortion and rapacity.  (Mat 23:23-25) This, and
the discussion later in Mat 5, suggest that Jesus has a very specific
view of the Law in mind, and that when he talks about maintaining the
Law in its full strength, he is thinking of these aspects of it.
Paul's conclusion is similar.  While he talks about the Law being
superceded, all of the specific examples he gives involve the
"ceremonial law", such as circumcision and the Sabbath.  He is quite
concerned about maintaining moral standards.

The net result of this is that when Paul talks about the Law being
superceded, and Jesus talks about the Law being maintained, I believe
they are talking about different aspects of the Law.  Paul is
embroiled in arguments about circumcision.  As is natural in letters
responding to specific situations, he's looking at the aspect of the
Law that is currently causing trouble: the Law as specifically Jewish
ceremonies.  He certainly does not intend to abolish divine standards
of conduct.  On the other hand, when Jesus commends the Law, he seems
to be talking the Law in its broadest implications for morals and
human relationships, and deemphasizing those aspects that were later
to give Paul so much trouble.

It's unfortunate that people use the same terms in different ways, but
we should be familiar with that from current conflicts.  Look at the
way terms like "family values" take on special meaning from the
current context.  Imagine some poor historian of the future trying to
figure out why "family values" should be used as a code word for
opposition to homosexuality in one specific period in the U.S.  I
think Law had taken on a similar role in the arguments Paul was
involved in.  Paul was clearly not rejecting all of the Jewish values
that go along with the term "Law", any more than people who concerned
about the "family values" movement are really opposed to family
values.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83535
From: mimir@stein.u.washington.edu (Grendel Grettisson)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!

In article <1qsqar$n8m@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes:
>
>In a previous article, ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe) says:
>
>>
>>ON the subject of how many competing RC orders there are, let me point out the
>>Golden Dawn is only the *outer* order of that tradition.  The inner order is
>>the Roseae Rubeae et Aurae Crucis.  
>>
>
>	Just wondering, do you mean the "Lectorium Rosicrucianum"?
>Warning: There is no point in arguing who's "legit" and who's not. *WHICH*
>Golden Dawn are you talking about?

 Which Golden Dawn? How about the original from 100 years ago?

>	Just for the sake of argument, (reflecting NO affiliation)
>I am going to say that the TRUE Rosicrucian Order is the Fraternitas
>Rosae Crucis in Quakertown, Penn.,
>
>	Any takers? :-)

 No. No Rosicrucian would ever admit or deny being such.

Wassail,
Grendel Grettisson


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83544
From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick

kosinski@us.oracle.com (Kevin Osinski) writes:

> I recall reading in Michael (?) Rutherford's novel "Sarum" a scene in
> which the son of a Roman nobleman living in Britain takes part in a
> secret ceremony involving a bull.  He stands naked in a pit covered
> with some sort of scaffolding while assistants coax a bull to stand on
> the scaffolding.  They then fatally stab the bull, which douses the
> worshipper in the pit with blood.  This is supposedly some sort of
> rite of passage for members of the bull cult.  I wonder if this is
> related to the Mithras cult?

Yes, this is certainly one of the traditional ideas about the Mithraic
cult (although not the only one.)  It had many elements that seem
to have been borrowed by Catholicism (e.g. the Mass, communion, the
sharing of a sacred meal, consecration of bread and wine, etc.)

For quite an amusing novel that uses this same idea, check out:

The Covenant of the Flame
by David Morrell.

It has some quite interesting occult bits, and lots of killing.
I won't spoil it by revealing the ending, but I will say that it
is relevant to Mithraism.
--
paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater)
Home Office in Vienna, Austria
** If you read news with rn or trn, ask me about EEP! the .newsrc editor!

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83547
From: rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com
Subject: Part 1 and part 2  (re: Homosexuality)

Tony-

I read your post, it was nothing new, I had seen much the same in other
typical"Christian" anti-gay sentimental literature.  Gay people are and will
con- tinue to be persecuted as long as such propaganda petpetuates.  You may
be unaware of all the statistica "findings" concerning African-Americans that
have been published and used by various groups to re-enforce their own bias
against African-Americans.  We usually think of the KKK in these instances,
but there are many other groups.  Of course, the vast majority of the public
scoff at such findings and documents today, but that was not always the case.
Fortunately African-Americans had "whites" who supported their 'cause' and
public sentiment was eventually (if not entirely) turned around.  There was
even a Civil War, and anti-negro sentiment increased.  In fact, until laws
were put in place to protect the inalienable rights of Blacks it was pretty
much legal to discriminate against them.

I know many gays and I will NOT turn my back on them or their right to be free
form discrimination.  You may think that I have been deceived or something,
that is your perogative.  My church, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
openly affirms the rights of oppressed people of all segments of society,
including gays.  We believe the Gospel message of preaching to all creation
and making disciples.  We believe in the Lord's great commandment to Love,
and we beleive in standing up for the oppressed, even if it is not popular
to do so.  I really like my church for last reason the most.  I can find a
church almost anywhere in the valley that stands for the Gospel and believes
in the commandment of Love (though I'm hard-pressed to find many who actually
sho Love), but not many are willing to champion the oppressed, especially
within their own community.  I may have lost face with the greater Christian
community for the unpopularity of my beliefs, but so did the abolitionists
against the oppression of African-Americans.  Many were even killed and
treated as runaway slaves for being "nigger-lovers" and such.  I guess I've
decided the challenge is worth it.

In my talks with gay men and women I have heard tragic story after tragic
story centering around failed marriages, wives and husbands who are straight
who have been hurt in the process, etc.  Funny thing is, I don't know of one
case where the parents, ex-wives, or even children have continued to reject
their gay family member (son, daughter, ex-husband, father, etc.) after they
began to take part in some form of support group, like PFLAG.

I'm apalled by the legislation which passed in Colorado, and am equally out0
raged that such slimey people as Louis Sheldon (from the Tradition Values
Coalition) have been actively working in the Christian underground to garner
support within several (8 I believe) states this coming November for more
oppressive legisation against gays.

Perhaps you don't get it, and maybe you never will.  Many didn't get it in the
Middle Ages and the proclaimed God's will be done as they massacred thousands
in witch hunts and inquisitions.

The message that comes through, loud and clear, by proponents against gay
rights and against gays in general, is that there is a strong dislike, even
hatred for gays, whether you want to call it such or not (it doesn't change
the results).  The major flaw in all this posturing is that in the end, the
final effect of posts like that of yours and Mr. Hudson is that YOU have a
"conditional" love for gays.  Condition:  Change and we'll love you. This is
sure strange coming from a group who claim that God has an "unconditional"
love, one that calls people "just as they are."  Sure there are things that
will 'naturally' change, and habits (like alcoholism, wife beating, etc.) that
need to be changed through some sort of therapy.  But then there are things
like left-handedness, etc. that no amount of beating it out of people, is
going to result in anything more than an outward conforminty to "other
people's expectations." In the process this coerced conformity causes many
people a great deal of harm, especially when it is caused by people who have
nothing more to gain from it that to become even more puffed up about their
own sense of pseuper-spirituality.

This is sad, but I thoroughly believe that one day it will change.  It may be
unpopular to cry for justice and equality when the basis has to do with
something very personal like 'sexuality' (a taboo subject even today), but I
firmly believe in the rights of individuals to be free from impose regulation
on thier bedrooms.  It's funny that most straight people have successfully
removed restrictive and oppressive legislation against invasive legislation,
but we like to maintain this little chestnut of repression...as though it
helps us maintain a sense of superiority over at least one segment of society.
Gay people are not criminals.

Another interesting thing happened recently.  A very prominent charismatic
church in the Silicon Valley (here) had two of it's pastors arrested for self-
admitted charges of pederasty (men having sex with boys).  This had apparently
been going on for some time (a couple years?), but since the charges were
voluntary, and the church worked closely with the police, so I imagine that
was how they managed to downplay it in the media.  How could such a thing
happen when the church, itself, has an ex-gay ministry?  One of my friends
recently told me he was "approached" by someone who is going through the
reparitive therapy there, and he was thoroughly convinced that the request for
dinner was not an invitation to attend the ministry.

These are difficult times we live in, but providing hostile environments and
creating and perpetuating an atmosphere that breed hate and violence is not
the call of the Christian community.  The results of the passing amendment in
Colorado has created an organization who's posters are appearing all over
Colorado called "S.T.R.A.I.G.H.T." (I forget the whole definition off hand,
but the last part was Against Immoral Gross Homosexual Trash) and their motto
is "Working for a fag-free America" with an implicit advocation for violence.

This is sick, and it seems to be what you and Mr. Hudson, and others are
embracing.

We Christians have a LOOOOOOOOOONG tradition of coersion and oppression
towards those we feel don't 'measure up', and constant beratement from
organizations like The Christian Research Institute, while they do have a good
purpose also, their major work seems to be finding new and better ways of
excluding people.

The Gospel I believe is not so negative, rather it seeks ways to "include"
people.  I have several of Dr. Martin's books and find them quite helpful,
especially concerning 'cults.' But it seems that CRI, has become a cult unto
itself.  Why don't we just stick to the positive and find ways to bring people
to Jesus istead of taking bullwhips and driving them away?

Whatever

Rich :-(

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83558
Subject: Re: Christian Daemons? [Biblical Demons, the u
From: stigaard@mhd.moorhead.msus.edu

>>>667
>>>the neighbor of the beast
>>
>>No, 667 is across the street from the beast.  664 and 668 are the
>>neighbors of the beast.
>
>I think some people are still not clear on this:
>667 is *not* the neighbor of the beast, but, rather, across the
>street. It is, in fact, 668 which is the neighbor of the beast.

no, sheesh, didn't you know 666 is the beast's apartment?  667 is across the
hall from the beast, and is his neighbor along with the rest of the 6th floor.

>Justin (still trying to figure out what this has to do with alt.discordia)

This doesn't seem discordant to you?

-----------------------     ----------------------     -----------------------
	-Paul W. Stigaard, Lokean Discordian Libertarian
  !XOA!		internet:  stigaard@mhd1.moorhead.msus.edu
 (fnord)       Episkopos and Chair, Moorhead State University Campus Discordians
		Rectal neufotomist at large
     "If I left a quote here, someone would think it meant something."

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83561
From: rkwmo@pukrs3.puk.ac.za (MNR M OOSTHUYSEN)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!

In article <9304141620.AA01443@dangermouse.mitre.org> jmeritt@mental.mitre.org writes:

>Leviticus 21:9
>And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the
>whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

>Deuteronomy 22:20-21
>...and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: then they shall
>bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of the
>city shall stone her with stones that she die...

>Deuteronomy  22:22
>If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall
>both of them die...

>Deuteronomy 22:23-24
>If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her
>in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the
>gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die...

>Deuteronomy 22:25
>BUT if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her,
>and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

IF it were'nt for the sin of men, none of this killing would have been 
necesarry, He is KIND and LOVING, but also RIGHTEOUS, 
SIN MUST BE PUNISHED.

Before Jesus, man had to take the sins on himself.
But Jesus died and took it all upon Him, so now we also have a FORGIVING GOD.

If He were not KIND and LOVING, there wouldn't have been any people left.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83562
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Part 1 and part 2  (re: Homosexuality)

rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com writes:
> 
> The results of the passing amendment in
> Colorado has created an organization who's posters are appearing all over
> Colorado called "S.T.R.A.I.G.H.T." (I forget the whole definition off hand,
> but the last part was Against Immoral Gross Homosexual Trash) and their motto
> is "Working for a fag-free America" with an implicit advocation for violence.

I live in Colorado, and have never heard of such a group.  Obviously claims 
that their posters are appearing "all over Colorado" are a tad overdone... 

> This is sick, and it seems to be what you and Mr. Hudson, and others are
> embracing.

Hardly.  Saying that homosexuality is a sin is a far cry from 
"Working for a fag-free America".  Saying that I wouldn't want 
a homosexual babysitting for my kids doesnt mean I endorse 
"Against Immoral Gross Homosexual Trash".  

> We Christians have a LOOOOOOOOOONG tradition of coersion and oppression
> towards those we feel don't 'measure up',

And now we have homosexual advocates telling us that if we don't teach 
our kids that homosexuality is natural and a perfectly acceptable 
alternative lifestyle, then they will have it done for us.  No, thanks. 

> The Gospel I believe is not so negative, rather it seeks ways to "include"
> people. 

Absolutely.  And the message is always, "go and sin no more".  Not, 
Go and do whatever "feels good". 

One question, at the start of your post, you wrote:

> I know many gays and I will NOT turn my back on them or their right to be free
> form discrimination...I may have lost face with the greater Christian
> community for the unpopularity of my beliefs, but so did the abolitionists
> against the oppression of African-Americans.  Many were even killed and
> treated as runaway slaves for being "nigger-lovers" and such.  I guess I've
> decided the challenge is worth it.

This sounds real nice, but struck me as a little odd.  You're 
presenting yourself as if you were a straight Xian, who is sticking
his neck out and taking on the challenge of speaking out in support 
of gays in the church.  But I was under the impression that you
yourself are gay.  That's all well and fine, but presenting yourself 
as sticking out your neck to help "repressed others" seems a bit 
untruthful under the circumstances.... 

Walter


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83568
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

In article <f1VMPxk@quack.kfu.com> pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <bskendigC5H4o3.D5p@netcom.com> 
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>>>	But if we walk in the light,
>>>	as he is in the light,
>>>	we have fellowship one with another,
>>>	and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son
>>>	cleanseth us from all sin.
>>	It can not be a light which cleanses
>>	if it is tainted with the blood
>>	of an innocent man.
>
>Human blood sacrifice! Martyrdom of an innocent virgin! "Nailed" to a
>wooden pole! What is this obsession with male menstruation?

Christian:  washed in the blood of the lamb.
Mithraist:  washed in the blood of the bull.

If anyone in .netland is in the process of devising a new religion,
do not use the lamb or the bull, because they have already been
reserved.  Please choose another animal, preferably one not
on the Endangered Species List.  

Thank you.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83572
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Subject: Re: Christian Owned Organization list

In article <47749@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, shopper@ucsd.edu writes:
 
> Does anyone have or know where I can find a list of
> christian-owned corporations and companies?  One that I know of
> is WordPerfect.

Naw, the owners of WordPerfect are Mormons, and by Tony Rose's
and Robert Weiss' standards, Mormons aren't Christians.  :-)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker),  Logan, Utah


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83581
From: rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com
Subject: Walter?

Walter-

I tried several times in the past to communicate with you and Susan, but
you ignored me, and I don't honestly believe my letters were mean.  Rather
I thought they were thoughtful and compassionate, but I see now what I should
have seen then.  Call me naive.

I give up on this group.  As my Lord advised, that if you are unwelcome in
a city then brush the dust of your feet and go on.

If anyone cares about the topic they write to me direct, if not, well,
may God bless you as well.

Bye to this group.
PAX

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83582
From: m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Kind, loving, merciful and forgiving GOD!

In article <8968@blue.cis.pitt.edu> joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
}m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
}>joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
}>}m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
}>}>}(a) out of context;
}>}>Must have missed when you said this about these other "promises of god" that we keep
}>}>getting subjected to.  Could you please explain why I am wrong and they are OK?
}>}>Or an acknowledgement of public hypocrisy. Both or neither.
}>}
}>}So, according to you, Jim, the only way to criticize one person for
}>}taking a quote out of context, without being a hypocrite, is to post a
}>}response to *every* person on t.r.m who takes a quote out of context?
}>
}>Did I either ask or assert that?  Or is this your misaimed telepathy at work again?
}
}(1)  Stephen said you took a quote out of context
}(2)  You noted that Stephen had not replied to some other t.r.m article
}     (call it A) that took a quote out of context
}(3)  But the lack of evidence for X does not constitute evidence for the
}     lack of X  (a common creationist error)
}(4)  So the fact that Stephen did not reply to A does not justify the
}     conclusion that Stephen condoned taking quotes out of context in A

Excellent.  Now under what conditions could such a conclusion be made, other
than a direct assertion by his part.  For instance, am I to assume that
you have no position on eating shit merely because you have not said
your position, or might a conclusion be made by observing that you do not.

}(7)  I assumed you were being logical, and that the sentence that begins
}     "Could you please explain ..." was not a nonsequitur, but was intended
}     to follow from the sentence that preceded it.

}Is that better Jim?   It's called an argument.  If you disagree with it,
}explain why the argument is not sound.  (I admit that my assumption in (7)
}may have been a bit hasty.)  If you agree with it, just say "yup."

Have you, by chance, ever even heard of inductive logic?  You are not
demonstrating any familiarly with it (i.e. you are being insufficiently
logical).



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83585
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!


In article <9304141620.AA01443@dangermouse.mitre.org>, jmeritt@mental.mitre.org writes:
|> Leviticus 21:9
|> And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the
|> whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.
|> 
|> Deuteronomy 22:20-21
|> ...and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: then they shall
|> bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of the
|> city shall stone her with stones that she die...
|> 
|> Deuteronomy  22:22
|> If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall
|> both of them die...
|> 
|> Deuteronomy 22:23-24
|> If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her
|> in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the
|> gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die...
|> 
|> Deuteronomy 22:25
|> BUT if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her,
|> and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had
expressly set apart from the rest of the world.  The Israelites were a
direct witness to God's existence.  To disobey God after KNOWing that God
is real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately punishable.
Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to 
God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We are living in the
age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death.  There is
repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just
for a few chosen people.  Salvation is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile
alike.

God be with you,

Malcolm Lee  :)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83586
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

Brian Kendig writes:

>  Lev 17:11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given
>  it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is
>  the blood that makes atonement for the soul.
>
>The Old Testament was very big on the "eye for an eye" business.  It
>makes sense that Leviticus would support physical injury to "repay"
>moral wrongdoing.

Brian K., guess what?  You missed the point.  On a scale from cold to
hot, you are at 0 degrees Kelvin.

>I know about sanctification.  I've been taught all about it in Sunday
>school, catechism class, and theology classes.  But even after all
>that, I still can't accept it.  Maybe I'm still not understanding it,
>or maybe I'm just understanding it all too well.

Then as you understand it, what is it?

>From the bottom of my heart I know that the punishment of an innocent
>man is wrong.

Yes.  I agree with that.  But what does that have to do with Jesus?
Punishment you say?  Jesus did not regard his death as punishment. 

>I've tried repeatedly over the course of several years
>to accept it, but I just can't. 

Good.  I wouldn't either--not the way you understand it.  

>If you can explain to me why the death of Jesus was a *good* thing,
>then I would be very glad to hear it, and you might even convert me.
>Be warned, however, that I've heard all the most common arguments
>before, and they just don't convince me.

Ask Jesus himself.  He himself said why in John 12:23-32.  It
isn't a mystery to anyone and there certainly is no need for
a persuasive argument.   Read Jesus's own reply to your
question.

Jesus gives more reasons in John 16:7.  But one obvious reason
why Jesus died, (and as with everything else, it has nothing do with
his punishment) was that he could rise to life again--so that
we would "stop doubting and believe" (John 21:27).  The fact
that Jesus rose from the dead is my hope that I too will rise
from the dead.  It is an obvious point.  Do not overlook it.
Without this obvious point, I would have no hope
and my faith would be vanity.

Why did Jesus suffer in his death?  Again, ask Jesus.  Jesus
says why in John 15:18-25.   That's no mystery either.  "The
world hates him without reason."  It is a direct proclamation
of how far we humans botch things up and thus, how much we
need a Saviour.

And why can't you, Brian K., accept this?  How can you?  "The
world cannot accept him because it neither sees him nor knows
him."  (John 14:17).   The animosity and the lack of knowledge
that comes out in your twistings of Robert's daily verses is
very convincing testimony of the truth of John 14:17 and 16:25.
I pray and hope that I do blurt out such animosity and lack of
knowledge. I am not perfect either.  But regardless of that, I thank
God that Jesus revealed himself to me, without whom I'd also be
bumbling about blindly though arrogantly slandering the very
Person who created me and who loves me.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83587
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

In article <bskendigC5I9yH.ICp@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>If you can explain to me why the death of Jesus was a *good* thing,
>then I would be very glad to hear it, and you might even convert me.
>Be warned, however, that I've heard all the most common arguments
>before, and they just don't convince me.

Be warned, it is not my job to convert you.  That is the job of
the Holy Spirit.  And I, frankly, make a lousy one.  I am only
here to testify.  Your conversion is between you and God.  I am
"out of the loop".  If you decide to follow Jesus, of which I
indeed would be estatic, then all the glory be to God.

-------------
Brian Ceccarelli
brian@gamma1.lpl.arizona.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83591
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Subject: Re: Kind, loving, merciful and forgiving GOD!

m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
>}(4)  So the fact that Stephen did not reply to A does not justify the
>}     conclusion that Stephen condoned taking quotes out of context in A
>Excellent. Now under what conditions could such a conclusion be made, other
>than a direct assertion by his part.

Replace "Stephen" with "David Joslin," since you directed the same
accusation of hypocrisy at me.  In e-mail to me you wrote:
    In t.r.m. Robert Weiss writes [a promise from Psalm 9:10]
    Gee, since you wouldn't be at all hypocritical, you must be really
    busy arguing against these out-of-context extracted translations!

As you may recall, you mailed me six mail messages quoting articles by
Robert Weiss, all sent within a few minutes of each other.  You added:
    Naturally, I await your arguments against this out-of-context
    translation.  But I shall not await holding my breath...
and
    Wonder when you get to sleep, disputing all these out-of-context
    extracted translations!
and other similar comments. 

Perhaps you could explain why you ever thought that I might have a
reason to read all of these articles you pulled off of t.r.m, much
less write responses to them?  


>Have you, by chance, ever even heard of inductive logic?  You are not
>demonstrating any familiarly with it (i.e. you are being insufficiently
>logical).

I am familiar with inductive logic.  Go ahead and give me the details
of the "logic" that led you to conclude, incorrectly, that I would
condone Robert Weiss taking verses out of context.  Your conclusion was
wrong, of course, since I agree that both you and Robert Weiss were
guity of taking verses out of context.  Nothing hypocritical about
that, is there?  

Since you reached a false conclusion, you made some mistake in your
"logic."  The only question is where.  Did you think that it would
be hypocritical for me not to post a reply to Robert Weiss' articles?
Did you make the common creationist error of confusing a lack of
evidence for X with evidence for the lack of X?   Is your grasp of
inductive logic not quite as firm as you think? See if you can figure
out what your mistake was, and learn from it.

dj

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83592
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: JUDAS, CRUCIFIXION, TYRE, Etc...

In article <1qe8qk$58t@news.ysu.edu> af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes:
>
>I need to prioritize things in my life, and this board is not all that important
>to me.  My personal relationship wife the Lord is first, my wife is second, and
>my ministry at church is third.  (Not to mention my job!)

Have you informed your wife of this prioritization?

This board will have
>to wait until (if ever) I can organize my life to fit it in.  I tried dropping
>out, but Sieferman coerced me to come back.  He won't this time.

Thou hast used my name in vain!  I never coerce.  Ridicule, maybe, but
never coerce.  Please take responsibility for your actions.

(deletia)

>I'm history.
>Frank

I appreciate your efforts.  Good luck.




Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83593
From: ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale M. Skiba)
Subject: Re: BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS and Archer

Jenny Anderson (jennya@well.sf.ca.us) wrote:

: medtronic.COM (Dale M. Skiba) entirely missed my point in my previous
: posting, in which I wrote:

: : firmly on the western coast of the Med.  You can bet IUm gonna keep this
: baby

: >My my my, such double standards.  You neglected to give any primary sources
: >for your book,  _Encyclopedia of the Bible_.  Are we to expect that source
: >to be as unbiased as the other sources...  MR. Butler *DID* give at least
: >one source, you have given none.

: REPLY

: It was a JOKE.  The Readers digest _Encyclopedia of the Bible_ was the most
: outrageously bogus *authority* I could dredge from my shelves.
: I was trying to point out that going to some encyclopedia, rather than
:  original or scholarly sources is a BIG MISTAKE in procedure.  I am glad
: to note that Butler and DeCesno are arguing about substance now,
: rather than about arguing.

I guess the joke was on me...  I am so used to seeing bogus stuff
posted here that I assumed that yours was necessarily the same.

--
Dale Skiba

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83594
From: ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale M. Skiba)
Subject: Re: BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS and Archer

Jenny Anderson (jennya@well.sf.ca.us) wrote:


: medtronic.COM (Dale M. Skiba) entirely missed my point in my previous
: posting, in which I wrote:

: COMMENT:

: Shortly after that post, I realized two things:  I was running a fever of
: over 102, and that I probably should not have gone directly from reading
: alt.slack to posting on this august newsgroup.

: >: >it is not ad hominen to point out that Mr Archer willingly prints blatant
: >: lies
: >: >in defense of Bible inerrancy, and thus is worthless as an expert witness.

: >: Okay, Im game, give us a listing of blatant lies from _Encyclopedia of
: >: Biblical Difficulties_ or other Archer writings.

: >That would be interesting.  If only a very short list can be generated,
: >I think it is more likely that Mr. Archer, with his inerancy mindset is
: >not always impartial and made a doozy of a mistake.  (IMHO I also think
: >that this mindset tends to generate these sorts of mistakes...)

: >On the other hand, if a long list can be generated, it is more likely
: >that Mr. Archer intentionally uses deception in hs books. (Why should
: >he be deceptive just with Tyre?)

: So, Archer is just sitting around, rubbing his hands and plotting how next
: to deceive?  OK, lets _see_ the list...

This was an open question.  I assumed that if Mr. Archer is a chronic
liar, someone whould have documented it.   This assumption is based on
how talk.origins regulars have documented numerous cases of Creationist
deceptions (such as Duane Guish and his friends).

No long list of Archer mistakes has yet been given, so this may be just
an isolated incident...

--
Dale Skiba

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83601
From: kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

I must correct the following in my previous posting:
 
: If you are trying to be objective, you must also recognise that
: 
: 1) the gospels are not independent sources, on the contrary, they
: share much of the same material

I should have been a bit more careful here - the gospels not only
tell us about the same events, they usually use the same wordings.
Textual analyses show that Matthew and Luke probably had a common
source, which may have influenced Mark, too.

Petri

--
 ___. .'*''.*        Petri Pihko    kem-pmp@          Mathematics is the Truth.
!___.'* '.'*' ' .    Pihatie 15 C    finou.oulu.fi    Physics is the Rule of
       ' *' .* '*    SF-90650 OULU  kempmp@           the Game.
          *'  *  .*  FINLAND         phoenix.oulu.fi  -> Chemistry is The Game.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83602
From: foster@mtechca.maintech.com
Subject: Catholic Lit-Crit of a.s.s.

In article <1qevbh$h7v@agate.berkeley.edu>, dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu 
(Dennis Kriz) writes:

[ a lot of religious opinions and quotations from the Bible and from 
many Catholic theologians and Papal Bulls ]

[ which, although introduced with a smiley, was not as funny as it
might have been (notable exception: subject headers such as "ONE'S 
DICK IS ONE'S INSTRUMENT OF REDEMPTION." ]

[ and indeed, the posting seemed to be more a vehicle for the
religious text than for any "literary/moral analysis" ]

I am surprised and saddened. I would expect this kind of behavior
from the Evangelical Born-Again Gospel-Thumping In-Your-Face We're-
The-Only-True-Christian Protestants, but I have always thought 
that Catholics behaved better than this.

Friend Dennis, I urge you to follow the example of your fellow
Catholics, of who I count many dozens as my friends, and practice
your faith through good example and decent living and respect
for the common humanity of others. Please do not stoop to the
level of the E B-A G-T I-Y-F W-T-O-T-C Protestants, who think
that the best way to witness is to be strident, intrusive, loud,
insulting and overbearingly self-righteous.

The imagery in the Song of Solomon is a little bit dated (get it? 
Middle East - date palms - oh, never mind) but apparently acceptable, 
on a steaminess level, to be accepted as part of the canon. From
this fact I derive that erotica itself is not incompatible with
Catholic doctrine.

Is there such a thing as Catholic erotica? Not necessarily a love
story between people of that faith, but a love story that is not
exploitative, does not seek redemption through penis size, pays
proper respect to the dignity of each partner, and is still erotic
enough to have a place on a.s.s.

I would submit that the _Darknites_ series of stories qualify, also
most of the _Journal Entries_, and _Rings I and II_.

I would guess that your aim is to cut down on the pornography and
increase the erotica. I actually agree with you that nearly all of
the "I've got an enormous dick, and I shot my wad all over her face"
stories are crap. I count them as noise, which makes my take on the
signal-to-noise ration much lower than many other people's.

Since you are one of the few posters here who can actually write 
decent prose, could you write a few stories for us instead of
overwhelming us with commentary?  

> Anyway, this is a big subject.  PLEASE add your comments,
> additions and observations.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> dennis
> dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu
> 
-- 
Thank you.

Jeff
foster@mtechca.maintech.com

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83608
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

In article <1993Apr15.202729.6649@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:
> Jesus gives more reasons in John 16:7.  But one obvious reason
> why Jesus died, (and as with everything else, it has nothing do with
> his punishment) was that he could rise to life again--so that
> we would "stop doubting and believe" (John 21:27).  The fact
> that Jesus rose from the dead is my hope that I too will rise
> from the dead.  It is an obvious point.  Do not overlook it.
> Without this obvious point, I would have no hope
> and my faith would be vanity.

Glad to hear this, just a note, Osiris, Mithras and many other
cult gods resurrected as well, so there's a good chance for all of
us to maybe end up in a virtual reality simulator, and live forever,
hurrah!

Sorry, this was a joke, some sort of one anyway. I'm the first
that connected Osiris with a virtual reality personality database.
Time to write a book.


Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83609
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

In article <1qknu0INNbhv@shelley.u.washington.edu>, > Christian:  washed in
the blood of the lamb.
> Mithraist:  washed in the blood of the bull.
> 
> If anyone in .netland is in the process of devising a new religion,
> do not use the lamb or the bull, because they have already been
> reserved.  Please choose another animal, preferably one not
> on the Endangered Species List.  

This will be a hard task, because most cultures used most animals
for blood sacrifices. It has to be something related to our current
post-modernism state. Hmm, what about used computers?

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83610
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!

In article <1993Apr15.200231.10206@ra.royalroads.ca>,
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
> These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had
> expressly set apart from the rest of the world.  The Israelites were a
> direct witness to God's existence.  To disobey God after KNOWing that God
> is real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately punishable.
> Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to 
> God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We are living in the
> age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death.  There is
> repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just
> for a few chosen people.  Salvation is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile
> alike.

Jews won't agree with you, Malcolm.

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83614
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen)
Subject: Re: Comments on the Koresh 3-02 Transcript

In article <1993Apr14.200259.20419@microsoft.com>, 
iank@microsoft.com (Ian Kennedy) writes...

(stephen) wrote:
>>Correction to my prior post, proper citation is:
>>
>>	Isaiah 30:26 -- Moreover the light of the moon shall
>>	   be as the light of the sun, and the light of the 
>>	   sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days,
>>	   in the day that the LORD bindeth up the breach of
>>	   his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound.
> 
>So we have to wait for the sun to nova?

More along the lines of Hebrews 12:25-29, I reckon...

	See that you refuse not him that speaks. For if they
	escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much 
	more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that 
	speaks from heaven:

	Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he has promised,
	saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also
	heaven.

	And this word, Yet once more, signifies the removing of
	those things that are shaken, as of things that are made,
	that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.

	Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, 
	let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably 
	with reverence and godly fear:

	For our God is a consuming fire.


Or 2nd Thessalonians 1:7-10...

	And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord
	Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
 	In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God,
	and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

	Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from 
	the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
 	When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be
	admired in all them that believe (because our testimony 
	among you was believed) in that day. 


Kinda gives Flaming a whole new meaning, I reckon. 

			      - < > -

The impression I got from talking with Livingston was that the coming
of the Lord, power-wise, is going to be something that those who are
unprepared can't handle -- kinda like overloading a fuse -- due to 
guilt. Somehow it seems to also apply to the entire physical world as 
we know it. LF suggests that God doesn't want that and has sent Koresh 
as a reminder. 

Seems that those who have been purified through salvation, or that those
protected by the Seals, will be the ones who survive. And no -- I don't 
have a good idea yet what "being shielded by the seals" actually involves 
or how exactly it relates to salvation. (Other than it involves the
marriage of the Bridegroom and the Bride... for those of you Biblical
well versed.)
			     - < > -

Me personally, I'm totally 100% dependent on God through Christ, so 
if God wants me to understand, good. If not, also good. If God wants
to save me, or dispose of me, that's great either way. Being born in
the Spirit, means being part of the Body of Christ (Ephesians 2), so
who and what I was, matters little. * What's important is loving GOD *

Come Nova, Nuke, or Apocalypse -- who cares? Satan might even be able 
to pull off a pretty convincing fake. Big deal. Not worth fearing or 
worrying about though, not before:


		   -* The Greater Glory of GOD *-
 	

Maybe Koresh is right, maybe he isn't, and it should be interesting to 
see the new message (or prophecy). The tour of the Bible I've taken in 
studying the passages he points to in the 3-02 text, has been most re-
warding. But the test of prophecy is still the fruit it bears -- which 
is not yet clear. 

Much much more important is "Charity" -- which by definition *is* --

	                   Love for GOD

(I hope Dear Reader, you've taken all this as an expression of faith, 
 and not a statement of mere fact. Seems many folks get real upset at 
 reminders. ;-)

   |
-- J -- 
   |
   | stephen


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83617
From: starowl@rahul.net (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

On 15 Apr 1993 22:34:40 GMT, Eric Sieferman observed:

: Christian:  washed in the blood of the lamb.
: Mithraist:  washed in the blood of the bull.

: If anyone in .netland is in the process of devising a new religion,
: do not use the lamb or the bull, because they have already been
: reserved.  Please choose another animal, preferably one not
: on the Endangered Species List.  

How about "washed in the blood of Barney the Dinosaur"?  :)

--
Michael D. Adams  (starowl@a2i.rahul.net)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83620
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian M
From: NUNNALLY@acs.harding.edu (John Nunnally)

In <1qksc2$2mr@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com writes:

> In article <1qkoel$5fr@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> |> 
> |> Good question, my point was that a world with truth is better than a world
> |> with falsehood.  A world in which it were possible to say "yes, I am
> |> holding a Jew" (the truth) and you, me, the Jew, and the SS guy all sit
> |> down to crack open a bottle of whiskey is better than the grim alternatives 
> |> you present. Obviously, this is not possible, and the best alternative seems
> |> to be to lie.  That's because other values are involved, such as life.
> |> Now that IS just my opinion - don't confuse the claim 'objective morality
> |> exists' with the claim 'I have a lock on morals'.
> 
> I think that at this point it would actually be quite easy to
> confuse objective morality with relative morality.
> 
> jon.
Actually, jon, that is quite true.  Christian people have caused
"objective morality" to look very "relative."  After all, that was the
point of the original question in this thread, i.e. can we toss out
Christianity because it is so obviously inconsistent with its own
principles?  If you will bear with me, I will attempt to explain this
apparent inconsistency from at least one Christian's viewpoint:

If God exists and is the creator of mankind as the Bible claims, then
He has a pretty well-defined concept of what makes people tick
physically, emotionally, etc.  GOD has an "objective" morality for us.
That is to say, He has no trouble understanding what is good for (or
detrimental to) the creature He created. 

	Galatians 2:10-- For we [mankind] are His workmanship, created in
	Christ Jesus for good works [a morality], which God prepared
	beforehand [a well-defined design], that we might walk in them.

However, contrary to what many people assume (including the Pharasees
of the Bible,) God's morality cannot be completely codified in a list
of rules and regulations.  To some extent, every activity of a
person's life creates a new situation to which morality must be
applied.  There never could be enough volumes to codify God's
"objective" morality for us. 

Throughout history, mankind has tried to reduce morality to a list of
rules (objectivity, if you please.)  In the Old Testament, we have
both principles and specific rules.  By the time of Jesus, most of the
principles were obscured by the emphasis men had placed on the rules.
Volumes of additional rules had been made to try to codify the
application of the principles.  We [mankind] weren't comfortable with
the "subjectivity" of principles. 

	For reference see Matthew 5 where Jesus explains the difference
	between the Law and the principles of the Law.  For example, in
	verses 21-22:  "You have heard that the ancients were told,
	'You shall not commit murder'...and 'Whoever commits murder shall
	be liable to the court.'  But I say to you that everyone who is
	angry with his brother shall be liable to the court..."

The "objective morality" of God gets blurred by our inept
interpretation of it.  We [Christians] have made our biggest errors
when we have allowed any one person or group of people decide EXACTLY
what God intended for us.  If we [Christians] would stay committed to
seeking God's will instead of trying to prove we already had it all
figured out, we might do a better job of allowing others to find God's
"objective morality" for themselves.  If Jesus is who he said he
was/is (and that's the fundamental question,) then HE IS "objective
morality." 

John Nunnally

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83621
From: dmcgee@uluhe.soest.hawaii.edu (Don McGee)
Subject: Federal Hearing


Fact or rumor....?  Madalyn Murray O'Hare an atheist who eliminated the
use of the bible reading and prayer in public schools 15 years ago is now
going to appear before the FCC with a petition to stop the reading of the
Gospel on the airways of America.  And she is also campaigning to remove
Christmas programs, songs, etc from the public schools.  If it is true
then mail to Federal Communications Commission 1919 H Street Washington DC
20054 expressing your opposition to her request.  Reference Petition number

2493.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83622
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Catholic Right & Pat Robertson

In <93105.093812KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET> <KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:

>Rocco L. Martino, a Philadelphia business
>executive wrote: "Separation of church and state is a false premise
>that must finally be cast aside and replaced by the true meaning of
>our constitution."

blechhhh.  Gimme that ole' time Inquisition ...

>Oh yes, the organization's "national ecclesisatical advisor" is
>Catholic politician Cardinal John J. O'Connor of New York.

It figures, doesn't it?
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		We must know the truth, and we must
mls@ulysses.att.com		love the truth we know, and we must
     - or -			act according to the measure of our love.
mls@panix.com		  				-- Thomas Merton

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83623
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Christian meta-ethics

In <lsjc8cINNmc1@saltillo.cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
writes:

>In article <C554F5.3GF@panix.com> mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
>
>> The issue, then, is this:
>>
>>	Christian A says, "Behavior such-and-such is sinful."  What is
>>	Christian B supposed to *do* with such a statement?
>>
>> One possibility *always* exists:  A may be able to persuade B that the
>> behavior in question *does* exhibit a failure in loving God or neighbor.
>
>Michael, modern liberal that he is, reads a fairly benign meaning
>into this word.  He then constructs his religious beliefs around
>this understanding, reading *other* scripture in the context of 
>these commandments, with "love" benignly understood.

I regard love as no more or less "benign" than any other Christian does.
You are merely expressing "approval" of the consequences I find therein.
Which says more about our politics and cultural trappings than about my
(or any) religion.  "Love" is a highly ambiguous word, of which Christians
can write both the "gentle" words Paul uses of it in 1 Corinthians -- in
a passage that even the "conservatives" will quote at you :-) -- and the
words of T. S. Eliot in his Pentacost Hymn, "Love is the unfamiliar Name
that wove the intolerable shirt of flame ..."

This is in any case rather to the side of what I was attempting to raise
in my note, as will become more evident below.

>As a non-believer, I find Michael's Christianity kinder and gentler.

blechhh.  I think you are misreading me, rather seriously.  Though,
given my principle that one CANNOT force one's own notion of "sin" on
another, and my unshakeable "disestablishmentarianism", Russel Turpin
and others (believers and unbelievers alike) are under no threat of my
legislating my own understanding of Christian love.

>If I take him at
>his word, he cannot condemn the Inquisitors, because they were
>also following these commandments as *they* understood them.  If

You misread.  I can do (and have repeatedly done) a complete bill of
accusation against the Inquisition by exhibiting in as thorough a form
as anyone might want a demonstration of the harm it has done to human
beings (in the first place) and to respect for (let alone love of) "God"
in near succession.  Please go back to my quoted words above:

The "possibility that always exists" is that I (or, to revert to proper
time sequence, my predecessors over the last several centuries) could
persuade "Christian B" of my case that the Inquisition *does* indeed
constitute an egregious violation of the Law of Love.  I must also note
that the majority of Christians HAVE been so persuaded.  By Christian
argumentation, as well as by secular [both Christian and non-Christian]
prohibitions.

What Mr. Turpin alludes to is a trickier point:

	A.  I demonstrate the human pain and violation of love involved
	    in the Inquisition.

	B.  The Inquisitor responds that Mother Church must, however
	    painful this *seems*, "discipline" her children for their
	    own good -- in this case the salvation of their souls (or
	    if the tortured heretic will not recant, than by bad example
	    "deterring" others from the same loss-of-soul.)

	A.  I point out that this "justification" of a failure in love
	    depends on a highly speculative construal of texts and of
	    philosophical assertions that are quite undemonstrable.

	B.  Burns me at the stake.

My rhetoric has failed, but the point I am making is sustained.  What is
going on here has a *lot* to do with "cultural baggage."  In this case,
the baggage includes a (nearly universal, and absolutely secular) belief
that an accused person must prove innocence and that testimony is most
believable if taken under torture.  The elimination of Inqisitorial
practice (in those places where it *has* been eliminated, or at least
greatly reduced) has very little, if anything, to do with the discussion
of sin in the exchange between A and B.

Mr. Turpin is pointing out that, if I am A versus the Grand Inquisitor's B,
then my persuasion is not very likely to work.  I know this; and in what-
ever personal agony, I consign the issue to God and my ghostly defense
attorney.  So, "one possibility" fails in this case -- as it will fail in
may others.  At the other extreme, the "persuasion" will succeed when it
properly SHOULD not, if it entails mistaken assumptions I share with the
Inquisitor.  And that is potentially an even more troubling case, in that
many of the victims of Inquisition will have "accepted" that they were in
fact sinful (in such random cases as they may actually have been guilty
of charges brought against them.)

The point is that the "persuasion" breaks down when the parties do NOT
share enough to agree on all the cultural baggage -- and given the main
thrust of the Inquisition, against "heresy", it is *bound* to break down
in precisely the "worst" cases.  The "conservative" (I don't think that
is the right word, BTW) will take refuge in what I attribute to B above,
that he is "justified" in causing harm because he *thinks* that works to
a "greater good."  But this is a violent and extravagant REFUSAL to follow
the gospel, as if one's theories about "sin" entitled one to cast aside
Jesus' words on dealing with sinners (cf. Matthew 5:39ff).

I am a "radical" Christian *only* in that I take the gospel seriously.

>(Or, for that matter, what does it mean to love one's fellow
>man?) And what is the "right thing"?  And how does one go about
>loving god? 

Well, the whole *point* of making these the "base" commandments is that
they *aren't* reducible to rules.  A set of rules is a moral code or a
law code or an algorithm for acting.  Such things can be very helpful
to individuals or societies -- but not if they are used *instead* of a
personal involvement in and responsibility for one's actions.  The Great
Commandment is, more than anything else, a call to act *as if you were
God and accepting ultimate responsibility* in your every action.  A
demand that I, like most, would rather *not* hear, but it keeps popping
up nonetheless (along with the reassurance that it is more important
that I be open to trying this, than succeeding at it).  "Conservatives"
may twist this "act as if you were God" to mean "lay down rules for other
people and be as nasty to them as possible if they don't keep YOUR rules."
They are so insistent (and obvious) about this that they have convinced a
lot of people (who rightly reject the whole concept!) that such idiocy
IS how God acts.  That, after all, is the standard accusation "against
God" by the atheists here and elsewhere.  That the "conservatives" have
confused THEIR manipulative, hoop-jumping notions of coercing other
people with the Nature of God is almost the entire content of standard
American atheism -- and I quite agree with it on this point.

>Ethical systems are not differentiated by the nice sounding goo
>up front, much of which sounds pretty much the same, but by the
>*specific* acts, procedures, and arguments that they recommend.

And different bodies of Christians have, from the beginning, urged
*different* "ethical systems" (or in some cases, none).  As a result,
it is bizarre to identify any one of these systems, however popular
(or infamous) with Christianity.  Christianity DOES NOT HAVE A TORAH.
It does not have a QU'RAN.  Specifically Christian scripture has very
little, if anything, in the way of "commandments" -- so little that
the "Christians" who desperately *want* commandments go "mining" for
them with almost no support (and thus almost no obvious limitation :-))
for their efforts.  The one, single, thing in the gospels which Jesus
specifically "gives" as "a commandment" to us is "love one another."

	[I will be expanding on this point in a reply to Paul Hudson
	 that I hope to get to in a day or so -- it is quite true that
	 SOME Christians infer LOTS of commandments from the NT; I'll
	 point out what has to be going on in these inferences, and why
	 there is a huge amount of "cultural baggage" involved.]

You are quite right that this is "goo" if one is looking for an ethical
system.

But why should anyone BE looking for an ethical system, since our
society is eager to hand us one or more no matter what we do?  It
may be that we need a principle for the CRITIQUE of ethical systems
-- in which case I will profer the _agapate allelou_ once again.

>I am glad that a few Christians,
>such as Michael, find a benign meaning for the goo, and then
>interpret the usually ugly specifics in a more constructive
>fashion.  On the other hand, I do think that this tells us more
>about Michael and Christians like him that it tells us about
>Christianity. 

I think you are begging the question. Why don't I and the (myriads
of) other Christians like me tell you something about Christianity?
[Nor is this very new in Christianity -- you might want to look up
the origins and fundamental doctrines of the Quakers, from the 17th
century onwards, and they are not at all the first to understand the
gospel in a manner that is congenial to my case.]
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83624
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: 16 Apr 93   God's Promise in Psalm 32:8


	I will instruct thee and teach thee
	in the way which thou shalt go:
	I will guide thee with mine eye.

	Psalm 32:8

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83627
From: ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale M. Skiba)
Subject: Re: JUDAS, CRUCIFIXION, TYRE, Etc...

David Joslin (joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu) wrote:
: af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes:
: >Based on the amount of E-Mail from fellow Christians who have read the
: >posts and told me I was wasting my time with Butler and Joslin, I told
: >them I wasn't doing it for DB or  DJ but for other Christians.  They
: >have told me that DB's and DJ's arguments won't convince most Bible
: >studying Christians.  So I have reevaluated my purpose here and it's
: >also contributed to my decision.

: So most Bible-studying Christians won't be convinced by my arguments? 
: And this is supposed to be a Good Thing, I presume?

Where does this "Most Bible studying Christians think as Frank
does" come from.  And what implied "good" are you doing for other
Christians?

At least some of what you are teaching has been demonstrated as
wrong.  Has it ever occured to you that you may be doing more harm
than good to your fellow Christians?

BTW, I used to think like Frank does.  I went to a fundamentalist
church for a while.  I didn't start to really think about what
they were saying until I noticed a "God's Science" phamphlet
there.  I read it and noticed that the authors of it knew virtually
nothing about Science.  I asked church members some questions about
"theories" from the phamphlet and got only deceptive answers.  I
began to notice a very similar style of "answers" for theological
questions as well.  The only conclusion I could reach was that
these peoples' beliefs about the Bible were about as valid as
their beliefs in their God's Science phamphlet.

: If there are still people out there who think that my purpose here
: is to "attack the Bible," (an accusation Frank once made) I would point
: out that I have also criticized people who have posted "bible
: contradictions" that turn out to be silly, out of context, or easily
: (and legitimately) reconciled.  I'm not attacking the Bible, but 
: intellectual dishonesty *about* the Bible, from either side.

If one of the primary purposes of Christians is to seek out truth,
how can people condemn you for doing this?

--
Dale Skiba

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83629
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: [lds] Rick's reply

Rick Anderson replied to my letter with...

ra> In article <C5ELp2.L0C@acsu.buffalo.edu>,
ra> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) says:
ra>
ra> >     Well, Jason, it's heretical in a few ways. The first point is that
ra> >     this equates Lucifer and Jesus as being the same type of being.
ra> >     However, Lucifer is a created being: "Thou [wast] perfect in thy
ra> >     ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in
ra> >     thee." (Ezekiel 28:15). While Jesus is uncreated, and the Creator of
ra> >     all things: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
ra> >     God, and the Word was God.  The same was in the beginning with God.
ra> >     All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made
ra> >     that was made." (John 1:1-3) "And he is before all things, and by
ra> >     him all things consist." (Colossians 1:17)
ra>
ra>    Your inference from the Ezekiel and John passages that Lucifer was
ra> "created" and that Jesus was not depends on a particular interpetation of
ra> the word "create" -- one with which many Christians may not agree.
ra> Granted the Mormon belief that all of God's children (including Christ
ra> and Lucifer) are eternally existent intelligences which were "organized"
ra> into spirit children by God, the term "creation" can apply equally well
ra> to both of those passages.

     Just briefly, on something that you mentioned in passing. You refer to
     differing interpretations of "create," and say that many Christians may
     not agree. So what? That is really irrelevant. We do not base our faith
     on how many people think one way or another, do we? The bottom line is
     truth, regardless of popularity of opinions.

     Also, I find it rather strange that in trying to persuade that created
     and eternally existent are equivalent, you say "granted the Mormon
     belief..." You can't grant your conclusion and then expect the point to
     have been addressed. In order to reply to the issue, you have to address
     and answer the point that was raised, and not just jump to the
     conclusion that you grant.

     The Bible states that Lucifer was created.  The Bible states that Jesus
     is the creator of all. The contradiction that we have is that the LDS
     belief is that Jesus and Lucifer were the same.

ra> >     Your point that we all are brothers of Jesus and Lucifer is also
ra> >     heretical, since we are not innately brothers and sisters of Christ.
ra> >     We are adopted, "For ye have not received the spirit of bondage
ra> >     again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby
ra> >     we cry, Abba, Father." (Romans 8:15); and not the natural children
ra> >     of God. It is only through faith that we even enter the family of
ra> >     God; "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."
ra> >     (Galatians 3:26). And it is only through the manifestation of this
ra> >     faith in receiving Jesus that we are become the sons of God.  "But
ra> >     as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of
ra> >     God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not
ra> >     of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but
ra> >     of God." (John 1:12-13)
ra>
ra>    Has it occured to you, Robert, that being "born of" someone or being
ra> of that person (or Person)'s "family" may be a symbolic term in the New
ra> Testament?  Mormons believe that we are "adopted" into the House of
ra> Israel through baptism and faith in Christ, although some have expressed
ra> belief that this does evince a physical change in our bodies.

     The Mormon belief is that all are children of God. Literally. There is
     nothing symbolic about it. This however, contradicts what the Bible
     says. The Bible teaches that not everyone is a child of God:

          The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the 
          kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked [one];
          (Matthew 13:38)

          I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which 
          ye have seen with your father. (John 8:38)

          Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not 
          born of fornication; we have one Father, [even] God.  Jesus said 
          unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I 
          proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he 
          sent me.  Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye 
          cannot hear my word.  Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the 
          lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the 
          beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in 
          him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a 
          liar, and the father of it. (John 8:41-44)

          And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, [thou] child of 
          the devil, [thou] enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease 
          to pervert the right ways of the Lord? (Acts 13:10)

          Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this 
          world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit 
          that now worketh in the children of disobedience: (Ephesians 2:2)

          In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the 
          devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he 
          that loveth not his brother. (1 John 3:10)

     One becomes a child of God...

          But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the
          sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: (John 1:12)

          Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that
          we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us
          not, because it knew him not.  Beloved, now are we the sons of God,
          and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when
          he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he
          is. (1 John 3:1-2)

     ...when he is born again through faith in Jesus Christ:

          Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of
          the will of man, but of God. (John 1:13)

          Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus
          Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
          (Ephesians 1:5)

          Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should
          be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (James 1:18)

          For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of
          God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear;
          but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba,
          Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we
          are the children of God: (Romans 8:14-16)

          Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one
          that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. (1 John 4:7)

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and
          every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is
          begotten of him. (1 John 5:1)

          For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
          (Galatians 3:26)

ra> >     We are told that, "And this is life eternal, that they might know
ra> >     thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
ra> >     (John 17:3). Life eternal is to know the only true God. Yet the
ra> >     doctrines of the LDS that I have mentioned portray a vastly
ra> >     different Jesus, a Jesus that cannot be reconciled with the Jesus of
ra> >     the Bible. They are so far removed from each other that to proclaim
ra> >     one as being true denies the other from being true. According to the
ra> >     Bible, eternal life is dependent on knowing the only true God, and
ra> >     not the construct of imagination.
ra>
ra>
ra>    Robert, with all due respect, who died and left you Chief Arbiter of
ra> Correct Biblical Interpretation?  I don't mean to be snotty about this,
ra> but the fact is that the Bible is so differently interpreted by different
ra> groups of Biblical scholars (what do you think of the Jehovah's
ra> Witnesses, for example?) that to make reference to the "Jesus of the
ra> Bible" is simply ridiculous.  Whose "Jesus of the Bible" do you mean?

     This is really a red herring. It doesn't address any issue raised, but 
     rather, it seeks to obfuscate. The fact that some groups try to read 
     something into the Bible, doesn't change what the Bible teaches. For 
     example, the fact that the Jehovah's Witnesses deny the Deity of Christ 
     does not alter what the Bible teaches [ "Looking for that blessed hope,
     and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus
     Christ;" (Titus 2:13),"Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus
     Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through
     the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:" (2 Peter 1:1)] 
     on the Deity of Christ.

     We first look to the Bible to see what it teaches. To discount, or not 
     even address, what the Bible teaches because there are some groups that 
     have differing views is self-defeating. To see what the Bible teaches, 
     you have to look at the Bible.

ra> >     "Our Lord's mortality was essential to his own salvation" (_The
ra> >     Promised Messiah_, p. 456), "He had to work out his own salvation by
ra> >     doing the will of the Father in all things" (ibid., p.54), "he had
ra> >     to be baptized to gain admission to the celestial kingdom" (_Mormon
ra> >     Doctrine_, p.71).
ra>
ra>    Welcome to the wonderful world of Mormon paradoctrine, Robert.  The
ra> above books are by the late Bruce R. McConkie, a former general authority
ra> of the LDS Church.  Those books were not published by the Church, nor do
ra> they constitute "offical doctrine."  They consist of his opinions.  Now,
ra> does that mean that what he says is not true?  Not at all; I'll have to
ra> think about the idea of Christ's personal salvation before I come to any
ra> conclusions myself.  The conclusions I come to may seem "heretical" to
ra> you, but I'm prepared to accept that.

     I find this rather curious. When I mentioned that the Mormon belief is
     that Jesus needed to be saved, I put forward some quotes from the late
     apostle, Bruce McConkie. The curious part is that no one addressed the
     issue of `Jesus needing to be saved.' Rick comes the closest with his "I
     have my own conclusions" to addressing the point.

     Most of the other replies have instead hop-scotched to the issue of
     Bruce McConkie and whether his views were 'official doctrine.' I don't
     think that it matters if McConkie's views were canon. That is not the
     issue.  Were McConkie's writings indicative of Mormon belief on this
     subject is the real issue. The indication from Rick is that they may 
     certainly be.


=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83630
From: Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Subject: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars

93!04.16 e.v.  After the Glorious Eve of Taxation

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The word of Sin is Restriction.


"To all whom it may concern -

...

"It is known only to a few that there exists an external visible
organization of such men and women, who having themselves found
the path to real self-knowledge, and who, having travelled the
burning sands, are willing to give the benefit of their experience,
and to act as spiritual guides to those who are willing to be
guided.

"While numberless societies, associations, orders, groups etc.
have been founded during the last thirty years in all parts of
the civilised world, all following some line of occult study,
yet there is but ONE ancient organization of genuine Mystics
which shows the seeker after truth a Royal Road to discover
The Lost Mysteries of Antiquity, and to the Unveiling of the
One Hermetic Truth.

"This organization is known at the present time as the Ancient
Order of Oriental Templars.  Ordo Templi Orientis.  Otherwise:
The Hermetic Brotherhood of Light.

"It is a Modern School of Magic.  And, like the ancient schools
of magic, it derived its knowledge from the East.  This Knowledge
was never its possessors.[sic] It was recorded in symbol, parable 
and allegory, requiring a Key for its interpretation....

"This key can be placed within the reach of all those who... apply
for membership to the Oriental Templars (O.T.O.). 

"The O.T.O.... is a body of Initiates in whose hands are
concentrated the secret knowledge of all Oriental Orders and of all
existing Masonic Degrees....

"The O.T.O., although an Academia Masonica, is not a Masonic Body,
so far as the Craft degrees are concerned in the sense in which that
expression is usually understood in England, and therefore in no way
conflicts with or infringes the just priveleges of the United Lodge
of England.  English Master Masons in good standing, by arrangement,
on affiliation, are admitted at reduced charges.  Members of the IX
degree become part-proprietors of the Estates and Goods of the Order.
For further information see the publications of the O.T.O., and the
synopsis of the degrees of the O.T.O."

'Constitution of the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars,
 Ordo Templi Orientis', 

by Frater Superior Merlin Peregrinus X Degree, 
Past Grand Master Albert Karl Theodor Reuss


Taken from _Equinox III: 10_, 
Edited by Frater Superior Rex Summus Sanctissimus,
United States Caliph of Ordo Templi Orientis


Invoke me under my stars.  Love is the law, love under will.

I am I!

Frater (I) Nigris (DCLXVI) (CCCXXXIII) 

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83642
From: swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
Subject: Re: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars

In article <79615@cup.portal.com> Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:

>"To all whom it may concern -
>
>"It is known only to a few that there exists an external visible
>organization of such men and women, who having themselves found
>the path to real self-knowledge, and who, having travelled the
>burning sands, are willing to give the benefit of their experience,
>and to act as spiritual guides to those who are willing to be
>guided.
>
>"While numberless societies, associations, orders, groups etc.
>have been founded during the last thirty years in all parts of
>the civilised world, all following some line of occult study,
>yet there is but ONE ancient organization of genuine Mystics
>which shows the seeker after truth a Royal Road to discover
>The Lost Mysteries of Antiquity, and to the Unveiling of the
>One Hermetic Truth.
>
>"This organization is known at the present time as the Ancient
>Order of Oriental Templars.  Ordo Templi Orientis.  Otherwise:
>The Hermetic Brotherhood of Light.

  Up to this point, I was kinda hoping that this was a joke. Still,
it would make a great premise for a bad syndicated TV show- "These
are the adventures of the Oriental Templars... dedicated to truth,
justice, and good karma! (Dramatic music in the background.)"
  No doubt I've just horribly offended someone.
-- 
Mike Swaim            |Whenever the soft drink  machine needs to be 
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu |restocked, rather than getting angry,
Disclamer: I lie      |meditate on the impermanence of all things
                      |and the emptiness of coke.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83643
From: system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Subject: Bhagavad-Gita 2.45

                                TEXT 45

                        trai-gunya-visaya veda
                        nistrai-gunyo bhavarjuna
                     nirdvandvo nitya-sattva-stho
                          niryoga-ksema atmavan
  
trai-gunya--pertaining to the three modes of material nature;
visayah--on the subject matter; vedah--Vedic literatures;
nistrai-gunyah--transcendental to the three modes of material nature;
bhava--be; arjuna--O Arjuna; nirdvandvah--without duality;
nitya-sattva-sthah--in a pure state of spiritual existence;
niryoga-ksemah--free from ideas of gain and protection;
atma-van--established in the self.
    
                              TRANSLATION

 The Vedas deal mainly with the subject of the three modes of material
nature. O Arjuna, become transcendental to these three modes. Be free
from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain and safety, and be
established in the self.
  
                                PURPORT

 All material activities involve actions and reactions in the three
modes of material nature. They are meant for fruitive results, which
cause bondage in the material world. The Vedas deal mostly with fruitive
activities to gradually elevate the general public from the field of
sense gratification to a position on the transcendental plane. Arjuna,
as a student and friend of Lord Krsna, is advised to raise himself to
the transcendental position of Vedanta philosophy where, in the
beginning, there is brahma-jijnasa, or questions on the supreme
transcendence. All the living entities who are in the material world are
struggling very hard for existence. For them the Lord, after creation of
the material world, gave the Vedic wisdom advising how to live and get
rid of the material entanglement. When the activities for sense
gratification, namely the karma-kanda chapter, are finished, then the
chance for spiritual realization is offered in the form of the
Upanisads, which are part of different Vedas, as the Bhagavad-gita is a
part of the fifth Veda, namely the Mahabharata. The Upanisads mark the
beginning of transcendental life.

 As long as the material body exists, there are actions and reactions in
the material modes. One has to learn tolerance in the face of dualities
such as happiness and distress, or cold and warmth, and by tolerating
such dualities become free from anxieties regarding gain and loss. This
transcendental position is achieved in full Krsna consciousness when one
is fully dependent on the good will of Krsna.

Bhagavad-Gita As It is
Books of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami


       ---------------------------------------------------------
      |                Don't forget to chant:                   |
      |                                                         |
      |  Hare Krishna Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |       Hare Rama Hare Rama, Rama Rama Hare Hare          |
      |                                                         |
      |    Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA      |
      |          (system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us)           |
       ---------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83646
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Re: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars


In a previous article, Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) says:

>
>"It is known only to a few that there exists an external visible
>organization of such men and women, who having themselves found
>the path to real self-knowledge, and who, having travelled the
>burning sands, are willing to give the benefit of their experience,
>and to act as spiritual guides to those who are willing to be
>guided.
>"While numberless societies, associations, orders, groups etc.
>have been founded during the last thirty years in all parts of
>the civilised world, all following some line of occult study,
>yet there is but ONE ancient organization of genuine Mystics
>

	Up to that point I thought you were talking about the
Rosicrucian Order... :-)  [No offense intended!]

Tony

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83650
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Part 1 and part 2 (re: Homosexuality)

	Long time, no see.

			Andreas

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83651
From: jburrill@boi.hp.com (Jim Burrill)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

Brian Kendig (bskendig@netcom.com) wrote:
: 
: Can you please point to something, anything, that proves to me that
: the universe cannot possibly be explained without accepting as a fact
: the existence of a god in precisely the way your holy book describes?
: 
: Can you please convince me that your religion is more than a very
: cleverly-constructed fable, and that it does indeed have some bearing
: on my own personal day-to-day life?

Would you consider the word of an eye-witness (Peter) to testify to the
events surrounding Jesus' life?


 2Pe 1 16  We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you
 about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were 
 eyewitnesses of his majesty.

 2Pe 1 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the
 voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom 
 I love; with him I am well pleased."

 2Pe 1 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we
 were with him on the sacred mountain.

 2Pe 1 19  And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and
 you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark
 place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

This is a documented testimony. Perhaps further research on your part is
warranted before making more statements. There is considerably more to study
in Peters' two books of testimony regarding the Messiah. It is well worth 
your time, Mr. Brian.

Jim Burrill

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83658
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion


In article <sandvik-190493200420@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|> So we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire
|> on their house, killing most of the people inside.
|> 

I would hardly consider the BD's to be Christian.  They were acting in
direct contradiction to scripture.  Jesus' Second Coming is something
that everyone will know of.  Jesus also predicted that there will be
false Messiahs who will use His name.  His prophecy has been fulfilled.

|> I'm not that annoyed about the adults, they knew supposedly what
|> they were doing, and it's their own actions.
|> 
|> What I mostly are angry about is the fact that the people inside,
|> including mothers, let the children suffer and die during awful
|> conditions.
|>

I agree with you there.
 
|> If this is considered religious following to the end, I'm proud
|> that I don't follow such fanatical and non-compassionate religions.
|>

Me too.  I have already given my life to God.  If God tells me to lay
down my life, it will be to save another life.
 
|> You might want to die for whatever purpose, but please spare
|> the innocent young ones that has nothing to do with this all.
|> 
|> I have a hard time just now understanding that Christianity
|> knows about the word compassion. Christians, do you think 
|> the actions today would produce a good picture of your 
|> religion?
|>

Do you judge all Christians by the acts of those who would call
themselves Christian and yet are not?  The BD's contradicted scripture
in their actions.  They were NOT Christian.  Simple as that.  Perhaps
you have read too much into what the media has portrayed.  Ask any
true-believing Christian and you will find that they will deny any
association with the BD's.  Even the 7th Day Adventists have denied any
further ties with this cult, which was what they were.

Do you judge all Muslims by the acts committed by Saddam Hussein, a 
supposedly devout Muslim?  I don't.  Saddam is just a dictator using
the religious beliefs of his people to further his own ends.

God be with you,

Malcolm Lee   :)
 
|> 
|> Kent
|> 
|> ---
|> sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83659
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!


In article <sandvik-190493200858@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr19.165717.25790@ra.royalroads.ca>,
|> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
|> > 
|> > It is true what you stated above:  Jesus' saving grace is available to
|> > everyone, not just Jews.  In other words, everyone can have salvation but
|> > not everyone will.  This option is now open to people other than just
|> > Jews.  Of course, if the Jews don't accept the deity of Christ, I would
|> > hardly expect them to accept anything that Christ said.  But I don't feel
|> > any animosity towards them.  Even though they persecuted Jesus and his
|> > disciples and eventually crucified Him, I bear them no ill will.  If anything,
|> > I feel pity for them.  Jesus had to die to pay the price for our sins and
|> > so the Jews were merely fulfilling prophesy.  Jesus knew He had to die even
|> > before He began His ministry.  That demonstrates the great depth of His love
|> > for us.
|> 
|> Jesus certainly demonstrated the great depth of his love for the
|> children who died today at the Davidian complex.
|> 
|> Sorry, but the events today made me even more negative concering
|> organized religion.
|> 

I understand and sympathize with your pain.  What happened in Waco was a very
sad tradgedy.  Don't take it out on us Christians though.  The Branch
Davidians were not an organized religion.  They were a cult led by a ego-maniac
cult leader.  The Christian faith stands only on the shoulders of one man,
the Lord of Lords and King of Kings, Jesus Christ.   BTW, David Koresh was NOT
Jesus Christ as he claimed.

God be with you,

Malcolm Lee  :)

|> Cheers,
|> Kent
|> ---
|> sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83660
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion


In article <sandvik-200493000159@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|> In article <93Apr20.011634edt.47719@neat.cs.toronto.edu>,
|> cbo@cs.toronto.edu (Calvin Bruce Ostrum) wrote:
|> > In article <sandvik-190493200420@sandvik-kent.apple.com>
|> >    sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|> > | I have a hard time just now understanding that Christianity
|> > | knows about the word compassion. Christians, do you think 
|> > | the actions today would produce a good picture of your 
|> > | religion?
|> > Clearly all people considering themselves Christians are all alike,
|> > and support one another in everything they do.  In particular, it
|> > follows that they certainly will support all the actions of any
|> > other person calling himself a Christian...  NOT.
|> 
|> I see, there are Christians, and there are Christians. No wonder
|> the Christian world is in shambles, you can't even agree who
|> is a rightful one and a wrong one.
|> 

If one does not follow the teachings of Christ, he is NOT Christian.  
Too easy?  

|> Please, I would like to hear your comments about a supposed
|> Christian leader that makes sure that children are burnt to
|> death.
|> 

Would you say all Muslims are like Saddam Hussein?  I wouldn't make
such a blanket judgement, why do you?

|> Kent
|> ---
|> sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83661
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!


In article <1r0ejoINNjfj@owl.csrv.uidaho.edu>, lanph872@crow.csrv.uidaho.edu (Rob Lanphier) writes:
|> Malcolm Lee (mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca) wrote:
|> : What bothers me most is why people who have no religious affiliation 
|> : continue to persecute Jews?  Why this hatred of Jews?  The majority of
|> : people who persecute Jews are NOT Christians (I can't speak for all 
|> : Christians and there are bound to be a few who are on the anti-Semitism
|> : bandwagon.)
|> 
|> Do you even have anecdotal evidence to back this up?  The most blatent
|> persecution of the Jews in history was of course done by the Nazis before
|> and during World War II, a predominately Lutheran crowd.  Sure, many
|> Muslims in the Middle East consider the Israelites to be a thorn in their
|> side, but the most of the modern persecution of Jews has been at the hands
|> of Christians (at least as far as I'm aware).
|> 
|> Rob Lanphier
|> lanph872@uidaho.edu

Do you consider Neo-Nazis and white supremists to be Christian?  I'd hardly
classify them as Christian.  Do they follow the teachings of Christ?  Love
one another.  Love your neighbour as yourself.  Love your enemies.  Is Jesus
Christ their Lord and Saviour?  By the persecution of Jews, they are violating
all the precepts of what Christ died for.  They are in direct violation of
the teachings of Christ.  Even Jesus who was crucified by the Jewish leaders
of that time, loved His enemies by asking the Father for forgiveness of their
sins.  I am a Christian and I bear no animosity towards Jews or any one else.
The enemy is Satan, not our fellow man.

God be with you,

Malcolm Lee  :)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83662
From: netd@susie.sbc.com ()
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

In article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>For those who think David Koresh didn't have a solid structure,
>or sound Biblical backing for his hour long tape broadcast,

I don't think anyone really cares about the solid structure of his
sermon.  It's the deaths he's responsible for that concern most people.

>I've enclosed a partial list of the sources he cites or quotes
>he exactly used. As a Christian sermon, it's pretty good, if not 
>inspired.
>
>Though I differ in part on some of his conclusions, the argument 
>he presents is well backed -- which is why it's taken me this long
>to work through -- still ongoing. 
>
>If you thought it was rambling -- that says far more about you than
>it does Koresh. There is a very definite relationship between the

You've made me curious.  What does this say about me?

>First Seal in Revelation 6, the entirety of Psalms 45, and the
>most of Revelation 19 -- which demonstrated one of his major points 
>about how the writings in the Prophets (including David), and in 
>the Psalms, and in Revelation are all telling the same story when 
>you understand how they're related (ie have the key). The largely 
>explain each other. 

Charles Manson used revelation as well.  Do we see a pattern here?
I wonder of Koresh liked the Beatles?

>
>The sequence following is keyed to the Koresh tape, should you care
>to check it out. You can almost see the note cards he used when 
>doing the analysis. 
>
	[long list of Biblical references which
	 impressed me tremendously but were deleted
	 in the interests of common sense.]

Koresh was a nut, okay?  Just because he found ways for the Bible
to backup his rantings does not make him any less of a kook.

>
>Seems to me Koresh is yet another messenger that got killed
>for the message he carried. 

I'll type this very slowly so that you can understand.  He either set
the fire himself or told his followers to do so.  Don't make him out to
be a martyr.  He did not "get killed", he killed himself.

>
>In the mean time, we sure learned a lot about evil and corruption.
>Are you surprised things have gotten that rotten?
>

The evil was inside the compound.  All that "thou shalt not kill" stuff.

>Oh yeah, one last point for the believers -- Philippian 2:14-19.

For the rest of us, could you please post the text?



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83668
From: lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison)
Subject: Re: Freemasonry and the Southern Baptist Convention

In article <1qv82l$oj2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes:
>
>
>     With the Southern Baptist Convention convening this June to consider
>the charges that Freemasonry is incompatible with christianity, I thought
>the following quotes by Mr. James Holly, the Anti-Masonic Flag Carrier,
>would amuse you all...
>
>
>     The following passages are exact quotes from "The Southern 
>Baptist Convention and Freemasonry" by James L. Holly, M.D., President
>of Mission and Ministry To Men, Inc., 550 N 10th St., Beaumont, TX 
>77706. 
> 
<much drivel deleted>
>     "Jesus Christ never commanded toleration as a motive for His 
>disciples, and toleration is the antithesis of the Christian message."
>Page 30. 
> 
>     "The central dynamic of the Freemason drive for world unity 
>through fraternity, liberty and equality is toleration. This is seen 
>in the writings of the 'great' writers of Freemasonry". Page 31. 
<more drivel deleted>
>     I hope you all had a good laugh! I know *I* did! <g>,
>
>
>Tony   
A Laugh?  Tony, this religeous bigot scares the shit out of me, and that
any one bothers to listen to him causes me to have grave doubts about the
future of just about anything.  Shades of the Branch Davidians, Jim Jones,
and Charlie Manson.

--Uncle Wolf
--Member Highland Lodge 748 F&AM (Grand Lodge of California)
--Babtized a Southern Babtist
--And one who has beliefs beyond the teachings of either.

> 
> 



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83669
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!


In a previous article, cdcolvin@rahul.net (Christopher D. Colvin) says:
>
>I guess the San Jose Mercury news is wrong then,... 
				      ^^^^^
>
	No: It is old. You said AMORC *IS*, not *was*... :-)
Nothing personal, OK? Good! :-)

	Maybe you didn't know that it's over by now. There is no more
pending legal actions from no where, period. So yes, there was a
situation and it has been resolved by BOTH parties. As long as humans 
handle anything, it is subjected to "breaking" :-)

	BTW, Gary L. Stewart has a P.O. Box in TX calling his org ARC:
Ancient Rosae Crucis. I guess he couldn't take the "MO" from AMORC :-)


Tony



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83670
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Clarification of personal position

In article <C5MuIw.AqC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:

>If it were a sin to violate Sunday no one could
>ever be forgiven for that for Jesus never kept Sunday holy.  He only
>recognized one day of the seven as holy.

Jesus also recognized other holy days, like the Passover.  Acts 15 says 
that no more should be layed on the Gentiles than that which is necessary.
The sabbath is not in the list, nor do any of the epistles instruct people
to keep the 7th day, while Christians were living among people who did not
keep the 7th day.  It looks like that would have been a problem.

Instead, we have Scriptures telling us that all days can be esteemed alike
(Romans 14:5) and that no man should judge us in regard to what kind of
food we eat, Jewish holy days we keep, or _in regard to the sabbath. (Col. 2.)

>The
>question is "On what authority do we proclaim that the requirements of the
>fourth commandment are no longer relevant to modern Christians?"

I don't think that the Sabbath, or any other command of the law is totally
irrelevant to modern Christians, but what about Collosions 2, where it says
that we are not to be judged in regard to the keeping of the sabbath?

Link Hudson.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83671
From: rosst@pogo.wv.tek.com (Ross Taylor)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion

Is there evidence independent of the FBI that indicates that the Branch
Davidians set the fire?  What have the survivors said?  Did the press see
anything?

There is, unfortunately, precedent for the U.S. government saving children by
roasting them alive.  (There is precedent for religious self-imolation
as well.)

I still wonder why the government couldn't just leave them alone.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83672
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!


In a previous article, cdcolvin@rahul.net (Christopher D. Colvin) says:

>I worked at AMORC when I was in HS.

OK: So you were a naive teen.

>He [HS Lewis] dates back to the 20's. 

	Wrong: 1915 and if you do your homework, 1909.
But he was born LAST century (1883).

>
>Right now AMORC is embroiled in some internal political turmoil. 

No it isn't. 



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83673
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Re: Freemasonry and the Southern Baptist Convention


In a previous article, jluther@cs.umr.edu (John W. Luther) says:

John:

	It not "good netiquette" to quote a complete article :-) NOTHING
PERSONAL, Please! :-)

>I also appreciate your being amused
>by such determined ignorance.  Without taking anything away
>from your mirth, I want to say that these views sadden me.
>
	This views sadden me too! Don't think that I don't care! Sorry
if it seemed different. It IS serious stuff; but I have a 'sick' sense of
humor though (some say... :-)

Tolerance!

Tony


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83674
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

jburrill@boi.hp.com (Jim Burrill) writes:
>Brian Kendig (bskendig@netcom.com) wrote:
>: 
>: Can you please point to something, anything, that proves to me that
>: the universe cannot possibly be explained without accepting as a fact
>: the existence of a god in precisely the way your holy book describes?
>: 
>: Can you please convince me that your religion is more than a very
>: cleverly-constructed fable, and that it does indeed have some bearing
>: on my own personal day-to-day life?
>
>Would you consider the word of an eye-witness (Peter) to testify to the
>events surrounding Jesus' life?

No.  There are two problems here:

(1) Peter died two millenia ago.  The original letters he wrote have
long since decayed into dust.  If he were alive today and I could
question him, then this might lend credibility to your claims (but
probably not much, because after all, I've heard people claim with all
sincerity that they've spoken with Elvis recently).  But after his
death, Peter's writings were transcribed by monks for centuries, and I
find it hard to believe that one of them somewhere didn't decide to
change the wording of something to make it (in his opinion) a little
easier to understand.

(2) Even if Peter did witness the miracles of Jesus two millenia ago,
that doesn't mean that your deity is what the Bible says it is (God
might just be Satan, trying to convince everyone that he's a nice
guy), or even that your deity is still alive and active in the world
today.

Nice try, but it just isn't enough to convince me, especially since
your wild claims about your deity seem to fly in the face of the way
I've observed the world to work.  Please find something more compelling.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83677
From: critus@cwis.unomaha.edu (Michael J. Abboud)
Subject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions

critus




  

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83680
From: joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick


In article <Pegasus-150493132018@fp1-dialin-4.uoregon.edu> 
Pegasus@aaa.uoregon.edu (LaurieEWBrandt) writes:

>    Lets add to those percentages 13-15% for the Orphaic docterians brought to
>   the group by Paul/Saul who was a high ranking initiate. On the development
>   of Orphaic Mysteries, see Jane Harrisons .Prolegomena to the study of Greek
>   religion. Cambridge U Press 1922. and you can easly draw your own
>   conclusions.

perhaps you can quote just a bit of her argument?

josh


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83681
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Re: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars


In a previous article, shades@sorinc.cutler.com (Darrin A. Hyrup) says:

>They [Thelema Lodge] don't have an internet address, but they do have a CIS
>address which can be reached via uucp/internet.  It is 72105,1351 so I guess
>that would be '72105.1351@cis.com' or something like that.
>
		......@compuserve.com

Tony


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83686
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>
>They do not want to know it or be exposed to light 
>because their own evil deeds will be uncovered.  And so by their
>own choice, they will remain in darkness.  Sort of like bugs under
>a rock.  However, some people, but not many, will not like the
>darkness.  Sometimes it gets too cold and too dark to be
>comfortable.  These people will crawl out from under the rock,
>and although blinded at first, will get accustomed to the light
>and enjoy its warm.  And after a while, by virtue of the light,
>they will see the depths of their own shortcomings AND how to correct them. 
>And also, they will see that there is much much more to this world
>than just the narrow little experiences under the rock.  They will 
>discover that life under a rock was incredibly yukky and that
>life with the Light of the World, is great.  So great, that they
>will want to tell all their friends about it.

And I maintain:

Some people do not want to enter into the light and the knowledge that
they alone are their own masters, because they fear it; they are too
afraid of having to face the world on their own terms.  And so, by
their own choice, they will remain in darkness, sort of like bugs
under a rock.  However, some people, but not many, will not like the
darkness.  Sometimes it gets too cold and too dark to be comfortable.
These people will crawl out from under the rock, and, although blinded
at first, will get accustomed to the light and enjoy its warmth.  And,
after a while, now that they can see things for what they really are,
they will also see the heights which they can reach, and the places
they can go, and they will learn to choose their own paths through the
world, and they will learn from their mistakes and revel in their
successes.

They will see that there is much much more to the world than just the
narrow experiences under the rock.  They will discover that life under
a rock was incredibly yucky, and that life on their own terms is great
-- so great that they will want to tell everyone else about it.

Do you see my point?  I think you're the one under the rock, and I'm
getting a great tan out here in the sunlight.  My life has improved
immesurably since I abandoned theism -- come and join me!  It will be
a difficult trip at first, until you build up your muscles for the
long hike, but it's well worth it!

>Not all people hate light Kent. We all have an adversion to it to some
>extent.  But Brian Kendig who has been replying to this thread certainly likes
>darkness.  Brian K. enjoys stating false concepts and false pressumptions
>about the God of the Bible.  Without checking his own presumptions,
>he compares my God with Odin or Zeus.

Look, you just practically equated Odin and Zeus?  They're as much
different as your god is from them...

Don't you see?  I'm not going to accept ANYTHING that I can't witness
with my own eyes or experience with my own senses, especially not
something as mega-powerful as what you're trying to get me to accept.
Surely if you believe in it this strongly, you must have a good
*reason* to, don't you?

>Withough checking his own
>presumption, he thinks hell is the equivalent of non-existence.

When did I say that?  I say that I would rather CEASE EXISTING instead
of being subject to the whims of a deity, but that if the deity
decided to toss me into the fiery pits because of who I am, then so be it.

>Do you enjoy darkness?  Most people will honestly admit "yes".  Most people
>are fond of their sexual sins, their hording of money, their
>selfishness, and not to mention, their Biblical ignorance.

Nope -- most people are Christian.  Most people are fond of feeling
that they are imperfect, of believing that the world is an undesirable
place, of reciting magical mystical prayers to make the world nice and
holy again, of doing just as their priests tell them, like good little
sheep.  You enjoy darkness, and you're proud of it.

You may know the Bible well -- but have you read any of the Koran?  Or
Zen writings?  Or Hare Krishna literature?  If you haven't, then how
can you say you have an open mind?

>Sin is fun!  Let's
>admit it.  But a life of sin leads to trouble and death in this
>life, and hell in the next.

Nope.  You make decisions, enjoy your successes, and accept your
failures; then you die.  If you are content with the life you've led
as you reflect back on it in your final moments, then you've led a
good life.

>Come out from under the rock.  

Please do.

>    "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,
>    that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal
>    life."

I'm sorry, I don't feel that sacrificing Jesus was something any god
I'd worship would do, unless the sacrifice was only temporary, in
which case it's not really all that important.

Forget the Bible for a minute.  Forget quoting verses, forget about
who said what about this or that.  *Show me.*  Picture just you and me
and a wide open hilltop, and convince me that you're right.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83687
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93 God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>
>Consider your mother Merlyn.  You know your mother.  What would you think
>of me if I asserted that your mother is 9 feet tall, murdered your father,
>and sexually abused you when you were a kid?

I would just go fetch my parents, and show them to you, and thereby
prove quite definitively that my mother is not named Merlyn, she is
not nine feet tall, and my father is quite alive.

Then I would assert quite simply that your deity does not exist, and
wait for a similar demonstration from you.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83688
From: cdcolvin@rahul.net (Christopher D. Colvin)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!

In article <1qvibv$b75@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony 
Alicea) writes:
>
>In a previous article, cdcolvin@rahul.net (Christopher D. Colvin) says:
>
>>I worked at AMORC when I was in HS.
>
>OK: So you were a naive teen.
>
>>He [HS Lewis] dates back to the 20's. 
>
>Wrong: 1915 and if you do your homework, 1909.
>But he was born LAST century (1883).
>
>>
>>Right now AMORC is embroiled in some internal political turmoil. 
>
>No it isn't. 
>
>

I guess the San Jose Mercury news is wrong then, and if so, why is the DA 
involved? 
 
-- 
Christopher D. Colvin <cdcolvin@rahul.net>

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83689
From: rana@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Nabeel Ahmad Rana)
Subject: Re: New newsgroup: soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya?


Mr. Esam Abdel-Rahem writes:

>I urge you all to vote NO to the formation of the news group ''AHMADYA.ISLAM''.
>If they want to have their own group, the word ISLAM shouldnot be attached to 
>the name of such group. We don't consider them as Muslims.


Dr. Tahir Ijaz comments on Esam Abdel-Rahem's statement:

>But the problem is We consider ourself to be Muslims, even though you don't.
>Luckily, faith is determined by what one believes and is a personal matter.
>You cannot declare the faith of someone else.


Mr. Jawad Ali then comments on Tahir Ijaz's statement:

>You are not considering the consequences of your argument.  The converse
>would be that the problem is that Muslims dont consider Ahmadies to be
>Muslims.  Who one considers to be one's co-believer is also a personal
>matter.  It would be just as wrong to tell the Muslims who should be
>included in their self-defination.


The argument by Jawad Ali is funny, He writes:
"The converse would be that the problem is that Muslims dont consider
Ahmadies to be Muslims"

Which is a wrong statement. In the light of Dr. Ijaz's statement, the
above statement should be corrected:
".......................................is that (some) non-Ahmadi Muslims
don't consider Ahmadi-Muslims as Muslims"

So, the problem does not get solved:-) Who is a muslims and who is not?
Humans cannot decide. Humans may not declare others faiths. Its that 
simple. I don't understand, why the mere use of the word "ISLAM" is
becomming such a big issue. I have seen numorous postings on the net
on this subject, and all they say, "No, NO, you cannot use ISLAM as 
the name of your newsgroup". ?? 

I haven't seen a single posting stating what right do they have in declaring
the name of other's faiths? Who gives them this authority? Quran? or
Hadith? or something else? I want to know this! 

Just a small reminder to all my Muslim Brothers, Did _EVER_ the 
Holy Prophet of Islam (Muhammad PBUH), say to anyone who called
himself a Muslim:

No, You are not a Muslim ! ???????

NEVER! I challenge all my Muslim brothers to produce a single 
such evidence from the history of Islam!

Hence, if the Prophet Muhammad could never do that to anyone, how
could the Muslims, Mullahs or even Governments of today do
it to anyone. Do you consider yourself above the Holy Prophet 
Muhammad (PBUH) ?? 


Sincerely,
Nabeel.


-- 
||\\  ||         //\\     ||\\         *******************    (Note: 
|| \\ ||        //==\\    ||//         * LOVE FOR ALL    *     views    
||  \\||abeel  //    \\.  ||\\ana      * HATRED FOR NONE *      are 
[e-mail: rana@rintintin.colorado.edu]  *******************     mine) 

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83690
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Subject: Apology to Jim Meritt (Was: Silence is concurance)

m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
>}So stop dodging the question.  What is hypocritical about my
>}criticizing bad arguments, given that I do this both when I agree
>}with the conclusion and when I disagree with the conclusion?  
>
>You are the one who has claimed to possess the fruits of precognition,
>telepathy, and telempathy.  Divine it yourself.

Another dodge.  Oh well.  I'm no match for your amazing repertoire
of red herrings and smoke screens.  

You asked for an apology.  I'm not going to apologize for pointing out
that your straw-man argument was a straw-man argument.  Nor for saying
that your list of "bible contradictions" shows such low standards of
scholarship that it should be an embarrassment to anti-inerrantists,
just as Josh McDowell should be an embarrassment to the fundies.  Nor
for objecting various times to your taking quotes out of context.  Nor
for pointing out that "they do it too" is not an excuse. Nor for calling
your red herrings and smoke screens what they are.

I'm still not sure why you think I'm a hypocrite.  It's true that I
haven't responded to any of Robert Weiss' articles, which may be due in
part to the fact that I almost never read his articles.  But I have
responded to both you and Frank DeCenso (a fundie/inerrantist.)  Both
you and Frank have taken quotes out of context, and I've objected to
both of you doing so.  I've criticized bad arguments both when they
were yours and I agreed with the conclusion (that the Bible is not
inerrant), and when they were Frank's and I disagreed with the
conclusion.  I've criticized both you and Frank for evading questions,
and for trying to "explain me away" without addressing the objections
I raise (you by accusing me of being hypocritical and irrational, Frank
by accusing me of being motivated by a desire to attack the Bible.) I
don't see that any of this is hypocritical, nor do I apologize for it.

I do apologize, however, for having offended you in any other way.

Happy now?

dj

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83691
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion

In article <sandvik-190493200420@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>So we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire
>on their house, killing most of the people inside.

We have no way to know that the cultists burned the house; it could have been
the BATF and FBI.  We only have the government's word for it, after all, and
people who started it by a no-knock search with concussion grenades are hardly
disinterested observers.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83701
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>
>Be warned, it is not my job to convert you.  That is the job of
>the Holy Spirit.  And I, frankly, make a lousy one.  I am only
>here to testify.  Your conversion is between you and God.  I am
>"out of the loop".  If you decide to follow Jesus, of which I
>indeed would be estatic, then all the glory be to God.

I've asked your god several times with all my heart to come to me.  I
really wish I could believe in him, 'cos no matter how much confidence
I build up on my own, the universe *is* a big place, and it would be
so nice to know I have someone watching over me in it...

I've gone into this with an open mind.  I've layed my beliefs aside
from time to time when I've had doubt, and I've prayed to see what
good that would do.  I don't see what more I can do to open myself to
your god, short of just deciding to believe for no good reason.  And
if I decide to believe for no good reason, why not believe in some
other god?  Zeus seems like a pretty cool candidate...

All I know is that in all my searching, even though I've set aside my
pride and decided that I want to know the truth no matter how
difficult it may be to accept, I have never had any encounter with any
deity, Christian or otherwise.

Please tell me what more I can do while still remaining true to myself.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83704
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH writes

>it wouldn't be the first time a group has committed suicide to avoid the 
>shame of capture and persecution.

This group killed itself to fulfill its interpretation of prophecy
and to book a suite in Paradise, taking innocent kids along for the
ride. I hardly think the feds were motivated by persecution. If they
were, all Koresh would have had to do was surrender quietly to the
authorities, without firing a shot, to get the American people behind
him and put the feds in the hot seat. But no, God told him to play
the tough guy. There's great strength in yielding, but few appreciate
this. 

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83705
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

Bill Gripp writes

>>Anyway, I've often wondered what business followers of Christ would have
>>with weapons.

>FYI, these people were not "followers of Christ".  David Koresh was
>their messiah.

ok, but didn't Jesus figure somewhere into their beliefs? Anyway, my
original question regarding christians and weaponry still stands. 

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83706
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1qvh8n$gf4@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> friedenb@maple.egr.msu.edu (Gedaliah  
Friedenberg) writes:
> In article <1qvfik$6rf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu  
(John W. Redelfs) writes:
> |> 
> |> Now that Big Brother has rubbed out one minority religion in Waco, who is
> |> next?  The Mormons or Jews?
> 
> Give me a break.  If the Mormons fortified Utah and armed it to the teeth,
> and were involved in illegal activity, then they deserve whatever they get.
> 

Where were you brought up?  In the former USSR?  Is Innocent until proven  
guilty by a jury of your peers, NOT Dan Rather, dead in this country?  Seems  
so.  Is tax evasion, the only charge brought against the BDs, punishable by  
death in this country, now?


> You are making a ludicrous suggestion.
> 
Not really.  You are a blind idiot.

> |> We used to live in a country where everyone enjoyed the free exercise of
> |> their rights to worship and bear arms.  Now we don't.
> 
> Does that include the right to murder little children?  How about killing
> ATF officers?  I do not know much about the gun laws in Texas, but 
> Koresh's folks claimed to have grenades, grenade launchers, and rocket
> launchers.  I am not sure that the NRA feels that this falls under 
> "right to bear arms."

"Not sure", yet you condem them to death for it?  If the BATF had stayed home,  
all would be alive, now.  So who murdered who?
>  
> |> Of course, to Jews and Mormons this is just a broken record.  It has
> |> happened before.
> 
> Please explain.  I do not remember Jews or Mormons (as a group) overtly 
> breaking a judicious (a.k.a. non-Nazi) law and being punished for it.
>  
You have a short memory.

> |> I'll bet all you cult haters are happy now, right?  Just hope you're not  
next.
> 
> Followups to /dev/null  
> 
> Alternative followups set to talk.religion.misc
> 

Sleep well, tonite, heartless idiot.  Sleep the sleep of the simple-minded.

I shall weep for my country, myself.

>  
> |> ------------ John W. Redelfs, cj195@cleveland.freenet.edu -------------
> |> --------- All my opinions are tentative pending further data. ---------
>  
> Gedaliah Friedenberg
> -=-Department of Mechanical Engineering
> -=-Department of Metallurgy, Mechanics and Materials Science
> -=-Michigan State University
> 
> 
>                    

I'm short of patience tonite, but rabid dogs deserve and get better treatment  
than the BDs got.

Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83708
From: jluther@cs.umr.edu (John W. Luther)
Subject: Re: Freemasonry and the Southern Baptist Convention

In article <1qv82l$oj2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes:
>
>
>     With the Southern Baptist Convention convening this June to consider
>the charges that Freemasonry is incompatible with christianity, I thought
>the following quotes by Mr. James Holly, the Anti-Masonic Flag Carrier,
>would amuse you all...
>
>
>     The following passages are exact quotes from "The Southern 
>Baptist Convention and Freemasonry" by James L. Holly, M.D., President
>of Mission and Ministry To Men, Inc., 550 N 10th St., Beaumont, TX 
>77706. 
> 
>     The inside cover of the book states: "Mission & Ministry to Men, 
>Inc. hereby grants permission for the reproduction of part or all of 
>this booklet with two provisions: one, the material is not changed and
>two, the source is identified." I have followed these provisions. 
>  
>     "Freemasonry is one of the allies of the Devil" Page iv. 
> 
>     "The issue here is not moderate or conservative, the issue is God
>and the Devil" Page vi." 
> 
>     "It is worthwhile to remember that the formulators of public 
>school education in America were Freemasons" Page 29. 
> 
>     "Jesus Christ never commanded toleration as a motive for His 
>disciples, and toleration is the antithesis of the Christian message."
>Page 30. 
> 
>     "The central dynamic of the Freemason drive for world unity 
>through fraternity, liberty and equality is toleration. This is seen 
>in the writings of the 'great' writers of Freemasonry". Page 31. 
> 
>     "He [Jesus Christ] established the most sectarian of all possible 
>faiths." Page 37. 
> 
>     "For narrowness and sectarianism, there is no equal to the Lord 
>Jesus Christ". Page 40. 
> 
>     "What seems so right in the interest of toleration and its 
>cousins-liberty, equality and fraternity-is actually one of the 
>subtlest lies of the 'father of lies.'" Page 40. 
> 
>     "The Southern Baptist Convention has many churches which were 
>founded in the Lodge and which have corner stones dedicated by the 
>Lodge. Each of these churches should hold public ceremonies of 
>repentance and of praying the blood and the Name of the Lord Jesus 
>Christ over the church and renouncing the oaths taken at the 
>dedication of the church and/or building." Page 53-54.  
> 
>
>     I hope you all had a good laugh! I know *I* did! <g>,
>
>
Tony   

I appreciate the narrow-mindedness of the view expressed in
the text you quoted.  I also appreciate your being amused
by such determined ignorance.  Without taking anything away
from your mirth, I want to say that these views sadden me.
I can only hope that that sort of narrow-mindedness will
die with the generations that have promoted it.  Teach 
your children well.

<wet blanket mode off>

Pax.

John
> 
> 


-- 
* John W. Luther                        |   Anybody who mistakes my *
* jluther@cs.umr.edu   <-Best for Email |   opinions for UMR's just *
* 71140.313@compuserve.com  <-$$$$$!    |   doesn't know UMR.       *
********************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83711
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

Ken Arromdee writes

>>Did they not know that these men were federal officers?

>Do you know what a "no-knock search" is?

Yes, but tell me how you think your question answers my question. If
the BDs didn't know immediately that they were dealing with feds
(uniform apparel, insignia), they must have figured it out in pretty
short order. Why did they keep fighting? They seemed awfully ready
for having been attacked "without warning". 

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83713
From: Pegasus@aaa.uoregon.edu (Pegasus)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick

In article <JOSHUA.93Apr19183833@bailey.cpac.washington.edu>,
joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller) wrote:
> 
> 
> In article <Pegasus-150493132018@fp1-dialin-4.uoregon.edu> 
> Pegasus@aaa.uoregon.edu (LaurieEWBrandt) writes:
> 
LEWB>> Lets add to those percentages 13-15% for the Orphaic docterians
brought LEWB>>to the group by Paul/Saul who was a high ranking initiate. On
the LEWB>>development of Orphaic Mysteries, see Jane Harrisons .Prolegomena
to the LEWB>>study of Greek religion. Cambridge U Press 1922. and you can
easly draw LEWB>>your own conclusions.
 
josh> perhaps you can quote just a bit of her argument?

Love to,but I must do it a bit later My copy of Harrison in packed, but the
last chapter as best as I can rember deals with Orphic mysteries and their
views of women though she does not come out and say it it is strongly
implyed that the Christian view was drawn heavly from the Orphic and other
Major cults of the time.
Pegasus

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83714
From: jmeritt@mental.MITRE.ORG (Jim Meritt - System Admin)
Subject: Identity crisis (God == Satan?)

II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel,
and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah.

I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to
number Israel.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83719
From: ad354@Freenet.carleton.ca (James Owens)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality


In article 70257, david@terminus.ericsson.se (David Bold) writes:
 
>In article 17570@freenet.carleton.ca, ad354@Freenet.carleton.ca 
>(James Owens) writes:
 
>>You seem to be saying that, God being unknowable, His morality 
>>is unknowable.
 
>Yep, that's pretty much it.    . . .
 
>. . .
 
>As I understand it, the Sadducees believed that the Torah was all 
>that was required, whereas the Pharisees (the ancestors of modern
>Judaism) believed that the Torah was available for interpretation 
>to lead to an understanding of the required Morality in all its 
>nuances (->Talmud).
 
>The essence of all of this is that Biblical Morality is an 
>interface between Man and YHWH (for a Jew or Christian) and does
>not necessarily indicate anything about YHWH outside of that 
>relationship (although one can speculate).
 
>. . .
 
>. . . the point I`m trying to make is that we only really have the 
>Bible to interpret, and that interpretation is by humanity. I guess 
>this is where Faith or Relevation comes in with all its inherent 
>subjectiveness.
 
God being unknowable, I can't comment on His motives, but it would be
distressing if He allowed us to misunderstand Him through no fault of 
our own.  For sanity's sake we must assume, if we believe in Him at all,
that His message comes through somehow.  The question is whether it comes 
through immediately to every individual, or is contained in a complex 
canon that must be interpreted by experts in consultation with one another, 
or is transmitted directly through appointed representatives who are free
to interpret, extend and modify the canon.  If God's message is indeed
mediated, the further problem arises as to whether the individual under-
stands the mediated message fully and clearly.  Since the responsibility 
for understanding lies ultimately with the individual, we must assume that 
God in His benevolence guides each individual to the appropriate source 
for that individual, whereof the person may or may not drink. 
 
>>Metaphysically, if there are multiple moral codes then there is no
>>Absolute moral code, and I think this is theologically questionable.
 
>No. There may be an absolute moral code. There are undoubtably multiple
>moral codes. The multiple moral codes may be founded in the absolute moral
>code. As an example, a parent may tell a child never to swear, and the child
>may assume that the parent never swears simply because the parent has told
>the child that it is "wrong". Now, the parent may swear like a trooper in
>the pub or bar (where there are no children). The "wrongness" here is if
>the child disobeys the parent. The parent may feel that it is "inappropriate"
>to swear in front of children but may be quite happy to swear in front of
>animals. The analogy does not quite hold water because the child knows that
>he is of the same type as the parent (and may be a parent later in life) but
>you get the gist of it? Incidentally, the young child considers the directive
>as absolute until he gets older (see Piaget) and learns a morality of his own.
 
Your example is complicated in our age by the thin line between morality
and politeness.  You might have said "burp", for burping and swearing carry
about the same stigma today.  If you are talking about "taking the Lord's 
name in vain" as a serious transgression, then this example is more a case of 
hypocrisy than of varying moral codes.
 
If there is an absolute moral code, propositions or laws in that code apply
absolutely and universally, by definition.  Conceivably some moral codes
could be subsets of the universal code, as you say at the outset.  So, for
example, God's code could include, "Thou shalt not create Beings without
a hospitable planet to live on", but this law would be inapplicable to us.
Nevertheless, we would be entitled to suppose that all laws applicable
to us are also applicable to God.
 
But when you begin to ask what laws might appear in God's moral code, you have
a sense of the absurdity of the question.  Does God make laws for Himself to
follow?  Perhaps God is not the sort of being to which the category "morality"
can be sensibly applied.
-- 
                                     James Owens  ad354@Freenet.carleton.ca
                                     Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83722
From: muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah)
Subject: cults (who keeps them going ?)


Mr. Clinton said today that the horrible tragedy of the Waco fiasco
should remind those who join cults of the dangers of doing so.
Now, I began scratching my head thinking (a bad sign :-), "don't the 
mainstream religions (in this case Christianity...or the 7th day 
adventist in particular) just keep these guys going ? Isn't Mr. Clinton 
condemning his own religion ? After all, isn't it a cult too ?"

... bad thoughts these.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83725
From: markbr%radian@natinst.com (mark)
Subject: Re: Freemasonry and the Southern Baptist Convention

In article <1qv82l$oj2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes:
>     With the Southern Baptist Convention convening this June to consider
>the charges that Freemasonry is incompatible with christianity, I thought
>the following quotes by Mr. James Holly, the Anti-Masonic Flag Carrier,
>would amuse you all...
<MUNCH!>
>     I hope you all had a good laugh! I know *I* did! <g>,

It would be funny if it wasn't so damn *NASTY*; and as non-xian as I am, 
it's hard to believe that someone is pushing black is white and freedom
is slavery so blatantly.

	mark


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83727
From: Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Subject: Re: O.T.O clarification

930420

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The word of Sin is Restriction.


Kent (sandvik@newton.apple.com) writes:

Sorry, the San Jose based Rosicrucian order is called A.M.O.R.C, 
I don't remember for the time being what the A.M. stand for
but O.R.C is Ordo Rosae Crucis, in other words latin for
Order of the Rose Cross. 


Response:

Yes, very true.  The entire title is 'The Ancient and Mystical Order
 Rosae Crucis'.  They are located at 1342 Naglee Avenue, San Jose,
California, 95191-0001, USA.

They are considered different and largely unrelated by a number of
sources.  I've seen documentation which links them through the figure
of H. Spencer Lewis.  Lewis was apparently involved with Reuss, who
was the O.H.O. of Ordo Templi Orientis for many years.  Apparently it
is also true that Lewis had a charter to form an O.T.O. body and then
created A.M.O.R.C. (as a subsidiary?  an interesting question).


Kent:

Otherwise their headquarters in San Jose has a pretty decent
metaphysical bookstore, if any of you are interested in such books.
And my son loves to run around in their Egyptian museum.


Response:

Indeed, and diagonally across the street is another metaphysical
book store called 'Ram Metaphysical', wherein I've purchased some
wonderful works by Crowley and others.  Ram Metaphysical Books,
1749 Park Ave., San Jose, CA.  (408) 294-2651.


Invoke me under my stars.  Love is the law, love under will.

I am I!

Frater (I) Nigris (DCLXVI) CCCXXXIII

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83728
From: e_p@unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
Subject: Re: cults (who keeps them going ?)

muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:


>Mr. Clinton said today that the horrible tragedy of the Waco fiasco
>should remind those who join cults of the dangers of doing so.
>Now, I began scratching my head thinking (a bad sign :-), "don't the 
>mainstream religions (in this case Christianity...or the 7th day 
>adventist in particular) just keep these guys going ? Isn't Mr. Clinton 
>condemning his own religion ? After all, isn't it a cult too ?"


A good point.  What helps to keep such things going is the public
attitude that one should have "faith""; that some authority from
on high should not be subjected to mere reason.  Couple this with a
variety of personality quirks, mojor and minor mental illnesses, and
ego of would-be leaders, and you get all the variety of cults and 
religions that people subscribe to.


.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83729
From: $stephan@sasb.byu.edu (Stephan Fassmann)
Subject: Re: [lds] Are the Mormons the True Church?

In article <C5rr9M.LJ7@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
>Subject: [lds] Are the Mormons the True Church?
>Date: 20 Apr 93 06:29:00 GMT
>
>            IS THE MORMON CHURCH CHRIST'S TRUE CHURCH?
>
[...lots of stuff about intellectual errors deleted...]

This is cute, but I see no statement telling me why your church is the true 
church. I do presume that you know or at least believe that yours is true. 
Attempting to ream my faith without replacing it with something "better" is 
a real good way to loose a person completely from Christ.

This is the greatest reason I see that these attacks are not motivated by 
love. They only seek to destroy there is no building or replacing of belief. 
This is not something Christ did. He guided and instructed He didn't 
seek to destroy the faith He found, He redirected it. 

This is what I see when people say they "love" <insert favorite group here>. 
And I have to laugh at the irony. 

Please excuse the scarcasm but it was nice to say it. 
Oh, BTW Robert don't take this personally, your post was merely convinent.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83732
From: m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt)
Subject: See? ( was Re: Apology to Jim Meritt (Was: Silence is concurance)

In article <9473@blue.cis.pitt.edu> joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
}m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
}>}So stop dodging the question.  What is hypocritical about my
}>}criticizing bad arguments, given that I do this both when I agree
}>}with the conclusion and when I disagree with the conclusion?  
}>
}>You are the one who has claimed to possess the fruits of precognition,
}>telepathy, and telempathy.  Divine it yourself.
}
}Another dodge.  Oh well.  I'm no match for your amazing repertoire
}of red herrings and smoke screens.  
}
}You asked for an apology.  I'm not going to apologize for pointing out
}that your straw-man argument was a straw-man argument.  Nor for saying
}that your list of "bible contradictions" shows such low standards of
}scholarship that it should be an embarrassment to anti-inerrantists,
}just as Josh McDowell should be an embarrassment to the fundies.  Nor
}for objecting various times to your taking quotes out of context.  Nor
}for pointing out that "they do it too" is not an excuse. Nor for calling
}your red herrings and smoke screens what they are.

How about the following inaccurate, unsubstantiated accusations:
In 8257@blue.cis.pitt.edu
>Jim has been threatening
	- but no "threat" produced 
>once he realized that
	- display of telepathy
>threatening to quote me
	- in spite of no "threat" produced, nor forecast ever happening (precognition?)
>responding Jim's threat to quote me
	- in spite of claimed threat never being given
>Jim, preparing to...
	- in spite of it never happening.  telepathy or precognition?
>Jim again, still mystified
	- unsubstantiated and untrue.  more telepathy?  Or maybe telempathy?
>Jim, still scandalized
	- unsubstantiated again.  Seems to be a habit...

Having more trouble with reality, it appears.  Why get bothered with the facts when
you appear to have the products of paranatural divination methods?


*yawn*



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83736
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93 God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

I had said:

> Merlyn, you missed the point too.  Christianity is a relationship.  I have
> a relationship with my God.  I <<know>> Him.  
>
> Consider your mother Merlyn.  You know your mother.  What would you think
> of me if I asserted that your mother is 9 feet tall, murdered your father,
> and sexually abused you when you were a kid?   Would you, who knows your
> mother well, think was a blind arrogant idiot to proclaim such things?

Merlyn LeRoy says:
 
>This analogy is not good; for example, there are plenty of people who
>"know" god as well as you do, but don't agree on things like:
>
>1) how many children he/she has
>2) whether he/she approves of polygamy
>3) whether Mohammed was one of his/her prophets
>
>Now, if you AND all these other people who ABSOLUTELY KNOW what god is
>like can't agree on basic attributes like these, at least one of you
>who "knows" what this god-thing is like must be wrong; therefore,
>subjective certainty is worthless regarding knowledge of this god.
>
>On the other hand, I don't know any large groups of people who claim
>absolute knowledge of my mother and who disagree about her basic
>attributes.  This is the difference between real people and imaginary friends.

Meryln, therefore by your logic, since your people disagree about
the characteristics of your mother, you mother must be imaginary.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83738
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?


In article <C5sL3z.2B2@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
|> 
|> Anyway, I've often wondered what business followers of Christ would have
|> with weapons.
|> 
|> --
|> Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
|> Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
|> University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
|> pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho

IMO, a Christian has no need of weapons.  I know it is very contrary to the
American NRA ethos of the right to bear arms, but Christians should rely on
the strength of God to protect them.  Note that I say *should*.  We are
inherently insecure but I feel that that is not proper justification to be
armed to the teeth.  A Christian should not have to rely on physical weapons
to defend himself.  A Christian should rely on his faith and intelligence.
For instance, I have the faith that God will protect me but God also gave
me the intelligence to know not to go walking down that dark alley at night.
To jump off a cliff and say that God will save me would be putting God to the
test.  And who are we to test God?

God be with you,

Malcolm Lee  :)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83740
From: xcpslf@oryx.com (stephen l favor)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

: Seems to me Koresh is yet another messenger that got killed
: for the message he carried. (Which says nothing about the 
: character of the messenger.) I reckon we'll have to find out
: the rest the hard way.
: 

Koresh was killed because he wanted lots of illegal guns.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83741
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)

In article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:

>Seems to me Koresh is yet another messenger that got killed
>for the message he carried. (Which says nothing about the 

Seems to be, barring evidence to the contrary, that Koresh was simply
another deranged fanatic who thought it neccessary to take a whole bunch of
folks with him, children and all, to satisfy his delusional mania. Jim
Jones, circa 1993.

>In the mean time, we sure learned a lot about evil and corruption.
>Are you surprised things have gotten that rotten?

Nope - fruitcakes like Koresh have been demonstrating such evil corruption
for centuries.
-- 
The Old Frog's Almanac - A Salute to That Old Frog Hisse'f, Ryugen Fisher 
     (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) SCO XENIX 2.3.2 GT 
  Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. Serving Central Vancouver Island  
with public access UseNet and Internet Mail - home to the Holocaust Almanac

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83744
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <bskendigC5rBvn.AAI@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>And I maintain:
>
>Some people do not want to enter into the light and the knowledge that
>they alone are their own masters, because they fear it; they are too
>afraid of having to face the world on their own terms.  And so, by
>their own choice, they will remain in darkness, sort of like bugs
>under a rock.  However, some people, but not many, will not like the
>darkness.  Sometimes it gets too cold and too dark to be comfortable.
>These people will crawl out from under the rock, and, although blinded
>at first, will get accustomed to the light and enjoy its warmth.  And,
>after a while, now that they can see things for what they really are,
>they will also see the heights which they can reach, and the places
>they can go, and they will learn to choose their own paths through the
>world, and they will learn from their mistakes and revel in their
>successes.


Are you your own master?  Do you have any habits that you cannot break?
For one, you seem unable to master your lack of desire to understand
even the slightest concept of the Bible.  Seems that ignorance has you
mastered.  How about sexual sins?  Gotta any of those secret desires
in your head that you harbor but can get control of?   Do you dehumanize
women when they walk past you?  Do you degrade them to a sex object in
your head?  Are you the master of that kind of thinking?  Do you insult
people unknowingly, then regret it later.  Yet do it again the next
time opportunity presents itself?  Are you truly the master of yourself?

I have admitted that I am not the master of my thought life at all times.
That I sometimes say things I do want to say, and then repeat my mistake
unwantingly.  I have admitted to myself that I cannot control every aspect
of my being.  There are times I know I shouldn't say something, but
then say it anyway.  There are times I simply forget a lesson.
I, in fact, am not my own master.  I need help.  Jesus promised me
this help.  And I took him up on his offer.  I have willfully let
Jesus be my master because Jesus knows what is better for me than
I myself do.  And why not?  Does not the creator know his creation
better than the creation?  Does Toyota know what's better for the
Corolla than the Corolla?

>Do you see my point?  I think you're the one under the rock, and I'm
>getting a great tan out here in the sunlight.  My life has improved
>immesurably since I abandoned theism -- come and join me!  It will be
>a difficult trip at first, until you build up your muscles for the
>long hike, but it's well worth it!

Then I guess ignorance is bliss for you.  Because Brian, you enjoy
not having a clue about the Bible.   

>Don't you see?  I'm not going to accept ANYTHING that I can't witness
>with my own eyes or experience with my own senses, especially not
>something as mega-powerful as what you're trying to get me to accept.
>Surely if you believe in it this strongly, you must have a good
>*reason* to, don't you?


Can you witness motherly love with your senses?  How does caring and
concern for you register with your senses?  If nothing registers
to you other than what you can see, taste, smell, hear and touch,
then you better become a Vulcan and fast.  You better get rid
of your emotions.

And I do have a good reason to believe what I do.


>When did I say that?  I say that I would rather CEASE EXISTING instead
>of being subject to the whims of a deity, but that if the deity
>decided to toss me into the fiery pits because of who I am, then so be it.

The topic was about my God and your lack of knowledge about what my
God says.   My God says that you will not CEASE EXISTING.  You have
life forever.  You can choose to either live it in hell in eternal
torment where there is no communication whatsoever, or can choose to 
live it in paradise with God.  That is what my God says.  And that
was the issue.  Your made-up theism is what it is--made up.  It's
wishful thinking.
 
>Nope -- most people are Christian.  Most people are fond of feeling
>that they are imperfect, of believing that the world is an undesirable
>place, of reciting magical mystical prayers to make the world nice and
>holy again, of doing just as their priests tell them, like good little
>sheep.  You enjoy darkness, and you're proud of it.

Is this the religion of Kendigianism?  Most people are not Christian.  Most
people, including Christians,  are not fond of feeling that they
are imperfect.  Is "the world an undesireable place" a doctrine
of Kendigianism?  It has nothing to do with my God.  Does
Kendigism have magical mystical prayers as a part of its worship?
Mine doesn't.  Does Kendigianism believe that the world will be holy again?  
Mine doesn't.  Does Kendigianism also dictate that one must obey what the
priest tells them like good little sheep?  Mine doesn't.  Is this
a bunch of lies you tell yourself so that you can justify being 
ignorant of the Bible?

Brian, following Christ has nothing to do with the doctrines of Kendigianism.
You would find any of your doctrines in the Bible.   I don't follow Kendigianism.
I follow Christ.   Also, to try to again show you your ignorance
of Christ and the Bible in regards to "priests",  have you not read about
the sole Melchizedek priest in Hebrews 7 and 8?  Have you not read what the
purpose is of the Old Testament Levitical priesthood and why there should
NOT be priests today?  Yes, guess what?  The Catholics messed up.  I do
not follow Catholicism or any "ism."  I follow Christ.

>Nope.  You make decisions, enjoy your successes, and accept your
>failures; then you die.  If you are content with the life you've led
>as you reflect back on it in your final moments, then you've led a
>good life.

Why would you want to live a good life?
To you, you die and that's it.  Don't contradict yourself.  You have
no reason to live a good life.  It doesn't do you any good in the
end.  Your life doesn't do anybody else any good  either because
everyone dies anyway.  So you have no reason to lead a good life. Leading
a good life is meaningless.   Why do you do such a meaningless thing?

>I'm sorry, I don't feel that sacrificing Jesus was something any god
>I'd worship would do, unless the sacrifice was only temporary, in
>which case it's not really all that important.

Has the resurrection sunk in?  Jesus is alive.  Jesus is NOT dead.
Jesus was sacrified to fufill the Old Testament sacrificial system
in its every detail.  Jesus's death was like a seed.  He needed
to fall to the ground so that many new lives would take root.  Did
you miss the entire John passage as well?  


>Forget the Bible for a minute.  Forget quoting verses, forget about
>who said what about this or that.  *Show me.*  Picture just you and me
>and a wide open hilltop, and convince me that you're right.

Forget that I am a person.  Forget that I know how to type.  Forget
that I know how to put a sentence together.  Forget that I know
how to send e-mail.   Forget my existence.  Proove to me that I
exist.  .


Be honest.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83745
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

In article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>For those who think David Koresh didn't have a solid structure,
>or sound Biblical backing for his hour long tape broadcast,
>I've enclosed a partial list of the sources he cites or quotes
>he exactly used. As a Christian sermon, it's pretty good, if not 
>inspired.

David Koresh was born in Bethlehem ehh?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83776
From: jmeritt@mental.MITRE.ORG (Jim Meritt - System Admin)
Subject: Keep Firm the foundations!

JOB 26:7  He stretcheth out the north over the empty  place,  and
hangeth the earth upon nothing.

JOB 38:4  Where wast thou when I  laid  the  foundations  of  the
earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83777
From: jburrill@boi.hp.com (Jim Burrill)
Subject: Re: Disillusioned Protestant Finds Christ

John W. Redelfs (cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote:
: 
: I am a Mormon.  I believe in Christ, that he is alive.  He raised himself
: [Text deleted]
:
: I learned that the concept of the Holy Trinity was never taught by Jesus
: Christ, that it was "agreed to" by a council of clergymen long after Christ
: was ascended, men who had no authority to speak for him.
:
If Jesus never taught the concept of the Trinity, how do you deal with the 
following:   

   Mat 28 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven
   and on earth has been given to me.

   Mat 28 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing
   them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

   Mat 28 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
   And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." 

Also Jesus speaking:

   Act 1 5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will
   be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

I believe that you may have overlooked some key verses, that are crucial to
the Christian faith. 

Jim Burrill
jburrill@boi.hp.com

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83781
From: m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt)
Subject: Silence is concurance


Is it not the case that, in the eyes of the law, when someone is aware of
something and has the capability of taking action and does not, that individual
may be held responsible for that action?

Example: the driver of a getaway car may be held as an accomplice to murder.
	 The "I didn't know" defense spawned the "ignorance of the law is no excuse"

When an individual is held as a material witness to a crime, is there a criminal
charge against the individual?  If not, on what grounds is the person imprisoned?

--
James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@mitre.org
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83783
From: jburrill@boi.hp.com (Jim Burrill)
Subject: Question about Islamic view   

A question regarding the Islamic view towards homosexuality came up in a
discussion group that I participate in, and I'd like to ask the question here,

"What is the Islamic view towards homosexuality?"             

Jim Burrill
jburrill@boi.hp.com


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83786
From: cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs)
Subject: Re: Disillusioned Protestant Finds Christ


In a previous article, tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) says:

>In article <1qb726$j9d@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu< cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes:
><
><I learned that God loves his children who have never heard of him and has a
><plan for redeeming them too, even those who have died without a knowledge
><of Christ.  I learned that a man cannot frustrate justice by repenting on
><his death bed because repentance is more than a feeling of remorse.  It
><requires faith in Christ proven by following him, by keeping his
><commandments.  Such cannot be accomplished on ones deathbed.
>
>So Jesus must have lied to the thief on the cross.

Paradise and salvation are not the same thing.  Salvation is better.  Refer
to John 14:2.
>-- 
>Tom Albrecht
>
-- 
------------ John W. Redelfs, cj195@cleveland.freenet.edu -------------
--------- All my opinions are tentative pending further data. ---------

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83788
Subject: Re: [lds] Rick's reply
From: <LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET>

In article <C5KDzK.497@acsu.buffalo.edu>, psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert
Weiss) says:
>     Just briefly, on something that you mentioned in passing. You refer to
>     differing interpretations of "create," and say that many Christians may
>     not agree. So what? That is really irrelevant. We do not base our faith
>     on how many people think one way or another, do we? The bottom line is
>     truth, regardless of popularity of opinions.

   I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing heresy.  I assumed that heresy
meant a departure from orthodoxy, in which case generally accepted belief is
indeed an important issue.  In this case, the definition of the word "create"
is of great importance, since creation is the issue being discussed.

>
>     Also, I find it rather strange that in trying to persuade that created
>     and eternally existent are equivalent, you say "granted the Mormon
>     belief..." You can't grant your conclusion and then expect the point to
>     have been addressed. In order to reply to the issue, you have to address
>     and answer the point that was raised, and not just jump to the
>     conclusion that you grant.

  I should have said "given the Mormon belief."  If you disagree with the
Mormon belief that creation is more a function of organization of eternally
existent substance than one of ex nihilo creation, then that is the important
point.

>     The Bible states that Lucifer was created.  The Bible states that Jesus
>     is the creator of all. The contradiction that we have is that the LDS
>     belief is that Jesus and Lucifer were the same.

  Correction: you interpret the Bible to mean something very specific by
such terms.

>     The Mormon belief is that all are children of God. Literally. There is
>     nothing symbolic about it. This however, contradicts what the Bible
>     says. The Bible teaches that not everyone is a child of God:
>
   It always cracks me up when anti-Mormons presume to tell Mormons what they
believe.  Mormons do, in fact, believe that all people, including Christ and
Lucifer, are children of God in the sense that we were all created (or
organized or whatever) by Him.  We also believe that being "offspring" of
God has a symbolic sense when applied to being spiritually "born again" of
Him.  Thus the same word can be used to convey different meanings.  This is
how language works, Robert, and it's why making someone an offender for a
word is dangerous.


>     This is really a red herring. It doesn't address any issue raised, but
>     rather, it seeks to obfuscate. The fact that some groups try to read
>     something into the Bible, doesn't change what the Bible teaches. For
<...>
>     We first look to the Bible to see what it teaches. To discount, or not
>     even address, what the Bible teaches because there are some groups that
>     have differing views is self-defeating. To see what the Bible teaches,
>     you have to look at the Bible.

   On the contrary, Robert, it is not a red herring at all to show that those
who rely wholly on the Bible cannot seem to agree on what it says.  You say
that one must simply "look at the Bible" to see what it teaches, but centuries
of people doing just that have sho0wn that no one is really sure what it says.
Are we to believe that you are the only one who really understands the
scriptures?

>     I find this rather curious. When I mentioned that the Mormon belief is
>     that Jesus needed to be saved, I put forward some quotes from the late
>     apostle, Bruce McConkie. The curious part is that no one addressed the
>     issue of `Jesus needing to be saved.' Rick comes the closest with his "I
>     have my own conclusions" to addressing the point.

  Let me clarify this one more time.  You did not refer to the Mormon belief
that Jesus needed to be saved, but rather to McConkie's belief in same.  We
keep trying to point out to you that Bruce McConkie is not the source of
Mormon doctrine, and you keep ignoring it. (see below)

>
>     Most of the other replies have instead hop-scotched to the issue of
>     Bruce McConkie and whether his views were 'official doctrine.' I don't
>     think that it matters if McConkie's views were canon. That is not the
>     issue.  Were McConkie's writings indicative of Mormon belief on this
>     subject is the real issue. The indication from Rick is that they may
>     certainly be.

  On the contrary, Robert, if you are quoting McConkie's words as Mormon
canon then the question of whether they are canon or not is of *great*
importance.  The fact is that they are not.  Whether or not they indicate
general Mormon belief would only be ascertainable by interviewing a large
number of Mormons.
>
>
>=============================
>Robert Weiss
>psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
--
Rick Anderson  librba@BYUVM.BITNET


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83789
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Part 1 and part 2  (re: Homosexuality)

In article <m0njXCg-0000VEC@juts.ccc.amdahl.com> rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com writes:

>Perhaps you don't get it, and maybe you never will.  Many didn't get it in the
>Middle Ages and the proclaimed God's will be done as they massacred thousands
>in witch hunts and inquisitions.

There were many injustices in the middle ages.  And this is truely sad.
I would hate to see a day when churches put people to death or torchured
them for practicing homosexuality, or any other crime.  The church is not
called to take over the governments of the world.  It may be that homosexuals
treated cruelly today, but that does not mean that we should teach 
Christians to practice homosexual immorality.  Do you think that we should
also teach Christians to practice divination and channelling because
the witches in the middle ages were persecuted.


>The major flaw in all this posturing is that in the end, the
>final effect of posts like that of yours and Mr. Hudson is that YOU have a
>"conditional" love for gays.  Condition:  Change and we'll love you. This is
>sure strange coming from a group who claim that God has an "unconditional"
>love, one that calls people "just as they are."

And you accuse me of judging?  When did you look into my heart and see
if I have love.  I have been writing that we should not teach Christians
to practice homosexual immorality, and you pretend to have divine knowledge
to look into my heart.  I can't say that I love homosexuals as I should-
I can't say that I love my neighbor as I should either.  I don't know
very many homosexuals as it is.  

But Jesus loves homosexuals, just as He loves everyone else.  If His love
were conditional, I not know Him at all.  Yes.  We should show love to 
homosexuals, but it is not love to encourage brothers in the church to 
stumble and continue in their sin.  That is a very damaging and dangerous 
thing.

>The results of the passing amendment in
>Colorado has created an organization who's posters are appearing all over
>Colorado called "S.T.R.A.I.G.H.T." (I forget the whole definition off hand,
>but the last part was Against Immoral Gross Homosexual Trash) and their motto
>is "Working for a fag-free America" with an implicit advocation for violence.
>
>This is sick, and it seems to be what you and Mr. Hudson, and others are
>embracing.

That is slander.   I could just as easily say  that NAMBLA has been able
to implement legislation to make child molesting easier because of
the tearing down of societies morality due to people accepting homosexuality
as normal, and that this is what you are embracing.  I do believe
that homosexual sex is immoral, that does not mean I endorse using violence
against them.  There is a problem of hatred in the church.  But there
is also the problem of what has been called "unsanctified mercy."
Many in the conservative churches have seen the moral breakdown in 
this country and the storm on the horizon, and have gotten militant in 
the flesh.  This is truely sad.  Yet others in other churches have 
embraced immorality in society, and have pointed to the carnality in the
conservative churches to justify their actions.  

>Why don't we just stick to the positive and find ways to bring people
>to Jesus istead of taking bullwhips and driving them away?

Certainly we should not use a bullwhip to drive people from Jesus.
But we shouldn't water down the gospel to draw people in.  Jesus didn't
go out of His way to show only what might be considered positive aspects
to draw people in.  He told one man to sell all He had.  He told
another not to say good bye to His family.  His words were hard at times.
We should present people with the cost of the tower before we allow them
to begin construction.  many people have already been innoculated to the
gospel.

Link Hudson.




>
>Whatever
>
>Rich :-(



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83790
From: edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Federal Hearing

>>>>> On Fri, 16 Apr 1993 04:21:09 GMT, dmcgee@uluhe.soest.hawaii.edu (Don McGee) said:
DM> Fact or rumor....?  Madalyn Murray O'Hare an atheist who eliminated the
DM> use of the bible reading and prayer in public schools 15 years ago is now
DM> going to appear before the FCC with a petition to stop the reading of the
DM> Gospel on the airways of America.  And she is also campaigning to remove
DM> Christmas programs, songs, etc from the public schools.  If it is true
DM> then mail to Federal Communications Commission 1919 H Street Washington DC
DM> 20054 expressing your opposition to her request.  Reference Petition number

DM> 2493.

False.  This story has been going around for years.  There's not a drop of
truth.  Note that I don't care for O'Hare (O'Hair?) myself, but this
is one thing she's not guilty of.

--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
edm@twisto.compaq.com                                   _-\_<, 
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83795
From: ins559n@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Andrew Bulhak)
Subject: Re: 666 - MARK OF THE BEAST - NEED INFO

 (U28698@uicvm.uic.edu) wrote:
: Marian CATHOLIC high school, outside of chicago:
: 
: 666 south ASHLAND avenue.
: 
Actually, Satanism is technically inverted Catholicism.


+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Andrew Bulhak	     | :plonk: n. The sound of Richard Depew        |
|  acb@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au |   hitting the ground after being             | 
|  Monash Uni, Clayton,      |   defenestrated by a posse of angry Usenet   |
|  Victoria, Australia       |   posters.                                   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83798
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Subject: Re: Silence is concurance

For those missing the context of this thrilling discussion between
Jim and I, Jim wrote the following to me in e-mail after I pointed out
that he (Jim) had taken a quote out of context:
>In t.r.m. Robert Weiss writes [a promise from Psalm 9:10]
>Gee, since you wouldn't be at all hypocritical, you must be really
>busy arguing against these out-of-context extracted translations!

He directed a similar accusation of hypocrisy, again based on a lack of
response to an article by Robert Weiss, toward Stephen.

I pointed out that I did, in fact, agree that both Robert Weiss and
Jim Meritt took quotes out of context.  Hence, I find it difficult to
understand why Jim thinks I am a hypocrite.  Needless to say, I don't
have time to reply to *every* article on t.r.m. that takes a quote
out of context.  

I asked Jim the following:
>}So, according to you, Jim, the only way to criticize one person for
>}taking a quote out of context, without being a hypocrite, is to post a
>}response to *every* person on t.r.m who takes a quote out of context?

Jim replied by saying 
>Did I either ask or assert that?

But today we find four articles from Jim, one of which has the subject
"Silence is concurrence":  

m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
>Is it not the case that, in the eyes of the law, when someone is aware of
>something and has the capability of taking action and does not, that individual
>may be held responsible for that action?

Which is, of course, a complete red herring.  Taking quotes out of
context isn't a crime.  I don't have time to read every article on
t.r.m., and I'm certainly under no obligation to reply to them all.

Does "silence is concurrence" imply that Jim thinks that because I
didn't respond to Weiss' articles I must condone Weiss' taking quotes
out of context?  Jim doesn't want to give a direct answer to this
question; read what he has written and decide for yourself.


But back to the context of my conversation with Jim.  Jim's next 
gambit was to claim that he was using inductive logic when he
concluded that I was being a hypocrite.  I challenged him to provide
the details of that logic that led him to an incorrect conclusion.
Today we find another obscure article (posting it twice didn't help
make it more clear, Jim), titled "Inductive Logic":

>Scenario:
>A white goose waddles past the door
>A white goose waddles past the door
>A white goose waddles past the door
>...( repeat an uncountably large number of times)...
>A black goose waddles past the door.  An individual hits it with an axe.
>
>1. Given that the population of geese is uncountably large, and the size of the
>   confidence interval for the decision is undetermined, under what conditions
>   could a decision upon the behavior of the individual towards white geese
>   be made?
>
>2. If ONLY black geese are observed to be axed, is it not a valid question 
>   to be concerned with the different behavior between black and white geese?

More red herrings.  Could Jim mean that he has read an uncountably large
number of my articles?  Could Jim mean that because I "axed" his articles,
but not Weiss' articles, he wants to conclude inductively ...
Well, I can't see where he is going with this.

But I can help him with his induction.  I've written roughly 80
articles since January.  The vast majority of them are discussions with
Frank DeCenso and other inerrantists, where I take the position that
they are making bad arguments.  Some are discussions with Jim Meritt
where I take the position that he is making bad arguments (a straw man
argument earlier, and taking quotes out of context more recently.)

Think hard about this Jim.  See the pattern?  Think harder.  Run it
through your induction engine and see what pops out.  

dj

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83799
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Spreading Christianity (Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor)

I addressed most of the key issues in this very long (284 lines) post
by Dean Kaflowitz in two posts yesterday.  The first was made into the
title post of a new thread, "Is Dean Kaflowitz terminally irony-impaired?"
and the second, more serious one appeared along the thread

"A Chaney Post, and a Challenge, reissued and revised"

both only in talk.abortion, but I am posting its contents into
talk.religion.misc as soon as I exit here.

This should be enough for us to thrash out for the next week or so.  The
second post really grapples with the main bones of contention between us.
The first is more lighthearted and tells about such things as 
KaflowitzDebatingPoints [tm], which he continues to rack up on both
talk.abortion and talk.religion.misc, while setting follow-ups to 
talk.abortion alone.  His lame excuse for the latter policy is that
he gets a prompt as to where to set follow-ups, and does not follow
talk.religion.misc much; this suggests that he is being hypocritical in not
also setting his Newsgroups line to talk.abortion alone.

Peter Nyikos




Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83800
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Spreading Christianity (Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor)

Most of the key issues in the 284 line post to which I am following up are
dealt with in the following post I made on talk.abortion yesterday,
modified to correct the next to last paragraph.

Message-ID: <nyikos.734890344@milo.math.scarolina.edu>

References: <nyikos.734360987@milo.math.scarolina.edu> <nyikos.734640769@milo.math.scarolina.edu> <1993Apr13.122356.3612@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>

In <1993Apr13.122356.3612@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>In article <nyikos.734640769@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> In <CS132073.93Apr9160836@cslab1g.cs.brown.edu> cs132073@cs.brown.edu (John Bates) writes:
>> 
>> >In article <nyikos.734360987@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> > perhaps out
>> >of dedication to your convictions. I never, *never*, thought that you
>> >would be consciously intellectually dishonest, though.
>> 
>> I am not.  Can you show me anything that would lead you to think 
>> otherwise?

>See the "Spreading Christianity" thread, in which he says I
>ignore certain statements that I specifically acknowledged and

Dean did not.  He called them "the Great Commission" but this is NOT
descriptive of Jesus's words in Matt. 10:15.

Matt. 10:14, Jerusalem Bible translation:

	"And if anyone does not welcome you or listen to what you have
	to say, as you walk out of the house or town shake the dust
	from your feet."

Matt. 10:15:

 	"I tell you solemnly, on the day of Judgment it will not 
 	go as hard with the land of Sodom and Gomorrah as with 
 	that town."

In the post to which Dean is referring above, I said:

"> The above is a good description of Kaflowitz, who keeps harping on
 > shaking the dust off the feet but ignoring what Christ said next."
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                                ^^^^

The highlighted words refer to Matt 10:14 and 10:15 respectively.

And Dean countered:

"Actually, this comment of your's is a perfect example of what an
intellectually dishonest little sparrowfart you are, since I
specifically acknowledged the Great Commission and the entreaty
to spread the word.  In fact, it is the combination of the two
statements I was addressing, and not just the one, and for you to
characterize that as "ignoring" the instruction to spread the
word is a good example of what a dishonest little fellow you are."

Of course, Matt 10:15 [quoted above] makes no mention of "instruction
to spread the word."

All these quotes btw are from:

Message-ID: <1993Apr13.121624.3400@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>

>in which, at the end, he claims I did not answer a question
>which I answered, and which he deleted (to get the chronology
>right, he deleted the answer and then said I didn't answer).

And I claim it correctly, because my question went:

"Do you, too, measure
the goodness of a post by its entertainment value, and care not
a whit for such mundane things as truth and falsehood?"

and the closest Dean came to an answer was:

"Peter, Peter, Peter.  You're just so stupid, pretentious, dull,
and generally unworthy of the value you place on yourself that
the sport is all there is."

Of course, this does NOT answer my question, which has to do with posts
in GENERAL and not my posts in particular.  Surely even Dean knows this,
yet he brazenly asserts otherwise, reinforcing his claim with an insult:

"So I now restore the answer to your question
that you deleted.  If you're still unable to figure it out, ask
a nice kid at the local junior high to help you.  It really
doesn't take much sophistication to understand."

On top of which, I doubt that the "answer" is at all representative
of Dean's true frame of mind.  The insults you have seen quoted thus
far are but a small sample of the stream that oozes out of Dean's 
mind throughout the 284-line post from which these quotes were taken.
One wonders whether Dean's mind is so warped as to find sport in all
this.

He even dredges up a falsified account of
events that transpired earlier on another thread:

"You made an ass of yourself by claiming that it
				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
was in the tradition of Lent to make public announcements of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the "sins" of other individuals."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

False.  I said it was the tradition to recall and atone for one's sins.
That I made public announcements of the "sins" of others
--"sins", BTW, that were a matter of public record, documented in
the posts of others-- is a different matter.

Many of the individuals involved are so nearly amoral that
they do not see as sins what morally upright people see as sins, so
I pointed some of them out.  And I expressly set up a whole thread,
YOUR TURN, to let people point out MY sins to me.

Dean again:

"You made an ass of yourself
by saying that my statement of the tradition of tzedukkah was
somehow an attempt to "paint Jews as plaster saints," thereby
revealing your inability to understand the discussion as well
as showing your dislike for people saying positive things
about Jews, and now you show your intellectual dishonesty by
repeatedly ignoring the simple argument being made, and then
claiming I am ignoring the very argument I acknowledge."

Actually, what happened was that Dean made it seem like ANY Jew
who gave alms or did other acts of charity in public was a hypocrite
according to Jewish customs.  In doing so, he was caricaturing
Jewish customs as being almost impossibly demanding, as well as
implicitly slandering all Jews who make public their acts of charity.

I went very easily on Dean for this, giving him the benefit of
the doubt in a post following my initial crack about "plaster saints", 
suggesting that he had been merely careless in his wording.

In an astonishing act of ingratitude, Dean now serves up an incredibly
distorted picture of what took place between us, and using it as
the basis of one insult after another.

Peter Nyikos





Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83801
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Part 1 and part 2  (re: Homosexuality)

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
> In article <m0njXCg-0000VEC@juts.ccc.amdahl.com> rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com writes:
> 
> >Why don't we just stick to the positive and find ways to bring people
> >to Jesus istead of taking bullwhips and driving them away?
> 
> Certainly we should not use a bullwhip to drive people from Jesus.
> But we shouldn't water down the gospel to draw people in. 

Very well put.  And, in the case of someone who calls himself a Christian
brother yet continues in his sin (and claims that his sin is not a sin at 
all, but perfectly acceptable), what should be done?  Should Christians 
just ignore a sinful lifestyle in order to not offend the person?  By 
reaffirming that the lifestyle is sinful according to the Bible, are 
they using "a bullwhip to drive people from Jesus"? 

Frankly, I find the occurance of a homosexual Christian attempting to 
pass himself off as a 'straight' Christian in order to have other 
Christians accept his chastisement better a *lot* more serious than 
people reaffirming that the Bible teaches homosexuality is a sin.  

Walter


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83803
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Subject: THE DIVINE MASTERS

          

                             THE DIVINE MASTERS       
      
               Most Christians would agree, and correctly so, that 
          Jesus Christ was a Divine Master, and a projection of God 
          into the physical world, God Incarnate. 
          
               But there are some very important related facts that 
          Christians are COMPLETELY IGNORANT of, as are followers of 
          most other world religions. 
           
               First, Jesus Christ was NOT unique, John 3:16 NOTWITH-
          STANDING.  There is ALWAYS at least one such Divine Master 
          (God Incarnate) PHYSICALLY ALIVE in this world AT ALL TIMES, 
          a continuous succession THROUGHOUT HISTORY, both before and 
          after the life of Jesus. 
    
               The followers of some of these Masters founded the 
          world's major religions, usually PERVERTING the teachings of 
          their Master in the process.  Christians, for example, added 
          THREATS of "ETERNAL DAMNATION" in Hell, and DELETED the 
          teaching of REincarnation. 
       
               Secondly, and more importantly, after a particular 
          Master physically dies and leaves this world, there is 
          NOTHING that He can do for ANYbody except for the relatively 
          few people that He INITIATED while He was still PHYSICALLY 
          alive.  (THAT IS SIMPLY THE WAY GOD SET THINGS UP IN THE 
          UNIVERSES.)                             

               Therefore, all those Christians who worship Jesus, and 
          pray to Jesus, and expect Jesus to return and save them from 
          their sins, are only KIDDING THEMSELVES, and have allowed 
          themselves to be DUPED by a religion that was mostly 
          MANUFACTURED by the Romans. 
      
               And emotional "feelings" are a TOTALLY DECEIVING 
          indicator for religious validity. 
    
               These things are similarly true for followers of most 
          other major world religions, including Islam. 
     
               Thirdly, the primary function of each Master is to tune 
          His Initiates into the "AUDIBLE LIFE STREAM" or "SOUND 
          CURRENT", (referred to as "THE WORD" in John 1:1-5, and as 
          "The River of Life" in Revelation 22:1), and to personally 
          guide each of them thru the upper levels of Heaven while they 
          are still connected to their living physical bodies by a 
          "silver cord". 
    
               True Salvation, which completes a Soul's cycles of 
          REincarnation in the physical and psychic planes, is achieved 
          only by reaching at least the "SOUL PLANE", which is five 
          levels or universes above the physical universe, and this 
          canNOT be done without the help of a PHYSICALLY-Living Divine 
          Master. 
    
               One such Divine Master alive today is an American, Sri 
          Harold Klemp, the Living "Eck" Master or "Mahanta" for the 
          "Eckankar" organization, now headquartered in Minneapolis, 
          (P.O. Box 27300;  zip 55427). 
    
               Another Divine Master is Maharaj Gurinder Singh Ji, now 
          living in Punjab, India, and is associated with the "Sant 
          Mat" organization. 
      
               One of the classic books on this subject is "THE PATH OF 
          THE MASTERS" (Radha Soami Books, P.O. Box 242, Gardena, CA  
          90247), written in 1939 by Dr. Julian Johnson, a theologian 
          and surgeon who spent the last years of his life in India 
          studying under and closely observing the Sant Mat Master of 
          that time, Maharaj Sawan Singh Ji. 
    
               Several of the Eckankar books, including some authored 
          by Sri Paul Twitchell or Sri Harold Klemp, can be found in 
          most public and university libraries and some book stores, or 
          obtained thru inter-library loan.  The book "ECKANKAR--THE 
          KEY TO SECRET WORLDS", by Sri Paul Twitchell, is ANOTHER 
          classic. 
    
               Many Christians are likely to confuse the Masters with 
          the "Anti-Christ", which is or was to be a temporary world 
          dictator during the so-called "last days".  But the Masters 
          don't ever rule, even when asked or expected to do so as 
          Jesus was. 
    
               People who continue following Christianity, Islam, or 
          other orthodox religions with a physically-DEAD Master, will 
          CONTINUE on their cycles of REincarnation, between the 
          Psychic Planes and this MISERABLE physical world, until they 
          finally accept Initiation from a PHYSICALLY-LIVING Divine 
          Master. 
    
          
    
          RE-INCARNATION
          
               The book "HERE AND HEREAFTER", by Ruth Montgomery, 
          describes several kinds of evidence supporting REincarnation 
          as a FACT OF LIFE, including HYPNOTIC REGRESSIONS to past 
          lives [about 50% accurate; the subconscious mind sometimes 
          makes things up, especially with a bad hypnotist], 
          SPONTANEOUS RECALL (especially by young children, some of 
          whom can identify their most recent previous relatives, 
          homes, possessions, etc.), DREAM RECALL of past life experi-
          ences, DEJA VU (familiarity with a far off land while travel-
          ing there for the first time on vacation), the psychic read-
          ings of the late EDGAR CAYCE, and EVEN SUPPORTING STATEMENTS 
          FROM THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE including Matthew 17:11-13 (John the 
          Baptist was the REINCARNATION of Elias.) and John 9:1-2 (How 
          can a person POSSIBLY sin before he is born, unless he LIVED 
          BEFORE?!).  [ ALWAYS use the "KING JAMES VERSION".  Later 
          versions are PER-VERSIONS! ] 
          
               Strong INTERESTS, innate TALENTS, strong PHOBIAS, etc., 
          typically originate from a person's PAST LIVES.  For example, 
          a strong fear of swimming in or traveling over water usually 
          results from having DROWNED at the end of a PREVIOUS LIFE.  
          And sometimes a person will take AN IMMEDIATE DISLIKE to 
          another person being met for the first time in THIS life, 
          because of a bad encounter with him during a PREVIOUS 
          INCARNATION. 

               The teaching of REincarnation also includes the LAW OF 
          KARMA (Galatians 6:7, Revelation 13:10, etc.).  People would 
          behave much better toward each other if they knew that their 
          actions in the present will surely be reaped by them in the 
          future, or in a FUTURE INCARNATION! 



          "2nd COMINGS"

               If a Divine Master physically dies ("translates") 
          before a particular Initiate of His does, then when that 
          Initiate physically dies ("translates"), the Master will meet 
          him on the Astral level and take him directly to the Soul 
          Plane.  This is the ONE AND ONLY correct meaning of a 2nd 
          Coming.  It is an INDIVIDUAL experience, NOT something that 
          happens for everyone all at once.  People who are still 
          waiting for Jesus' "2nd Coming" are WAITING IN VAIN. 
    
          
          
          PLANES OF EXISTENCE

               The physical universe is the LOWEST of at least a DOZEN 
          major levels of existence.  Above the Physical Plane is the 
          Astral Plane, the Causal Plane, the Mental Plane, the Etheric 
          Plane (often counted as the upper part of the Mental Plane), 
          the Soul Plane, and several higher Spiritual Planes.  The 
          Soul Plane is the FIRST TRUE HEAVEN, (counting upward from 
          the Physical).  The planes between (but NOT including) the 
          Physical and Soul Planes are called the Psychic Planes. 
    
               It is likely that ESP, telepathy, astrological 
          influences, radionic effects, biological transmutations [See 
          the 1972 book with that title.], and other phenomena without 
          an apparent physical origin, result from INTERACTIONS between 
          the Psychic Planes and the Physical Plane. 
    
               The major planes are also SUB-DIVIDED.  For example, a 
          sub-plane of the Astral Plane is called "Hades", and the 
          Christian Hell occupies a SMALL part of it, created there 
          LESS THAN 2000 YEARS AGO by the EARLY CATHOLIC CHURCH by some 
          kind of black magic or by simply teaching its existence in a 
          THREATENING manner.  The Christian "Heaven" is located 
          elsewhere on the Astral Plane.  Good Christians will go there 
          for a short while and then REincarnate back to Earth. 
          
          
          
          SOUND CURRENT vs. BLIND FAITH

               The Christian religion demands of its followers an 
          extraordinary amount of BLIND FAITH backed up by little more 
          than GOOD FEELING (which is TOTALLY DECEIVING). 
       
               If a person is not HEARING some form of the "SOUND 
          CURRENT" ("THE WORD", "THE BANI", "THE AUDIBLE LIFE STREAM"), 
          then his cycles of REINCARNATION in this MISERABLE world WILL 
          CONTINUE. 
    
               The "SOUND CURRENT" manifests differently for different 
          Initiates, and can sound like a rushing wind, ocean waves on 
          the sea shore, buzzing bees, higher-pitched buzzing sound, a 
          flute, various heavenly music, or other sounds.  In Eckankar, 
          Members start hearing it near the end of their first year as 
          a Member.  This and other experiences (such as "SOUL TRAVEL") 
          REPLACE blind faith. 
    


               For more information, answers to your questions, etc., 
          please consult my CITED SOURCES (3 books, 2 addresses). 



               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. 


                                           Robert E. McElwaine
                                           2nd Initiate in Eckankar,
                                              (but not an agent thereof)

         

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83805
From: joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!


In article <1qppef$i5b@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu 
(Tony Alicea) writes:

>   Kent:

>	You say that

>   >There are about 4-10 competing Rosicrucian orders existing today,
			  ^^^^^^^^^
>   >most of them are spin-offs from OTO and other competing organizations
>   >from the 19th century France/Germany. Maybe I should write an article
>			    Please don't!  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

huh? it might be interesting. he is relating the story as I have heard
it, btw.

>   >about all this, I spent some time investigating these organizations
>   >and their conceptual world view systems.

>	Name just three *really* competing Rosicrucian Orders. I have
>   probably spent more time than you doing the same. 

>	None of them are spin-offs from O.T.O. The opposite may be the
>   case. 

huh? care to back that up?

josh

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83807
From: joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick


In article <Pegasus-200493113800@fp1-dialin-1.uoregon.edu> 
Pegasus@aaa.uoregon.edu (Pegasus) writes:

>   In article <JOSHUA.93Apr19183833@bailey.cpac.washington.edu>,
>   joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller) wrote:

>   > In article <Pegasus-150493132018@fp1-dialin-4.uoregon.edu> 
>   > Pegasus@aaa.uoregon.edu (LaurieEWBrandt) writes:

>   LEWB>> Lets add to those percentages 13-15% for the Orphaic docterians
>   brought LEWB>>to the group by Paul/Saul who was a high ranking initiate. On
>   the LEWB>>development of Orphaic Mysteries, see Jane Harrisons .Prolegomena
>   to the LEWB>>study of Greek religion. Cambridge U Press 1922. and you can
>   easly draw LEWB>>your own conclusions.

>   josh> perhaps you can quote just a bit of her argument?

>   Love to,but I must do it a bit later My copy of Harrison in packed, but the
>   last chapter as best as I can rember deals with Orphic mysteries and their
>   views of women though she does not come out and say it it is strongly
>   implyed that the Christian view was drawn heavly from the Orphic and other
>   Major cults of the time.

I would really appreciate if when someone brought something like
this up they didn't back out when someone asked for details.

have a day,
josh


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83808
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion

In article <C5sLAs.B68@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <sandvik-190493200420@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>>So we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire
>>on their house, killing most of the people inside.
>
>We have no way to know that the cultists burned the house; it could have been
>the BATF and FBI.  We only have the government's word for it, after all, and
>people who started it by a no-knock search with concussion grenades are hardly
>disinterested observers.
>--
	Nor, to point out the obvious, are the deluded, siege-mentality
followers of a religious nut-case who thought he was Jesus Christ or possibly
The Big Guy.
	Personally, much as I regard the BATF and FBI as ConDupes, I'll take
their word over a bunch of silly pinks who were stoopid enough to lock
themselves up with a goofball like "David Koresh" in a makeshift arsenal.
	************************************************************
	*  	The_Doge of South St. Louis			   *
	*		Dobbs-Approved Media Conspirator(tm)	   *
	*	"One Step Beyond"  -- Sundays, 3 to 5 pm	   *
	*		88.1 FM		St. Louis Community Radio  *
	*  "You'll pay to know what you *really* think!"           *
	*			-- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs"		   *
	************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83811
From: kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: Freemasonry and the Southern Baptist Convention


There were some recent developments in the dispute about Masonry among
Southern Baptists.  I posted a summary over in bit.listserv.christia, and
I suppose that it might be useful here.  Note that I do not necessarily
agree or disagree with any of what follows: I present it as information.

 *

For a short summary:  a Southern Baptist named Larry Holly wrote a book
claiming that Freemasonry is a religion incompatible with Christianity.
(Mr Holly's father rejects Christianity, and Mr Holly blames that on the
Masons.)

The SBC's Home Missions Board includes an interfaith witness department,
which studies other religions and how to teach them about Christ.  A few
years ago, they were ordered to produce a report on Masonry: they concluded
that it was not a religion, and therefore was outside their speciality.
However, Mr Holly led a movement of people who oppose Masonry, and
last year the Convention again ordered the HMB to study Masonry.  (I got the
feeling that they were saying "You got the wrong answer last time, try to
do better and get the answer we want.")

Anyway, there's been a bit of infighting and some inappropriate actions, but
the dust has settled and the report is in.  Nobody is entirely happy with it,
but everybody seems willing to live with it.  Both sides are saying things
such as: "This was the best we were going to get in the current environment."

The report commends the Masons for the charity work they do, such as the
hospitals and burn centers they operate, as well as efforts to help the
elderly and prevent drug abuse.  The report acknowledges that many well-
known Christians are and have been Masons, and notes that many teachings
of Masonry are "supportive of Christian faith and practice".  Examples of
the latter include belief in God, emphases on honesty and integrity, and
that some Masonic lodges incorporate explicit Christian beliefs.

On the other hand, they note that some aspects of Masonry are incompatible
with Southern Baptist principles.  These included the use of titles which some
people consider sacrilegious, the taking of certain oaths (even though they
are not meant seriously), the "undeniably pagan and/or occultic" writings of
some Masonic leaders, the implication in some Masonic writings that salvation
can be achieved by good works, and the racial discrimination practiced by many
Masonic lodges.  (I note with some chagrin that Baptist churches as a whole
aren't really in a place to speak on this last point.)


The report concludes that Masonry is not a religion, and says that membership
should not be endorsed or censured, but left to the discretion of individuals.
This was in part because there is variation among different Masonic Lodges,
and while one may include elements strongly against Christianity, another may
not.  Many Southern Baptists have strong convictions about the priesthood of
the believer and the autonomy of the local church, and this history probably
influenced how the report came out.

 *

The information above was gleaned from "The Religious Herald", a publication
of the Baptist General Association of Virginia, and "Baptists Today", which
does not have any direct links to a religious organisation.  (Autonomy is a
big issue among some Baptists.  8-)

Because I have neither the report itself, nor whatever Masonic documents are
relevant to these issues, none of the above comes with a guarantee.  Your
mileage may vary.  Void where prohibited.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu

Milton:  "We use only the finest baby frogs, dew picked and flown from Iraq,
          cleansed in finest quality spring water, lightly killed, and then
          sealed in a succulent Swiss quintuple smooth treble cream milk
          chocolate envelope and lovingly frosted with glucose."

Praline: "That's as may be, it's still a frog."

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83812
From: rjk@world.std.com (Robert J. Kolker)
Subject: Odds and Ends

Just a few cheap shots a Christianity:

Riddle: What is the shortest street in Jerusalem?
Answer: The Street of the Righteous Poles.

Limrick:

There was an archeologist Thostle
Who found an amazing fossil
By the way it was bent
And the knot it the end
'twas the penis of Paul the Apostle.

Jingle:
Christianity hits the spot
Twelve Apostles thats a lot
Jesus Christ and a Virgin too
Christianity's the faith for you
(with apologies to Pepsi Cola and its famous jingle)

Riddle:
How many Christians does it take to save a light bulb.
Answer: None, only Jesus can save.

Aphorism:
Jesus Saves
Moses Invests

Proof that Jesus was Jewish:
1. He lived at home till he was 33
2. He went into his fathers business
3. He thought he mother was a virgin
4. His mother thought he was God.

QED.

So long you all

Bob Kolker
"I would rather spend eternity in Hell with interesting people 
than eternity in Heaven with Christians"


-- 
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83816
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Subject: Re: Ignorance is BLISS, was Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <sandvik-180493131125@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <f1682Ap@quack.kfu.com>, pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
>wrote:
>> In article <sandvik-170493104859@sandvik-kent.apple.com> 
>> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>> >Ignorance is not bliss!
> 
>> Ignorance is STRENGTH!
>> Help spread the TRUTH of IGNORANCE!
>
>Huh, if ignorance is strength, then I won't distribute this piece
>of information if I want to follow your advice (contradiction above).
>
>
>Cheers,
>Kent
>---
>sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

He was quoting Big Brother from Orwell's 1984.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83817
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: The Magi of Matthew was The Jewish Discomfort With Jesus

In article <1746.2BD37A66@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> 
Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson) writes:
> Since everywhere I look, Zoroaster is suggested as being a probable
> descendant of Daniel; suppose you prove he wasn't.

Ref: Encyclopedia of Religion, Mircea Eliade

MAGI: 

[Sneak Preview: Later still, eschatology and apocalyptics were a fertile meeting
 ground for Iranian and Judeo-Christian religions, as can be seen in the famous
 _Oracles of Hystaspes_, a work whose Iranian roots are undeniable and which
 most likely dates from the beginning of the Christian era, probably the
 second century CE (Widengren, 1968). The Zoroastrian doctrine of the Savior of
 the Future (Saoshyant) was the basis for the story of the coming of the Magi
 to Bethlehem in the _Gospel of Matthew_ (2:1-12).]

  The Old Persian word magu, rendered in Greek by magos, is of uncertain 
etymology. It may originally have meant "member of the tribe," as in the
Avestan compound mogu-tbish ("hostile to a member of the tribe"). This meaning
would have been further resticted, among the Medes, to "member of the priestly
tribe" and perhaps to "priest" (Benveniste, 1938; Boyce, 1982). The term is
probably of Median origin, given that Herodotus mentions the "Magoi" as one of
the six tribes of the Medes.
  For a variety of reasons we can consider the Magi to have been members of a
priestly tribe of Median origin in western Iran. Among the Persians, they were
responsible for liturgical functions, as well as for maintaining their
knowledge of the holy and the occult. Most likely, the supremacy of the Median
priesthood in western Iran became established during the time of the Median
monarchy that dominated the Persians from the end of the eighth century
through the first half of the sixth century BCE until the revolt of Cyrus the
Great (550 BCE). The Persians were indebted to the Medes for their political
and civil institutions as well. Even if hypotheses have been advanced
concerning the existence of Magi of Persian origin in the Achaemenid period
(Boyce, 1982), we must still maintain that they were of Median origin. This is
demonstrated by the eposide of the revolt of Gaumata the Magian, mentioned by
Darius I (522-486 BCE) in the inscription at Bisutun (Iran), as well as by
Greek sources. Indeed, Herodotus insists on the idea of the usurpatory power of
the Medes against the Persians through the conspiracy of the Magi.
  The fact that the Magi may have been members of a tribe that handed down the
sacerdotal arts in a hereditary fashion naturally did not exclude the
possibility that some of them undertook secular prefessions. This seems to be
attested by the Elamite tablets at Persepolis.
  There is a theses, put forth by Giuseppe Messina, that denies that the Magi
are members of an ethnic group by suggesting that they are simply members of
the priesthood - a priesthood of purely Zoroastrian origin. This thesis is
untenable; on the other hand, the hypothesis that their name is related to the
Avestan term magavan, derived from the Gathic maga (Vedic, magha, "gift"), is
not without foundation (Mole, 1963). The meaning of maga can probably be found,
in conformity with the Pahlavi tradition, within the context of the concept of
purity, or separation of the "mixture" of the two opposed principles of spirit
and matter. The maga, which has been erroneously interpreted as "chorus," from
the root mangh, which is said to mean "sing the magic song" (Nyberg, 1966) and
has been rendered simply by an expression like unio mystica, seems to be an
ecstatic condition that opens the mind to spiritual vision. In any case, though
there may be a relation between the Old Persian term magu and the Avestan terms
magavan and maga, we must maintain a clear distinction between the Magi and the
Avestan priesthood. The Avesta ignores the Median or Old Persian term, despite
a recent hypothesis proposed by H.W. Bailey; Old Persian inscriptions ignore
the Avestan term for "priest," athravan (Vedic, athravan), even if this is 
perhaps present in an Achaeminid setting in the Elamite tablets of Persepolis 
(Gershevitch, 1964).
  The term magu has been present in Zoroastrianism throughout its history; the
Pahlavi terms mogh-mard and mobad represent its continuation. The latter in
particular derives from an older form, magupati ("head of the Magi"). During
the Sasanid period (third to seventh centuries CE), which saw the formation of
a hierarchically organized church, the title mobadan mobad ("the high priest of
high priests") came to be used to designate the summit of the ecclesiastical
hierarchy.
  The Magi practiced consanguineous marriage, or khvaetvadatha (Av.; Pahl.,
khwedodah). They also performed a characteristic funeral rite: the exposure of
the corpse to animals and vultures to remove the flesh and thereby cleanse it.
The corpse was not supposed to decompose, lest it be contaminated by the demons
of putrefaction. This practice later became typical of the entire Zoroastrian
community and led to the rise of a complex funeral ritual in Iran and among the
Parsis in India. Stone towers, known as dakhmas, were built especially for this
rite. During the time of Herodotus the practice of exposure of the corpse was
in vogue only among the Magi; the Persians generally sprinkled the corpse with
wax, then buried it. The practice was widespread, however, among the peoples
of Central Asia.
  The Magi were the technicians of and experts on worship: it was impossible to
offer sacrifices without the presence of a Magus. During the performance of a
ritual sacrifice, the Magus sang of the theogony (the Magi were possibly the
custodians of a tradition of sacred poetry, but we know nothing about the
relationship of this tradition to the various parts of the Avesta) and was
called upon to interpret dreams and to divine the future. The Magi were also
known for the practice of killing harmful, or "Ahrimanical," animals (khrafstra)
such as snakes and ants. They dressed in the Median style, wearing pants,
tunics, and coats with sleeves. They wore a characteristic head covering of
felt (Gr. tiara) with strips on the sides that could be used to cover the nose
and mouth during rituals to avoid contaminating consecrated objects with their
breath (Boyce, 1982). The color of these caps, in conformity with a tradition
that is probably of Indo-European origin, according to Georges Dumezil, was
that of the priesthood: white.
  In all likelihood, during the Achaemenid period the Magi were not in
possession of a well-defined body of doctrine, and it is probable that they
gradually adopted Zoroastrianism; they were most likely a clergy consisting of
professional priests who were not tied to a rigid orthodoxy but were naturally
inclined to eclecticism and syncretism. Nonetheless, they must have been
jealous guardians of the patrimony of Zorastrian traditions. By virtue of this
they were the educators of the royal princes. The wisest of them was responsible
for teaching the prince the "magic of Zarathushtra, son of Horomazes" and thus
the "cult of the gods." Magi who excelled in other virtues were entrusted with
the education of the prince so that he would learn to be just, courageous, and
master of himself.
  During the Achaemenid period the Magi maintained a position of great
influence, although they were certainly subordinate to the emperor. Despite
several dramatic events such as the massacre they suffered after the death of
Gaumata the Magian - in which, according to Herodotus (who calls himself
Smerdis), the Persians killed a large number of Magi to avenge the usurpation -
the Magi nevertheless managed to maintain their influence at court in Media,
in Persia, and in the various regions of the empire where they were stationed
as a consequence of the Persian civilian and military administration.
  No priesthood of antiquity was more famous than that of the Magi. They were
renowned as followers of Zarathushtra (Zoroaster); as the teachers of some of
the greatest Greek thinkers (Pythagoras, Democritus, Plato); as the wise men
who arrived, guided by a star, at the manger of the newborn savior in
Bethlehem; and as the propagators of a cult of the sun in India. But they were
also known as the Chaldeans, the priesthood of Babylon, known for its occultism;
this was perhaps the reason that the term magos had a pejorative sense in Greek,
like "goes," "expert in the magic arts" (Bidez and Cumont, 1938). Indeed, the
Chaldeans were experts in all types of magical arts, especially astrology, and
had a reputation for wisdom as well as knowledge.
  To understand the reasons for such various and sometimes discordant views, it
is necessary to distinguish between the Magi of Iran proper and the so-called
western Magi, who were later hellenized. In the Achaemenid period both must
have been at least in part Zoroastrian, but the western Magi (those of the
Iranian diaspora in Asia Minor, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Armenia), who came in
contact with diverse religious traditions, must have, sooner or later and in
varying degrees, been influenced by syncretic concepts.
  The Greeks were familiar with both kinds of Magi and, depending on their
varying concerns, would emphasize one or the other aspect of them. Classical
historians and geographers, including Herodotus and Strabo, document their
customs, while the philosophers dwell above all on their doctrines: dualism,
belief in the hereafter, Magian cosmology and cosmogony, and their theology
and eschatology. Those sources most interested in the doctrines of the Magi
even speak of Zarathushtra as a Magus. In doing so they are repeating what the
Magi themselves said from the Median and Achaemenid periods, when they adopted
Zoroastrianism. At that time they embraced Zarathushtra as one of their own and
placed themselves under his venerable name.
  Zoroastrianism had already undergone several profound transformations in the
eastern community by the time of the Acheamenids and was already adapting those
elements of the archaic religion that refused to die. It has been said quite
often, in an attempt to characterize the precise role of the Magi in the
Zoroastrian tradition, that the Vendidad (from vi-daevo-data, "the law-abjuring
daivas"), part of the Avesta, should be attributed to them. (This collection of
texts from various periods is primarily concerned with purificatory rules and
practices.) Nonetheless, the hypothesis is hardly plausible, since the first
chapter of the Vendidad - a list of sixteen lands created by Ahura Mazda, the
supreme god of Zoroastrianism, but contaminated by an attack by Ahriman (Pahl.;
Gathic-Avestan, Angra Mainyu), the other supreme god and the ultimate source of
all evil and suffering - does not mention western Iran, Persia, or Media (the
land of Ragha mentioned in the text cannot be Median Raghiana). Furthermore, it
has been noted (Gershevitch, 1964) that if the authors had been Magi the
absence of any reference to western Iranian institutions, including their own
priesthood, would be very strange.
  The Magi were above all the means by which the Zoroastrian tradition and the
corpus of the Avesta have been transmitted to us, from the second half of the
first millennium BCE on. This has been their principal merit. We can attribute
directly to the Magi the new formulation that Iranian dualism assumed, known to
us especially from Greek sources and, in part, from the Pahlavi literature of
the ninth and tenth centuries CE. According to this formulation, the two poles
of the dualism are no longer, as in the Gathas, Spenta Mainyu ("beneficent
spirit") and Angra Mainyu ("hostile spirit") but Ahura Mazda himself and Angra
Mainyu (Gershevitch, 1964). [See Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu.] This trans-
formation was of immense consequence for the historical development of Zoro-
astrianism and was most likely determined by the contact of the Magi with the
Mesopotamian religious world. In this new dualism - which was that later known
to the Greeks (Aristotle, Eudemus of Rhodes, Theopompus, and others) - we can
see the affirmation of a new current of thought within Zoroastrianism, to which
we give the name Zurvanism. [See Zurvanism.]
  Thanks to their adherence to Zoroastrianism, the Magi played an enormously
important role in the transmission of Zarathushtra's treachings, as well as in
the definition of the new forms that these would assume historically. Their
natural propensity to eclecticism and syncretism also helped the diffusion of
Zoroastrian ideas in the communities of the Iranian diaspora. The Greeks began
to study their doctrines and to take an interest in them (Xanthus of Lydia,
Hermodorus, Aristotle, Theopompus, Hermippus, Dinon), even writing treatises
on the Persian religion, of which only the titles and a few fragments have
survived. In the Hellenistic period, the Magi were seen as a secular school of
wisdom, and writings on magic, astrology, and alchemy were lent the authority
of such prestigious names as Zarathushtra, Ostanes, and Hystaspes, forming an
abundant apocryphal literature. (Bidez and Cumont, 1938).
  Later still, eschatology and apocalyptics were a fertile meeting
ground for Iranian and Judeo-Christian religions, as can be seen in the famous
_Oracles of Hystaspes_, a work whose Iranian roots are undeniable and which
most likely dates from the beginning of the Christian era, probably the
second century CE (Widengren, 1968). The Zoroastrian doctrine of the Savior of
the Future (Saoshyant) was the basis for the story of the coming of the Magi
to Bethlehem in the _Gospel of Matthew_ (2:1-12). [See Saoshyant.]
  The Sasanid period saw the Magi once again play a determining role in the
religious history of Iran. Concerned to win back the western Magi (de Menasce,
1956), and eager to consolidate Zoroastrianism as the national religion of
Iran, the priests of Iranian sanctuaries in Media and Persia were able to
establish a true state church, strongly hierarchical and endowed with an
orthodoxy based on the formation of a canon of scriptures. The leading figures
in the development of a state religion and of Zoroastrian orthodoxy were Tosar
and Kerder, the persecutors of Mani in the third century.

SAOSHYANT:
  The Avestan term saoshyant ("future benefactor"; MPers., soshans) designates
the savior of the world, who will arrive at a future time to redeem humankind.
The concept of the future savior is one of the fundamental notions of Zoro-
astrianism, together with that of dualism; it appears as early as in the Gathas.
Zarathushtra (Zoroaster), as the prophet of the religion, is himself a Sao-
shyant, one who performs his works for the Frashokereti, the end of the present
state of the world, when existence will be "rehabilitated" and "made splendid."
[See Frashokereti]
  Later Zoroastrian doctrine developed this notion into a true eschatological
myth and expanded the number of Saoshyants from one to three. All the saviors
are born from the seed of Zarathushtra, which is preserved through the ages in
Lake Kansaoya (identified with present-day Lake Helmand, in Seistan, Iran),
protected by 99,999 fravashis, or guardian spirits. The greatest of the awaited
Saoshyants, the victorious Astvatereta ("he who embodies truth"), the son of
the Vispataurvairi ("she who conquers all"), is the third, who will make
existence splendid; he appears in Yashts 19. Upon his arrival humankind will
no longer be subject to old age, death, or corruption, and will be granted
unlimited power. At that time the dead will be resurrected, and the living will
be immortal and indestructable. Brandishing the weapon with which he kills the
powerful enemies of the world of truth (that is, the world of the spirit, and
of asha), Astvatereta will look upon the whole of corporeal existence and
render it imperishable. He and his comrades will engage in a great battle with
the forces of evil, which will be destroyed.
  The name Astvatereta is clearly the result of theological speculation
(Kellens, 1974), as are those of his two brothers, Ukhshyatereta, "he who makes
truth grow," and Ukhshyatnemah, "he who makes reverence grow"; the names of the
three virgins (Yashts 13) who are impregnated with the seed of Zarathushtra
when they bathe in Lake Kansaoya and give birth to the Saoshyants, are equally
speculative. Each of these Saoshyants will arrive at the beginning of a
millennium, initiating a new age and a new cycle of existence; Astvatereta will
appear in the third and final millennium to save mankind.
  The doctrine of the future savior had already taken shape in the Archaemenid
period (sixth to fourth century BCE). It was not, perhaps the principal element
in the formation of the messianic idea, but it was certainly a determining
factor, one that enjoyed great success in the Hellenistic period beyond the
confines of the Iranian world. A similar concept, that of the future Buddha,
Maitreya, was most likely indebted to it, and Christian messianism can trace
its roots to the same source.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83818
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Clarification of personal position

In article <C5rBHt.Fw4@athena.cs.uga.edu> 
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <C5MuIw.AqC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> 
dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
>>If it were a sin to violate Sunday no one could
>>ever be forgiven for that for Jesus never kept Sunday holy.  He only
>>recognized one day of the seven as holy.
>Jesus also recognized other holy days, like the Passover.  Acts 15 says 
>that no more should be layed on the Gentiles than that which is necessary.
>The sabbath is not in the list, nor do any of the epistles instruct people
>to keep the 7th day, while Christians were living among people who did not
>keep the 7th day.  It looks like that would have been a problem.
>Instead, we have Scriptures telling us that all days can be esteemed alike
>(Romans 14:5) and that no man should judge us in regard to what kind of
>food we eat, Jewish holy days we keep, or _in regard to the sabbath. (Col. 2.)
>>The
>>question is "On what authority do we proclaim that the requirements of the
>>fourth commandment are no longer relevant to modern Christians?"
>I don't think that the Sabbath, or any other command of the law is totally
>irrelevant to modern Christians, but what about Collosions 2, where it says
>that we are not to be judged in regard to the keeping of the sabbath?

Why are you running away from the word of Jesus? Has somebody superseded
the word of Jesus? If you don't follow the morality of the Ten
Commandments and the Law and the Prophets and the word of Jesus, whose
morality do you follow?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83823
From: royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)
Subject: Re: That Kill by Sword, Must be Killed by Sword

In article <20APR199306173611@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>In article <sandvik-190493201048@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, 
>sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes...
...
>>So are you happy now when 70+ people, including innocent kids,
>>died today?

	It's amazing how everyone automatically blames one side or the other.
	One thing for sure:  Koresh will have no chance to defend himself
	against the statements (lacking in fact or COurt sponsored verification)
	made  by agents who participated in the situation that killed him.

		I don't know they murdered him; I also don't know
		that the Branch Davidians set a fire and suicidede.

		It is SICK of BATF or FBI spokepeople to make such
		comments in advance of forensic pathology.

	Stephen:  thank you.  God speed.  

>No. Kinda numb. I thought something like this was going to happen
>over a week ago. One of the things that's been obvious from the

	Yah.

>start is that when there are two armed camps, neither of which 
>yields, it's usually get slaughtered -- when any little spark 
>sets it off.
>
>Which is why Koresh and company shouldn't have stockpiled weapons,
>and why the BATF shouldn't have come primed for a raid. 

	BINGO.  Am I the only one  to notice:
	a)	No peaceful attempt to serve a warrant.
	b)	Six months to develop a scene and six days to end it?
	c)	.... ah God:

			25 children
			at least 64 adults
			plus 6 at the beginning
			and more BATF agents

			all dead.

>
>Painful point #1:
>
>	If the Davidians fired first -- why were the BATF
>	on the roof -- rather than taking cover?

	Has anyone asked themselves these questions:

	1)  Have you seen the ENTIRE video sequences taken during the
	  opening rounds?  I seem to recall missing several key parts:
		a)  The first five minutes of day one; only the shooting
		  part comes out.
		b)  What happened to the Feds video units?  You mean they do
		  not carry helmet cams?  Wonder why not?
	2)   How is it you can have camera crews with live transmission
	  video present and NOT have an uninterrupted record?

		a)  You realize the units carry ittle bitty 8mm backups?
			That hold 90 minutes per unit?  And there are
			twounits on the professional handhelds (so no
			tape turnover gaps)?
		b)  Until all views are seen, it is premature to point
			fingers in either direction.

	As you well point out, Stephen.

>
>	Anyone (BATF, BD, X-BD, Other) could have touched it off,
>	by mistake or maliciously?

	More on this below.

>
>	Once Koresh was shot... (disregarding his being a religious
>	leader, and apocalyptically obsessed) most likely the people
>	inside just went on drill. Just like the BATF outside.
>
>Is the lesson that automatic responses are very hazardous last resort 
>measures?

	Yes.  But it is so hard toremain human under the full
	pressure of hazard, game playing, and life.

>
>
>Painful point #2:
>
>	Either side could have backed off, to help defuse the
>	situation.  We see the problem constantly here on the
>	net with flaming.  
>
>Ego problems.  Nuff said. 

	More to the point:  when someone dies (almost like it was intended
	that way), both sides will kill to maintain their innocence --
		a contradiction in terms.

>
>
>Painful point #3:
>
>	It doesn't help to take sides in such a situation. Just
>	adds fuel to the fire. Better is to let it burn out on
>	it's own. 

	True.  Usually I pick the unpopular side and point out
	from the evidence seen what might have alternatively happened.

>
>Best example I can think of is Christ with the tax coin. He didn't 
>have one (and so didn't sanction the Roman authority unduly). When 
>they showed it to him, he noted that it was Caesar's minting, and
>so said give it to him, (no waste of time). And then he got back to
>more worthwhile concerns -- God's will. 

	This requires someone interested in God's Will.  Please note
	that the outstanding _overt_ problem in this country today
	is one where the Government:

		wants Caesar's coin to pay off the debt.

>
>The anti-tax movement of today, and the anti-ssan-as-i.d. groups,
>would do well to note who the issuing authority is. Ditto for those

	Yes:  The AMerican People.  Not the Federal Government.
	ANd if it is not spent towards that end, _no_one_ deserves
	the coin.


>made in the image of God.

	Yah.  Fewpeople hear the contradiction:

		Money
		made
		in the image
		of God

>
>No need to stir things up in ever larger revo-revo-revolution, as
>governments turn over, and over, and over. 

	I wish you were wrong.  Many pundits are saying 3 years.
	The onyl good thing to come out of my divorce (and my
	exposure to the Damned (pardon me) American Divorce Attorney
	is:

		I have no money left to lose to taxes or inflation.

>
>
>painful point #4:
>
>	For many, this was just entertainment. 
>	
>	Thumbs-up. Thumbs-down. 
>
>	Just another thriller like "Terminator 2,"
>	or a good-old ball game.
>
>Is the lesson that we've become jaded to media reality?

	25 children dead.  If anyone thinks blaming Koresh -- or the BATF
	helps this any at all, is sick.  and wrong.

		The reason you can tell that the BATF may not be entirely
		straight on this is that the leaders at press conferences
		havew made ANY comments about even the POSSIBILITY that
		Koresh or his followers caused this.

		The BATF agentss are more concerned with their repuations
		and morals ("not my fault, Koresh did it!") than they
		are with:

			25 dead children.

	Same goes for Koresh & his followers - who are all (mostly) dead.

>
>
>
>Painful point #5:
>
>       	LA burned. The Davidians burned. In one case society has
>	abandoned the people -- which has returned to a frontier.
>	In the other -- the outskirts were bumping against the
>	suburbs. 
>
>Is the lesson that what's lawful in different areas of society,
>depends more on conditions than laws?

	More on power and favoritism.  (My personal opinion).

	Look to history:  whenever privilege has replaced whatever
	token of objective law and justice a society has had,

		Hitlerrs have followed.

>
>
>If we don't learn-the-lessons, or at least make an honest effort,
>the next conflagration will no doubt be closer to home. 
>
>Rather than putting out fires, aren't there much more important
>concerns for us to work on??

	You do your name sake proud, Stephen.
	Its hard, but please keep on keeping on:
		each voice in the wilderness now will
		save a generation unborn from horror

>
>>Kent
>>....who can't 'cheers' today exactly.
>
>What keeps me from being a bomb-thrower is my loving God (as irra-
>tional as that is for so many). One direct benefit is being able to 
>keep things in perspective, KS.

	The day I _need_ a gun or abomb to protect myself in this
	society is the day that society is already beyond redemption

		and that aint' redundant, if you have any Christian
		belief aytall.

	... and the day that I cannot peacefully enjoin others in the
	act that Thoreau called Civil Disobedience to rectify the
	wrongs that my society practises, without undue harm or
	punishment befalling me, is the day that society has ceased to
	be a human society, and become a society of animals.

		We are _very_ cclose to that.

>
>Such as who hurts more -- the ones who died, or the loved ones who 
>are left? Besides the lessons. It's also time for many to grieve.
>Including those who've lost their faith in others, or in God.
>
>I'm learning to be patient, and let things heal. God willing.

	Six years fighting an unjust COurt issue:  still struggling to be
	patient.

For those who like contrary questions:

	NB:  I was not there.  I am not a Branch Davidian nor a     law
	official hater.  I do hate liars or the six letter variety of same.
	The official side has its advocates already; lets balance the
	equation and asj a few questions on the other side, for the sake
	of an old saw the BATF abd FBI seem to want to bypass:

		innocent until proven guilty.
	not
		innocent until presumed guilty.

	1)  Where are the video tapes from the tanks?  ALL of them.

		Don't tell me they do not exist.  They are standard
		equipment.

	2)  So you think Koresh fired the place, because of the explosion?

		a)  Tear gas comes with an aerosol to spread it.  This
		  aerosol is DELIBERATELY made to be as non-flammable
		  as possible.  It is as non-flammable as possible.

			.... gotcha!

		  ... when in isolation from other substances.

		  WHy was a pipe deliveryu system used rather than remote
		  launchers?  WHy did the FBI not announce "this window,
		  blown in plus tear gas, five minutes; then the wall come
		  down", and maintain a left to right sequence?

		b)  Most aerosols also have a secondary compound, that when
		  mixed in, becomes a VERY flammable (and difficult to trace)
		  suspension, with a VERY special property:  exposure to
		  brief eruptions of high heat (muzzle blasts) or long
		  exposure to low heat (matches, a stove) will NOT tend
		  to ignite.

			What other chemicals come up in the forensics?
			Who else will be allowed to test the site?

		c)  After a few minutes to hours (ifdesired, the combnation
		  rate can be controlled as desired), the mixture can be made
		  to become veryignitable onb exposure to a temperature
		  above a certain point (a tracer round) for a certain
		  heat quantity (a small explosive charge) or for a length
		  of time (start a wall fire and wait).

			Check your military records; look at the tapes.
			Why were tanks (large capacity delivey systems),
			tear gas (why not somnorifics?), and now (why
			the hurry. was there still a comm channel open
			to the outside?).

			Do you see any trace of fire coming BACK to the
			compound in the videos?  ALL the videos?  Which ones
			are missing?

	Do I sound paranoid?  Maybe.  Am I? Probably not.
	You trust the FBI and BATF  to render judgement?
		IN advance of a Court?  God help us.
			(For we are surely not helping ourselves).
	You trut the Federal Gevernment to give us a clean slate?

		You are 4.3 trillion (admitted!) down and counting.
		Look again.

	Did it happen that way?  I do not know.  I was not there.
		AND IT SHOULD WAIT FOR A COURT TO DECIDE.
	But will that happen?  89 people will NOT have the chance
		to tell their side as the BATF leader was, on camera.

No one wins.  Except:  more force next time.

	Listen to your hearts, people.

Thanx again Stephen.
>
>   |
>-- J --
>   |
>   | stephen
>

roy andrew crabtree

	roy:  red haired king
	andrew:  the virtuous one
	crabtree:  iron workers, ...

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83827
From: stevep@Cadence.COM (Steve Peterson)
Subject: Re: Question on Sabbath question; Correction

>> There are a few groups that continue to believe Christians have to
>> worship on the Sabbath (Saturday).  The best-known are the Seventh-Day
>> Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses.  They argue that Act 20:7 is not a
>> regular worship service, but a special meeting to see Paul off, and
>> that I Cor 16:2 doesn't explicitly say it's a regular worship service.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Christians are required to observe
the Sabbath, whether it is on Saturday or Sunday.  The Sabbath was part
of a Covenent between God and the Israelites and is not required for
Christians.

Steve Peterson


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83828
From: donc@microsoft.com (Don Corbitt)
Subject: Re: Christian Owned Organization list

In article <1993Apr16.232149.22105@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu wrote:
> Sorry, but Mormons aren't generally considered to be Christians.
> >--
> >=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
> >=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
> >="Do you have some pumps and a purse in this shade?  A perfume that whispers, =
> >='please come back to me'?  I'm looking for something in Green."-Laurie Morgan=

Sorry, but it doesn't matter what _you_ think, I am a Christian, who happens to
belong to the LDS Church.  [The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints].

I don't usually read t.r.m.  It is truly informative to stop by, and see that there
are still people in the world like those that forced my ancestors into the deserts
of Utah, and then out of the country entirely.  (My grandmother was born in Mexico,
where her family had moved to escape religious persecution in the US).  I'm willing
to admit that members of other churches are Christians, if they believe in Christ and
(try to) follow his teachings, even though they have different interpretations of 
the bible.  And yet these other churches often go out of their way to define whether
or not I am considered to be Christian.  Could someone mail me a set of rules/beliefs
that must be followed to be a Christian?  Does this set of rules exclude other large
bodies of believers?  

I know, this is a waste of everyone's time, this has probably been discussed N times,
etc.  I guess I'm more sensitive to this 'demonization' after what went on in Texas.
--
Don Corbitt, donc@microsoft.com
Mail flames, post apologies.   Support short .sigs, three lines max.
(I consider this a rebuttal, not a flame...)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83829
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>
>>And I maintain:
>>
>>Some people do not want to enter into the light and the knowledge that
>>they alone are their own masters, because they fear it; they are too
>>afraid of having to face the world on their own terms.  ...
>
>Are you your own master?  Do you have any habits that you cannot break?

If I have a habit that I really want to break, and I am willing to
make whatever sacrifice I need to make to break it, then I do so.
There have been bad habits of mine that I've decided to put forth the
effort to break, and I've done so; there have been other bad habits
that I've decided are not worth the effort to break.  It's my choice,
either way.

I am my own master.  I choose what I want to do.  I weigh the benefits
of my actions against their consequences, and I use my experience to
help me deal with the unexpected, which in turn make me more experienced.

I don't always succeed, but I never fail, either -- I learn.

Do *you* have any habits you can't break?  Why not?

>For one, you seem unable to master your lack of desire to understand
>even the slightest concept of the Bible.

I have arrived at my own understanding of Christianity, just as you've
probably arrived at your own understanding of Islam that is most
likely very different from the way a Moslem thinks of his religion.
Are you "unable to master your lack of desire to understand even the
slightest concept of the Quran"?  If that's different, then how is it
different from what you accuse me of?  Can I accuse you of having no
desire to understand even the slightest concept of atheism?

>How about sexual sins?  Gotta any of those secret desires
>in your head that you harbor but can get control of?   Do you dehumanize
>women when they walk past you?  Do you degrade them to a sex object in
>your head?

Of COURSE not.  That's disgusting.  For centuries, religions have been
discriminating on sex and treating women as second-class humans;
that's one of the reasons I renounced my Christianity.

>Do you insult
>people unknowingly, then regret it later.  Yet do it again the next
>time opportunity presents itself?

No.  I don't insult people.  Period.  It's not in my nature, and it's
not something that I want to do, either.

>Are you truly the master of yourself?

Not yet -- but my life is the ground I use to practice on.  The fun is
in the getting there!

>I have admitted that I am not the master of my thought life at all times.
>That I sometimes say things I do want to say, and then repeat my mistake
>unwantingly.  I have admitted to myself that I cannot control every aspect
>of my being.  There are times I know I shouldn't say something, but
>then say it anyway.  There are times I simply forget a lesson.
>I, in fact, am not my own master.

We don't start out perfect; we've got to strive to be something
better.  I know my shortcomings, and I know my strengths, and I live
my life according to the decisions I make, and I am content to abide
with the consequences of my decisions as easily as I'll accept the
praise for them.  There have been times in my life when I've made
mistakes, yes; I try to never make the same mistake twice.

>I need help.  Jesus promised me
>this help.  And I took him up on his offer.  I have willfully let
>Jesus be my master because Jesus knows what is better for me than
>I myself do.

I regard Christ as a myth.  I feel that there are far too many people
offering far too many interpretations of what he supposedly said and
did.  The only person who can really judge me is *me*.  I choose the
roads I travel, and I decide whether or not I want to reach the end of
any given road or turn back -- and as long as I don't *always* turn
back, there's no shame in it.  When I need help, I seek out my friends.

>>Do you see my point?  I think you're the one under the rock, and I'm
>>getting a great tan out here in the sunlight.  My life has improved
>>immesurably since I abandoned theism -- come and join me!  It will be
>>a difficult trip at first, until you build up your muscles for the
>>long hike, but it's well worth it!
>
>Then I guess ignorance is bliss for you.  Because Brian, you enjoy
>not having a clue about the Bible.   

And you don't have a clue about what I'm saying, either.  Open your
eyes and SEE; open your ears and LISTEN.  I'm not just spouting off
empty words.  This is my LIFE, this is what gives me MEANING.

>>Don't you see?  I'm not going to accept ANYTHING that I can't witness
>>with my own eyes or experience with my own senses, especially not
>>something as mega-powerful as what you're trying to get me to accept.
>>Surely if you believe in it this strongly, you must have a good
>>*reason* to, don't you?
>
>Can you witness motherly love with your senses?  How does caring and
>concern for you register with your senses?  If nothing registers
>to you other than what you can see, taste, smell, hear and touch,
>then you better become a Vulcan and fast.  You better get rid
>of your emotions.

Huh?  You're going WAY off the track here.

I say my mother loves me.  How do I know, you ask?  I can point to
definite things she's done for me, and I can even just bring her to
you so you can ask her, face-to-face.

You say your deity loves you.  How do you know, I ask?  You can't even
convince me that it exists!

>My God says that you will not CEASE EXISTING.  You have
>life forever.  You can choose to either live it in hell in eternal
>torment where there is no communication whatsoever, or can choose to 
>live it in paradise with God.  That is what my God says.  And that
>was the issue.  Your made-up theism is what it is--made up.  It's
>wishful thinking.

If any god dangles 'heaven' before me like a carrot, promising untold
pleasures to me if I'll only suspend my disbelief and ignore my
rationality for just this once, then I would choose 'hell'.  I can
*not* lie to myself to placate another being, no matter how powerful
it is.

Note also that there are several gods trying to lure me this way:
Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Odin, Ra...  Please give me a solid reason to
choose one of them over the others.

[ description of Kendigism deleted -- hee hee! ]

>Why would you want to live a good life?
>To you, you die and that's it.  Don't contradict yourself.  You have
>no reason to live a good life.  It doesn't do you any good in the
>end.  Your life doesn't do anybody else any good  either because
>everyone dies anyway.  So you have no reason to lead a good life. Leading
>a good life is meaningless.   Why do you do such a meaningless thing?

That paragraph demonstrates that you haven't listened to a single word
I've said.

Have you ever gone to an amusement park?  Why?  I mean, after a few
hours, it closes, and nothing's different except that you're a few
dollars lighter.  Going to the amusement park doesn't do you any good
at all.  Why do you do such a meaningless thing?

The answer is that you think it's fun.  You play the skee-ball over
and over because you'd like to get better at it, even though you're
not going to win anything better than a stuffed animal even if you
blow ten dollars on it.  You ride the roller coaster because it's an
thrilling experience, even though (because?) it scares the dickens out
of you.

In the same way, I think life is fun.  And I don't intend to leave the
amusement park of life until they close down for the night!  :-D

>>I'm sorry, I don't feel that sacrificing Jesus was something any god
>>I'd worship would do, unless the sacrifice was only temporary, in
>>which case it's not really all that important.
>
>Has the resurrection sunk in?  Jesus is alive.  Jesus is NOT dead.

So you (and your holy book) say.  By the same token, therefore, Santa
Claus delivers toys every xmas.  Don't you see?  I have NO REASON to
believe that what you say is true.  Please give me some reason that I
can't similarly apply to Santa Claus.

>>Forget the Bible for a minute.  Forget quoting verses, forget about
>>who said what about this or that.  *Show me.*  Picture just you and me
>>and a wide open hilltop, and convince me that you're right.
>
>Forget that I am a person.  Forget that I know how to type.  Forget
>that I know how to put a sentence together.  Forget that I know
>how to send e-mail.   Forget my existence.  Proove to me that I
>exist.  .

I can't do it, because your existence means nothing more to me than
just your communications over the net.  You have no more bearing on
nor importance in my life than that; remove it, and you will cease to
be significant to me.

Are you thereby inferring that your deity is nothing more than a
collection of verses in a book, and cannot be supported without
invoking them?

Or do you mean that the existence of your deity (and, in fact, any
other deity that can be written about) is as real as your own
existence?

Why do you believe what you believe?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83830
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: hating the sin but not the sinner?

What are the consequences of the homophobic ranting of the
self-righteous?  Well, I just noted this on another group,
and thought I'd pass it along.  The context is talk.origins,
and a report of yet another "debate" that was nothing but an
attempt at mindless bullying and factless assertion by a
standard-issue Creationist.  The writer reflects that the
behavior reported reminds him of some Christian groups he has
known.  I believe that the writer is a (non-homosexual) Christian:

+	There is a very effective technique used to promote
+	unit cohesion among the Soldiers of the Lord.  It is
+	called "witnessing"...  I've seen this process used well
+	and poorly; the near devil worship I mention was a group 
+	... that was using the witnessing to get people lathered
+	up to go kill homosexuals or at least terrorize them off 
+	campus as it was clearly God's will that they do so.

I have deleted the specifics of the location, as I do not
believe it characteristic of the place (a state in which I
spent my formative first 10 years), though it *does* have,
unfortunately, a subpopulation that this remark fits to a tee.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83835
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: 21 Apr 93   God's Promise in 2 Chronicles 15:2


	And he went out to meet Asa,
	And said unto him,
	Hear ye me, Asa,
	And all Judah and Benjamin;
	The LORD is with you, while ye be with him;
	and if ye seek him, he will be found of you;
	but if ye forsake him, he will forsake you.

	2 Chronicles 15:2

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83841
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: [lds] Thief goes to Paradise; Kermit goes off tangent


Kermit Tensmeyer quoted from a few sources and then wrote something.
I will attempt to construct a facsimile of what was previously said, and 
then address Kermit's offering.

John Redelfs originally wrote...

  jr> I learned that a man cannot frustrate justice by repenting on his
  jr> death bed because repentance is more than a feeling of remorse.  It
  jr> requires faith in Christ proven by following him, by keeping his
  jr> commandments.  Such cannot be accomplished on ones deathbed.

Tom Albrecht responded...

  ta> So Jesus must have lied to the thief on the cross.

John Redelfs wrote back that...

  jr> Paradise and salvation are not the same thing.  Salvation is better.
  jr> Refer to John 14:2.

I responded to John that...

  rw>    I don't see the effort to equate salvation with paradise.
  rw>
  rw>    Rather, I see implied the fact that only those who are saved
  rw> may enter paradise.

To which Kermit wrote...

kt> Incomplete reference:
kt>
kt> See also the discussion: Did Jesus go into Hell in the BibleStudy group
kt> for the arguments that Paradise and Hell(sheol) are places after death
kt> The discussion (no LDS were involved as far as I could see) argued using
kt> standard Christian argument from the Bible that pretty much support the
kt> LDS position.
kt>
kt>    Christ went to paridise after his death and burial.
kt>
kt>    He taught the prisoners and freed them from Darkness.
kt>
kt>    When he was resurrected, he had not yet ascended to his father.
kt>
kt> The arguement centered around what was or wasn't the proper biblical
kt> terms for those places.

     I respond.

     The question that was raised was not if Jesus went to infernal Paradise
     before entering into heaven. No one has made a point for or against 
     that issue, nor have they compared the LDS position against orthodox
     belief. The infernal paradise is held to be Abraham's bosom (Luke 16), 
     the place of the righteous dead in sheol (equivalent to hades).

     The point that was raised by John was that someone could not repent
     on their death bed. Tom Albrecht pointed to a Biblical example that was
     contradictory to what John's position put forward. The thief on the 
     cross was promised by Christ to be with Him in Paradise, the abode of 
     the righteous dead. John's position possibly needs to be reworked.
     Kermit needs to address the topic at hand.

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83842
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion

In article <1993Apr20.143400.569@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca
(Malcolm Lee) wrote:
> Do you judge all Christians by the acts of those who would call
> themselves Christian and yet are not?  The BD's contradicted scripture
> in their actions.  They were NOT Christian.  Simple as that.  Perhaps
> you have read too much into what the media has portrayed.  Ask any
> true-believing Christian and you will find that they will deny any
> association with the BD's.  Even the 7th Day Adventists have denied any
> further ties with this cult, which was what they were.

Well, if they were Satanists, or followers of an obscure religion,
then I would be sure that Christians would in unison condemn and 
make this to a show case. But when we are dealing with a fanatical
Revelation preacher that kills ultimately everyone, including the
innocent children, then it seems that we are dealing with Christians 
and christians (note the spelling).
 
> Do you judge all Muslims by the acts committed by Saddam Hussein, a 
> supposedly devout Muslim?  I don't.  Saddam is just a dictator using
> the religious beliefs of his people to further his own ends.

And does not this show the dangers with religion -- in order 
word a mind virus that will make mothers capable of letting
their small children burn to ashes while they scream?

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83843
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion

In article <C5sLAs.B68@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu
(Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> 
> In article <sandvik-190493200420@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >So we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire
> >on their house, killing most of the people inside.
> 
> We have no way to know that the cultists burned the house; it could have been
> the BATF and FBI.  We only have the government's word for it, after all, and
> people who started it by a no-knock search with concussion grenades are hardly
> disinterested observers.

Well, looking at the videos it seems that this fire started in various
places at the same time, which would indicate that this was a planned
action. I'm sure FBI and BATF didn't *deliberately* start a possible
fire, having a sniper kill Korresh would have been a far easier 
method. Looking at the careful operation, and use of tear gas
that as I know don't start fires, it is less likely that this 
was the case.

Sorry, but my bets are on fanatical people keen to start
Armageddon -- theirs.

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83844
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion

In article <C5sLAs.B68@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu
(Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> 
> In article <sandvik-190493200420@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >So we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire
> >on their house, killing most of the people inside.
> 
> We have no way to know that the cultists burned the house; it could have been
> the BATF and FBI.  We only have the government's word for it, after all, and
> people who started it by a no-knock search with concussion grenades are hardly
> disinterested observers.

There's another point to be made. Those who have been inside burning
houses know that if they want to stay alive, it's better to run out
from the building. We had one case where an FBI agent *had to 
drag out a women* from the burning house, she run back in when
she saw the forces arriving. It is a good indication of the fanatical
mind that the followers had -- including having they children burned
instead of saving these innocent victims of the instance.

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83845
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!

In article <1993Apr20.143754.643@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca
(Malcolm Lee) wrote:
> I understand and sympathize with your pain.  What happened in Waco was a very
> sad tradgedy.  Don't take it out on us Christians though.  The Branch
> Davidians were not an organized religion.  They were a cult led by a ego-maniac
> cult leader.  The Christian faith stands only on the shoulders of one man,
> the Lord of Lords and King of Kings, Jesus Christ.   BTW, David Koresh was NOT
> Jesus Christ as he claimed.

The interesting notion is that (I watched TV tonight) Koresh never
claimed officially to be Jesus Christ. His believers hoped that 
he would be, but he never took this standpoint himself.

He was more interested in breaking the seven seals of Revelation,
and make sure that Armageddon would start. Well it did, and 19
children died, and no God saved them.

Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83846
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: That Kill by Sword, Must be Killed by Sword

In article <20APR199306173611@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu
(stephen) wrote:
> tional as that is for so many). One direct benefit is being able to 
> keep things in perspective, KS.
> 
> Such as who hurts more -- the ones who died, or the loved ones who 
> are left? Besides the lessons. It's also time for many to grieve.
> Including those who've lost their faith in others, or in God.
> 
> I'm learning to be patient, and let things heal. God willing.

Christians through ages have had to learn to be patient. I do think
it's time to face the reality. The events during the last 52 two
days showed what the world is really like.

Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83847
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: O.T.O clarification

In article <79895@cup.portal.com>, Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth
NagaSiva) wrote:
> They are considered different and largely unrelated by a number of
> sources.  I've seen documentation which links them through the figure
> of H. Spencer Lewis.  Lewis was apparently involved with Reuss, who
> was the O.H.O. of Ordo Templi Orientis for many years.  Apparently it
> is also true that Lewis had a charter to form an O.T.O. body and then
> created A.M.O.R.C. (as a subsidiary?  an interesting question).

If anyone is interested in the history of AMORC, I do think Spencer
Lewis published books about the beginning and his mission. The 
Alexandria bookstore (that's the name of the book store operated 
by AMORC) should have a selection that should provide the interested
reader more insight). 

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83848
From: irfan@davinci.ece.wisc.edu (Irfan Alan)
Subject: A TREATISE ON THE MIRACLES OF MUHAMMAD, PART-3

DROPLET VOL 1, No 11, Part 3

D R O P L E T
From The Vast Ocean Of The Miraculous Qur'an

Translations from the Arabic and Turkish Writings of 
Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, The Risale-i Noor

VOL 1, No 11, Part 3
------------------------------------------------------------------
   		 NINETEENTH LETTER  

		 MU'JIZAT-I AHMEDIYE RISALESI 
A TREATISE ON THE MIRACLES OF MUHAMMED SAW, Part 3       

(continued from Droplet Vol 1, No 11, Part 2)

   THIRD SIGN:  The miracles of Muhammad (SAW)
are extremely varied.  Because his messengership is
universal, he has been distinguished by  miracles that
relate to almost all species of creation.
    Just as the supreme aide of a renowned ruler, arriving
with many gifts in a city where various people live, will be
welcomed by a representative of each people who
acclaims him and bids him welcome in his own language
so, too, when the supreme messenger of the Monarch of
Pre- and  Post-Eternity  (Ezel and Ebed  Sultani) honored the
universe by coming as an envoy to the inhabitants of the
earth, and brought with him the light of truth and spiritual
gifts sent by the Creator of the universe and derived from
the realities of the whole universe, each species of
creation -from water, rocks, trees, animals and human
beings to the moon, sun and stars- welcomed him and
acclaimed his prophethood, each in its own language, and
each bearing one of his miracles.
    Now it would require a voluminous work to mention all
his miracles.  As the punctilious scholars have written
many volumes concerning the proofs of His prophethood,
here we will briefly point out only the general category
into which fall fhe miracles that are definite and accepted
as accurate reports.
    The evidences of the prophethood of Muhammad
(SAW) fall into two main categories:  

    The first is called irhasat and includes the paranormal 
events that happened at the time of his birth, or before his 
declaration of prophethood.  

    The second group pertains to all the remaining evidences 
of the prophethood, and contains two subdivisions: 

    1) Those wonders that were manifested after
his departure from this world in order to confirm his
prophethood, and 
	2) Those that he exhibited during the era
of his prophethood.  The latter has also two parts:  
	2.1) The evidences of his prophethood that became manifest
in his own personality, his inner and outer being, his moral
conduct and perfection, and 
    2.2) The miracles that: related to substantial matters.  
The last part again has two branches:  
	2.2.1) Those concerning the Qur'an and spirituality, and 
	2.2.2) Those relating to matter and creation.  This last 
branch is again divided into two categories:  
	2.2.2.1) The first involves the paranormal happenings 
that occured during his mission either to break the 
stubbornness of the unbelievers, or to augment the
faith of the belivers.  This category has twenty different
sorts, such as the splitting of the moon, the flowing of
water from the fingers, the satisfying of large numbers with
a little food, and the speaking of trees, rocks and animals
Each of these sons has also many instances, and thus
has, in meaning, the strength of confirmation by
consensus.  
	2.2.2.2)  As for the second category, this
includes events lying in the future that occured as he had
predicted upon Allah (SWT)'s instructions.  Now starting
from the last category, we will summarize a list of them.(1)

(1) Unfonunately, I could not write as I had intended
without choice, I wrote as my head dictated, and I could
not completely conform to the order of this classification.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
To be Continued Allah Willing.
Irfan Alan, A Servant of Islam.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83849
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Christians above the Law? was Clarification of personal position

In article <1993Apr19.131102.7843@rchland.ibm.com> 
xzz0280@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (R. J. Traff) writes:
>|> In article <C5MuIw.AqC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> 
>|> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
>|> >question is "On what authority do we proclaim that the requirements of the
>|>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|> >fourth commandment are no longer relevant to modern Christians?"  Please
>|> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I don't believe most Christians believe they are *above* the Law.  However,
>we are not saved by adherence to the Law.  The Law exists to tell us what
>is sinful.  We all sin.

Hence we are "all" above the Law where "all" in this case refers to
Christians.

>Jews believe that their sins are atoned for with
>blood sacrifice of animals as described in the Old Testament.

When was the last time you heard about a Jewish animal sacrifice?

>Christians 
>believe that their sins are atoned for by the blood sacrifice of Jesus.

The blood sacrifice of an innocent man?

>This does not make the Law 'irrelevant'.

Then why don't Christians follow it, why don't they even follow their
own Ten Commandments?

>Breaking the Law *is* sinful,
>and we are to avoid sinful ways, but sinning, by itself, does not jeopardize
>salvation.

So, in short; Hitler is in heaven and Gandhi is in Hell?

>Note that I'm not a theologian.  But this is the gist of several
>sermons I've heard lately and some Bible studies I've been through.  

Did you ever wonder if someone, perhaps a great deceiver, was pulling
your leg?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83852
From: caldwell@facman.ohsu.edu (Larry Caldwell)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick

kosinski@us.oracle.com (Kevin Osinski) writes:

>I recall reading in Michael (?) Rutherford's novel "Sarum" a scene in
>which the son of a Roman nobleman living in Britain takes part in a
>secret ceremony involving a bull.  He stands naked in a pit covered
>with some sort of scaffolding while assistants coax a bull to stand on
>the scaffolding.  They then fatally stab the bull, which douses the
>worshipper in the pit with blood.  This is supposedly some sort of
>rite of passage for members of the bull cult.  I wonder if this is
>related to the Mithras cult?
>
>I don't know where Rutherford got his information for this chapter.
>The book is historical fiction, and most of the general events which
>take place are largely based on historical accounts.

There is a rite like this described in Joseph Campbell's
_Occidental_Mythology_.  He also described levels of initiation, I think
6?  I don't know where Campbell got his info, but I remember thinking he
was being a little eclectic.

>I also wonder what if any connection there is between the ancient bull
>cults and the current practice of bullfighting popular in some
>Mediterranean cultures.

Quite a bit.  If you haven't read Campbell, give him a try.  

-- 
-- Larry Caldwell  caldwell@ohsu.edu  CompuServe 72210,2273
Oregon Health Sciences University.  (503) 494-2232

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83855
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Davidians and compassion

So we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire
on their house, killing most of the people inside.

I'm not that annoyed about the adults, they knew supposedly what
they were doing, and it's their own actions.

What I mostly are angry about is the fact that the people inside,
including mothers, let the children suffer and die during awful
conditions.

If this is considered religious following to the end, I'm proud
that I don't follow such fanatical and non-compassionate religions.

You might want to die for whatever purpose, but please spare
the innocent young ones that has nothing to do with this all.

I have a hard time just now understanding that Christianity
knows about the word compassion. Christians, do you think 
the actions today would produce a good picture of your 
religion?


Kent

---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83856
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!

In article <1993Apr19.165717.25790@ra.royalroads.ca>,
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
> 
> It is true what you stated above:  Jesus' saving grace is available to
> everyone, not just Jews.  In other words, everyone can have salvation but
> not everyone will.  This option is now open to people other than just
> Jews.  Of course, if the Jews don't accept the deity of Christ, I would
> hardly expect them to accept anything that Christ said.  But I don't feel
> any animosity towards them.  Even though they persecuted Jesus and his
> disciples and eventually crucified Him, I bear them no ill will.  If anything,
> I feel pity for them.  Jesus had to die to pay the price for our sins and
> so the Jews were merely fulfilling prophesy.  Jesus knew He had to die even
> before He began His ministry.  That demonstrates the great depth of His love
> for us.

Jesus certainly demonstrated the great depth of his love for the
children who died today at the Davidian complex.

Sorry, but the events today made me even more negative concering
organized religion.

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83860
From: uphrrmk@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Jack Coyote)
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.taoism

Sunlight shining off of the ocean.


-- 
Aleph null bottles of beer on the wall, Aleph null bottles of beer!
Take one down, pass it around  ...  Aleph null bottles of beer on the wall!



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83863
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: To Rob Lanphier

Dear Rob,

>When I read Brian K.'s postings, I find someone who is honestly seeking
>the truth.  When I read your response here, I see condescension.  When you
>reply to a post, reply to the post you quote.  This statement undermines
>any good points you might have had (it was enough to make me stop reading).

Sometimes I do come across condesending, and I am sorry I come across that
way at times.  Thank you for the reproach, I really do appreciate it.  I'll
try to get better.

Rob, at the same time, I have also learned that some people respond to the gentle
approach while others respond only at a harsh rebuke.  Brian K., so far,
only responds to the latter.  And I am glad he responds at all.   In both
cases of approach,  my intention is to be loving.  I am making no excuse
for myself if I am coming across condesending.  I apologize for that.

Rob, sometimes Brian K. comes across as honest. I know this.  But Brian K. 
vasillates back and forth.  One post looks honest; the next is
an excuse.  Now he wants me to explain the universe in 50 words or less.  
I think Brian Kendig is really trying but he is too comfortable with
his set of excuses.  

I just want Brian K. to be honest with himself.  If he really wants
to know, he will ask questions and stop asserting irrelevant excuses
which have nothing to do with my God.   I wish Brian would read the
Bible for himself and come to his own decisions without being
sidetracked with the temptation to mock God.

From my perspective Rob, when I look at Brian Kendig, I see a man
standing out in the middle of a highway.  Off into the distance I 
see a Mack truck heading right for him, but Brian K. is faced away
from the oncoming truck.  He doesn't see it.   Here's is how I see
the dialog:


Me:  "Brian K, please step aside before you get run over." 

BK:  "There is no truck."

Me:  "Turn around at look."

BK:  "No."

Me:  "Look!  You will be healthier if you do take a look at
     the oncoming truck."

BK:  "No. Explain to me why trucks exist."

Me:  "Turn around or you will run over."

BK:  "No. I won't because I like hiking and tomorrow is Tuesday."

Me:  "You blind fool!  Why do you choose ignorance? You have nothing
      to lose if you look.  But if do not look, you will certainly lose your life."
      I do not want to see you squashed all over the road.

BK:  "It is my life to lose.  I rather not look.
      Besides, a truck running over me will not harm me."
      And by the way, I really have an open mind."


So is my motivation to belittle Brian, or to love Brian the best I know how?   

I do not wish to single Brian Kendig out.  Because millions if not
billions of people fall into the same category.  Perhaps all people
fall have fallen into this category at one time in their lives.  I have.
I can now see the truck behind Brian.

My hope is that Brian will look and will see the ramifications of the
truck coming towards him.  My hope is that Brian will want to step out
of the way.  My fear, though,  is that Brian will instead choose to glue himself
to the middle of the highway, where he will certainly get run over.  But if
he so chooses, he so chooses, and there is nothing I can do beyond that
to change his mind.   For it is his choice.   But at this very moment,
Brian hasn't gotten even that far.  He is still at the point where he
does not want to look.  Sure he moves his eyeball to appease me, but his
head will not turn around to see the entire picture.  So far he is
satisfied with his glimpse of the mountains off in the distance. 

Thank you again Rob for your reproach.  I really do appreciate it.  (My
wife tells me the same thing at times.)   :-)   I will try to do better.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83867
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

Jim Burhill writes:

>Would you consider the word of an eye-witness (Peter) to testify to the
>events surrounding Jesus' life?

>No.  There are two problems here:

Brian Kendig writes:

>(1) Peter died two millenia ago.  The original letters he wrote have
>long since decayed into dust.  If he were alive today and I could

Do you question the existence of Alexander the Great, Tilgrath Pilisar III,
Nero, Caligula, Josephus, Cyrus the Great, Artexerxes?   Their documents
have decayed to dust too.  Brian, why another excuse? 

>(2) Even if Peter did witness the miracles of Jesus two millenia ago,
>that doesn't mean that your deity is what the Bible says it is (God
>might just be Satan, trying to convince everyone that he's a nice
>guy), or even that your deity is still alive and active in the world
>today.

Peter wrote a bit of the Bible.  What Peter says about God is what
the Bible says.   


Consider the Bible a court recording.  Over the period of thousands of
years, various people come up and testify of their experience with the
living God.  Up comes Abraham the wealthy rancher.  Up comes Moses,
once the high official of Egypt.  Up comes Elijah, a priest.  Up comes
David, a mere shepherd who became King.  Up comes the pagan King 
Nebuchanezzar.  Up comes the pagan King of Persia, Cyrus.  Up comes
Nehemiah, cupbearer to the King of Persia.  Then Matthew, an IRS agent
takes the stand.  Up comes Luke, an M.D.  Then Paul a Jew who use
to kill Christians for fun.  Up comes John, a 17 year old boy.  Up
comes Peter, a fishermen.  Up comes James, the brother of Jesus himself.
Up comes hundreds of others.  You hear testimony from fishermen, IRS
agents, priests, Kings.  The court hearing lasts thousands of years
with people coming up and testifying about the God who calls himself
"I am." 

While you are listening to all this stuff, you realize that
King David could have never known John, Solomon could have never known
Matthew, Nehemiah could have never known Peter.  You realize that all these
people are independent witnesses, and so, you rule out collaboration.  Yet
all of the witnesses tell of the same God.   Each testifier tells
of his own experiences with the living God.  Each experience is
different, but each experience has enough cross-over to unmistakenly
reveal that each one of these people is talking about the very same God.
What Daniel did not know about God, the 3rd Highest Official of
Babylon, God revealed to John 600 years later--but with a different
perspective.  No two testimonies are identical.  Each testimony
dares to venture off what is already known.  Yet each witness's
testimony, even though different from those prior, consistently
describes harmoniously fitting facets of the character of the same God.  

Now.  As we stare gazing at the computer, you got this seeming fanatic
on the other end of the net, saying, I know this God  "I am".  He has
revealed himself to me too.  He also calls himself Jesus (John 8:58).
Please believe me.  I am telling the truth.  It is wonderful to know him.

Are you going to just pass off all this testimony as fictiousness? 
Are you going to call three thousand years worth of testimony from
shepherds to IRS agents to royal officials to kings to computer
programmers, fiction?  With a scoff of your keyboard, with near
complete ignorance of the testimonies, are you going to say that
that is all complete hooey?   Would that not be the most audacious
display of arrogance?  Do you actually think you know better than
King Solomon, King David, or even Abraham Lincolnr?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83876
From: goldm@rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold)
Subject: Re: New Religion Forming -- Sign Up

*yawn* The Church of Kibology did it first and better.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83880
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: Re: Disillusioned Protestant Finds Christ

In article <1qmhp7$33t@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes...
> 
>In a previous article, tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) says:
> 
>>In article <1qb726$j9d@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu< cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes:
>><
>><I learned that God loves his children who have never heard of him and has a
>><plan for redeeming them too, even those who have died without a knowledge
>><of Christ.  I learned that a man cannot frustrate justice by repenting on
>><his death bed because repentance is more than a feeling of remorse.  It
>><requires faith in Christ proven by following him, by keeping his
>><commandments.  Such cannot be accomplished on ones deathbed.
>>
>>So Jesus must have lied to the thief on the cross.
> 
>Paradise and salvation are not the same thing.  Salvation is better.  Refer
>to John 14:2.

	I don't see the effort to equate salvation with paradise. 

	Rather, I see implied the fact that only those who are saved 
may enter paradise.

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83882
From: <KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:    re: ABORTION and private health insurance

>In <1qid8s$ik0@agate.berkeley.edu> dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis Kriz)
writes:

  >I recently have become aware that my health insurance includes
  >coverage for abortion.  I strongly oppose abortion for reasons of
  >conscience.  It disturbs me deeply to know that my premiums may
  >be being used to pay for that which I sincerely believe is
  >murder.  I would like to request that I be exempted from abortion
  >coverage with my health premiums reduced accordingly.

I share Dennis's outrage over a similar manner.  I have recently become aware
that my health insurance includes coverage for illness and injuries
suffered by Christians.  It disturbs me deeply to know that my premiums
may be used to pay for that which I sincerely believe is divine
punishment for their sinful conduct.  In addition these folks are able to
avail themselves of such alternative therapies as Lourdes, Fatima,
Morris Cerullo, Benny Hinn, etc.  In any case as "Jesus Saves' I feel
that there is no reason for them to be covering their bets at my
expense.  I would like to request that I be exempted from Christian
coverage with my health premiums reduced accordingly.

Jack Carroll

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83884
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Is it good that Jesus died?

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>Brian Kendig writes:
>
>>If you can explain to me why the death of Jesus was a *good* thing,
>>then I would be very glad to hear it, and you might even convert me.
>>Be warned, however, that I've heard all the most common arguments
>>before, and they just don't convince me.
>
>Ask Jesus himself.  He himself said why in John 12:23-32.  It
>isn't a mystery to anyone and there certainly is no need for
>a persuasive argument.   Read Jesus's own reply to your
>question.

John 12:24-26: "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat
falls onto the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it
produces much grain.
  "He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in
this world will keep it for eternal life.
  "If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there My
servant will be also.  If anyone serves Me, him My Father will honor."

Why would I want an eternal life if I hate this one?

If we were created by a deity, why would that deity not wish us to
enjoy what he has given us?

Why would I want to live forever?  The challenge in my life is that I
will die, and that I must give my life the meaning I wish it to have
before that happens.  My time is here and will someday pass; I will be
content to live on in the memories of my friends, and once they too
are dead, then I will no longer have any reason to exist.

In short: even if your deity *does* exist, that doesn't automatically
mean that I would worship it.  I am content to live my own life, and
fend for myself, so when I die, I can be proud of the fact that no
matter where I end up, it will be because of *my* actions and *my* choices.

If your god decides to toss me into a flaming pit for this, then so be
it.  I would much rather just cease to exist.  But if your god wants
my respect and my obedience, then it had better earn these; and if it
does, then they will be very strong and true.

>Jesus gives more reasons in John 16:7.  But one obvious reason
>why Jesus died, (and as with everything else, it has nothing do with
>his punishment) was that he could rise to life again--so that
>we would "stop doubting and believe" (John 21:27).  The fact
>that Jesus rose from the dead is my hope that I too will rise
>from the dead.  It is an obvious point.  Do not overlook it.
>Without this obvious point, I would have no hope
>and my faith would be vanity.

Jesus wasn't the only one who rose from the dead -- I think it was
Osiris who did the same, as well as a few characters from Greek or
Norse legend, if memory serves.

But still: WHY would I want to rise from the dead?  Why do *you* want to?

>Why did Jesus suffer in his death?  Again, ask Jesus.  Jesus
>says why in John 15:18-25.   That's no mystery either.  "The
>world hates him without reason."  It is a direct proclamation
>of how far we humans botch things up and thus, how much we
>need a Saviour.

If your god wants to win my devotion, then it knows what it can do --
provide some way for me to believe without having to resort to blind
faith that could be applied equally well to any religion.

>And why can't you, Brian K., accept this?  How can you?  "The
>world cannot accept him because it neither sees him nor knows
>him."  (John 14:17).

That's precisely it.  I neither see nor know Zeus either, nor Odin.
Shall I offer them the same devotion I offer Jesus?

>The animosity and the lack of knowledge
>that comes out in your twistings of Robert's daily verses is
>very convincing testimony of the truth of John 14:17 and 16:25.

You've got to understand my point-of-view: I see Christians spouting
Bible verse all the time as if it were some sort of magic spell that
will level all opposition.  Truth is, it's not.  Robert has never
demonstrated that he actually understands what the verses imply; he
just rattles them off day by day.  Some brazenly fly in the face of
common sense and reality, and I point these out where I can.

But even more than that, even when Christians *do* try to explain the
verses in their own words, they do so from a Christian point of view,
which is that every human being would want to be a Christian if only
he or she understood the Christian message properly, and then all
strife and suffering on the earth would end.  Here's the problem with
that: substitute "Moslem" or "Buddhist" or "Satanist" instead of
"Christian", and it means the same thing.

Christanity is a very nice belief set around a very nice book.  But if
you want to make me believe that it has any bearing on the REAL WORLD,
you've got some convincing to do.

>I pray and hope that I do blurt out such animosity and lack of
>knowledge. I am not perfect either.  But regardless of that, I thank
>God that Jesus revealed himself to me, without whom I'd also be
>bumbling about blindly though arrogantly slandering the very
>Person who created me and who loves me.

And in my opinion, you're bumbling about blindly making up entities
where there aren't any, and depriving yourself of a true understanding
and enjoyment of your life.  As long as you keep your beliefs to
yourself, I'll keep my beliefs to myself -- but as soon as you start
waving them around, expect me to toss in my opinions, too.
-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83885
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Subject: Re: Language and agreement

I responded to Jim's other articles today, but I see that I neglected
to respond to this one.  I wouldn't want him to think me a hypocrite
for not responding to *every* stupid article on t.r.m.

m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
>From my handy dictionary:
[dictionary definitions of "not" "disagree" and "agree" deleted]
>Please operationally differentiate between "not disagree" and "agree".

Oh, but I'm weary of trying to wade through Jim's repertoire of 
red herrings and smoke screens.

Let's see what we get when we run all four articles posted by Jim today
through the 'discord' filter (a Markov chain program that Steve Lamont
was kind enough to send me):

	Taking action? A white geese be held
	as an accomplice to be held as
	a decision upon the door
	A black and white goose waddles past
	the eyes of the door. 
	Hits it with the confidence interval for 
	that individual is held responsible 
	for that, that individual 
	may be held as a 
	getaway car may be held 
	as an uncountably large number 
	of the driver of something 
	and agree.

	A black goose 
	waddles past the person imprisoned?

	White goose waddles past the 
	confidence interval for the population 
	of geese be axed, 
	fine.
	And white goose 
	waddles past the door.

Does running Jim's articles through 'discord' make them more
coherent?  Less coherent?

Or has 'discord' turned Jim's articles into an angst-ridden poem
about making choices in a world filled with uncertainty, yet being
held responsible for the choices we make?  Do the geese symbolize
an inner frustration with ambiguity, a desire that everything be
black and white, with no shades of gray?  Does the "getaway car"
tell us that to try to renounce the existential nature of our
being is not to "get away" from responsibility for our actions,
but rather to take the role of the passive accomplice, the
"driver" of the getaway car, as it were?  Does the juxtaposition
of man and machine, car and driver, reveal a subtext: an internal
conflict between determinism and moral responsibility?

Or am I reading too much into a collaboration between Jim and
a random number generator?

dj

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83891
From: dlphknob@camelot.bradley.edu (Jemaleddin Cole)
Subject: Re: Catholic Lit-Crit of a.s.s.

In <1993Apr14.101241.476@mtechca.maintech.com> foster@mtechca.maintech.com writes:

>I am surprised and saddened. I would expect this kind of behavior
>from the Evangelical Born-Again Gospel-Thumping In-Your-Face We're-
>The-Only-True-Christian Protestants, but I have always thought 
>that Catholics behaved better than this.
>                                   Please do not stoop to the
>level of the E B-A G-T I-Y-F W-T-O-T-C Protestants, who think
>that the best way to witness is to be strident, intrusive, loud,
>insulting and overbearingly self-righteous.

(Pleading mode on)

Please!  I'm begging you!  Quit confusing religious groups, and stop
making generalizations!  I'm a Protestant!  I'm an evangelical!  I don't
believe that my way is the only way!  I'm not a "creation scientist"!  I
don't think that homosexuals should be hung by their toenails!  

If you want to discuss bible thumpers, you would be better off singling
out (and making obtuse generalizations about) Fundamentalists.  If you
compared the actions of Presbyterians or Methodists with those of Southern 
Baptists, you would think that they were different religions!

Please, prejudice is about thinking that all people of a group are the
same, so please don't write off all Protestants or all evangelicals!

(Pleading mode off.)

God.......I wish I could get ahold of all the Thomas Stories......
--
	"Fbzr enval jvagre Fhaqnlf jura gurer'f n yvggyr oberqbz, lbh fubhyq
nyjnlf pneel n tha.  Abg gb fubbg lbhefrys, ohg gb xabj rknpgyl gung lbh'er 
nyjnlf znxvat n pubvpr."
			--Yvan Jregzhyyre
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
        Jemaleddin Sasha David Cole IV - Chief of Knobbery Research
                        dlphknob@camelot.bradley.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83892
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: [lds] Gordon's question on the Nicene Creed

Gordon Banks quoted and added...

gb> In article <C50M5p.Eoz@acsu.buffalo.edu>
gb> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
gb>
gb> >
gb> >  Christians have professed for more than 1660 years the Nicene
gb> >Creed, a statement of beliefs drawn from the truths of Scripture
gb> >that was officially accepted by a council of church bishops
gb> >and leaders at Nicea in 325 A.D. Christians still recite
gb> >this creed regularly in public worship.
gb> >
gb>
gb> So prior to 325 AD there were no Christians?  Or all of them really
gb> believed the Nicean creed even before it was formulated?  Do you
gb> really believe such an absurdity?  I'm afraid you do.  

     No.
     I really don't. Honest.

     The Nicene Creed, as I mentioned above, is a brief statement of
     beliefs that are derived from Scripture. That this certain list
     did not exist earlier does not indicate that the beliefs summarized 
     in in did not exist before the formula was derived.

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83895
From: jeffj@yang.earlham.edu (ChaOs)
Subject: Re: ALT.SEX.STORIES under Literary Critical Analysis :-)

In article <1qevbh$h7v@agate.berkeley.edu>, dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis Kriz) writes:
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm going to try to do something here, that perhaps many would
> not have thought even possible.  I want to begin the process of
> initiating a literary critical study of the pornography posted on
> alt.sex.stories, to identify the major themes and motifs present
> in the stories posted there -- opening up then the possibility of
> an objective moral evaluation of the material present there.  

First off, let me congratulate you for not posting a flame about "You sick
perverts, you are immoral, you are all going to hell.", which seems to be the
usual "religious" post found on the alt.sex.* hierarchy.  Hopefully, you won't
get flamed, either.

You will, however, be argued with.  I personally think that your project is
built on unsteady ground.

First, I do not believe that there is any way to find an "objective morality". 
Morality and value are inherently subjective - they represent the beliefs of a
person or a group of people.  They can be widely held, perhaps even
overwhelmingly held, but they are never and _can_ never be objective.

> Assumptions:
> 
> (1) A Christian bedrock assumption that all that is True, comes
> Truly from God. 
> 
> (2) Regarding alt.sex.stories.  While perhaps even from an
> objective standpoint, the majority of its material is indeed
> repugnant (you come to this conclusion quite quickly when you
> start thinking about analyzing its material like this), some of
> it reflects some fairly profound needs in people as well as some
> truths -- and deserve to be pointed out.

Second, I do not accept the assumptions that you make here.  If, as you say,
you are trying to be objective, then why accept a morality to begin with by
using the Christian Bible?  You're defeating your own purpose by doing so.
 
> In the long run, the advantage of making such a literary/moral
> analysis is that it will save band-width between Christians and
> non mutually flaming each other about the moral acceptability of
> the stuff on these (pornographic) groups.

Third, call me a pessimist, but you won't stop the flamage.  There will always
be people who pop upin alt.sex.* to tell us how sick and twisted and evil we
all are.  Just out of curiosity, do alt.sex readers show up unprovoked in the
religion groups to tell you all that you are narrow-minded, censoring,
overbearing totalitarianists?
 
> Basically, there should not be a dissonance between a "Christian"
> morality and a "non-Christian" one.  Either there is value in a
> particular work, or there is not whether one is a Christian or
> not.

Hm.  Let me provide an example.  Four people get together over dinner, to
discuss morality: you, me, a rather conservative Moslem, and a sociopath.  I
start off by saying that I think it's immoral to force people to have sex with
you.  You agree, but also say that it is immoral to have sex with someone of
your own gender.  (Just a note: I really don't know your views on
homosexuality, I am just using this as a common view of morality for the
purposes of this example.)  The Moslem says that it is immoral for women to
have their faces uncovered.

The sociopath, who has become bored, kills all three of us and eats us, but
feels no guilt because he has done nothing wrong morally in his own mind. 
                                                                         
> In support for the first assumption:
> 
> The Christian scriptures say this:

	(Evidence deleted)

I'm not going to accept your evidence for this.  You ask us to accept "The Word
of God" that everything good comes from God.  This is only a valid argument for
a person who shares your beliefs.

Still, I must say that cataloging the major themes and motifs in erotica could
be interesting for other reasons than yours, so good luck with this next part.

>                                                                        
>              **************************************
> 
> NOW THEN what are some of the major themes/motifs in the
> pornographic literature on places like alt.sex.stories?  These
> are some that I've been able to identify.  Please add/comment on
> them.
> 
> 
> Motif #1 -- THE MALE-CINDERELLA.  
> 
> In so many of the stories there is expressed a feeling of
> alienation and worthlessness on the part of the writer or
> otherwise protagonist of the story with regard to the object (the
> other person) of his/her desire. Often a story involves a
> protagonist who (on the surface) is quite average (but underneath
> usually has an enormous dick), who desires to in some way to gain
> access (in a definitely sexual way) to the other person who
> he/she confesses is far more desireable than he/she is and who
> indeed seems "to walk between the rain-drops."   

Hmmm...do I detect just a wee bit of condescence here?
                                                      
> 
> Motif #2 -- A CELEBRATION OF (INDEED PREOCCUPATION WITH) BEAUTY.
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
				not very objective. 

> The vast majority of pornographic literature deals with beauty,
> be it innocence (somehow about to be lost), grace, or simply
> physical beauty.  And generally, most people Christian or non
> will say that beauty is good. 

One could construe this to mean that beautiful people are better, or "more
good" than non-beautiful people.  I would hope that people relize that this is
not necessarily true.
                     
> 
> Motif #3 -- ONE'S DICK IS ONE'S INSTRUMENT OF REDEMPTION.  
                    ^^^^
      Might I suggest the word "penis"? It seems more in line with the tone of
your post. 
          
>      Blessed are those who are well-hung, for they shall get
>      laid. -- from what would thus be a revised Matthew 5 :-).
> 

Bravo!  I respect you and your sense of humor, sir. 

> 
> Motif #4 -- SEX AS AN EXPRESSION OF SINCERE GIVING.  
>                                                  
> There is, often enough, a clear desire on the part of the
> protagonist, to give (definitely sexual) pleasure to the object
> (person) of his/her desires.
                                                 
Yes, and this theme is usually what the better stories are about.  However,
they are not always selfish - I could point to examples in the work of Elf
Sternberg, for example.

> 
> Motif #5 -- ALT.SEX.STORIES DESCRIBES A SEX WHICH IS COMPLETELY
> REMOVED FROM THE REALM OF "TRANSMITTING LIFE"  
> 
> So removed is sex from its procreative dimension on
> alt.sex.stories, that one begins to wonder why sex even involves
> ejaculation, as in the context described in pornography it serves
> then no real purpose.  

It serves the same purpose as it does in pornographic movies: it affirms the
virility of the male involved, as well as assuring the reader that he (the
character) has orgasmed.                      

> The Whole Picture [TM] is probably very well described by the
> Catholic teaching on this: Of the husband and wife, in an act of
> total mutual self-giving in the sexual union, cooperating with
> God in opening themselves up for the transmission of new life
> (cf. Humane Vitae).  

Your Whole Picture [TM] unfortunately only applies to people who accept your
church.
         
In addition, if sex is for procreation, then

1)	Why did God make it pleasurable, so that people would want to do it,
rather than building it in as instinct?
2)	Why did God make it fallible?  Not every sexual encounter results in
pregnancy, even among Catholics.  Does this mean that they have sinned?
 
> In any case alt.sex.stories and the Catholic teaching will
> probably not see eye to eye on this for a long time.
 
Granted.

> 
> Motif #6 -- SEX USED AS AN INSTRUMENT VIOLENCE, POWER AND
> HUMILIATION.  
>                                   
> Why pornography seems to tend in that direction, I really do not
> know.  Probably volumes could be written on the relationships
> between sex and power/humiliation.  But this probably gives good
> reason why traditionally Judeo-Christianity has been so negative
> with regard to sexuality -- it seems to tend to a great moral
> morass. 

Pornography would not tend in those directions if there were not a demand for
it.  Many people have violent fantasies that they would never act out in real
life, but will think about and read about and mull over.

Later,
						Jeff                                   

-- 
JeffJ@yang.earlham.edu - Official generic .sig.  Under 4 lines, under 80
columns, no Amiga checks, no witty quotes, no maps of Australia, no asterisks,
no ASCII art, no disclaimers or anti-flame requests, and one spelling errer. 

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83897
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!

In article <sandvik-150493181533@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, 
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes...

>In article <1993Apr15.200231.10206@ra.royalroads.ca>,
>mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
>> These laws written for the Israelites...

>> Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied
>> only to God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We
>> are living in the age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable
>> by death.  There is repentance and there is salvation through our
>> Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just for a few chosen people.  Salvation
>> is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile alike. 
>
>Jews won't agree with you, Malcolm.

Which Jews KS? 

(ex. as a people, as a language, religiously, politically, or...) 

Do you mean those Jews who are God's chosen?

{And Malcolm, please, if you will, set your word wrap at 75 or less 
to avoid clutter?}

   |
-- J --
   |
   | stephen

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83899
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!


In article <sandvik-150493181533@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr15.200231.10206@ra.royalroads.ca>,
|> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
|> > These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had
|> > expressly set apart from the rest of the world.  The Israelites were a
|> > direct witness to God's existence.  To disobey God after KNOWing that God
|> > is real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately punishable.
|> > Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to 
|> > God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We are living in the
|> > age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death.  There is
|> > repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just
|> > for a few chosen people.  Salvation is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile
|> > alike.
|> 
|> Jews won't agree with you, Malcolm.
|> 
|> Cheers,
|> Kent
|> ---
|> sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

A lot of people won't agree with me.  That's their right and I respect that.
However, to the point, Jews are also covered by the saving grace of Jesus
Christ.  There are Jews who have become Christians.

This brings up another question I still have to ponder:  why is there so 
much anti-Semitism?  Why do people hate Jews?  I don't hate Jews.  I consider
them to be like anyone else, sinners we all are.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83900
From: m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Silence is concurance

In article <9157@blue.cis.pitt.edu> joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
}For those missing the context of this thrilling discussion between
}Jim and I, Jim wrote the following to me in e-mail after I pointed out

Hate to shatter your self image of perfection that  you appear to hold, but
your language is wrong: Jim and me.

}I pointed out that I did, in fact, agree that both Robert Weiss and
}Jim Meritt took quotes out of context.  Hence, I find it difficult to
}understand why Jim thinks I am a hypocrite.  Needless to say, I don't
}have time to reply to *every* article on t.r.m. that takes a quote
}out of context.  

Of course not - just the ones you disagree with.  Q.E.D.

}>}So, according to you, Jim, the only way to criticize one person for
}>}taking a quote out of context, without being a hypocrite, is to post a
}>}response to *every* person on t.r.m who takes a quote out of context?
}
}Jim replied by saying 
}>Did I either ask or assert that?
}
}But today we find four articles from Jim, one of which has the subject

So?  As of then, and pointing out a specific instance.  Wrongo again.

}>Is it not the case that, in the eyes of the law, when someone is aware of
}>something and has the capability of taking action and does not, that individual
}>may be held responsible for that action?
}
}Which is, of course, a complete red herring.  Taking quotes out of
}context isn't a crime.  I don't have time to read every article on
}t.r.m., and I'm certainly under no obligation to reply to them all.

So?  Check the newsgroups?

}Does "silence is concurrence" imply that Jim thinks that because I
}didn't respond to Weiss' articles I must condone Weiss' taking quotes
}out of context?  Jim doesn't want to give a direct answer to this
}question; read what he has written and decide for yourself.

Telepathy again?  You claim to know what I "want".

}But back to the context of my conversation with Jim.  Jim's next 
}gambit was to claim that he was using inductive logic when he
}concluded that I was being a hypocrite.  I challenged him to provide
}the details of that logic that led him to an incorrect conclusion.

No.  YOu asked specifically what was wrong with yours.

}Today we find another obscure article (posting it twice didn't help

Maybe to the ignorant.  I accept your classification.

}More red herrings.  Could Jim mean that he has read an uncountably large
}number of my articles?  

Do you know what "uncountably large" means?  It does not appear so.

}Could Jim mean that because I "axed" his articles,
}but not Weiss' articles, he wants to conclude inductively ...
}Well, I can't see where he is going with this.

I am not suprised.

}But I can help him with his induction.  I've written roughly 80

That does not appear to be the case.  The appearance of your "Argument"
is more like that Captain Kirk would have gotten from Mr. Spock - written
by a stagehand at Paramount.

}Think hard about this Jim.  See the pattern?  Think harder.  Run it
}through your induction engine and see what pops out.  

Of course.  You appear arrogant.  So?  I already had figured that out.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83901
From: elw@mayo.edu
Subject: Re: [lds] Gordon's question on the Nicene Creed


The Nicene Creed

WE BELIEVE in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.  He suffered and was buried, and the third day rose again according to the Scriptur





es, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father.  And he shall come again with glory to judge  both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.  And we believe in one holy and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83902
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Subject: Re: Christian meta-ethics

-*----
In article <C5Jzz7.9G7@panix.com> mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
> Well, the whole *point* of making these the "base" commandments is that
> they *aren't* reducible to rules.  A set of rules is a moral code or a
> law code or an algorithm for acting.  Such things can be very helpful
> to individuals or societies -- but not if they are used *instead* of a
> personal involvement in and responsibility for one's actions. ...

The two commandments *are* rules; they are merely rules that are
so vague that they are practically devoid of meaning.  Michael
Siemon acknowledges this every time he writes that the resolution
of an argument over them turns on secular and cultural
assumptions that are independent of these rules.
 
> ... The Great  Commandment is, more than anything else, a call
> to act *as if you were God and accepting ultimate responsibility*
> in your every action. ...

The commandment to love your neighbor as yourself can be viewed,
in part, as reminding man that he is not God and cannot act as if
he has "ultimate responsibility." Indeed, many traditions present
an interpretation where believers are supposed to interpret
loving one's neighbor as following various other rules, and
relying on their god to make things come out right, precisely
because it would be wrong for man to assume such "ultimate
responsibility." Once again, we are confronted with good sounding
goo that means whatever the reader wants it to mean. 

> ... "Conservatives" may twist this "act as if you were God" to 
> mean "lay down rules for other people and be as nasty to them
> as possible if they don't keep YOUR rules."  They are so
> insistent (and obvious) about this that they have convinced a
> lot of people (who rightly reject the whole concept!) that such 
> idiocy IS how God acts. ...

And who is to say that this interpretation is "twisted"?  There
are many passages in the Bible that in their most straightforward
reading show the Christian god behaving in just this way.
Michael cannot refer to "base" claims or base commandments to
show that such readings are "twisted," because this divergence in
understanding occurs even in trying to interpret the "base"
claims and commandments.  In addressing conservative Christians,
Michael will necessarily draw upon secular and cultural notions
that these conservative Christians will reject.  

> But why should anyone BE looking for an ethical system, since our
> society is eager to hand us one or more no matter what we do?  It
> may be that we need a principle for the CRITIQUE of ethical systems
> -- in which case I will profer the _agapate allelou_ once again.

But these base commandments are too vague to serve as  "a
principle for the CRITIQUE of ethical systems." The meaning of
these base commandments for any believer derives from the secular
and cultural notions that the believer brings to them, from how
the believer mixes their demands with straightforward readings of
other Biblical passages, from a particular sectarian tradition,
or from some combination of these things.  These commandments
lack sufficient substance in themself to serve as a basis for
criticizing ethical systems.  What meaning they have comes from
the ethical system the believer brings to these commandments. 

> And different bodies of Christians have, from the beginning, urged
> *different* "ethical systems" (or in some cases, none).  As a result,
> it is bizarre to identify any one of these systems, however popular
> (or infamous) with Christianity.  Christianity DOES NOT HAVE A TORAH.
> It does not have a QU'RAN.  Specifically Christian scripture has very
> little, if anything, in the way of "commandments" -- so little that
> the "Christians" who desperately *want* commandments go "mining" for
> them with almost no support ... The one, single, thing in the gospels
> which Jesus specifically "gives" as "a commandment" to us is "love
> one another."

Jesus explicitly states that this summarizes Jewish law, which
would seem to bring in all of it if we properly understand what
it means to love God and love our neighbors.  There are *many*
parables and teachings the gospels attribute to Jesus that are
straightforwardly read as ethical commandments.  The Pauline
epistles are similarly full.  If it is not clear that these all
come together in a sensible understanding of ethical behavior,
the problem is *not* a lack of raw material. 

-*----
> I am a "radical" Christian *only* in that I take the gospel seriously.

No, Michael, the conservative Christians also take the gospel 
seriously.  What differentiates you is the way you interpret the
gospel.

> ... Why don't I and the (myriads of) other Christians like me
> tell you something about Christianity? ...

In a sense, the wide variety of interpretations does tell us
something about Christianity.  It tells us that the New Testament
authors left a sufficiently vague hodge-podge that it can serve
as the source text for many, vastly different beliefs about the
nature of the Christian god and about what men should and
shouldn't do. 

The irony here is that there is *nothing* in Christianity per
se that Michael can use to support the cause of lesbians and
gays.  *Every* Christian principle he turns to this cause is
effective only through the extra-Christian principles through
which Michael interprets his religion, and the homophobes apply
the *same* Christian principles, with equal justification, to
their cause.  In short, it is the extra-Christian principles that
make Michael's Christianity beneficial, and I suspect they would
be as beneficial, perhaps moreso, without being filtered by
Christian interpretation.  

Michael paints a picture of "standard American atheism" as the
rejection of the evil in many conservative Christian
interpretations of the Bible.  But I think it is even more
damaging to Christianity to note that the New Testament presents
such a vague hodge-podge of notions about the nature of God and
the nature of the good (except, of course, when it is ordered by
an interpretation that relies on extraneous principles).  Here, I
think we should apply a Christian parable, where a cold drink can
have its value and a hot drink can have its value, but the
lukewarm we should spit out. 

Russell

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83905
From: tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1993Apr20.220340.2585@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>
>armed to the teeth.  A Christian should not have to rely on physical weapons
>to defend himself.  A Christian should rely on his faith and intelligence.

Faith and intelligence tell me that when a druggie breaks into my house at
night with a knife to kill me for the $2 in my wallet, a .357 is considerably
more persuasive than having devotions with him.

-- 
Tom Albrecht

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83907
From: jmeritt@mental.MITRE.ORG (Jim Meritt - System Admin)
Subject: SATAN!!!

Here is someones "biblical" claim for the characteristics of Satan:

>This is probably the portion of Scripture that you were talking about, Isaiah 14:12-15.
>This does speak of the "morning star" which, according to you is the
>Babylonian prince.  OK, so I turn your attention to Daniel 10:12-14.  This passage
>concerns a revelation of prophecy to Daniel by the messenger from God.  Within
>this passage, the messenger from God speaks of how he fought for 3 weeks 
>against the Prince of the Persian Kingdom.  Obviously, this prince was not an earthly
>prince.  This prince of the Persian kingdom is probably one of the demons
>in Satan's hierarchy.  As such, the morning star can be the prince of Babylon w
>ho can also be Satan.  Another passage concerning Satan's fall from heaven is 
>Ezekiel 28:12-19.

And separately:

>devil chose to try to become greater than God.
>he wanted to sit on God's throne.
>when the devil was created, he was one of the most beautiful angels in heaven.

We have here three distinct claims concerning the results of the devil's
decision making, a specific desire, and a physical description.  Now, in
support (aside from the minor detail that an author seldom writes an unbiased
account of the opposition) we see:

>Isaiah 14:12-15

ISA 14:12  How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the
morning!  how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken
the nations!

ISA 14:13  For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend  into
                                              --------------------
heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit
-----------------------------------------------------
also upon the mount of the congregation,  in  the  sides  of the north:

ISA 14:14  I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I  will
be like the most High.

ISA 14:15  Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to  the  sides
of the pit.


Doesn't say sits on God's throne.  Says will exhault throne above the stars.

>Daniel 10:12-14

DAN 10:12  Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for  from the
first  day  that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to
chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard,  and  I am
come for thy words.

DAN 10:13  But the prince of the kingdom of Persia  withstood me
                    ------------------------------
one  and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes,
                                        ------------------------
came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

DAN 10:14  Now I am come to make thee understand what  shall be-
fall  thy  people  in  the latter days: for yet the vision is for
many days.


See who is being discussed?


>Ezekiel 28:12-19

EZE 28:12  Son of man, take up a lamentation  upon  the  king of
                                                     -----------
Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up
-----
the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

EZE 28:13  Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God;  every  pre-
cious  stone  was  thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the dia-
mond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the em-
erald,  and  the  carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy ta-
brets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that  thou
wast created.

EZE 28:14  Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have
set  thee  so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast
walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

EZE 28:15  Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day  that  thou
wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

EZE 28:16  By the multitude of thy merchandise they  have  filled
the  midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore
I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain  of  God:  and  I
will  destroy  thee,  O  covering  cherub,  from the midst of the
stones of fire.

EZE 28:17  Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty,  thou
hast  corrupted  thy  wisdom  by reason of thy brightness: I will
cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that  they
may behold thee.

EZE 28:18  Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of
thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will
I bring forth a fire from the midst  of  thee,  it  shall  devour
thee,  and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight
of all them that behold thee.

EZE 28:19  All they that know thee among the people shall be as-
tonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be
any more.



Anyone else to make a claim about the characteristics of the devil?


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83910
From: wmoore@ADS.COM (William Moore)
Subject: On-line copy of Book of Mormon

Can anyone provide me a ftp site where I can obtain a online version
of the Book of Mormon. Please email the internet address if possible.
--
William H. Moore      Advanced Decision Systems, Division of Booz, Allen & Hamilton
Software Engineer                     1500 Plymouth Street
Net: wmoore@ads.com               Mountain View, CA 94043-1230
                                         (415) 960-7553

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83911
From: wmoore@ADS.COM (William Moore)
Subject: on-line Book of Mormon

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: On-line copy of Book of Mormon
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: usa
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems, Mtn. View, CA (415) 960-7300
Keywords: BOM, Book of Mormon, Mormon

Can anyone provide me a ftp site where I can obtain a online version
of the Book of Mormon. Please email the internet address if possible.
--
William H. Moore      Advanced Decision Systems, Division of Booz, Allen & Hamilton
Software Engineer                     1500 Plymouth Street
Net: wmoore@ads.com               Mountain View, CA 94043-1230
                                         (415) 960-7553

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83913
From: ceci@lysator.liu.se (Cecilia Henningsson)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!

sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
...
>Anyway, I don't have anything against AMORC, I just wanted to point
>out that secret organizations are lead by human beings, and we all
>know what that means.

I had an ehum, interesting experience with the Rosicrucians, or at
least Rosicrucians of some sort last Sunday. They had advertised that
they were holding a lecture titled The Graal of the King -- the room
of the heart (which rhymes in Swedish). Out of curiosity, I went to
the lecture.

There were four people there apart from the two Rosicrucians, one
woman and two men apart from me. The Rosicrucians were male, both of
them. First one of them told us about the Rosicrucians and Lectorium
Rosicrucianum, which was founded in Harlem, NL in 1925. He read
straight from a piece of paper, which I at that point was because he
lacked experience in talking in front of people, but the other guy
read, too, and he was used to holding speeches, I could tell. The
first guy also said that the R:s are a mystical Christian order, and
that they base their teachings on the teachings of the Kathars
(English?) from the thirteenth century.

The other guy took over, reading from his piece of paper in a
fairy-tale teller's voice. What he said sounded like a load of crap to
me. Of course that might be because I am unenlightened or something.
What made me a bit suspicious, was the way they first said that we all
contained something divine, and could find our way back to divinity,
then that we couldn't become divine as the persons we are currently,
but if we worked really hard we would reach eternal bliss. Maybe I've
read too much RAW, but it sounded very much like the things he talks
about in the chapter _How to robotize people and brainwash your
friends_ in _Prometheus rising_. 

It was very interesting to watch the two Rosicrucians. The one holding
the actual lecture, obviously was top dog, and the other one seemed to
be a true believer. I got the impression that the top dog had more
distance to the faith than the true believer, that he used it to gain
power and admiration. He spoke like a fairy-tale teller, whenever he
remembered. ;)

The information brochure is at home. Should you want their address,
please e-mail me.
--Ceci

--
=====ceci@lysator.liu.se===========================================
"...men jag tycker {nd} att Emacs {r ett hyfsat OS." Lars Willfoer
 (...still, I think Emacs is a fairly good operating system.)
===================================================================

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83915
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Subject: Re: Christian meta-ethics

-*----
I wrote:
>> And who is to say that this interpretation is "twisted"?  There
>> are many passages in the Bible that in their most straightforward
>> reading show the Christian god behaving in just this way.

In article <1r622c$c17@cass.ma02.bull.com> ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis) writes:
> This requires the assumption that all interpretations are equally
> valid, that there is no way of reasonably distinguishing among
> them. I wouldn't make that assumption; I don't think it is a
> reasonable assumption. 

No.  It follows from the fact that most Christians' choice of
interpretation stems from a mix of beliefs that are influenced by
the secular ethics of their culture and that are not fully
determined by scripture.  Whether or not there is some "right"
interpretation matters not; few Christians claim the ability to
read the mind of their god.  Dave Davis should note that it was
Michael who first stated the importance of secular and cultural
influence in this thread.  I think Michael is right in this, but
regardless, it should be noted that this has *not* been a point
of contention between Michael and myself. 

I have argued -- beyond Michael's claims -- that the Christian
scriptures are open to so many interpretations -- including a
wide divergence within the Christian tradition -- that even their
most important themes are vague.  Again, it does not matter that
there is some "right" interpretation *unless* there is a way to
determine what that "right" interpretation is.  It is the lack of
an objective measure, not the presumed lack of an answer, that
puts the force behind the line I argue.

> Michael, and I, and others, read 'the Bible' with Christian
> glasses. Among the things that this should imply is that the
> NT informs the OT, even to the point of dominanting it. Some
> points in the OT (ceremonial & dietary laws) are explicitly 
> abrogated by the NT texts. ...

There are enough Christian glasses, varying over a sufficiently
broad range of color, that I can find a few that support my
example. 

>> No, Michael, the conservative Christians also take the gospel 
>> seriously.  What differentiates you is the way you interpret the
>> gospel.

> Russell Turpin's 'No' here is misplaced, not to say inappropriate.
> Michael's self-description must govern.  The equation of radical = 
> liberal, which seems implied by Russell Turpin is wrong. ...

In my opinion, what makes Michael radical is that he fully
acknowledges that Christian scripture and tradition fail to
determine the doctrines that so many branches within Christianity
hold dear.  He is willing to live and practice his religion
within this indeterminacy, and he is willing to acknowledge that
much of his understanding of things Christian is influenced by
ideas that are not purely Christian.  Those Christians I have
called conservative must also interpret, but they do not
recognize -- or at least, are unwilling to admit -- the extent and
importance of this.

> Russell Turpin (in an earlier post) had said that Michael (Michael's
> theological positions, actually) didn't tell him much about Christianity;
> Dean Simeon responds (this time gently): 'What do you mean?' More
> direct, perhaps, would have been: 'What could you possibly mean?'
> The implied rhetorical effort, to separate Michael from the tradition,
> is a failure. Michael is in the tradition. If your idea of the tradition
> doesn't include him, Change your idea of the tradition!

I recognize that Michael is part of the tradition.  But what does
it tell one about a tradition covering Origen, Aquinas, Jerry
Fallwell, and Jesse Jackson that it also includes Michael Siemon?
Not very much!

>> ... In short, it is the extra-Christian principles that make
>> Michael's Christianity beneficial, and I suspect they would
>> be as beneficial, perhaps moreso, without being filtered by
>> Christian interpretation.  

> This conclusion does not follow, even in short, from the
> argument that goes before. A surprising logical ellipsis.

I think the conclusion does follow.  The purely Christian
principles that Michael has are the ones he shares with others in
the Christian tradition or that can be derived from Christian
scripture.  These, necessarily vague, are not enough to drive his
political stances.  That one should love one's neighbor is a 
purely Christian principle.  That this means showing tolerance 
for homosexuality is *not*.

As to these political stances, they are often at odds with what
is commonly held in most of current Christendom, and so I 
suspect they could be better pressed outside it.  (On the other
hand, I can well understand the counterpoint, that these 
political stances become most influential when presented to 
those who need them most.)

-*----
> This is a theological statement worthy of Barth.
> Dr Turpin (DD) may wear the black robe of Geneva yet! :-)

Having barely survived the effort to finish in computer science, I
doubt I will attempt a more difficult field any time soon!

Russell


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83918
From: dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!



mlee@ra.royalroads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had
>expressly set apart from the rest of the world.  The Israelites were a
>direct witness to God's existence.  To disobey God after KNOWing that God
>is real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately punishable.
>Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to 
>God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We are living in the
>age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death.  There is
>repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just
>for a few chosen people.  Salvation is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile
>alike.

Sorry if this is late for the thread, but...

I thought God was supposed to be constant and never-changing.  How do
you reconcile this common Christian view with the paragraph above?

Also, while we're at it:

1. How do you reconcile "A KIND and LOVING God!!" with the
Judeo-Christian view that sin was at one time "immediately punishable
by death"?  Was killing people for sinning God's way of showing
KINDness and LOVE?

2. Is the fact the He no longer does this an admission on His part of
having made a mistake?

3. Now that we are "living in the age of grace", does this mean that
for our sins, God now damns us to eternal hell after we die, rather
than killing us immediately?  If so, is this eternal damnation an
example of "A KIND and LOVING God!!"?

Just curious.

--Dave Wood

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83919
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Jewish history question

In article <cocoaC5uG2q.KsB@netcom.com> cocoa@netcom.com writes:
>In article <1993Apr10.195513.17991@csi.uottawa.ca> 
misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
>>In article <cocoaC5797E.43y@netcom.com>, 
cocoa@netcom.com (little 'e') writes:
>[deleted]
>>> Here tis.  Someone just told me that the Old Testament books were translated
>>> into Greek a long time ago
>>   Yes, that's a famous version called The Septuagint.  It was a translation
>>made by Greek Jews.
>>> and that the originals were destroyed in a fire soon afterward.

No.

>>   I don't know what you're referring to here.  When the Jersusalem Temple was
>>destroyed, some manuscripts may have been lost, but I think our extant Hebrew
>>manuscripts are as good as our Greek ones. I don't know about any "originals".
>The person who was telling me about the Septuagint version said that the Greeks
>had a wonderful library in Alexandria that was full of manuscripts/scrolls
>and that it was burned soon after the Septuagint version was translated 
>(perhaps to conceal some changes in the different versions, or perhaps just
>as part of the typical burning of valuable things that occurs during changes
>in power groups, he/I dunno).

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.

>>> So, I was just wondering, since I imagine some Jewish people somewhere must 
>>>have had copies of the earlier Hebrew versions, is the Hebrew version of the 
>>> Old Testament very different from the Greek derived version?
>>   No.  There are a few famous discrepancies (Isaiah's prophecy about a "young
>>woman" was changed into a "virgin", which was how the New Testament writers
>>read it), but not many.

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.

>Well, perhaps this is the answer then.
>[deleted]
>>   If you go to a Jewish bookstore, you'll get a Bible translated by Jews, so
>>there will be some differences in interpretation, but the text they're 
>>translating *from* is basically the same.

The standard text used by Christians and Jews is the Masoretic Text.
Jews of course use the text in its original Hebrew, without translation.

>>   If you want to read "the original", you can buy an Interlinear Bible.  That
>>contains the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, with an English
>>translation written underneath each word.
>>   If you want a Bible with a possibly-more-original basic text, you can try
>>to find a Samaritan bible.  (Good luck!  I've never seen one.) The Samaritans 
>>(no, not the Good Samaritans) have their own version of the 5 Books of Moses.
>>They claim the Jewish bible was altered by Ezra.

Propaganda.

>Thanks for the tips.  Now I just have to find someone to teach me Samaritan :)
>Just me,
>little 'e'
>(so, is a "good Samaritan hard to find?" or "is a hard... " Oh, finish this

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83922
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Subject: Re: [lds] Birth of a Church

In article <C5x97x.1EA@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>
>"No church will admit that I am right except  the  one  with  which  I  am
>associated. This makes them witnesses against each other, and  how  can  I
>decide in such a case as this, seeing they are all unlike  the  Church  of
>Christ, as it existed in former days!" (p. 31).
>

The idea of an apostacy did not originate with Lucy Smith or Joseph
Smith or the Mormons.  The idea of a restoration was quite common
in the early 19th century USA.  Alexander Campbell, founder of the
group that now survives with the name "Disciples of Christ" preached
that the primitive church had been lost and was attempting to restore
it (although not be revelations).  Many Cambellites subsequently became
Mormons, including co-founder Sidney Rigdon.  Actually, you can find
such sentiments in many of the early protestants of the reformation,
such as Martin Luther.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon." 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83929
From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)
Subject: Re: That Kill by Sword, Must be Killed by Sword

In article <19APR199310484591@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>Now that chemical-warfare and the use of juggernauts have been
>used against innocents -- so likewise are those involved subject
>to their own judgments. The same goes for those who lead others 
>into captivity -- whether behind strands of barbed-wire, or webs 
>of deceit.
>

Yeah. Innocents. People who hoard $250K worth of high-caliber automatic weapons
and kill law-enforcement agents really fit the bill here. The only innocents
were the 20+ children who were prevented from leaving a burning building by
their self-appointed messiah-following parents. A burning STARTED by the 
Davidians.


>Such is the patience and faith of the saints.
>
>So let them continue -- for the one-who-rewards them according
>to what their works shall be -- comes quickly. 
>
>The evidence continues to mount, which all seems to follow 
>step-by-step quite logically to me. 
>
>   |
>-- J --
>   |
>   | stephen
>

Is this subject line a veiled threat against U.S. Government agents or possibly
Executive office leadership (i.e. Clinton)? I've considered you a bit of a loon,
before, Stephen, I guess this pretty much confirms it. 

Nice religion you have there.  The only ones who should be killed are those who
don't agree with us. Sheesh.


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Tom Hyatt                                  I'm a diehard Saints fan, so i've    thyat@sdf.lonestar.org                     suffered quite enough, thank you!    Arlington, TX                                                                                                                                                    Help! I'm being repressed!  -M.Python                                          -------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83931
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!

In article <1993Apr21.182606.6798@ra.royalroads.ca> 
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>The only point I'm trying to make is that those who call themselves Christian
>may not be Christian.

WOW! Are you serious! So not everyone who calls themself a Christian is
a Christian? WOW! That does make things a bit more complicated doesn't it?

>I ask that you draw your own conclusions by what they do and what they say.

That seems like very good advice, given the above revelation.

>If they are not modelled after the example of Jesus
>Christ then they are NOT Christian.

Like for example Matthew 5:14-19 right?

>If they have not repented of their sins
>and accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour then they are 
>NOT Christian.

Um, where did Jesus say that he wanted people to worship him?

>These are the only criteria to being a Christian.

So, do you adhere to the Ten Commandments?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83932
From: mikec@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Micheal Cranford)
Subject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions

Jim Brown wrote :

[ deleted ]
>I feel that those who use the KJV as a basis for arguing Biblical 
>contradictions are either being intellectually dishonest (purposefully
>wanting to show the Bible in the worst light possible), or they are
>being mentally lazy and are taking the easy way out.  Either way, they
>leave the theist the option of countering with, "Well, that's just the
>KJV, that's not what my XXX version says."
[ deleted ]

  Unfortunately, it's not that simple.  The KJV is preferred by the majority
of fundamentalists (at least here).  The second part of your argument fails
as well, since that statement can be used against any version (not just the
KJV).

[ deleted ]
>I've based my argument on one of the best modern translations
>available which is based on the work of the leading Biblical scholars."
[ deleted ]

  I would not find this statement to be very useful since it is an appeal
to authority and the opposition will just claim that their authorities are
"better".  A second tact that local creationists have used is to reply "but
those scholars are atheists and cannot be believed" (they will also use this
phrase to describe any theologians that they don't agree with).

[ deleted ]
>>>/GEN 30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth
>>>/cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
[ deleted ]

  The verse being discussed clearly claims that sympathetic magic works (i.e.
placing stripped sticks in the cattle breeding grounds causes stripped and
spotted calves to be born) and should be attacked on that basis (no biologist
has ever observed this claimed correlation).


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83934
From: porta@wam.umd.edu (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

In article <1qknu0INNbhv@shelley.u.washington.edu> sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>In article <f1VMPxk@quack.kfu.com> pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>In article <bskendigC5H4o3.D5p@netcom.com> 
>>
>>Human blood sacrifice! Martyrdom of an innocent virgin! "Nailed" to a
>>wooden pole! What is this obsession with male menstruation?
>
>Christian:  washed in the blood of the lamb.
>Mithraist:  washed in the blood of the bull.
>
>If anyone in .netland is in the process of devising a new religion,
>do not use the lamb or the bull, because they have already been
>reserved.  Please choose another animal, preferably one not
>on the Endangered Species List.  
>
>

How about Cockroaches?
-- 
***************************** porta@wam.umd.edu ****************************
	What for you say you monkey when you have little fluffy tail
like rabbit, rabbit! 
                  Tazmanian Devil 

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83936
From: rnapier@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Rob Napier)
Subject: Re: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars

In article <79615@cup.portal.com> Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:
>
>
>"To all whom it may concern -
>
[constitution sacrificed to the bandwidth gods]

im glad i finally have heard exactly what the OTO is all about.  i finally
know that i can stop looking, content i the knowlege that im not interested.
it's tough enough listening to all the religions who refer to themselves as
"the One Truth".  How can i possibly accept it from a magical order?  "We have
all the Answers and will give them to those who join us (and pay dues)?"
Scary.  Besides, answers are easy.  Questions!  now that's another story...

rintaw

-- 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Rob Napier - Virginia Tech | There is no gravity, the earth sucks.          |
| rnapier@csugrad.cs.vt.edu  | All in all I'm just another Schitz In The Hall |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83937
From: syshtg@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Tom Gillman)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

rick@howtek.MV.COM (Rick Roy) writes:

>In article <1r1u5t$595@lm1.oryx.com> (alt.conspiracy,talk.religion.misc), xcpslf@oryx.com (stephen l favor) writes:
>] Koresh was killed because he wanted lots of illegal guns.

>Even if what you say is true, do you think this is a reasonable way
>to deal with people who want "lots of illegal guns"?

What makes you say that the guns were illegal?? I understand that the BD's
had a valid Class III Federal Firearms Permit, which would allow them to
have pretty much anything short of a howitzer legally.
-- 
 Tom Gillman, Systems Programmer       | "AAAAAGGGGHHHH" 
 Wells Computer Center-Ga. State Univ. |    -- Any "Classic" Star Trek Security
 (404) 651-4503 syshtg@gsusgi2.gsu.edu |       officer sometime during the show
 GSU doesn't care what I say on the Internet, why should you?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83943
From: e_p@unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
Subject: Waco information accuracy

  .
        It should be remembered that all of the first reports came from 
       the FBI, and that independent observers, i.e. the press, were not 
       allowed to get close and see things for themselves.  Official 
       communiques tend to be self-serving for the agencies that issue 
       them. 
        People in general tend to believe first reports, as these get 
       the most and the biggest headlines.  Corrections are often 
       overlooked. 
         An example is the FBI report that several of the bodies found 
       in the rubble had bullet wounds.  The local coroner, who is 
       independent of the FBI, has so far found no bullet wounds! 

.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83944
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

Brian Ceccarelli wrote (that's me):

> Kent, I am not accusing you of evil things.  Jesus is accusing you.
> And it is not only you that He is accusing.  He is accusing everyone.
> Me, you and everyone in the world is guilty.  Whether one
> sees the light or does not seen the light has nothing to do with 
> whether we do evil things.  We do them regardless.  

Kent Sandvik responds:

> Hmm, it seems that this is the core of Christianity then, you 
> have to feel guilty . . . 

I think I see where you are coming from Kent.  Jesus doesn't view
guilt like our modern venacular colors it.   

"Feelings" have nothing to do with guilt.  Feelings arise from the state of 
being guilty.  Feeling and guilt are mutally exclusive.  Feelings are a 
reaction from guilt.  Jesus is talking about the guilt state, not the 
reaction.   Let me give you an example:

Have you ever made a mistake?  Have you ever lied to someone?  Even a
little white lie?   Have you ever claimed to know something that you really 
didn't know?  Have you ever hated someone?  Have you ever been selfish?
Are you guilty of any one of these?   The answer is of course, YES.  You
are guilty.  Period.  That is it what Jesus is getting at.  No big surprise.  
Feelings do not even enter the picture.   Consider Jesus's use of the word
"guilt" as how a court uses it.

Jesus is concerned that everyone should admit that they are guilty of being
imperfect.  The Bible calls it the state that we are all sinners.  We all do
bad things.  Even the most insignficant thing that we do wrong is proof of our 
guilt that we are all sinners.     It is it in our nature to do bad things. 
We are sinners, therefore we do bad things.  Being a sinner is fact.  It is
not a pleasant fact.  But it is just a fact.  We are not perfect.   Calling us
sinners should have no more emotional charge to you than calling you a
human being.  Guilty as charged.

> and then there's this single personality that will save you from this
> universal guilt feeling.

You can handle your guilt in one of two ways:  Acknowledge you
made a mistake, learn from it, and try to not do it again--in
the meantime, not punishing yourself for it:  which is the
way Jesus wants you to handle or it.  This is the healthy way.

Or two, the destructive way:  put yourself down, slap yourself
and feel like crap, never forgive yourself, force yourself to
say a thousand Hail Marys . . . even to suicide.  This the way 
Jesus does NOT want us to deal with it.   All people fall into this 
category to some extent in their lives.

Jesus is not in the business of saving us from this guilt
feeling.  Jesus is in the business of showing us how much he
loves us despite our guilt.  Jesus knows we are guilty.  That
isn't new to him.  It is no big deal to him. He just wants you to realize 
that this sinful nature destroys the relationship between you and him.
That is what he wants you to know.  Why, because he wants to 
have your company.  You are immensely valuable to him.
Jesus wants a relationship with you, however, in our present
sinful nature, we are incapable of having this relationship.  

God is perfect.  We are not.  You cannot fit a square peg into
a round hole.  However, God has provided a way for us to
change our nature so that we can have a relationship with him.
God has provided Jesus, so that whosoever just believes in
Jesus, will have their nature changed.  The Holy Spirit will
move it.  And now divine nature is now within lives our very
being--and us and God communicate with each through his
unifying Holy Spirit.  The benefits of this are endless.  For
with the divine nature living within us, we can now see
our imperfections better.  We can now head them off at the pass.  With
the power of the Holy Spirit living in us, we now have his power
to help us overcome our shortcomings.   Because the divine nature lives 
within us, we can now understand profound Bible passages that never before
we could understand.  Because the divine nature now lives within us, we now 
have authority over demonic forces.  And lastly, because the divine 
nature now lives within us, we have eternal life--for the Holy Spirit
is eternal.

The relationship with Jesus is of the utmost importance.  Because
it is not what you do in life that qualifies you to belong to
heavenly kingdom, it is your relationship to the living God.
Remember what Jesus said at the tail end of Matthew when he
separated the "goats from the sheep".   Many people in the
last day will ask him, "Didn't I prophesy in your name and do
miracles, and do good things in your name?"   And what did Jesus say?
"Depart from me, for I never *knew* you."  That is the cornerstone of 
Christianity, Kent.  Jesus must know you as his friend.  It is your 
relationship to Jesus.  If he is your friend and you are his, you will
be counted among those who will share in his inheritance in heaven.  

> Brian, I will tell you a secret, I don't feel guilty at all,
> I do mistakes, and I regret them, however I've never had this
> huge guilt feeling hanging over my shoulder.

Good.  It shows that you have a strong self-image--that you
love yourself.  That is the second greatest commandment Jesus
taught.  If only more people could do as you do.   As I said before, 
in the common english venacular, "feeling guilty" has a
different meaning than the state of guilt.

> This all is a very clear indication that you need a certain
> personality type in order to believe and adjust to certain
> religious doctrines. And if your personality type is 
> opposite, then you are not that easily attached to a certain
> world view system.

I believe what we all need in our personalities is a lot less ego,
a lot less self-centeredness, and a lot more unconditional love.

> There are humans that subscribe to the same notion. The nice
> thing is that when you finally shake off this huge burden,
> the shoulders feel far more relaxed!

Yes.  You have stated what Jesus said.  Remember?  "Come to me,
take my yoke upon your shoulders, for my burden is light."  A yoke
is used to direct oxen to do work.  Once you have a relationship with 
Jesus, you and him share the yoke and the burdens of life.  Having 
God at your side is of great advantage.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83957
Subject: [rw] Is Robert Weiss the only orthodox Christian?
From: <LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET>


  Robert, you keep making references to "orthodox" belief, and saying things
like "it is held that..." (cf. "Kermit" thread).  On what exact body of
theology are you drawing for what you call "orthodox?"  Who is that "holds
that" Luke meant what you said he meant?  Whenever your personal interpretation
of Biblical passages is challenged, your only response seems
to be that one needs merely to "look at the Bible" in order to see the truth,
but what of those who see Biblical things differently from you?  Are we to
simply assume that you are the only one who really understands it?
  Just curious,
--
Rick Anderson  librba@BYUVM.BITNET

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83967
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: [rw] Is Robert Weiss the only orthodox Christian?

Rick Anderson writes:

> Are we to simply assume that you [referring to Robert Weiss] are the only
> one who really understands it [Biblical Scriptures]?

No.  I also understand it. I have read the Bible from cover to cover, examining
each book within, cross-comparing them, etc.  And I have come to same conclusions
as Robert Weiss.

So Rick, why not read the Bible for yourself?  It is written in plain
english.  Decide for yourself.   

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83968
From: ss@apmaths.uwo.ca (SULTAN SIAL)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick

In article <93111.195217A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET> <A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:

[stuff about Mithras deleted]

>Oh, His B-day was 25 Dec. Ahem.

I thought that Saturnalia was celebrated by the Romans at that time.  Was 
Mithras connected with this?


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83971
From: e_p@unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
Subject: Re: Burden of Proof

   .
          
          Sometimes a god-believer will maintain that atheism is itself 
       a religion.  Many postings to this group have answered that well.  
       Here's another way to answer the assertion: 
          Suppose that I DON'T believe that broken mirrors or black cats 
       bring bad luck.  Does that mean that I have a superstition? 
 .

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83972
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: To Rob Lanphier

Brian Kendig writes:

>You just don't get it, do you?

>In fact, I believe your religion is imaginary . . .

You have clearly demonstrated that you do not even know
what my religion is in order to make that assumption.

>Please offer me an argument that's more convincing than "you just
>don't believe 'cos you don't want to." 

How I can present any argument when you put your hands over your
eyes and devise new irrevelant excuses each time?  The fact remains,
you want to argue about something that you do not know anything about.
Do you not have to learn a topic first before you can reasonably debate
the topic?  

Which brings us about to the start of this thread.  You began
perverting Bible verses, interpreting them without investigation.
For if you desired to investigate, you would have changed your
tune immediately.   Thus it is clear to me.  You do not believe
what I am saying because "you don't want to" check it out.

> Everything you've said so far could apply equally to any religion
> why do you believe yours is the real one?

Then you must have also ignored every other post I have written
to you.  This would seem to go along with your character.


Brian, it doesn't offend me if you decide to reject Jesus
Christ.  I only wish you would make that decision after you
learn who Jesus is.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83974
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

In article <1r17j9$5ie@sbctri.sbc.com>, netd@susie.sbc.com () writes:
> In article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>>For those who think David Koresh didn't have a solid structure,
>>or sound Biblical backing for his hour long tape broadcast,
> 
> I don't think anyone really cares about the solid structure of his
> sermon.  It's the deaths he's responsible for that concern most people.

I assume you have evidence that he was responsible for the deaths?
 
> Koresh was a nut, okay?  

Again, I'd like to see some evidence.
 
> I'll type this very slowly so that you can understand.  He either set
> the fire himself or told his followers to do so.  Don't make him out to
> be a martyr.  He did not "get killed", he killed himself.

Once again, where's your proof? Suicide is considered a sin by Branch
Davidians.  Also, Koresh said over and over again that he was not going to
commit suicide.  Furthermore, all the cult experts said that he was not
suicidal.  David Thibedeau (sp?), one of the cult members, said that the fire
was started when one of the tanks spraying the tear gas into the facilities
knocked over a lantern.
 
> The evil was inside the compound.  

Evidence please?

> All that "thou shalt not kill" stuff.

I'd like to point out that the Bible says "Do not commit murder." The NKJ
translation mistranslates.  Self-defense was never considered murder.  The
reason why they were stockpiling weapons is because they were afraid the
government would try something.  Their fears were obviously well founded.
--Ray Cote

There's no government like no government.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83975
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

In article <1r1u5t$595@lm1.oryx.com>, xcpslf@oryx.com (stephen l favor) writes:
> : Seems to me Koresh is yet another messenger that got killed
> : for the message he carried. (Which says nothing about the 
> : character of the messenger.) I reckon we'll have to find out
> : the rest the hard way.
> : 
> 
> Koresh was killed because he wanted lots of illegal guns.

I suppose these illegal guns have been found? I suppose he was going to kill a
bunch of people with them?
--Ray Cote

There's no government like no government.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83976
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <1993Apr23.210109.21120@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>> Kent, I am not accusing you of evil things.  Jesus is accusing you.
>> And it is not only you that He is accusing.  He is accusing everyone.
>> Me, you and everyone in the world is guilty.  Whether one
>> sees the light or does not seen the light has nothing to do with 
>> whether we do evil things.  We do them regardless.  
>Have you ever made a mistake?  Have you ever lied to someone?  Even a
>little white lie?   Have you ever claimed to know something that you really 
>didn't know?  Have you ever hated someone?  Have you ever been selfish?
>Are you guilty of any one of these?   The answer is of course, YES.  You
>are guilty.  Period.  That is it what Jesus is getting at.  No big surprise.  
>Feelings do not even enter the picture.   Consider Jesus's use of the word
>"guilt" as how a court uses it.

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

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83977
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Subject: Re: The gospels, Josephus, etc and origins

In article <1993Apr21.225146.20804@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
    ...
|>       I will agree that creation should not be taught as science 
|>       IF macroevolution is not taught as science.  However, if we are
|>       teaching the wildly speculative theories of macroevolution as
|>       an explanation of origins, then equal time should be given
|>       to creation.  Neither one qualifies as science.  Create a
|>       philosophy course: Call it "Origins".
    ...
|>              ==========================================================
|>             //  Bill Rawlins            <wpr@atlanta.dg.com>        //
|>            //                          "I speak for myself only"   //
|>           ==========================================================

    Interesting idea.

    This suggestion has inspired me to post, under the title "Theories 
of Creation", a collection of various "philosophies" of creation that 
I am aware of.  Could you explain which of these theories you would
want taught, and which ones you would not?  Or, perhaps, I haven't
included a favorite theory of yours (if so, could you describe it for
me for inclusion in an updated list)?

-- 
Tom Scharle                |scharle@irishmvs
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83978
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Subject: Objectivity (was: After 2000 years...)

This discussion on "objective" seems to be falling into solipsism (Eg: the
recent challenge from Frank Dwyer, for someone to prove that he can actually
observe phenomena).  Someones even made the statement that science is
"subjective" and that even atom are "subjective." This is getting a bit silly
and the word "objective" is losing all meaning.  Lets start by remembering the
definition of "objective" which has been already presented:

  objective ADJ. 1. Of or having to do with a material object as 
    distinguished from a mental concept. 2. Having actual existence.
    3.a. Unenfluenced by emotion or personal prejudice. b. Based on
    observable phenomenon.

The Objectivity of a thing is not based on whether everyone agrees on that
thing (eg: the world is objectively round, regardless of the fact that there
exist flat earthers), but rather whether it is based observable and verifiable
phenomenon (instead of being based solely on peoples wishes, feeling, mental
processes, etc).  Thus atoms, being based on very observable and repeatable
phenomenon, are indeed considered to be objective rather than subjective. 
Even weird, high energy physics is based on observable phenomenon (even though
that observation can change the outcome).  Nor are those observable phenomenon
affected by emotion, or personal prejudice (eg: chemical reactions do not
change to the whims of different people).  Thus to say that science is not
objective (ie: objectively verifiable) is a bit silly, as that is the
point of science.  Now I will agree that science is not objectively "good;" I
will not thereby conclude though that science is not objective. 

Now some examples things which are "objective":  A D-12 tractor is larger
than the average breadbox.  Chlorophyll is green.  Seawater contains salt.
There exists ozone in the atmosphere (at least presently).  Ozone blocks 
ultraviolet light.  Ultraviolet light increases the incidents of skin Cancer.

"Good" on the other hand is a value judgement.  It doesn't seem to have an
existence apart from what we give it (unless someone can objectively show the
existence of an omnipotent entity which has defined "good").  We cannot
quantify it, touch it or collect it in any concrete sense (eg: I have a bag
full of "good").  Now we do sometimes attempt to give the word "good" an
objective meaning, e.g.  "good" has been used to denote strength, resiliency,
speed, etc.  That though, is a subjective definition, as some might not see
"strength" and etc, as necessarily "good" (eg: strength inspired by Naziism 
is not generally viewed as "good"). 

As to a morality, I cannot say that I have ever seen a morality strictly based
on verifiable observable phenomenon.  The closest I have seen is some form of
the "Golden Rule," which concludes that it is best not to deliberately piss
people off, as they will likely then involve themselves in your life, in a
manner you won't like.  This is verifiable; when you "get in someone's face,"
they will often retaliate.  Another objective fact about morality is that a
more powerful group can enforce their morality on a weaker group, and thus can
at times, ignore that form of the "Golden Rule" without fear of reprisal.  Now
as to whether this enforcing of morality is "good" or "bad," is quite
subjective.  By the way, remember that subjective does not mean that a thing
cannot be formally stated, or even commonly agreed upon; it only means that
that it is not verifiable from observable phenomena, or has a physical
existence unto itself.  Also note that I have not stated that there is no such
thing as an objective morality, or that I could not accept any such a
morality; I have simply stated that I have seen no evidence of any such
morality. 

One other thing to notice, "objective" is many times used as synonymous with
"true" and/or "absolute," and "subjective" sometimes has the connotation of
"false" and/or "relative." Tain't necessarily so.  For instance, when a
conclusion is based on objective, but insufficient evidence, then it can be
both objective and false.  As to "absolute," it is easy to note that while we
can objectively show that TNT is explosive, but that does not absolutely mean
that all TNT will explode, and thus objective is not necessarily absolute
either.  On the other hand, something subjective can also be either
"absolutist," or "true." For instance, there are some theists who are
specifically "absolutist" in their morality, even though they have only
subjective evidence to back it up.  Further, many a scientist and detective
has been motivated by subjective reasons (eg: a "gut feeling" or "hunch"), to
investigate a phenomena or situation, and gather the objective evidence
necessary to support a true hypothesis.  On the whole though, I would have to
agree that objective evidence is much more trustworthy than subjective
evidence.
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

    In starting any thesis, it seems to me, one should put forward as one's
    point of departure something incontrovertible; the expression should be
    simple and dignified.
				Diogenes

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83979
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <bskendigC5wrsM.Gyx@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>As long as we're trading secrets, let me tell y'all one: I got a
>really bad feeling in my heart back when I was a Christian.  I
>couldn't really pinpoint it, but something felt dreadfully cheap and
>wrong about the whole affair.  I had been a devout follower, even a
>Bible-banger, but eventually it started ringing terribly hollow to me.
>
>And I felt torn when I began to disagree with a lot of what the Bible
>(and my priests) told me; this was what made me finally realize that
>either I was very wrong, or else the Bible was very wrong.  And since
>I felt reasonably sure of myself, I decided to start analyzing the
>Bible very closely.  That was the catalyst to my break with my faith,
>though it was a long and difficult effort.

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.

So what is your beef against Jesus?  Be specific and point on
verses.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83980
From: Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Subject: Re: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars

Tony Alicea (ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote:
>In a previous article, shades@sorinc.cutler.com (Darrin A. Hyrup) says:
>>They [Thelema Lodge] don't have an internet address, but they do have a CIS
>>address which can be reached via uucp/internet.  It is 72105,1351 so I guess
>>that would be '72105.1351@cis.com' or something like that.
>>
>		......@compuserve.com

I've tried 72105.1351@compuserve.com

Bounced twice....  Any other guesses?

Thyagi

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83983
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (E. Elizabeth Bartley)
Subject: Re: What part of "No" don't you understand?

In article <1993Apr21.182127.23528@advtech.uswest.com>
steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = "David R. Sacco" writes:

>>Some
>>people even raised protests when we had a moment of silence for a class
>>member who had tragically died, saying this implied endorsing religion.

>Because, of course, that possibility existed.  Meaning any student who
>really gave a shit could have a moment of silence on his/her own, which
>makes more sense than forcing those who DON'T want to participate to
>have to take part.  What other reason is there for an organized "moment
>of silence"?

A "moment of silence" doesn't mean much unless *everyone*
participates.  Otherwise it's not silent, now is it?

Non-religious reasons for having a "moment of silence" for a dead
classmate: (1) to comfort the friends by showing respect to the
deceased , (2) to give the classmates a moment to grieve together, (3)
to give the friends a moment to remember their classmate *in the
context of the school*, (4) to deal with the fact that the classmate
is gone so that it's not disruptive later.

Blindly opposing everything with a flavor of religion in it is
utterly idiotic.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83985
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Subject: Re: [lds] Gordon's Objections

In article <C5rp8K.Kw2@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>Gordon Banks quoted and added...
>
>gb> In article <C53L1s.D61@acsu.buffalo.edu>
>gb>  psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>gb>
>gb> >The Mormon Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer. That Jesus is God
>gb> >the Father's first born spirit child. That Jesus was begotten on earth
>gb> >through natural means, not by the Holy Ghost. That He sweat His blood
>gb> >for our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane. That His blood cannot
>gb> >cleanse from all sin. That He is now among many millions of other
>gb> >gods. That Jesus is Jehovah and the Father is Elohim (in the OT
>gb> >Jehovah and Elohim are the same). That He needed to be saved.
>gb>


It is true that Mormons believe that all spirits (including Jesus,
Lucifer, Robert Weiss) are in the same family.  It does not mean
that Jesus was created, but rather that Lucifer and Robert Weiss
were not.  I agree that this is a "heresy".  So what?  
The sweating of blood in Gethsemene is
not a basic Mormon doctrine.  Jesus did not perform the atonement
in Getheseme alone, as some anti-Mormons are trying to teach.  
As far as the "unpardonable sin" whatever that is, it is Biblical,
and not specifically Mormon.  It is also called the sin against
the Holy Ghost.  Most Bible scholars (other than conservative
ones) do not believe Jehovah and Elohim were always the same.
I'm sure you've heard of the J and the E texts?  I don't
know what you mean by "That He needed to be saved".  Jesus?
Jehovah?  Elohim?  In Mormon doctrine, Jesus was sinless,
and thus did not "need to be saved".  


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon." 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83986
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>           David Thibedeau (sp?), one of the cult members, said that the fire
>was started when one of the tanks spraying the tear gas into the facilities
>knocked over a lantern.

Sort of a "Mrs. O'Leary's" tank theory? Moooo.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83992
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: To Rob Lanphier

I wrote: 

> My hope is that Brian K. will look and will see the ramifications of the
> truck coming towards him.  My hope is that Brian will want to step out
> of the way.  My fear, though,  is that Brian will instead choose to glue himself
> to the middle of the highway, where he will certainly get run over.  But if
> he so chooses, he so chooses, and there is nothing I can do beyond that
> to change his mind.   For it is his choice.   But at this very moment,
> Brian hasn't gotten even that far.  He is still at the point where he
> does not want to look.  Sure he moves his eyeball to appease me, but his
> head will not turn around to see the entire picture.  So far he is
> satisfied with his glimpse of the mountains off in the distance. 


Kent Sandvik writes:

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

Kent, with regards to the information contained in the Bible (which
is the original context of this thread), Brian Kendig is inside a huge
wall.  Brian *IS* inside.  The Bible and the information contained therein
are outside the wall.   Brian Kendig proves this very sad fact by the
absurd things he says.  For example, "If I get through into the firey
pit, I will cease to exist."  The Bible doesn't say that.  He hasn't
a clue even to what Jesus said about hell.  That is but one example.

Now in your sense, Kent, of sensing reality--that is a different
matter.  And to you and to Brian, relativity does play a big role.
What we perceive to be true, depends on our vantage point.  Since I
have read the Bible, and Brian Kendig shows that he hasn't, he has 
a narrower perspective than mine  (at least in the respect
of knowledge of the Bible).   I am proposing to Brian, "Brian, come up here
and take a look from this vantage point."   But Brian replies, "I rather
not thank you.  I am content where I am.  Besides, the vista from up
there stinks."   And in the meanwhile, Brian ignores the facts that
he has never up there nor does he realize I had shared the same
plateau where Brian now stands.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83994
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!


In article <1r0hicINNjfj@owl.csrv.uidaho.edu>, lanph872@crow.csrv.uidaho.edu (Rob Lanphier) writes:
|> Malcolm Lee (mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca) wrote in reference to Leviticus 21:9
|> and Deuteronomy 22:20-25:
|> : These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had
|> : expressly set apart from the rest of the world.  The Israelites were a
|> : direct witness to God's existence.  To disobey God after KNOWing that God
|> : is real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately punishable.
|> : Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to 
|> : God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We are living in the
|> : age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death.  There is
|> : repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just
|> : for a few chosen people.  Salvation is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile
|> : alike.
|> 
|> Hmm, for a book that only applied to the Israelites (Deuteronomy), Jesus sure
|> quoted it a lot (Mt 4: 4,7,10).  In addition, he alludes to it in several
|> other places (Mt 19:7-8; Mk 10:3-5; Jn 5:46-47).  And, just in case it isn't
|> clear Jesus thought the Old Testament isn't obsolete, I'll repeat the
|> verse in Matthew which gets quoted on this group a lot:
|> 
|> "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have
|> not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until
|> heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke
|> of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is
|> accomplished.  Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments
|> and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of
|> heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called
|> great in the kingdom of heaven.  For I tell you that unless your
|> righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law,
|> you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."  (Mt 5:17-20 NIV, in
|> pretty red letters, so that you know it's Jesus talking)
|> 
|> This causes a serious dilemma for Christians who think the Old Testament
|> doesn't apply to them.  I think that's why Paul Harvey likes quoting it so
|> much ;).
|> 
|> Rob Lanphier
|> lanph872@uidaho.edu 

I will clarify my earlier quote.  God's laws were originally written for 
the Israelites.  Jesus changed that fact by now making the Law applicable to
all people, not just the Jews.  Gentiles could be part of the kingdom of
Heaven through the saving grace of God.  I never said that the Law was made
obsolete by Jesus.

If anything, He clarified the Law such as in that quote you made.  In the
following verses, Jesus takes several portions of the Law and expounds upon
the Law giving clearer meaning to what God intended.  If you'll notice, He
also reams into the Pharisees for mucking up the Law with their own contrived
interpretations.  They knew every letter of the Law and followed it with their
heads but not their hearts.  That is why He points out that our righteousness
must surpass that of the Pharisees in order to be accepted into the kingdom
of Heaven.  People such as the Pharisees are those who really go out of their
way to debate about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
They had become legalistic, rule-makers - religious lawyers who practiced the
letter of the Law but never really believed in it.  

I think you will agree with me that there are in today's world, a lot of
modern-day Pharisees who know the bible from end to end but do not believe
in it.  What good is head knowledge if there is nothing in the heart?

Christianity is not just a set of rules; it's a lifestyle that changes one's
perspectives and personal conduct.  And it demands obedience to God's will.
Some people can live by it, but many others cannot or will not.  That is their
choice and I have to respect it because God respects it too.

God be with you,

Malcolm Lee  :)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83995
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:

>Once again, where's your proof? Suicide is considered a sin by Branch
>Davidians.  Also, Koresh said over and over again that he was not going to
>commit suicide.  Furthermore, all the cult experts said that he was not
>suicidal.  David Thibedeau (sp?), one of the cult members, said that the fire
>was started when one of the tanks spraying the tear gas into the facilities
>knocked over a lantern.

In two places at once? Bit of a coincidence, that.

Whatever the faults the FBI had, the fact is that responsibility
for those deaths lies with Koresh.

P.
-- 
 moorcockpratchettdenislearydelasoulu2iainmbanksneworderheathersbatmanpjorourke
clive p a u l  m o l o n e y  Come, let us retract the foreskin of misconception
james trinity college dublin  and apply the wire brush of enlightenment - GeoffM
 brownbladerunnersugarcubeselectronicblaylockpowersspikeleekatebushhamcornpizza 

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83998
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!


In article <sandvik-200493235610@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr20.143754.643@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca
|> (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
|> > I understand and sympathize with your pain.  What happened in Waco was a very
|> > sad tradgedy.  Don't take it out on us Christians though.  The Branch
|> > Davidians were not an organized religion.  They were a cult led by a ego-maniac
|> > cult leader.  The Christian faith stands only on the shoulders of one man,
|> > the Lord of Lords and King of Kings, Jesus Christ.   BTW, David Koresh was NOT
|> > Jesus Christ as he claimed.
|> 
|> The interesting notion is that (I watched TV tonight) Koresh never
|> claimed officially to be Jesus Christ. His believers hoped that 
|> he would be, but he never took this standpoint himself.
|> 
|> He was more interested in breaking the seven seals of Revelation,
|> and make sure that Armageddon would start. Well it did, and 19
|> children died, and no God saved them.
|> 
|> Kent
|> ---
|> sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

And does it not say in scripture that no man knows the hour of His coming, not
even the angels in Heaven but only the Father Himself?  DK was trying to play
God by breaking the seals himself.  DK killed himself and as many of his
followers as he could.  BTW, God did save the children.  They are in Heaven,
a far better place.  How do I know?  By faith.

God be with you,

Malcolm Lee  :)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 83999
From: b.liddicott@ic.ac.uk
Subject: Re: He has risen!



Just to remark that I have heard that David Koresh has risen from 
the dead.  I dont know if it is true or not, but this is what I have
been told.  What do you guys think?

Ben L.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84004
From: Whitten@Fwva.Saic.Com (David Whitten)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick

caldwell@facman.ohsu.edu (Larry Caldwell) writes:
>There evidently was a feast of bread and wine associated with Mithras.  I
>have often wondered if Yeshua intentionally introduced this ritual to
>expand the appeal of his religion, or if it was appropriated by later
>worshipers.
>
You could argue that if you wanted, but I think a more reasonable 
argument would point out the fact that the remembrance feast was
very similar to the Pesach (Passover) meal during Seder, a very
Jewish ritual.
 
The fact that there appears to be an abuse in the early Church of
people eating too much (a very real concern with some Passover meals)
and not treating the meal with respect, shows the simplifying of the
ritual to just bread and wine to be a way of dealing with the
inherent problems of people's human nature, and trying to keep the
essentials of the remembrance aspects.
 
David (whitten@fwva.saic.com) US:(619)535-7764 [I don't speak as a company rep.]
 

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84006
From: jmeritt@mental.mitre.org
Subject: By the sword...

Deuteronmy 20:13
And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite
every male thereof with the edge of the sword

Joshua 6:21
And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, bith man and women,
young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

Joshua 10:32
And the Lord delivered Lachish into the hand of Israel, which took it on the
second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that
were therein, according to all that he had done to Libnah


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84007
From: dcriswel@oracle.uucp (David Criswell)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

(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. 

=====================================================================
"So I become an accessory 		Dave Criswell
 And I don't have an alibi		Oracle Corporation
 To the victim on my doorstep
 Only way I can justify
 It's family business ... " Fish

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84008
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

John Berryhill, Ph.D. writes

>I don't know who's next, but I hope it's people who pick their noses
>while driving.  

umm, please don't lump us all together. It's those blatant,
fundamentalist pickers that give the rest of us a bad name. Some of
us try very hard to be discreet and stay alert.

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84009
From: mike@inti.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Subject: Re: Religion and history; The real discuss

Matthew Huntbach writes:
sm[?]>a real Christian unless you're born again is a very fundamental biblical
sm[?]>conversion and regeneration are 'probably' part of some small USA-based cult

>the "born-again" tag often use it to mean very specifically
>having undergone some sort of ecstatic experience (which can in
>fact be very easily manufactured with a little psychological manipulation),
>and are often insultingly dismissive of those whose
>Christianity is a little more intellectual, is not the result

Some of these "cults", which seems like a rather dismissive term
to me, are pretty big here in the USA.  Most of them
are quite respectable & neiborly & do not resemble Branch Davidians
in the least; confusing them is a mistake.  What about "live &
let live", folks?  I'm sure we can uncover a few extremist loonies
who are Catholic -- the anti-abortion movement in the USA seems to have a
few hard cases in it, for example.

>I've often heard such people use the line "Catholics aren't
>real Christians". Indeed, anyone sending "missionaries" to
>Ireland must certainly be taking this line, for otherwise why
>would they not be content for Christianity to be maintained in
>Ireland in its traditional Catholic form?

I have to agree Matthew with this; I have certainly encountered a lot
of anti-Catholic-religion propaganda & emotion (& some bigotry) from
members of certain religious groups here.  They also practice their
missionary work with zeal among Catholics in the United States, but to
someone who is or was raised Catholic such rhetoric is pretty
off-putting.  It may work better in an environment where there's a lot
of popular anti-clericalism.

Follow-ups set elsewhere, this no longer seems very relevant to Celtic issues
to me.
-- 




Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84011
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: What we learned from the Waco wackos


	There are actually a few important things we can glean from this mess:
1)	When they start getting desperate for an answer to the question: "What's
it all about. Mr. Natural?", pinkboys will buy darn near *anything*, which
means:
2)	There's still plenty of $$$$ to be made in the False Jesus business
by enterprising SubGenii.  Just remember that:
3)	Once you've separated the pinks from their green, don't blow it all
on automatic weapons from Mexico.  Put it in a Swiss bank account.  Smile a
lot.  Have your flunkies hand out flowers in airports.  The Con will just
shrug you off as long as:
4)	You never, never, NEVER start to believe your own bulldada!  If
"David Koresh" hand't started swallowing his own "apocalypso now" crap, he'd
be working crossword puzzles in the Bahamas today instead of contributing to
the mulch layer in Waco.  This is because:
5)	When you start shooting at cops, they're likely to shoot back.  And 
most of 'em are better shots than you are.

	In short:
	- P.T. Barnum was right 
		and
	- Stupidity is self-correcting
Thus endeth the lesson.

	************************************************************
	*  	The_Doge of South St. Louis			   *
	*		Dobbs-Approved Media Conspirator(tm)	   *
	*	"One Step Beyond"  -- Sundays, 3 to 5 pm	   *
	*		88.1 FM		St. Louis Community Radio  *
	*  "You'll pay to know what you *really* think!"           *
	*			-- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs"		   *
	************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84014
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

In article <1993Apr21.093914.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>In article <1r17j9$5ie@sbctri.sbc.com>, netd@susie.sbc.com () writes:
>> In article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>>>For those who think David Koresh didn't have a solid structure,
>>>or sound Biblical backing for his hour long tape broadcast,
>> 
>> I don't think anyone really cares about the solid structure of his
>> sermon.  It's the deaths he's responsible for that concern most people.
>
>I assume you have evidence that he was responsible for the deaths?
> 
>> Koresh was a nut, okay?  
>
>Again, I'd like to see some evidence.

  Nut or not, he was clearly a liar.  He said he would surrender after
  local radio stations broadcast his message, but he didn't.  Then he
  said he would surrender after Passover, but he didn't.

  None of which excuses the gross incompetence and disregard for the
  safety of the children displayed by the feds.   As someone else
  pointed out, if it had been Chelsea Clinton in there you would 
  probably have seen more restraint.


---peter

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84015
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <2017@tecsun1.tec.army.mil> riggs@descartes.etl.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>The second question is, "What makes Gerry think that the
>Davidians' actions would have been different had another type of warrant
>been in use ?"

Just taking a guess, perhaps it was that Koresh had peaceably been served
with warrants before, and he did not shoot anyone but instead went with the
police without fighting.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84018
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

In article <1r17j9$5ie@sbctri.sbc.com>, netd@susie.sbc.com () writes...
                                                           ^^-- name?
>(stephen) writes:
>>For those who think David Koresh didn't have a solid structure,
>>or sound Biblical backing for his hour long tape broadcast,
> 
>I don't think anyone really cares about the solid structure of his
>sermon.  

Other than it tells quite a lot about the Man himself. 

>It's the deaths he's responsible for that concern most people.

Are you the spokesman for "most people?"

>>I've enclosed a partial list of the sources he cites or quotes
>>he exactly used. As a Christian sermon, it's pretty good, if not 
>>inspired.
>>
>>Though I differ in part on some of his conclusions, the argument 
>>he presents is well backed -- which is why it's taken me this long
>>to work through -- still ongoing. 
>>
>>If you thought it was rambling -- that says far more about you than
>>it does Koresh. 
> 
>You've made me curious.  What does this say about me?

That you don't recognize the Biblical commentary used.  Those in the
church know the language though, and have no such excuse.  

>>First Seal in Revelation 6, the entirety of Psalms 45, and the
>>most of Revelation 19 -- which demonstrated one of his major points 
>>about how the writings in the Prophets (including David), and in 
>>the Psalms, and in Revelation are all telling the same story when 
>>you understand how they're related (ie have the key). They largely 
>>explain each other. 
> 
>Charles Manson used revelation as well.  Do we see a pattern here?
>I wonder if Koresh liked the Beatles?

You missed the point -- which is that the Prophets, the Psalms, and 
Revelation, all together, provide a very rich view of a very special
event -- a wedding.

>Koresh was a nut, okay?  Just because he found ways for the Bible
>to backup his rantings does not make him any less of a kook.

How are you able to make such a conclusion?  Please note, that the
first part of Revelation makes it clear that the address is to those
in the church. That said, it doesn't hurt to try to see what the 
prophecies are ahead of time -- for those outside the church.

>>Seems to me Koresh is yet another messenger that got killed
>>for the message he carried. 
> 
>I'll type this very slowly so that you can understand.  He either set
>the fire himself or told his followers to do so.  Don't make him out to
>be a martyr.  He did not "get killed", he killed himself.

So you say. It should be interesting to see what the investigators 
conclude, and what the final judgments are.

>>In the mean time, we sure learned a lot about evil and corruption.
>>Are you surprised things have gotten that rotten?
>
>The evil was inside the compound.  All that "thou shalt not kill" stuff.

So much for war and government eh.

>>Oh yeah, one last point for the believers -- Philippian 2:14-19.
> 
>For the rest of us, could you please post the text?

Very glad you asked, since I goofed -- it should be Philippian 1:14-19: 
(here from NIV)

	Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord
	have been encouraged to speak the word of God more
	courageously and fearlessly.

	It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and 
	rivalry, but others out of good will. The latter do so
	in love, knowing that I am put here for the gospel. 
	The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not
	sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for
	me while I am chains. But what does it matter? 

	The important thing is that in every way, whether from
	false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because
	of this I rejoice.
	
My comment stems from the realization that we who love the Lord, are
human and imperfect. Whatever we "preach," no matter how eloquent, or
how corrupted -- is of little difference. Those who know the Master's
voice will recognize Him -- a gem-stone amidst rock. Such is also the 
lesson of the "stumblingblock." For those who have an ear to hear. 	
	
   |
-- J --
   |
   | stephen


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84019
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

In article <1993Apr21.154750.24341@maths.tcd.ie>, 
pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes...

>cotera@woods.ulowell.edu (Ray Cote) writes:
>> David Thibedeau (sp?), one of the cult members, said that the fire
>>was started when one of the tanks spraying the tear gas into the 
>>facilities knocked over a lantern.
> 
>In two places at once? Bit of a coincidence, that.

Never lived out in the country I see. 4 years ago I had a place
where I had to carry in propane every month, hook the bottle up 
to copper line, to supply both the stove, and a type of water-
heater called a flash-heater. A flash heater has a pilot lamp.

Here's the point. If the Davidians had their propane tanks hooked 
up to copper (or some such) lines, run through the ceiling spaces
-- when the FBI started wrecking the place, they could easily have
ruptured the lines. Which then would start spreading out through
the overhead. And since it was a country home, it wasn't necessarily
built with non-flamable insulation. 

It's probably more plausible than anything else, that the fire started
mainly as a result of accident -- or willful negligence on the part of
the FBI, which should have known better (ie. manslaughter).

It's certain that if the tanks hadn't been used that day -- the fire
wouldn't have started.

>Whatever the faults the FBI had, the fact is that responsibility
>for those deaths lies with Koresh.

Paul, what "fact?"

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84020
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>
>So what is your beef against Jesus?

First and foremost, I honestly do not believe that Jesus was anything
more than a man who lived and died two thousand years ago.  I know
your Bible provides wonderful stories of the things he said and did,
but I simply do not believe that he still exists as an entity that has
any bearing on this universe or the lives in it, and I similarly do
not believe that the god that you worship exists or has ever existed.

Period.

I view religion in general and Christianity in specific as a 'cultural
virus' that has been passed down from generation to generation because
people are often too afraid to think for themselves and claim
responsibility for their own fate, so they brainwash themselves and
their children into believing the popular myths, and it goes on from
there.  And eventually Christianity becomes a given -- if so many
other people believe in it, it must be right, no?

I don't believe in any "life after death".  I believe that when I die,
I die, so therefore it's up to me to try to bring meaning and purpose
to my life in the meantime.  I don't believe that it's a good thing to
humble myself and view pride as a sin -- pride, in moderation, is a
constructive thing.  I see nothing at all wrong with homosexuality and
nothing inferior about women, and my priests lost a lot of my trust
when they patronizingly tried to explain the 'faults' of these
opinions to me.  I don't believe in 'loving everyone', especially
people I've never met; while I try to show respect to everyone, my
love and admiration is something not easily earned, and I do not feel
guilty about denying my respect and consideration to someone who has
abused it.

If you want me to take your religion the least bit seriously, stop
trying to show me how the Bible "makes sense".  Start trying to show
me that this Jesus person is somehow still influencing anyone's life
here on Earth.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84021
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!


In a previous article, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) says:

>Well, it depends how you look at it. If you are interested I might
>find out what the latest status is in this legal battle.
>Kent
>
	Please do! And if you don't want to post it here, email to me
:-) I don't know how this discussion is appreciated here. I hate
'invading' newsgroups with themes of limited interest :-)

Tony


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84022
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: 24 Apr 93   God's Promise in Proverbs 15:4


	The tongue that brings healing is a
	tree of life,
	but a deceitful tongue crushes the
	spirit.

	Proverbs 15:4 (NIV)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84023
From: rjl+@pitt.edu (Richard J. Loether)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1r1et6INNh8p@ctron-news.ctron.com> king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
:
: pmy@vivaldi.acc.Virginia.EDU (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
:
:::Didn't Christ tell his disciples to arm them selves, shortly 
:::before his crusifiction? (I believe the exact quote was along the
:::lines of, "If you have [something] sell it and buy a sword.")
:
::This from a guy who preached love, deference of power to God and
::renunciation of worldly life in exchange for a life of the spirit? If
::Jesus did in fact command his disciples to arm themselves, I would
::take that as yet another reason to reject Christian doctrine, for
::whatever it's worth.

Like most religions, the doctrine has good and bad in it.  I would 
certainly reject the current implementations of the doctrine.
:
:No.  The above is a classic example of taking a scripture out of context.
:It's taken from Luke 22:36.  But note vs 37; "For I tell you that this
:which is written must be accomplished in me, namely, 'and he will be reckoned
:with lawless ones'...".  He then stated that two swords were enough
:for the group to carry to be counted as lawless.  

So having more than the politically correct number of weapons was
cause to be arresed and killed even then, huh?

:Jesus' overiding message was one of peace (turn other cheek; live by 
:sword die by sword; etc).

Yes, of course, as in Matthew 10:34-35 "Do not suppose that I have come to 
bring peace to the earth; it is not peace I have come to bring but a sword..."
:
RJL
-- 
Rich Loether          Snail mail: University of Pittsburgh     The Ideas:
EMail: rjl+@pitt.edu              Computing and Info Services      Mine,
Voice: (412) 624-6429             600 Epsilon Drive                   all
FAX  : (412) 624-6426             Pittsburgh, PA 15238                  Mine.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84024
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

In article <C5uEED.48D@apollo.hp.com>, 
nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes...

>In article <1993Apr21.093914.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>>In article <1r17j9$5ie@sbctri.sbc.com>, netd@susie.sbc.com () writes:
>>> In article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>>>>For those who think David Koresh didn't have a solid structure,
>>>>or sound Biblical backing for his hour long tape broadcast,
>>> 
>>> I don't think anyone really cares about the solid structure of his
>>> sermon.  It's the deaths he's responsible for that concern most people.
>>
>>I assume you have evidence that he was responsible for the deaths?
>> 
>>> Koresh was a nut, okay?  
>>
>>Again, I'd like to see some evidence.
> 
>  Nut or not, he was clearly a liar.  He said he would surrender after
>  local radio stations broadcast his message, but he didn't.  Then he
>  said he would surrender after Passover, but he didn't.

The rest of the story seems to be that the agreement for the broadcast
was for prime-time, and that Koresh never even heard it played. Wasn't
even tuned in to the radio when it aired -- so no reason to come out.

If later they had given him a copy of the grossly twisted newswire 
transcript -- I'm certain Koresh would think he was at the mercy of
evil itself. 

As to coming out after Passover, wasn't that just one of the lawyer's
speculations Peter?

   |
-- J --
   |
   | stephen


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84025
From: cocoa@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Jewish history question

In article <1993Apr10.195513.17991@csi.uottawa.ca> misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
>In article <cocoaC5797E.43y@netcom.com>, cocoa@netcom.com (little 'e') writes:
>
[deleted]
>> Here tis.  Someone just told me that the Old Testament books were translated
>> into Greek a long time ago
>
>   Yes, that's a famous version called The Septuagint.  It was a translation
>made by Greek Jews.
>
>> and that the originals were destroyed in a fire soon afterward.
>
>   I don't know what you're referring to here.  When the Jersusalem Temple was
>destroyed, some manuscripts may have been lost, but I think our extant Hebrew
>manuscripts are as good as our Greek ones.  I don't know about any "originals".

The person who was telling me about the Septuagint version said that the Greeks
had a wonderful library in Alexandria that was full of manuscripts/scrolls
and that it was burned soon after the Septuagint version was translated 
(perhaps to conceal some changes in the different versions, or perhaps just
as part of the typical burning of valuable things that occurs during changes
in power groups, he/I dunno).

>> So, I was just wondering, since I imagine some Jewish people somewhere must 
>> have had copies of the earlier Hebrew versions, is the Hebrew version of the 
>> Old Testament very different from the Greek derived version?

>   No.  There are a few famous discrepancies (Isaiah's prophecy about a "young
>woman" was changed into a "virgin", which was how the New Testament writers
>read it), but not many.

Well, perhaps this is the answer then.

[deleted]
>   If you go to a Jewish bookstore, you'll get a Bible translated by Jews, so
>there will be some differences in interpretation, but the text they're 
>translating *from* is basically the same.
>
>   If you want to read "the original", you can buy an Interlinear Bible.  That
>contains the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, with an English
>translation written underneath each word.
>
>   If you want a Bible with a possibly-more-original basic text, you can try
>to find a Samaritan bible.  (Good luck!  I've never seen one.)  The Samaritans 
>(no, not the Good Samaritans) have their own version of the 5 Books of Moses.
>They claim the Jewish bible was altered by Ezra.

Thanks for the tips.  Now I just have to find someone to teach me Samaritan :)

Just me,

little 'e'

(so, is a "good Samaritan hard to find?" or "is a hard... " Oh, finish this
yourself.)

-- 
*  *  *    Chocolatier at Arms, and Castle Wetware Liason            *  *  *
*  *  *    e-mail: cocoa@netcom.com   -    voicemail: 415-337-4940   *  *  *


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84033
From: jvp4u@Virginia.EDU (Jeffery Vernon Parks)
Subject: Re: Info about New Age!

Suggestion: try "Exposing the New Age" by Douglas Groothuis.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84042
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: ABORTION and private health coverage -- letters regarding

In article <nyikos.735335582@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu
(Peter Nyikos) says:
>
>In <syt5br_@rpi.edu> rocker@acm.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>
>>In <1qk73q$3fj@agate.berkeley.edu> dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis Kriz)
>writes:
>
>>>If one is paying for a PRIVATE health insurance plan and DOES NOT WANT
>>>"abortion coverage" there is NO reason for that person to be COMPLELLED
>>>to pay for it.  (Just as one should not be compelled to pay for lipposuction
>>>coverage if ONE doesn't WANT that kind of coverage).
>
>>You appear to be stunningly ignorant of the underlying concept of health
>>insurance.
>
>Are you any less stunningly ignorant?  Have you ever heard of life
>insurance premiums some companies give in which nonsmokers are charged
>much smaller premiums than smokers?
>
>Not to mention auto insurance being much cheaper for women under 25 than
>for men under 25, because women on the average drive more carefully
>than most men--in fact, almost as carefully as I did before I was 25.

As many people have mentioned, there is no reason why insurers could not
offer a contract without abortion services for a different premium.
The problem is that there is no guarantee that this premium would be
lower for those who chose this type of contract.  Although you are
removing one service, that may have feedbacks into other types of covered
care which results in a net increase in actuarial costs.

For an illustrative example in the opposite direction, it may be possible
to ADD services to an insurance contract and REDUCE the premium.  If you
add preventative services and this reduces acute care use, then the total
premium may fall.

These words and thoughts are my own. * I am not bound to swear
**      **      **       **          * allegiance to the word of any
  **  **  **  **  **  **             * master. Where the storm carries
    **      **      **               * me, I put into port and make
D. Shea, PSU                         * myself at home.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84043
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!


In article <1r1ma9INNno7@owl.csrv.uidaho.edu>, lanph872@crow.csrv.uidaho.edu (Rob Lanphier) writes:
|> Malcolm Lee (mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca) wrote:
|> 
|> : Do you consider Neo-Nazis and white supremists to be Christian?  I'd hardly
|> : classify them as Christian.  Do they follow the teachings of Christ?  Love
|> : one another.  Love your neighbour as yourself.  Love your enemies.  Is Jesus
|> : Christ their Lord and Saviour?  By the persecution of Jews, they are violating
|> : all the precepts of what Christ died for.  They are in direct violation of
|> : the teachings of Christ.  Even Jesus who was crucified by the Jewish leaders
|> : of that time, loved His enemies by asking the Father for forgiveness of their
|> : sins.  I am a Christian and I bear no animosity towards Jews or any one else.
|> : The enemy is Satan, not our fellow man.
|> 
|> In Mark 16:16, Jesus is quoted as saying "Whoever believes and is baptized
|> will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."  I
|> consider most Neo-Nazis and White Supremisists to be Christians because:
|> a)  They say they are
|> b)  They feel it necessary to justify their actions with the Bible
|> 

Where does it say in the bible that Christians are supposed to persecute
Jews?  Isn't it love your enemies instead?  They may say they are "Christian"
but do their actions speak differently?  Do you believe what everyone tells
you?  I don't.  I came to believe in God by my own investigation and conclusions.
And ultimately by my own choice.  Salvation, however, was granted only through
the grace of God.

|> The Bible provides us with no clear definition of what a Christian is.  It
|> tells us what a Christian *should* do, but then it goes on to say that as
|> long as you believe, your sins will be forgiven.  

To be a Christian is to model oneself after Jesus Christ as implied by the
very name Christian.  If you say you believe in your head but do not feel in
your heart, what does that say of your belief?

|> White Supremisists and
|> Neo-Nazis may not be your brand of Christian, but by believing in Christ,
|> they are Christian.
|>

White supremists and Neo-Nazis are NOT any brand of Christian.

"If you hate your whom you can see then how can you love God whom you cannot
 see?"

What does this belief entail?  Believing in Christ and having your sins
forgiven in His name does NOT give a Christian a free licence to sin.  To
repent of a sin is to ask forgiveness of that sin and TRY NOT to do it
again.  I am a Christian, but if you lump me in with racists and accuse me
of being such, then are you not pre-judging me?  BTW, I am of Chinese racial
background and I know what it is to be part of a visible minority in this
country.  I don't think that I would be favourably looked upon by these
White supremist "Christians" as you call them.

Anyone can say what they believe, but if they don't practice what they preach,
then their belief is false.  Do you concur?
 
|> Now, for your original statement:
|> : |> : What bothers me most is why people who have no religious affiliation 
|> : |> : continue to persecute Jews?  Why this hatred of Jews?  The majority of
|> : |> : people who persecute Jews are NOT Christians (I can't speak for all 
|> : |> : Christians and there are bound to be a few who are on the anti-Semitism
|> : |> : bandwagon.)
|> 
|> You imply here that it is predominately atheists and agnostics who
|> persecute Jews.  I am hard pressed to think of even an example of Jewish
|> persecution in the hands of atheists/agnostics.

Nazis and racists in general are the ones that come to my immediate attention.
What I believe is that such people may be using the bible to mask their racial
intolerance and bigotry.  They can do as they do and hide behind Christianity
but I tell you that Jesus would have nothing to do with them.

|> About the only one that
|> comes to mind would be in the former Soviet Union, where many religious
|> people suffered some sort of persecution (not to mention many
|> atheist/agnostics who suffered persecution for believing the government
|> sucked).
|> 

No arguement there.

|>
|> Rob Lanphier
|> lanph872@uidaho.edu
|> 

The only point I'm trying to make is that those who call themselves Christian
may not be Christian.  I ask that you draw your own conclusions by what they
do and what they say.  If they are not modelled after the example of Jesus
Christ then they are NOT Christian.  If they have not repented of their sins
and accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour then they are 
NOT Christian.  These are the only criteria to being a Christian.

May God be with you,

Malcolm Lee   :)


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84047
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1r1i41$4t@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>
>Just maybe you won't be home.  Then you can come home to something 
>like this:
>
>    "Well, it's been a rough month," begins Johnnie Lawmaster.  "I
> just get laid off, and my divorce became final.  But I just wasn't
> ready for what happened this particular Monday."

[horror story about FBI ruining a guy's life for the hell of it omitted]

>So if you don't want your tea party to be held in awkward silence, make
>sure your lawyer isn't there, there's a good chap.

So, is this a real story or a work of fiction?  How about some
sources?  When, where, and in what newspaper did you get all this
from?  Or is it all hypothetical?
-- 
+------------------------+------------------------------------+
| David Charlap          | "Apple II forever" - Steve Wozniac |
| dic5340@hertz.njit.edu | "I drank what?" - Socrates         |
+------------------------+------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84048
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin

In article <1993Apr15.225657.17804@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com
(Bill Rawlins) writes:
>       Since you have referred to the Messiah, I assume you are referring
>        to the New Testament.  Please detail your complaints or e-mail if
>        you don't want to post.  First-century Greek is well-known and
>        well-understood.  Have you considered Josephus, the Jewish Historian,
>        who also wrote of Jesus?  In addition, the four gospel accounts
>        are very much in harmony.  

  Bill, I find it rather remarkable that you managed to zero in on what is
probably the weakest evidence.

  What is probably the most convincing is the anti-Christian literature put out
by the Jewish councils in the second century.  There are enormous quantities of
detailed arguments against Christianity, many of the arguments still being used
today.  Despite volumes of tracts attacking Christianity, not one denies the
existance of Jesus, only of his activities.

  I find this considerably more compelling than Josephus or the harmony of the
gospels (especially considering that Matthew and Luke probably used Mark as a
source).

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84052
From: ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson)
Subject: Re: Christian Owned Organization list

In article <1993Apr13.025426.22532@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <47749@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> shopper@ucsd.edu writes:
>>
>>Does anyone have or know where I can find a list of christian-owned
>>corporations and companies?  One that I know of is WordPerfect.
>
>I believe that WordPerfect is actually owned by the Mormons.
Sorry, but Mormons aren't generally considered to be Christians.


>--
>=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
>=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
>="Do you have some pumps and a purse in this shade?  A perfume that whispers, =
>='please come back to me'?  I'm looking for something in Green."-Laurie Morgan=

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84053
From: bgarwood@heineken.tuc.nrao.edu (Bob Garwood)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1r7os6$hil@agate.berkeley.edu>, isaackuo@spam.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo) writes:
|> In article <C5wIA1.4Hr@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:
|> >    The FBI claims, on the basis of their intelligence reports,
|> >    that BD's had no plans to commit suecide.  They, btw, had bugged the 
|> >    place and were listening to BD's conversations till the very end.
|> >
|> >    Koresh's attorney claims that, based on some 30 hours he spent
|> >    talking to his client and others in the compound, he saw no
|> >    indication that BD's were contemplating suecide.
|> >
|> >    The survivors claim it was not a suecide.
|> 
|> It's not clear that more than one of the survivors made this claim.  It is
|> clear that at least one of the survivors made the contradictory claim that
|> BD members had started the fire.

No, this is far from clear.  We only have the word of the FBI spokepeople that
a survivor made this claim.  We have the contradictory word of the lawyers who
spoke with the survivors individually that ALL of them agreed that they did
NOT have a suicide pact and did not intentionally start the fire.  In the absense
of any more evidence, I don't see how we can decide who to believe.
Furthermore, its quite possible that there was no general suicide pact and that
some small inner circle took it upon themselves to kill everyone else.
With the state of the area now, we may never know what happened.

|> 
|> >    BD's were not contemplating suecide, and there is no reason 
|> >    to believe they committed one.
|> 
|> No reason?  How about these two:
|> 
|> 1.  Some of the survivors claimed that BD members poured fuel along the
|> 	corridors and set fire to it.  The speed at which the fire spread
|> 	is not inconsistent with this claim.

Again, we have only the word of the FBI on this claim.  The lawyers who
have also talked to the survors deny that any of them are making that claim.

|> 
|> 2.  There was certainly a fire which killed most of the people in the compound.
|> 	There is a very very good possibility that the FBI did not start this
|> 	fire.  This is a good reason to believe that the BD's did.

I will agree on your assessment as to the relative probabilities.  Its more likely
that the BD's started the fire than did the FBI.  But there is currently NO
way to decide what actually happened based on the publically available evidence
(which is nearly none).

|> 
|> 3.  Even if the BD's were not contemplating suicide, it is very possible that
|> 	David Koresh was convinced (and thus convinced the others) that this
|> 	was not suicide.  It was the fulfilment of a profecy of some sort.
|> 
|> There are three possibilities other than the BD's self destruction:
|> 
|> A.  They are not dead, but escaped via bunker,etc.  From reports of the
|> 	inadequacies of the tunnels and the bodies found, I would rate this
|> 	as highly unlikely.
|> 
|> B.  The fire was started by an FBI accident.  This is possible, but it would be
|> 	foolish of us to declare this outright until more evidence can back it.
|> 	Sure, it's possible that the armored vehicle knocked down a lantern
|> 	which started the fire (why was there a lit lantern in the middle of
|> 	the day near the edge of the complex?).  It's anecdotal evidence that
|> 	has been contradicted by other escapees.
|> 
|> C.  The fire was started on purpose by the FBI.  This has been suggested by
|> 	some on the NET, and I would rate this possibility as utterly
|> 	ludicrous.  This is what we in "sci.skeptic" would call an
|> 	"extraordinary claim" and won't bother refuting unless someone gives
|> 	any good evidence to back it up.

   D.   The fire was an started accidentally by the BDs.  I am truely amazed that
        I have heard (or read) of no one suggesting this possibility.
        With all the tear gas and the lack of electical power in the compound and
        the adults wearing gas masks, it had to have been chaotic inside.
        I can easily image someone leaving a lamp too close to something or
        accidentally dropping a lamp or knocking one over.  With the winds, it
        would have quickly gotten out of control.

|> 
|> So we are left with two reasonable possibilities.  That the fire was an FBI
|> accident and that the fire was started by the BD.  I find the latter more
|> likely based on the evidence I've seen so far.

   No, I think that D is also quite reasonable.  I personally can't really
asses any relative probablities to either of these 3 probabilities although if
forced to bet on the issue, I would probably take an accident (either FBI or
BD) over intential setting of the fire).

   I would also like to add a comment related to the reports that bodies recovered
had gunshot wounds.  The coroner was on the Today Show this morning and categorically
denied that they've reach any such conclusions.  He pointed out that under intense
heat, sufficient pressure builds up in the head that can cause it to explode and
that this can look very much like a massive gunshot wound to the head which is
quite consisted with te reports I've read and heard.

   In short, there's been almost no evidence corroborating any of the many
scenarios as to what happened on Monday.  We should remain skeptical until
more information is available.  

|> -- 
|> *Isaac Kuo (isaackuo@math.berkeley.edu)	*       ___
|> *					* _____/_o_\_____
|> *	Twinkle, twinkle, little .sig,	*(==(/_______\)==)
|> *	Keep it less than 5 lines big.	* \==\/     \/==/

-- 

Bob Garwood

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84054
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1qkj31$4c6@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <lsr6ihINNsa@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>#In article <1qjahh$mrs@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>#>Science ("the real world") has its basis in values, not the other way round, 
>#>as you would wish it.  If there is no such thing as objective value, then 
>#>science can not objectively be said to be more useful than a kick in the head.
>#>Simple theories with accurate predictions could not objectively be said
>#>to be more useful than a set of tarot cards.  You like those conclusions?
>#>I don't.

>#I think that you are changing the meaning of "values" here. Perhaps
>#it is time to backtrack and take a look at the word.

>#value n. 1. A fair equivalent or return for something, such as goods
>#or service. 2. Monetary or material worth. 3. Worth as measured in 
>#usefulness or importance; merit. 4. A principle, standard, or quality
>#considered inherently worthwhile or desirable. 5. Precise meaning, as
>#of a word. 6. An assigned or calculated numerical quantity. 7. Mus. 
>#The relative duratation of a tone or rest. 8. The relative darkness or
>#lightness of a color. 9. The distinctive quality of a speech or speech
>#sound. 

>#In context of a moral system, definition four seems to fit best. In terms
>#of scientific usage, definitions six or eight might apply. Note that
>#these definitions do not mean the same thing.

>No, I'm using definition (3), or perhaps (4) in both cases.  If there
>is no objective worth, usefulness, or importance then science has no 
>objective worth, usefulness, or importance.  If nothing is inherently
>worthwhile or desirable, then simple theories with accurate predictions
>are not inherently worthwhile or desirable. Do you see any flaws in this?

The problem is, your use of the word "objective" along with "values."
Both definitions three and four are inherently subjective, that is
they are particular to a given individual, or personal. You see,
what one person may see as worthwhile, another may see as worthless.

>If on the other hand, some things *have* objective worth, usefulness,
>or importance, it would be interesting to know what they are.

Again, your form of measurement in this sentence, that being of "worth"
is subjective. 

>#If you can provide an objective foundation for "morality" then that will
>#be a good beginning.

>I'm not willing to attempt this until someone provides an objective
>basis for the notion that science is useful, worthy, or important in
>dealing with observed facts.  Alternatively, you could try to
>demonstrate to me that science is not necessarily useful, worthy
>or important in any situation.   In other words, I need to know
>how you use the term "objective".

When I find that my usage of a word is different than the usage of
that word given by another person, I try to find a standard against
which to judge that usage. In most cases, the dictionary is the standard
I use. Here is a definiton of objective:

objective ADJ. 1. Of or having to do with a material object as 
distinguished from a mental concept. 2. Having actual existance.
3.a. Unenfluenced by emotion or personal prejudice. b. Based on
observable phenomenon.

By this definition, science does not have an objective worth, since the
phrase "objective worth" is an oxymoron. However you asked something a 
little differently this time, you asked for an objective basis for a
notion. The fact that the use of science as an intellectual tool is
responsible for changes in our world (the changes are material, and
thus "objective") would provide an objective _basis_ for an argument.
However, the conclusion arrived at from that argument (that science is 
"good") is subjective.

I think that the problem here is one of word usage. Take a little time
and read the definitions of these words: objective, subjective, worth,
value, morality, good, evil. I believe that if you think about the 
meaning of them for a while, you will have to conclude that there is no
such thing as an objective morality.

>Frank O'Dwyer                                  'I'm not hatching That'
>odwyer@sse.ie                                  from "Hens",  by Evelyn Conlon

eric

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84055
From: ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson)
Subject: Re: Christian Owned Organization list

In article <?a$@byu.edu> $stephan@sasb.byu.edu (Stephan Fassmann) writes:
>In article <1993Apr13.025426.22532@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <47749@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> shopper@ucsd.edu writes:
>>>
>>>Does anyone have or know where I can find a list of christian-owned
>>>corporations and companies?  One that I know of is WordPerfect.
>>
>>I believe that WordPerfect is actually owned by the Mormons.
>
>Sorry, WordPerfect is own by A mormon not the LDS Church.

Slight semantical difference.  The LDS Church does own a heck of
a lot however.  They are the largest land holder in MIssouri
(where they think Christ will appear at the second coming).

I believe they also own some large beverage company like Pepsi
(that was why they had to take caffiene off of their "forbidden
substance" list).

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84056
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

In article <bskendigC5Ku3C.6Dx@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>I've asked your god several times with all my heart to come to me.  I
>really wish I could believe in him, 'cos no matter how much confidence
>I build up on my own, the universe *is* a big place, and it would be
>so nice to know I have someone watching over me in it...

Brian K., I am pleased with your honesty.  And to be honest as well, I
believe you have not asked my god to come to you.  Why do I say this?
Because by the things you write on the net, and the manner with which
you write them, you show me that you made up your own god and are
attempting to pass him off as the real thing.  I got news for you.
Yours doesn't at all sound like mine.  Your god doesn't come to you
because your god doesn't exist.

>I've gone into this with an open mind.  I've layed my beliefs aside
>from time to time when I've had doubt, and I've prayed to see what
>good that would do.  I don't see what more I can do to open myself to
>your god, short of just deciding to believe for no good reason.  And
>if I decide to believe for no good reason, why not believe in some
>other god?  Zeus seems like a pretty cool candidate...

I am sorry Brian, but when I read your postings, I do not see an open mind.
What I do see is misunderstanding, lack of knowledge, arrogance and mockery.

>Please tell me what more I can do while still remaining true to myself.

Be true to yourself then.  Have an open mind.  And so end the mockery.  Gain 
knowledge of the real God.  Put your presumptions aside.  Read the
Bible and know that there is, truly is, a reason for everything and
there exists a God that has so much love for you that the depth of it goes beyond
our shallow worldly experience.  A person who commits himself  
to seeking God, will find God.  Jesus stands at your door and knocks.  But a
person who half-heartedly opens the Bible, or opens it with purpose to find 
something to mock, will find, learn and see nothing.  The only thing one
will gain with that attitude is folly.

Be careful to not jump the gun, for at first glance, there are many passages
in the Bible that will seem bizarre and absurd.  Be assured that even
though they seem alien at first, be confident that they are not.
Be assured that beyond your present comprehension, there lies such
deep reasons that once you see them, you will indeed be satisfied. 
I will personally guarantee that one.  As Jesus put it, "You will never
be thirsty again.  Your cup will even flow over."


From King Solomon (970 B.C. to 930 B.C.):

    "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter;
     to search out a matter is the glory of kings."


Jesus says in John 6:44 & 55:

   "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him."


And in John 3:16:

   "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,
   that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal
   life."


You are included in "whosoever".  And I also pray that the Father is
drawing you, which it seems He is doing else you wouldn't be posting
to talk.religion.misc.  Remember Brian, you could be a St. Paul in the
making.  Paul not only mocked Christians as you do, but also had pleasure
stoning them.  Yet God showed him mercy, saved him, and Paul became
on of the most celebrated men in the history of God's church.

You see Brian, I myself better be careful and not judge you, because
you could indeed be the next Paul.  For with the fervor that you attack
Christians,  one day you might find yourself one, and like Paul,
proclaim the good news of Jesus with that very same fervor or more.

Or you could be the next Peter.  What Jesus said to Peter, Jesus would 
probably say to you: "Satan would surely like to have you."  Why so?
Because Peter was hard-headed, cynical and demonstrated great
moments of stupidity, but once Peter committed himself to a task
he did with full heart.  Peter was the only apostle to have the
faith to walk on water as Jesus did.

You asked "Why not believe in Zeus?"  Zeus didn't offer eternal life.
You got nothing to gain by believing in Zeus.

-------------------------------
Brian Ceccarelli
brian@gamma1.lpl.arizona.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84057
From: justinf@cco.caltech.edu (Justin Fang)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1993Apr23.144934.10462@asl.dl.nec.com>,
duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy) wrote:
 
> In article <C5wI5n.19v@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com> max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) writes:

["it" is Big Bang]
> You sound absolutely convinced! Tell me how long did it last, what color
> was it?

Since you asked... from the Big Bang to the formation of atoms is about
10E11 seconds. As for the "color": bright. Very very bright. 

>It must be so exciting to know for sure.

I don't. I believe the current theory of cosmology because it is fairly
well supported by observational evidence (not as well supported as, say
evolution or relativity, but that's another matter). You're the one who
proposes unquestioningly accepting religious dogma as fact (apologies if
you're not actually a creationist).

>By the way, it seems as
> though there is a fine line between "postulating new miracles" and postulating
> new theories.

The line is broader than you think. Theories are supported by evidence.
Miracles are supported by someone's say-so.

> +----------------------------------------------------------+
> | Joe Duffy                          duffy@asl.dl.nec.com  |
> | NEC America, Inc.                                        |
> | Advanced Switching Laboratory                            |

Justin Fang (justinf@cco.caltech.edu)
                               This space intentionally left blank.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84058
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: Ancient references to Christianity (was: Albert Sabin)

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             cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
                                              
Nobody can explain everything to anybody.  G.K.Chesterton

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84059
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?


[Note the "Followup-To" redirect(s) to alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc.]

In article <C5sqyA.F7v@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, tbrent@bank.ecn.purdue.edu
(Timothy J Brent) said in response to P.VASILION:

> But then, I don't pack heavy weaponry with intent to use it.  You
> don't really think he should have been allowed to keep that stuff do
> you?  If so, tell me where you live so I can be sure to steer well
> clear.  The public also has rights, and they should be placed above
> those of the individual.  Go ahead, call me a commie, but you'd be
> singing a different tune if I exercised my right to rape your
> daughter.  He broke the law, he was a threat to society, they did
> there job - simple.

(1) You have no evidence that David Koresh or his followers were
"packing" that heavy weaponry with any intent to use for other that
recreational and self-defense purposes.

(2) Your statement that "the public also has rights" is correct only is
parsed as "the individuals who comprise the public also have rights."
There is no separate rights-bearing entity known as "the public".

(3) Since the "rights of the public" of which you spoke are in fact only
rights of individuals, the statement that the rights of the public
should be placed above the rights of the individual has no meaning.

(4) You have artificially created an illusionary conflict of
individuals' rights when you speak of "my right to rape your daughter."
No person has the right to rape another person, therefore there is no
conflict.

(5) How do you define "society?"  Do you hold that this "society" is a
rights-bearing entity which is separate from any individual people?  How
do you define a "threat to society?"  To what extent do you believe that
a person loses his rights when he is declared (by whom?) to be such a
threat?

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84060
From: dmu5391@hertz.njit.edu (David Utidjian Eng.Sci.)
Subject: Re: The fact of the theory

Jim and Andy both have it incorrect I believe:

The *facts* are what is there, the processes that exist in the
present or the physical evidence of the processes having occured
in the past. These *facts* exist with or without a theory.

The *theory* tries and explains the *facts* and how they relate
to the rest of the physical universe in a manner that is both
coherent and useful, that it can be used to make predictions.

The *facts* of gravity, evolution, electromagnetic radiation,
relativity, atoms will exist and behave in the way in which they
behave regardless of whether we have a theory to try and explain
how they interact... or even why.

A theory never really becomes a fact... but a theory can predict
the existence of a previously unknown fact, and if we find this
fact as the theory predicted we say the *theory* is *supported*
by the *facts*. A theory is a mental construct, a speculation, 
a model.  If it is a good model, it may be useful.

In science a theory is something that is supported by the 
evidence, considerable evidence, sometimes *all* of the evidence.
A *hypothesis* is a new fledgling theory because there is not
yet enough evidence to support it.  When a new hypothesis 
is proposed to replace an existing theory, it must explain
*all* of the facts that the current theory explains and at least
some of the facts that the current theory could not and/or
predict new facts.

It is so simple.... I'm surprised that this subject gets
beat to death about once a month. A quick glance in a dictionary
would clear up 99% of the confusion and bandwidth in this
newsgroup.  Then we could talk about really important things
like, why do men have nipples?

-David Utidjian-
utidjian@remarque.berkeley.edu



-

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84061
From: mikec@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Micheal Cranford)
Subject: Evolution as Fact and Theory

In article <30187@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:
[ deleted ]
>What is the fact of evolution?  There is a difference between calling evolution
>a fact and talking about the theory of evolution providing facts (I happen to
>think the latter is more accurate).
[ deleted ]

  Evolution is both fact and theory.  The THEORY of evolution represents the
scientific attempt to explain the FACT of evolution.  The theory of evolution
does not provide facts; it explains facts.  It can be safely assumed that ALL
scientific theories neither provide nor become facts but rather EXPLAIN facts.
I recommend that you do some appropriate reading in general science.  A good
starting point with regard to evolution for the layman would be "Evolution as
Fact and Theory" in "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes" [pp 253-262] by Stephen Jay
Gould.  There is a great deal of other useful information in this publication.


  UUCP:  uunet!tektronix!sail!mikec  or                  M.Cranford
         uunet!tektronix!sail.labs.tek.com!mikec         Principal Troll
  ARPA:  mikec%sail.LABS.TEK.COM@RELAY.CS.NET            Resident Skeptic
  CSNet: mikec@sail.LABS.TEK.COM                         TekLabs, Tektronix


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84062
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Subject: History & texts (was: Ancient references to Christianity)

-*----
In article <C5ztJu.FKx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
> 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?

Far from being "tossed out," the gospels are taken, almost
universally, as the primary source of information about Jesus.
I am curious as to whom Mike Cobb is referring.  Who "tosses out"
the New Testament?  Undoubtedly a few *naive* atheists do this,
but the phrasing of the question above seems to suggest that Cobb
ascribes this more broadly.

Perhaps the question that gets more to the heart of the matter is
why, except for some *naive* believers (who, unfortunately, far
outnumber nonbelievers, both naive and critical), are the gospels
*not* taken as "gospel truth" that faithfully records just what
happened two thousand years ago?  This has an easy answer, and
the answer has *nothing* to do with miracles: no text is taken
this way by a critical reader.

There is a myth among some naive believers that one takes a text,
measures it by some set of criteria, and then either confirms the
text as "historically valid" or "tosses out" the text.  I suspect
this myth comes from the way history is presented in primary and
secondary school, where certain texts are vested with authority,
and from writers such as Josh McDowell who pretend to present
historical arguments along these lines for their religious
program.  In fact, most texts used in primary and secondary
school history classes ought to be tossed out, even the better
such texts should not be treated as authoritatively as descibed
above, and Josh McDowell would not know a historical argument if
it bit him on the keister twice.

Let me present the barest outlines of a different view of texts
and their use in studying history.  First, all texts are
historically valid.  ALL texts.  Or to put this another way, I
have never seen a notion of "historical validity" that makes any
sense when applied to a text.  Second, no text should be read as
telling the "gospel truth" about historical events, in the way
that many students are wont to read history texts in primary and
secondary school.  NO text.  (This includes your favorite
author's history of whatever.)

Every text is a historical fact.  Every text was written by some
person (or some group of people) for some purpose.  Hence, every
text can serve as historical evidence.  The question is: what can
we learn from a text?  Of what interesting things (if any) does
the text provide evidence?

The diaries of the followers of the Maharishi, formerly of
Oregon, are historical evidence.  The gospels are historical
evidence.  The letters of the officers who participated in the 
vampire inquests in Eastern Europe are historical evidence.  The
modern American history textbooks that whitewash "great American
figures" are historical evidence.  These are all historical
evidence of various things.  They are *not* much evidence at all
that the Maharishi, formerly of Oregon, could levitate; that
Jesus was resurrected; that vampires exist; or that "great
American figures" are as squeaky clean as we learned in school.
They are better evidence that some people "saw" the Maharishi,
late of Oregon, levitate; that some of the early Christians
thought Jesus was resurrected; that many people in Eastern Europe
"saw" vampires return from the grave; and that we still have an
educational system that largely prefers to spread myth rather
than teach history.

How does one draw causal connections and infer what a piece of
historical evidence -- text or otherwise -- evinces?  This is a
very complex question that has no easily summarized answer.
There are many books on the subject or various parts of the
subject.  I enjoy David Hackett Fischer's "Historian's Fallacies"
as a good antidote to the uncritical way in which it is so easy
to read texts present history.  It's relatively cheap.  It's easy
to read.  Give it a try.

Russell


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84063
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Ceci's "rosicrucian" adventure :-)


Hello Ceci:

     My name is Tony and I have a few comments on your "rosicrucian"
adventure. I hereby state that I am not claiming or denying membership in
any Order, fraternity etc. with or without the word "Rosicrucian" in the 
name of the organization. I only claim having done some "homework" :-)

     This is intended as a friendly article and if at times it seems
different, it's my lack of writing skills showing, nothing else. Heck,
English may be my second language! (And then again maybe not by now :-)

     I proceed:
>
>I had an ehum, interesting experience with the Rosicrucians, or at
>least Rosicrucians of some sort last Sunday.
>
     Let's start with the name "Rosicrucian". I took me a long time to come
to the conclusion that there is a difference between a *member* of a
"rosicrucian" body and BEING *a* ROSICRUCIAN. So when you say that you met
some 'rosicrucians' you mean "members of a group that calls themselves
rosicrucian". At least that is what your observation suggests :-)

     I'd prefer if you would have stated up front that it was the Lectorium
Rosicrucianum, only because they may be confused, by some readers of this
newsgroup, with the Rosicrucian Order AMORC based (the USA Jurisdiction) in
San Jose, CA; this being the RC org with the most members (last time I
looked). Of course, "most members" does not *necessarily* mean "best".

     Anyway, the Lectorium Rosicrucianum claims they
descend (at least in part) from what was the "Gold-und-Rosenkreuz" (Golden
and Rosy Cross), from the 18th century. There were two "Golden and Rosy
Cross", the first (chronologically) more alchemical, the second with
Masonic tinges, but their history is the subject of a complete chapter :-).

     "You'll have to trust me" when I tell you that if that
lecture/class/whatever had been presented by AMORC, it is unlikely that you
would have had the same impression, i.e., you'd probably have had a
positive impression more likely than a negative one, IMHO. 

>The first guy also said that the R:s are a mystical Christian order, and
>that they base their teachings on the teachings of the Kathars
>(English?) from the thirteenth century.
>
     Again, instead of R:s, it should be "Lectorium Rosicrucianum" :-). It
is curious to know that 3 other RC 'orders' (in the USA) claim to be *non-
sectarian*.

     The Cathars were a 'heretic' christian sect that directly challenged
the 'authority' of the medieval catholic church. They flourished during the
12th century, century which saw the religious zeal expressed in the
crusades and also the growing disillusion with the catholic church and the
worldly ways of its clerics. It was largely in response to the church's
unseemly pomp and splendor that Catharism took root, first in northern
Italy, then throughout the south of France.


>What made me a bit suspicious, was the way they first said that we all
>contained something divine, and could find our way back to divinity,
>then that we couldn't become divine as the persons we are currently,
>but if we worked really hard we would reach eternal bliss.

     I don't see nothing *fundamentally* wrong with "us containing
something divine"... And yes I don't like phrases like "eternal bliss"
either! :-)

>How to robotize people and brainwash...
>
     For a moment I thought you were referring to Madison Ave :-)
(Madison avenue in New York City is where the most influential (read
$$$) *commercial* advertising is produced here in the USA :-)

Peace,

Tony


BTW, I have read the intro letters of the LRC which they will mail you free
of charge.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84064
From: perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Burden of Proof

In article <1993Apr21.182030.888@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
> The default condition, in the absence of a preponderance of
>evidence either way, is that the proposition or assertion is undecidable.
>And the person who takes the undecidable position and says that he/she
>simply disbelieves that the proposition is true, is the only one who
>holds no burden of proof.  This is why the so-called "weak atheist"
>position is virtually unassailable -- not because it stands on a firm
>foundation of logical argument, but because it's proponents simply
>disbelieve in the existence of God(s) and therefore they hold no burden
>of proof.  When you don't assert anything, you don't have to prove
>anything.  That's where weak atheism draws its strength.  But its
>strength is also its Achilles' heel.  Without assertions/axioms, one
>has no foundation upon which to build.  As a philosophy, it's virtually
>worthless.  IMO, of course.

Yes, as a philosophy weak atheism is worthless.  This is true in
exactly the same sense that as a philosophy Christians' disbelief in
Zeus is worthless.  Atheists construct their personal philosophies
from many different sources, building non-god-based ideas in the same
way as Christians build non-Zeus-based ideas of thunderbolts.
Atheists no more *base* their philosophy on atheism than Christians
base theirs on the nonexistence of Zeus.

The "weak atheist" position is logically extremely assailable -- any
logical demonstration of the existence of a god completely destroys it
as soon as the demonstration is made in the presence of a given weak
atheist.  Atheists in this newsgroup are barraged regularly with
attempts to provide such a logical demonstration, and they all fail
miserably.  In fact, most of the people around here who claim the
"strong (as opposed to mathematical) atheist" position do so on this
basis: not only do we not believe in a god, but also all the arguments
presented in favor of particular gods have to date proven unsound;
therefore, one can say that those gods as argued by those arguments do
not exist.  This doesn't apply to such philosophers' gods as are
defined to be logically undemonstrable, but these are not the gods of
popular religion, and the coherence of such claims is quite
questionable. 
-- 
Jim Perry   perry@dsinc.com   Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
These are my opinions.  For a nominal fee, they can be yours.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84065
From: mikec@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Micheal Cranford)
Subject: the nature of light

In article <30185@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:
[ deleted ]
>Take light as another example.  There are two theories: particle and
>wave.  Each one fails to predict the behavior of light as some point.
>So which is it: particle or wave?
[ deleted ]

  Your information on this topic is very much out of date.  Quantum Electro-
dynamics (QED - which considers light to be particles) has been experimentally
verified to about 14 decimal digits of precision under ALL tested conditions.
I'm afraid that this case, at least in the physics community, has been decided.
Laymen should consult "QED - The Strange Theory of Light and Matter" by Richard
P. Feynman and for the more technically minded there's "The Feynman Lectures on
Physics" by Feynman, Leighton and Sands (an excellent 3 volumes).  Case closed.


  UUCP:  uunet!tektronix!sail!mikec  or                  M.Cranford
         uunet!tektronix!sail.labs.tek.com!mikec         Principal Troll
  ARPA:  mikec%sail.LABS.TEK.COM@RELAY.CS.NET            Resident Skeptic
  CSNet: mikec@sail.LABS.TEK.COM                         TekLabs, Tektronix


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84066
From: rgv9488@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Hail Stan!


    I found this on the net at my college. It sounds pretty good to me. What do
    you folks think?

    >This are the tenets of Stan as handed down and set within the Holy Book 
    >of Stan.
    >
    >1: Thou shalt not spill thine drinks or waste thine food, for all that 
    >is is sacred, and to waste is the denizen of Luc, the Infidel. All who 
    >waste today shall have not tomorrow.
    >
    >2: Thou shalt pay heed to those who know the higher calling of Stan so
    >that they may teach you the way, and that thou shalt become one with
    >Stan and the universe shall be in your hands.
    >
    >3: Thou shalt honor thy loved ones and cherish those near you, for they
    >are the true path to happiness, and happiness is a devine gift of thy
    >lord Stan.
    >
    >4: Stan is the one true God and shall be taken before all others so
    >that the false gods will know that he is the one, and all who oppose
    >him shall forever be banished to the form of the sheep and be sent to
    >the flocks of Luc for all eternity.
    >
    >5: The word is the law, and the law is the word. The word is within
    >thine own heart, follow the path and be true to thine own self and thou
    >shalt be blessed by Stan, thy lord and saviour.
    >    
    >6: Thou shalt honor the faiths of others, for it is their choice to
    >follow this path, and do not think less of others for being of a
    >different faith, yet even in the face of these false gods, do not
    >waiver in thine faith in Stan, and hope that the unbeliever will see
    >the light that is Stan.
    >
    >7: Thou shalt not wrong others for being different, for Stan cherishes
    >the different, and holds freedom in the highest regard, for to do less
    >would be to fall in with Luc, the Infidel, for Stan does not control,
    >he merely guides, and lets the choice lie within thine own heart.
    >
    >8: Thou shalt know that thy lord Stan has many names and is called
    >differently by many people, but know also that Stan is the true name,
    >and all those of the faith shall know that Stan is God and God is Stan.
    >
    >9: Thou shalt be to the world what thou art to thineself, for to be
    >false to others is to be false to yourself. Thy lord Stan asks not that
    >you be like him, he asks only that you be like yourself for that is all
    >you were ever meant to be.
    >
    >10: Thou shalt not kill the innocent nor spill blood unnecessarily, for
    >those who are deserving of death shall be dealt with by Stan and sent
    >for all eternity to the flocks of Luc, and those who harm the children 
    >of Stan, being born of Woman, shall be judged as the sheep of
    >Luc and spend all of time within his flocks.
    >
    >These commandments are the words of Stan. Heed them and he shall be
    >happy, and if thy lord Stan is happy, his happiness shall be passed
    >down to his followers.
    >
    >Hail Stan!

   It seems like a pretty good set of tenets to me.

				-=V=-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like kittens... | E-Mail:                    | Robert Voss            | DIE!!
Especially with   | rgv9488@ultb.isc.rit.edu   | 25 Andrews Memorial Dr | DIE!!
a side order of   | RGV9488@RITVAX.ISC.RIT.EDU | CPU# 01479             | DIE!!
french fries...   | RGV9488@RITVAX.BITNET      | Rochester NY 14623     | DIE!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------| DIE!!
    I AM DARKNESS ETERNAL! CALL ME! MY PHONE NUMBER IS (716) 475-4197   | DIE!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84067
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1993Apr16.173720.19151@scic.intel.com> sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth J. Bradley) writes:

>In article <C5L14I.JJ3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>>Why isn't this falsifiable? I.E. There is no God, the world has existed forever
>>and had no starting point. ?
>
>How does one falsify God's existance?  This, again, is a belief, not a scien-
>tific premise.  The original thread referred specifically to "scientific
>creationism".  This means whatever theory or theories you propose must be
>able to be judged by the scientific method.  This is in contrast to
>purely philosophical arguments.

	If given a definite definition of "God", it is sometimes possible to 
falsify the existance of that God. 
	But, when one refuses to give an immutable definition, one can not.

--- 

        " Whatever promises that have been made can than be broken. "

        John Laws, a man without the honor to keep his given word.



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84069
From: bill@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Bill Jefferys)
Subject: Why did they behave as they did (Waco--reading suggestion)

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

Bill

-- 
If you meet the Buddha on the net, put him in your kill file
	--Robert Firth

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84070
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???


/(emery)
/The one single historic event that has had the biggest impact on the
/world over the centuries is the resurrection of Jesus.  

This is hardly possible, as the majority of people in the world were
born, lived their life, and died, without ever knowing anything about
Christ.  The majority of the rest of the world have decided that he 
is not who Emery thinks he is.



/(emery)
/Why were the writers of the New Testament documents so convinced that
/Jesus really did rise from the dead?
/We have four gospel accounts.  

I am leaving out all "proofs" of Emery's which rely on quoting the
bible as proof.  Circular reasoning, etc.  There have been occasions
already stated many times for later generations of Xtians to change,
edit, or otherwise alter the bible to fit their political gospel.
And if we accept the bible as true just because the bible says it
is true, then (to be fair) we have to do the same to the Bhagavad-Gita
and the Koran, both of which contradict the bible.

Enough said.



/(emery)
/Yet we have no reason to believe these disciples to be immoral and dishonest.
/We have no historic information that would lead us to the conclusion that
/these people were not God-fearing people who sincerely and whole-heartedly
/believed that the resurrection of their Lord Jesus was a real event.
/And for what gain would they lie?  To make a stand at that time meant 
/persecution, imprisonment, and perhaps even death.

Again, this is only the biblical account and there is no independent proof
of any of this happening.  It just isn't there.

Besides, simply being sincere or willing to die for your faith does not
make your faith correct.  There are Muslims dying in Bosnia right now;
does the fact that they are willing to die for Islam mean that Islam is
the correct religion?




(emery)
/History bears out the persecution of Christians.  Roman historian, Cornelius 
/Tacitus, Govenor of Asia, in A.D. 112, writing of Nero's reign, alluded to 
/the torture of Christians in Rome:


All you have proven is that these people were tortured for their faith.  That
does not prove that their faith is true or correct; it just means that they
were sincere in their beliefs. 

Being willing to die for what you believe doesn't make your belief the truth.
It's not that easy.  And minority religions have always suffered torture;
Muslims suffer torture and harassment in India and Bosnia today.  All religions
are harassed in China today.  You haven't proven anything so far.



/(emery)
/With all the suffering and persecution that it meant to be a believer, it
/would be quite probable that at least one of those in the supposed conspiracy
/would come forward and confess that the whole thing was a big hoax.  

Not if they didn't believe that it was a hoax.  


/(emery)
/Yet not one did.  It seems rather reasonable that the disciples did not make
/up the resurrection but sincerely believed that Jesus had actually risen
/from the dead; especially in light of the sufferings that came upon those
/who believed.

The followers of Muhammad firmly believed in the miracles that the Koran
says Muhammad performed.  They were attacked and slaughtered for their
beliefs.  They didn't denounce Muhammad or Islam.  If you are correct,
then that means Islam is the true faith.

You see how stupid your proofs are?  

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84071
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: JUDAS, CRUCIFIXION, TYRE, Etc...


(Frank DeCenso)
> But how? It's evident from the texts in Ezek 26-28 that God isn't concerned
> about buildings or structures - God is concerned about people.  The people and
> leadership (Ezek 28) never did return as a city.  Others may have come later
> and built a city, but the people and leadership that God prophesied about in
> Ezek 26-28 were never rebuilt as a city of people and leaders. 


How incredibly fucking stupid.  Of *course* the text is referring to the city
itself (buildings, bricks, mortar, etc.)  Otherwise it makes no sense to
refer to the future of Tyre as being reduced to nothing but a _place_ to spread 
fishing nets.

Is there any twisting of text or semantic game that you *won't* do to preserve 
your faith from admission of error, DeCenso?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84072
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: JUDAS, CRUCIFIXION, TYRE, Etc...



/(Frank DeCenso)
/>
/>I need to prioritize things in my life, and this board is not all that important
/>to me.  

Of course it is.  It forms a very big part of your self-respect.  You come onto 
the board, thinking you're some sort of apologeticist for your faith, and you
routinely get roasted over a grill for stupid theories and unfounded assumptions.




/(Frank DeCenso)
/This board will have
/>to wait until (if ever) I can organize my life to fit it in.  I tried dropping
/>out, but Sieferman coerced me to come back.  He won't this time.

I doubt that Sieferman has anything to do with you dropping out.  

It's probably closer to the truth to say that you don't have the cards to 
play in this game (because you insist on playing from a losing hand), and you're
finally realizing it.  You will lurk on the board, and keep 
quiet for a while, looking for an area where you are *certain* that you 
are correct, and then we'll see you pop back in again.  Of course, you then
will say that you have merely returned because your life is now "in order".

But we'll know better.




Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84073
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <bskendigC5L782.JM5@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>John 12:24-26: "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat
>falls onto the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it
>produces much grain.
>  "He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in
>this world will keep it for eternal life.
>  "If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there My
>servant will be also.  If anyone serves Me, him My Father will honor."
>
>Why would I want an eternal life if I hate this one?

Again, you missed Jesus's point.  If you read the surrounding passages
you would understand what Jesus means by "life in the world."  But
as is, you bumbled around, asserted your standard axiom that the Bible is bunk,
and came up with the wrong idea.  Also, you do not know exactly
what Jesus means by eternal life.  

Brian K., do you expect to jump in the middle of the quantum mechanics
book and understand Hermite polynomials having not read the surrounding
material?  Why do you such with the Bible?  For an idea what Jesus
means by the world, look up references to it in your concordance.  For
a good description, the whole Book of Ecclesiastes is game.  For 
eternal life, check out John 17:3, John 3:15-16.  You will find that
eternal life is quite different than what you think.  Eternal life
starts NOW--an infinitely high quality of life living in fellowship
with God.


>In short: even if your deity *does* exist, that doesn't automatically
>mean that I would worship it.  I am content to live my own life, and
>fend for myself, so when I die, I can be proud of the fact that no
>matter where I end up, it will be because of *my* actions and *my* choices.
>
>If your god decides to toss me into a flaming pit for this, then so be
>it.  I would much rather just cease to exist.  But if your god wants
>my respect and my obedience, then it had better earn these; and if it
>does, then they will be very strong and true.

If my diety exists, you would not just cease to exist.  Jesus talks of
hell in Luke 16:19-31.  


>You've got to understand my point-of-view: I see Christians spouting
>Bible verse all the time as if it were some sort of magic spell that
>will level all opposition.  Truth is, it's not.  Robert has never
>demonstrated that he actually understands what the verses imply; he
>just rattles them off day by day.  Some brazenly fly in the face of
>common sense and reality, and I point these out where I can.


The truth is, is that it is not some sort of magic spell.  The truth
is is that you do not understand it, and enjoy not understanding it.

>Christanity is a very nice belief set around a very nice book. 


Wrong again.  Christianity is supposed to be relationship.  You
do not even know what Christianity is and you are arguing against
it.

>And in my opinion, you're bumbling about blindly making up entities
>where there aren't any, and depriving yourself of a true understanding
>and enjoyment of your life.  As long as you keep your beliefs to
>yourself, I'll keep my beliefs to myself -- but as soon as you start
>waving them around, expect me to toss in my opinions, too.

Just as I make up such places as Jericho, Jerusalem, Babylon, Corinth,
Ephesus, Susa, and such kings as Nebuchanezzar, David, Solomon,
Sennacherib, Herod, Pontius Pilate . . . .   But I guess then
that you treat Abraham Lincoln as a myth like you do Odin and Zeus.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84074
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Matthew MacIntyre at the National University of Senegal)
Subject: Re: Gilligan's island, den of iniquity

beb@pt.com (Bruce Buck) writes:
: In article <1993Apr13.011033.23123@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Matthew MacIntyre at the National University of Senegal) writes:
: >: >> Gilligan = Sloth
: >: >> Skipper = Anger
: >: >> Thurston Howell III = Greed
: >: >> Lovey Howell = Gluttony
: >: >> Ginger = Lust
: >: >> Professor = Pride
: >: >> Mary Ann = Envy
: >
: >Assorted Monkeys= Secular Humanism
: 
: Assorted Headhunters - Godless, Heathen Savagery
: Russian Agent who looks like Gilligan - Godless Communism
: Japanese Sailor - Godless Barbarism
: Walter Pigeon - Godless Bird Turd
: The Mosquitos (Bingo, Bango, Bongo, Irving) - Godless Rock'n'Roll
: Harold Heckuba (Phil Silvers) - Hollywood Hedonism
: John McGiver - Butterfly flicking
: Tonga, the Fake Apeman - Deceit, Lust
: Eva Grubb - Deceit, lust

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84075
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!


In article <sandvik-210493230542@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr21.145336.5912@ra.royalroads.ca>,
|> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
|> > And does it not say in scripture that no man knows the hour of His coming, not
|> > even the angels in Heaven but only the Father Himself?  DK was trying to play
|> > God by breaking the seals himself.  DK killed himself and as many of his
|> > followers as he could.  BTW, God did save the children.  They are in Heaven,
|> > a far better place.  How do I know?  By faith.
|> 
|> It seems faith is the only tool available for emotional purposes
|> due to the tragedy. As such it maybe fills a need, however I'm
|> getting tired to see children dying in pain in Sudan due to lack
|> of food, and assuming that God takes these sufferers to heaven
|> after a painful death.
|> 

If the children are not being fed, whose fault is that?  You and I
have plenty of food on our tables while others starve.  Why is that?
God gave us this earth to manage.  I don't think we're doing a very
good job of it.  The only consolation I have for those suffering
children is that they will be received into the kingdom of Heaven
where they will never thirst and never hunger again.

Peace be with you,

Malcolm Lee  :)

|>
|> Cheers,
|> Kent
|> ---
|> sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84076
From: kde@boi.hp.com (Keith Emmen)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

tbrent@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:
: 
: Probably not.  But then, I don't pack heavy weaponry with intent to use it.
: You don't really think he should have been allowed to keep that stuff do 
: you?  If so, tell me where you live so I can be sure to steer well clear.

I understand that they had the neccessary licenses and permits to own
automatic weapons.  

: The public also has rights, and they should be placed above those of the
: individual.  Go ahead, call me a commie, but you'd be singing a different
: tune if I exercised my right to rape your daughter.  He broke the law, he
: was a threat to society, they did there job - simple.

I haven't seen any proof (or even evidence) that the BD's had broken the
law.  If you have proof (or evidence), let's hear it.  "The FBI said so" is
NOT evidence.

:  
: I'll support them all (except no. 2)

I guess there will always be people who wish to be peasants.  The politicians
prefer unarmed peasants

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84077
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Koresh Doctrine -- 4 of 4

In article <C5yy8I.EBn@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>
>In article <1993Apr23.171256.5541@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu(The_Doge) writes:
>
>|>
>|>	Deleted: vast quantities of carefully-annoted spew from "David Koresh"
>|>	I don't know about the rest of you, but I think Mr. Tice needs a hobby.
>
>He has one. He spent last summer telling everyone who doubted the word
>of the great Perot that they were bigotted perot-bashers, right up to the
>moment he chickened out on them. He then kept quiet for a bit and then
>came back when Perot re-entered.
>
	This seems appropriate, somehow...>:-)>
>
>
[....]
>Then there is the rumour that Loresh in fact survived the fire in a secret
>hideyhole and rose again on the third day only to be spirited away by
>FBI agents and disposed of in order to prevent a cult following.
>
	Hah!  I have it on the very *best* authority (mine) that Koresh is
whooping it up in a time-share condo in Dallas with Elvis, JFK, and (of course)
J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, who also owns the place and everything else in Texas.
	Look for "koresh" sightings in the Weekly World News and National
Enquirer in the coming months.
	************************************************************
	*  	The_Doge of South St. Louis			   *
	*		Dobbs-Approved Media Conspirator(tm)	   *
	*	"One Step Beyond"  -- Sundays, 3 to 5 pm	   *
	*		88.1 FM		St. Louis Community Radio  *
	*  "You'll pay to know what you *really* think!"           *
	*			-- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs"		   *
	************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84078
Subject: Re: Rawlins debunks creationism
From: rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota)

In article <30151@ursa.bear.com>, halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:
>In article <C5snCL.J8o@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>
>>Evolution, as I have said before, is theory _and_ fact.  It is exactly
>>the same amount of each as the existence of atoms and the existence of
>>gravity.  If you accept the existence of atoms and gravity as fact,
>>then you should also accept the existence of evolution as fact.
>>
>>-- 
>>--Andy
>
>I don't accept atoms or gravity as fact either.  They are extremely useful
>mathematical models to describe physical observations we can make.
>Other posters have aptly explained the atomic model.  Gravity, too, is
>very much a theory; no gravity waves have even been detected, but we
>have a very useful model that describes much of the behavior on
>objects by this thing we _call_ gravity.  Gravity, however, is _not_ 
>a fact.  It is a theoretical model used to talk about how objects 
>behave in our physical environment.  Newton thought gravity was a
>simple vector force; Einstein a wave. Both are very useful models that 
>have no religious overtones or requirements of faith, unless of course you 
>want to demand that it is a factual physical entity described exactly 
>the way the theory now formulated talks about it.  That takes a great 
>leap of faith, which, of course, is what religion takes.  Evolution
>is no different.
>
>-- 
> jim halat         halat@bear.com     

Are you serious?!!!  Here's an exercise next time you are in the barnyard. 
Take *your* model and hold it directly above a fresh cowpie.  Then release the
model.  You will observe that on its own *your* model will assume a trajectory
earthward and come to rest exactly where it belongs.  Watch out for splatters,
particularly if you are wearing shorts when you perform this experiment.

Rich Fox, Anthro, Usouthdakota

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84079
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

jasons@atlastele.com (Jason Smith) writes:
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>= 
>= And I felt torn when I began to disagree with a lot of what the Bible
>= (and my priests) told me; 
>
>Did it start getting a little uncomfortable?  Did your style start feeling a
>bit cramped?

Yes, that's exactly what I felt.  My heart just felt that what I was
being taught was *wrong* -- a basically good message, but framed in
errors.  I could not with a clear conscience accept that women were
somehow not equal to men, that homosexuals are "guilty" of their
lifestyle, that pride in one's work is a bad thing, that Jesus died
for me -- I don't want ANYBODY to die for me, especially as an
impersonal act where the person can't possibly even *know* me well
enough to really know if I'm worth dying for or not.

I was never able to accept the bit about Jesus's death being a good
thing.  If that means that I'm just not comprehending a basic message
of Christianity, then so be it.  Maybe I'm just not compatible with
Christianity.  I just refuse to follow rules blindly, and since I
can't even convince myself that your god even EXISTS in the way you
describe it, I've got to just follow my own conscience in these matters.

>I know how that goes.  Knowing I couldn't and didn't want to 
>live up to those impossibleand rather incovenient rules are what kept me
>outside, too.  

Don't think that my morals are shoddy or nonexistent just because I
don't believe in your god.  I will not steal, and I will not murder --
not because I fear divine repudiation, but because these just *aren't*
in my character.  You may think there's nothing keeping me from just
running around on a murdering spree, stealing things when I'm able,
insulting people for the heck of it, because I'm not answerable to
anyone; but you'd be wrong.  I'm answerable to myself.  A life like
that would be a cheap life; I happen to want to earn respect in myself.

>'Till I met the Man, that is.

My initial break with Christianity came after a lot of soul-searching
and a lot of wondering why I could no longer feel the 'presence' of
God with me.  I finally decided that I had once "felt" this presence
just as I had "felt" my mighty teddy bear beside me when I was a
little tyke, protecting me from the monsters under the bed -- that I
had believed in God just as I had believed in the teddy bear, as
something of an emotional crutch to protect me from perceived dangers.

Since then, I've never abandoned the possibility that maybe your
supernatural trinity does exist.  But there are a few times when, in
my darkened room by my bed, I have set aside everything I believe for
a moment and called out to whatever's out there, because I want to
know the truth even if it means abandoning everything I know.  And I
have not yet received an answer.

>= Only when I truly listened to myself, body and soul, did I realize
>= that I could no longer honestly keep up the charade of being
>= Christian.  There is a higher truth in the universe, and Christianity
>= just ain't it.
>
>Any suggestions on what (or who or where) it might be, and why?

Nope.  It may well be unknowable.  Scientists have suggested that the
universe may be finite and wrap around on itself (the three-dimensional
universe may be mapped onto a four-dimensional supersphere in the same
way you can map a two-dimensional plane onto a three-dimensional
sphere; see _Sphereland_, the sequel to _Flatland_, for more thoughts
on this).  Our entire universe might just be an electron in a four-
dimensional universe, which in turn may only be an insignificant speck
in a universe above that, and so on and so forth until the variables
become too much for us to even speculate on.

That is, there's no possible way for us to know exactly how we came to
be, so there's no reason at all to believe that your God exists nor
had anything to do with it.

>"OK," you may say. "So now, if I'm just being good, am I doing good enough?"
>
>That's for you to answer.  If you feel you're doing fine, then go ahead and
>ignore us foolish little Christians.  We can present what we've seen and
>experienced (providing our witness), but it isn't up to us to make that seed
>sprout.  

Christians have provided me with nothing except quotes from your holy
book, and all sorts of tactics to try to get me to believe: guilt
trips, insinuations that I'm without morals, arguments from disbelief
("how can you possibly believe that God *doesn't* exist?"), and so
forth.  All I'm asking is for you to convince me.  I want to be convinced,
but it's not going to be easy.

>So much as you don't like what we're "selling", there just may be someone
>out there that can identify with it.  Methinks you could give us all a 
>lesson in tolerance and back off.

Having had years upon years of contact with your religion from both
the inside and the outside, I view it as harmful in many ways.  It
preys on people who want to find meaning in their lives, and once it's
got these people, it teaches them to have pity (and sometimes starkly
intolerant) of others who do not share these views.  Maybe you'll say
that your religion doesn't teach that -- but I've got to judge
Christianity from the Christians I know.

I feel that it is entirely possible and good to have faith in one's
self, and to be a positive influence on society for no better reason
than that.

So I hope that my words in this newsgroup will at least make some
people think.  I want Christians to realize that there are perfectly
valid lifestyles and opinions that have nothing to do with their deity
whatsoever, and I want people who are considering Christianity to
realize that Christianity does not hold the sole key to a happy,
fulfilled life.

I have known some very nice Christians who have done some very nice
things.  I think what sets these people apart from the general masses
is that they recognize that their religious beliefs may be wrong, and
they know the weaknesses of their religion, yet they still decide to
believe, but they keep their beliefs to themselves and do not think
any less of people who don't agree with them.

>Obviously, the debate on the veracity and reliability of the Source of the
>Christian's faith is far from conclusive, notwithstanding how vehemently we
>propose otherwise.

Precisely my point.  You've still not given me a reason to be a
Christian instead of a Buddhist or a Moslem...

>= The nice thing about religion, if you lose yourself deeply enough in
>= it, is that eventually you'll be able to feel justified in most
>= anything you want to do.
>
>Y'know your right.  Fortunately for everyone around me, I'm not religious.  
>I'm a Christian.

... just as the Moslems aren't religious, and the Buddhists aren't
religious.  Who *is* religious, then?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84080
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: The fact of the theory

In article <1993Apr24.141736.17526@njitgw.njit.edu> dmu5391@hertz.njit.edu (David Utidjian Eng.Sci.) writes:
}It is so simple.... I'm surprised that this subject gets
}beat to death about once a month. A quick glance in a dictionary
}would clear up 99% of the confusion and bandwidth in this
}newsgroup.

Reading Stephen Jay Gould's essay "Evolution as Fact and Theory" wouldn't
hurt, either.  It appears in _Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes_.

}            Then we could talk about really important things
}like, why do men have nipples?

See Gould's "Male Nipples and Clitoral Ripples" in _Bully for Brontosaurus_.

Gee, this is easy.

-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.com

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84081
From: kde@boi.hp.com (Keith Emmen)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

xcpslf@oryx.com (stephen l favor) writes:
: : Seems to me Koresh is yet another messenger that got killed
: : for the message he carried. (Which says nothing about the 
: : character of the messenger.) I reckon we'll have to find out
: : the rest the hard way.
: : 
: 
: Koresh was killed because he wanted lots of illegal guns.

I haven't heard of ANY illegal guns being found.  He was accused
of not paying taxes on LEGAL guns.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84082
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: What RIGHT ?


In article <1993Apr22.133142.23772@ifi.uio.no>, joakimr@ifi.uio.no (Joakim Ruud) writes:
|> 
|> Recently, I've asked myself a rather interesting question: What RIGHT does
|> god have on our lives (always assuming there is a god, of course...!) ??
|> 

He is God.

|> In his infinite wisdom, he made it perfectly clear that if we don't live
|> according to his rules, we will burn in hell. Well, with what RIGHT can god
|> make that desicion? 

He is God.

|> Let's say, for the sake of argument, that god creates every
|> one of us (directly or indirectly, it doesn't matter.). What then happens, is
|> that he first creates us, and then turns us lose. Well, I didn't ask to be
|> created. 
|>

God granted you the gift of life whether you were sinner or saint.
 
|> Let's make an analogue. If a scientist creates a unique living creature (which
|> has happened, it was even patented...!!!), does he then have the right to
|> expect it to behave in a certain matter, or die...?
|>

The scientist creates the living creature to examine it, poke and prod it and
learn about its behaviour.  He will kill it if it becomes a threat.  For
example, let's say the scientist creates a Tyrannosaurus Rex and it breaks
free of its confines and starts devouring the population.  The scientist
would not hesitate in killing it.

God creates us to be His loving companions.  He knows whether we are true in 
our love for Him or not.  And He lets us know the consequences of rejecting Him.
God cannot abide by sin.  By rejecting God, a person becomes an enemy of God,
one that must be killed by Him.  Note:  I say that God and God alone is
worthy to be Judge, Jury and Executioner.  We are not called to carry out
such duties because we are not worthy.
 
|> Who is god to impose its rules on us ? Who can tell if god is REALLY so
|> righteous as god likes us to believe? Are all christians a flock of sheep,
|> unable to do otherwise that follow the rest? 
|>

God is God.  Who are we to question the Creator?  If you doubt God's doing
in certain situations, do you claim to know a better solution?  Would you
be playing the role of God?
 
|> Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
|> 
|> I just want to point out that this is not sarcasm, I mean it.
|> 
|> 		 	How should one deal with a man who is convinced that
|> 		 	he is acting according to God's will, and who there-
|>      Jokke		fore believes that he is doing you a favour by
|> 		 	stabbing you in the back?
|>  
|> 							-Voltaire
|> 

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84083
From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: History & texts (was: Ancient references to Christianity)

>DATE:   24 Apr 1993 11:53:48 -0500
>FROM:   Russell Turpin <turpin@cs.utexas.edu>
>
>
>The diaries of the followers of the Maharishi, formerly of
>Oregon, are historical evidence.  

Are you confusing Bhagwan Rajneesh (sp?) with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
here by any chance?  I think Bhagwan was in Oregon with all the Rolls
Royces.  Maharishi Mahesh Yogi founded Transcendental Meditation and
does the yogic flying stuff.  Bhagwan's group was a communal, free sex
kind of thing.  I think they both had beards, though.




Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84084
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!


In article <1993Apr22.203851.3081@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com>, bittrolff@evans.enet.dec.com () writes:
|> 
|> In article <1993Apr20.143754.643@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
|> 
|> |>BTW, David Koresh was NOT
|> |>Jesus Christ as he claimed.
|> 
|> How can you tell for sure? Three days haven't passed yet. 
|>

Well, where is he?  Another false Messiah shot down in flames.

Matthew 24:4
   "Watch out that no one deceives you.  For many will come in my
    name, claiming, 'I am the Christ', and will deceive many."

Matthew 24:23
   "At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!'
    or 'There he is!' do not believe it.  For false Christs and 
    false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles
    to deceive even the elect - if that were possible.  See, I have
    told you ahead of time."

Do we listen?  Sadly, not all of us do.

Peace be with you, and condolences to the families of those lost at
Waco.

Malcolm Lee  
 
|> --
|> Steve Bittrolff
|> 
|> The previous is my opinion, and is shared by any reasonably intelligent person.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84085
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?


In article <2855@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM>, tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr20.220340.2585@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
|> >
|> >armed to the teeth.  A Christian should not have to rely on physical weapons
|> >to defend himself.  A Christian should rely on his faith and intelligence.
|> 
|> Faith and intelligence tell me that when a druggie breaks into my house at
|> night with a knife to kill me for the $2 in my wallet, a .357 is considerably
|> more persuasive than having devotions with him.
|> 
|> -- 
|> Tom Albrecht

Give him the $2, leave the house and call the police.  That's what I would
do.  I will not kill to protect mere possessions.

Peace be with you,

Malcolm Lee  :)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84086
From: kde@boi.hp.com (Keith Emmen)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
: 
:   Nut or not, he was clearly a liar.  He said he would surrender after
:   local radio stations broadcast his message, but he didn't.  Then he
:   said he would surrender after Passover, but he didn't.
: 

The FBI said he would surrender.  We don't KNOW what he said.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84087
From: Pegasus@aaa.uoregon.edu (Pegasus)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick

In article <JOSHUA.93Apr20190924@bailey.cpac.washington.edu>,
joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller) wrote:
> 

> I would really appreciate if when someone brought something like
> this up they didn't back out when someone asked for details.
> josh

EXCUSE ME!
I am -NOT TRYING TO BACK OUT- Josh, Maybe you should try to make an
informed responce when your are trying to pack, and your references are
PACKED!  and someone responses like you did. (NO GRIN).
Pegasus

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84091
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Laws of God (was Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!)


In article <1993Apr23.142414.20665@sei.cmu.edu>, dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood) writes:
|> 
|> mlee@ra.royalroads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
|> >These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had
|> >expressly set apart from the rest of the world.  The Israelites were a
|> >direct witness to God's existence.  To disobey God after KNOWing that God
|> >is real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately punishable.
|> >Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to 
|> >God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We are living in the
|> >age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death.  There is
|> >repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just
|> >for a few chosen people.  Salvation is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile
|> >alike.
|> 
|> Sorry if this is late for the thread, but...
|> 
|> I thought God was supposed to be constant and never-changing.  How do
|> you reconcile this common Christian view with the paragraph above?
|>

God never changes.  He still loves us.  Sending Jesus was one of His
attempts to reconcile with mankind.  The nature of God has not changed.

|> 
|> Also, while we're at it:
|> 
|> 1. How do you reconcile "A KIND and LOVING God!!" with the
|> Judeo-Christian view that sin was at one time "immediately punishable
|> by death"?  Was killing people for sinning God's way of showing
|> KINDness and LOVE?
|>

Sinning in the face of God was punishable by immediate death.  There are
several OT passages to back this up.  God is God.  He cannot tolerate
the prescence of sin in His midst.  And the Israelites knew this!  And
still, some of them chose to disobey and were destroyed.  Were these
people KIND and LOVing themselves?  God gave them every break He could
but in the end, He really had no choice in the matter.  Seeing as how
we were failing to achieve salvation on our own, He sent His Son to die
for us - to be the ultimate sin offering.  Now we live in the age of
grace.


|> 
|> 2. Is the fact the He no longer does this an admission on His part of
|> having made a mistake?
|>

He sent His Son as a consolation to us, out of love.
 
|> 3. Now that we are "living in the age of grace", does this mean that
|> for our sins, God now damns us to eternal hell after we die, rather
|> than killing us immediately?  If so, is this eternal damnation an
|> example of "A KIND and LOVING God!!"?
|>

Hey, let's be fair for a moment here.  KIND and LOVING does not mean
a free ride.  There is an amount of give and take as in any relationship.
Parents are supposed to be kind and loving but does that mean that 
children can do whatever they want?  NOT!  Part of being a parent means
administering punishment when the child is at fault.  Part of being a 
parent means giving instruction.  God tests us through the trial of
life such that we may grow stronger.  He teaches what is right and 
what is wrong.  The consequences of our actions are made clear to us,
be it Heaven or be it Hell.  If God did not follow through with what
He has warned us about, He would not be a very good parent.

In parenting, if a parent issues a warning but does not follow through
with it, the children will not take that parent's words very seriously.
God does the same by telling us who have ears to hear what to do and
what not to do.  By life's trials, we see the folly of doing our own
will rather than His.  He warns us about the consequences of rejecting
Him when it comes time for Judgement.  Do we follow Him?

I will.

Peace be with you,

Malcolm Lee  :)

 
|> Just curious.
|> 
|> --Dave Wood

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84092
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!


In article <f2jjowk@quack.kfu.com>, pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
|>
|> So, do you adhere to the Ten Commandments?
|>

Jesus did and so do I.

Peace be with you,

Malcolm Lee  :)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84096
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <24APR199302290235@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
> In article <1993Apr21.190441.4282@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, 
> f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes...
> 
>>In article <1993Apr21.164554.1@ccsua.ctstateu.edu>, 
>>parys@ccsua.ctstateu.edu writes:
>>> I told some friends of mine two weeks ago that Koresh was dead.  
>>> The FBI and the BATF could not let a man like that live. He was 
>>> a testimonial to their stupidity and lies.    
>>> 
>>	[...deleted...]
>> 
>>Unfortunately, I think you've got it figured pretty well.  I also ask
>>myself the question "Why did they plan for so many months.  Why was
>>this so important to them?  What was the government really up to?
>>Why did they seal the warrant?  Were they after Koresh or were they 
>>after the first and second amendments, among others?
> 
> Allow me to play devils advocate a moment JG:

Didn't expect to find you in the Devil's role, Stephen, but these are
the times that try men's souls.
> 
> 	o  What was called many months of *planning* was probably
> 	   the intelligence collecting: paperwork and interviews.
> 
Nine months, as I understand it.  No doubt this accounts for a 
significant amount of the time as government efficiency in spending
our tax dollars would certainly seek its absolute minimum in such
an event.  But my gut instinct says there is more at hand.  It took
some careful preplanning to demonize D.K. to such an extent.  The
attack meshes well with more restrictive gun control legislation
that seems to be the agenda of the day.  It also fits a pattern of
increased government interference in personal religious beliefs.
[Randy Weaver is now on trial].

> 	o  It's important to them because it justifies budgets.
>
No quarrel here.  The BIG BANG theory is always apt at appropriation
time.  They just don't have to possess a single motive.
 
> 	o  The warrant was sealed to keep from jeopardizing the 
> 	   the government's case.

I certainly think publication of the warrant undermines the government's
case since it makes no claims of illegal action.  Therefore the federal
judge had reason to seal it.  But I am reminded of Senator Frank Church's
remark that "secrecy is the trademark of a totalitarian government."
There is rarely sufficient motive to seal a warrant in a nation of
free people.
> 
> 	o  There was probably no one actually exercising oversite.
> 	   Instead, a system of bureaucratic rules has been set 
> 	   up for such incidents. Like computer programs -- these
> 	   have to be debugged periodically. Especially when used
> 	   in fringe areas. (cf. the "hostage rescue" program).
> 	   Therefore -- NO ONE WAS IN CHARGE. And no one can 
> 	   reasonably be held responsible. 

How can I argue with irrefutable logic?  I have long suspected that
the government has become a mindless machine and now you go and
confirm my worst fears!  Has it become a BEAST that is programmed
simply to say "Kiss my toe and you get your piece of the pie?"
I suspect bugs in the program arise when agents or those who love
this critter have independent thoughts.
 
> 	o  What they were after, generally speaking, is protecting
> 	   their jobs, budgets, and paychecks.

And watching Terminator II.
> 
> 
>>> We waited 444 days for our hostages to come home from Iran.  We gave these
>>> people 51 days.  
>>> 
>    186 died at the Alamo.  86 died that day in Waco.    

Yes, 186 seeds for a new Republic.  And 86 for...?
> 					
>    Rev. 11:9 ...And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and
>              nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an
>              half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put
>              in graves.               
> 
>    Why no burial?  Is is that the bodies of the Witnesses will be said
>    to be property of the state?  Or just a typical bureaucratic delay?
> 
    Rev. 11:10...And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice
		over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one
		to another; because these two prophets tormented them
		that dwelt on the earth.

Stephen, have you sensed that some have been rejoicing lately....?


>       |
>    -- J --      		
>       |
>       | stephen 
> 
> 
-- 
 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
 Joe Gaut                    |   In the super-state, it really does not
 <f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> |   matter at all what actually happened.
     Remember the Alamo      |   Truth is what the government chooses to 
       Remember Waco         |   tell you.  Justice is what it wants to happen.
                                        --Jim Garrison, New Orleans, La.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84097
From: battin@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu (Laurence Gene Battin)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <24APR199302290235@utarlg.uta.edu>, stephen (b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu) wrote:
> In article <1993Apr21.190441.4282@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, 
> f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes...

> >In article <1993Apr21.164554.1@ccsua.ctstateu.edu>, 
> >parys@ccsua.ctstateu.edu writes:
> >> I told some friends of mine two weeks ago that Koresh was dead.  
> >> The FBI and the BATF could not let a man like that live. He was 
> >> a testimonial to their stupidity and lies.    
> >> 
> >	[...deleted...]
> > 
> >Unfortunately, I think you've got it figured pretty well.  I also ask
> >myself the question "Why did they plan for so many months.  Why was
> >this so important to them?  What was the government really up to?
> >Why did they seal the warrant?  Were they after Koresh or were they 
> >after the first and second amendments, among others?

> Allow me to play devils advocate a moment JG:

> 	o  What was called many months of *planning* was probably
> 	   the intelligence collecting: paperwork and interviews.

> 	o  It's important to them because it justifies budgets.

> 	o  The warrant was sealed to keep from jeopardizing the 
> 	   the government's case.

> 	o  There was probably no one actually exercising oversite.
> 	   Instead, a system of bureaucratic rules has been set 
> 	   up for such incidents. Like computer programs -- these
> 	   have to be debugged periodically. Especially when used
> 	   in fringe areas. (cf. the "hostage rescue" program).
> 	   Therefore -- NO ONE WAS IN CHARGE. And no one can 
> 	   reasonably be held responsible. 

Baloney.  Either the programmer or the people who decided to let their
actions be governed by the program are clearly at fault.  If you neglect
to do maintenance on your car, and the steering goes out, you _are_
responsible for the death of all those kids on the sidewalk your car
subsequently drives over "on its own".

Gene Battin
battin@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu
no .sig yet

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84098
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (E. Elizabeth Bartley)
Subject: Re: What part of "No" don't you understand?

In article <1rbh3n$hav@kyle.eitech.com>
ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1993Apr24.002509.4017@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>A "moment of silence" doesn't mean much unless *everyone*
>>participates.  Otherwise it's not silent, now is it?

>>Non-religious reasons for having a "moment of silence" for a dead
>>classmate: (1) to comfort the friends by showing respect to the
>>deceased , (2) to give the classmates a moment to grieve together, (3)
>>to give the friends a moment to remember their classmate *in the
>>context of the school*, (4) to deal with the fact that the classmate
>>is gone so that it's not disruptive later.

>Yeah, all well and good. The fact is, though, that the pro-school
>prayer types have tried to use a moment of silence as a way
>to get prayer back. At my high school for instance, our dear
>principal ended the moment of silence with "Amen."

I can certainly see opposing the "Amen" -- but that doesn't require 
opposing a moment of silence.

>I'll back off when they do.

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.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84099
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?

hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:


>In article <wcscps.735321331@cunews>, wcscps@superior.carleton.ca (Mike Richardson) writes:

>[Lots of good points re Mormons in the US]

>The founding fathers of the US were hardly great on religious freedoms. At
>least one history I have read formed the opinion that they left for the
>US not to practice religious freedom but to practice religious intolerance.

Bzzt. Thank you for playing.

You're confusing the puritans/pilgrims with the founding fathers.
Difference of ~150 years and a much different culture...


>Phill Hallam-Baker
--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84100
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Why did they behave as they did (Waco--reading suggestion)

How come noone mentions Eric Hoffer when talking about 
fanatic behavior anymore?


--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84101
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1993Apr20.142356.456@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>
>In article <C5rLps.Fr5@world.std.com>, jhallen@world.std.com (Joseph H Allen) writes:
>|> In article <1qvk8sINN9vo@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
>|> 
>|> It was interesting to watch the 700 club today.  Pat Robertson said that the
>|> "Branch Dividians had met the firey end for worshipping their false god." He
>|> also said that this was a terrible tragedy and that the FBI really blew it.
>
>I don't necessarily agree with Pat Robertson.  Every one will be placed before
>the judgement seat eventually and judged on what we have done or failed to do
>on this earth.  God allows people to choose who and what they want to worship.

I'm sorry, but He does not!  Ever read the FIRST commandment?

>Worship of money is one of the greatest religions in this country.

You mean, false religion!

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84105
From: V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <cjkC5sy5G.Ko4@netcom.com>
cjk@netcom.com writes:
 
>This was obviously a lot different than the ordinary FBI adventure.
>
>I believe that the Federal officers had a conflict of interests here.
>
>Throught out the whole affair, it seamed to me that they were chiefly
>concerned with saving face rather than saving lifes.  Its true that
>The BD were resisting arrest and that they should have surrendered
>when they first realized that these where federal officers.  But they
>didn`t.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by 'saving face' unless you are confusing
the FBI with the BATF who are the ones who were in charge of the
original search warrant.
 
>But when they didn`t, the FBI should not have treated as a hostage
>situation, it wasn't.
>
>I think  more discussions, possible independant negotiators, and
>family intervention should have been used.
>
Independant Negotiators? What was there to negotiate? Any sort of plea
bargin has to be brought to the court, the negotiators can't negotiate
charges or sentences. FBI negotitators did make a deal for the
Dividians to come out. Koresh showed he was not negotiating in good
faith and there is no reason to believe independent negotiators
would have done any better.
 
Richard

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84106
From: parys@ccsua.ctstateu.edu
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

I told some friends of mine two weeks ago that Koresh was dead.  The FBI and
the BATF could not let a man like that live.  He was a testimonial to their
stupidity and lies.    

Now before everyone gets crazy with me, let me say that Koresh was crazy as 
a bed bug, but out government was crazier...and they lied to us.

They told us compound had been under survaillance for quite some time.  Yet, 
whoever was watching the place failed to see that Koresh went jogging and into
town on a regular basis.  Everyone in the area claimed to have seen him and 
wondered why they didn't pick him up then.  There are two possible answers.
First, they didn't see him.  What kind of survaillance is that?  Second, they
didn't care.  They wanted a confrontation.  They wanted publicity and they got
it.

After the first battle, they told us that they did not know he knew they were
coming.  They also said it would have been foolish to go in knowing that.
Well, we know now that they intercepted the informants call and went in anyway.

Did they explore all of the possibilities for ending the seige?  According to
them they did, but according to the Hartford Courant, the woman that raised
Koresh (His Grandmother) was not allowed to go in and see him.                 
 The FBI agent who she spoke with was Bob Ricks and according to the paper he
said:

"A lot of people think if you just talk to them logically they will come out.
His grandmother raised Vernon Howell; (Koresh's Real name)  she didn't raise
David Koresh."

Someone who raises you and loves you does not speak to you strickly on a
logical level.  There is also an emotional level on which they can reach you.

Here's another one.  All during this operation the FBI has been claiming that
they feared a mass suicide and that is one of the reasons that something must
be done.  Now they claim they never thought he would do it?

I knew they were going to do something when they started talking about how
much money this was costing.  That was the start of the "Justification" part
part of the plan.  That's when I knew it would come soon.

But, back to the plan.  It is considered "Cruel and Unusal Punishment" to
execute criminals in the minds of many people, but look at what's acceptable.

They knew the parents (adults) had gas masks.  They did not know, or were not
sure, if the children had them.  So the plan was to pour the gas into the 
compound.  The mothers, seeing what the gas was doing to their children were
supposed to run out and that would only leave the men to deal with.

I spent two years in the army and like everyother veteran I went through CBR
(Chemical, Biological Radiological) warfare training.  Part of that training
is going into a room filled with the same stuff that the children were
subjected to.  To make the stuff really interesting the gas also has a chemical 
agent that irritates the skin.  You think its on fire.

I have no doubts the children would become hysterical.  Its not the kind of
thing you never want to do again.  This was the plan, the final solution.

We waited 444 days for our hostages to come home from Iran.  We gave these
people 51 days.  

I stated on several occasions that there was absolutely nothing in this whole
thing that the government could point to as a success.  Well, FBI agent Ricks
changed my mind.  Again a newclip from the Hartford Courant:

"And while expressing regret at the loss of life, he suggested that the
operation had been at least a modified success because not a single federal
shot had been fired and not a single federal agent had been hurt."

It took 17 dead children to get us that new definition of success.

One more thought.  The government claimed that they believed he had automatic
weapons on the premises. 
                                                      
        HE HAD A LICENSE FOR THE 50 CALIBER MACHINE GUN!

THEY KNEW DAMN WELL HE HAD ONE. THEY ALSO KNEW HE HAD IT LEGALLY!

Still, without the element of surprise they sent in agents to get him.
For all of this my President takes full responsibility.  What a guy!
I hope he gets it.
















 














In article <exuptr.1431.0@exu.ericsson.se>, exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor, The Sounding Board) writes:
> In article <11974@prijat.cs.uofs.edu> bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
> 
>>Before you go absolving the BATF & FBI of all blame in this incident, you should
>>probably be aware of two important facts.
>>1.  There is no such thing as non-toxic tear gas.  Tear gas is non-breathable
>>    remaining in it's presence will cause nausea and vomiting, followed eventually
>>    by siezures and death.  Did the FBI know the physical health of all the people
>>    they exposed??  Any potential heart problems among the B-D's??
> 
> No doubt it is dangerous stuff when concentrated.
> 
>>2.  Have you ever seen a tear gas canister??  Tear gas is produced by burning a
>>    chemical in the can.  The fumes produced are tear gas.  The canister has a 
>>    warning printed on the side of it.  "Contact with flamable material can result
>>    in fire."  Now, how many of these canisters did they throw inside a building 
>>    they admited was a fire-trap??
> 
> None.  They used non-incindiary methods, which means they produced the gas 
> outside the building and pumped it in via the tanks.
> 
> ---
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  ---------Visit the SOUNDING BOARD BBS +1 214 596 2915, a Wildcat! BBS-------
> 
>  ObDis: All opinions are specifically disclaimed. No one is responsible.
> 
>     Patrick Taylor, Ericsson Network Systems  THX-1138
>     exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                    "Don't let the .se fool you"

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84113
From: spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <C5stEL.K0E@boi.hp.com> dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes:
>>Dear Brother Bill,
>>
>>One way or another -- so much for patience. Too bad you couldn't just 
>>wait. Was the prospect of God's Message just too much to take?
>
>  So do you want the president to specifically order each and every activity
>of the FBI, or what?  And how willing are you to blame Reagan and Bush,
>directly, for the incidents that took place in the War on Drugs in their
>administration?  Are you going to blame Bush for the fact that Weaver's wife,
>infant, son were killed?  It happened while he was president.

... or consider the thousands in Central America killed by those brave
CIA/NSC sponsored "Freedom Fighters."

Thus far, Slick Willie is a piker.

							spl

-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
San Diego Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UC San Diego/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"My other car is a car, too."
                 - Bumper strip seen on I-805

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84120
From: susan_soric@upubs.uchicago.edu (Susan Soric)
Subject: Wanted: Moltmann's God in Creation

I'm greatly in need of Jurgen
Moltmann's book God in Creation:
An Ecological Doctrine of Creation.

If you have a copy you're willing to
part with, I'd love to hear from you
soon.  You may call me at 312-702-
8367 or e-mail me.

Thanks.

==========================================================================================
Susan Soric
Independent agent
susan_soric@upubs.uchicago.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84121
From: isaackuo@skippy.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <GERRY.93Apr21132149@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>No, a no-knock warrant is in clear violation of the 4th amendment.
>Okay, what about the fact that they were tipped off - they shouldn't
>have opened fire - right?  WRONG!  Think about this: I am a drug
>dealer and my competition wants to do away with me. They call me and
>tell me that the Feds are on their way with a no-knock warrant. So,
>being moronic sheep we wait, with our guns holstered. Now, instead of
>the Feds, in comes my competition, and we're history.  The only
>acceptable answer to a no-knock warrant is blazing guns!  I may sound
>paranoid, but our government is out of control, and killing a few
>federal officers make knock some sense back into it.

Hmm.  The police strategy of bursting in with weapons drawn, clearly marked as
officers and yelling "Police" repeatedly.  This is used every day to bust drug
houses.  The idea is to awe the suspects into submission with surprise and
display of firepowere in order to avoid a gun fight.  As for not knocking, it's
a sad necessity in many cases since the suspects will attempt to escape or even
fight.  Usually this strategy works; if it didn't, then it wouldn't be used so
commonly, now would it?

Whether or not it was appropriate to use this strategy on the BD is not my
point, since I don't think any of us have enough information to make a clear
judgement on this issue.

I merely point out that it IS a valid strategy which is used every day.
Furthermore, we don't know of any substitute strategy capable of apprehending
potentially dangerous and armed suspects.  Do you suggest that the police
always knock with guns holstered and never arrest any suspects until they have
been allowed to inspect the officers's badges?  Just what should the police do
when apprehending potentially dangerous and armed suspects?  How far can they
reasonably go to identiy themselves?  What do you suggest they can do which
can't be faked by the "competition"?

Even if you've got deadly enemies who may pretend to be cops, that's not an
excuse to murder police.  In the case of the BD's, there was almost definitely
at most the paranoid delusion of deadly enimies who would pretend to be cops.
-- 
*Isaac Kuo (isaackuo@math.berkeley.edu)	*       ___
*					* _____/_o_\_____
*	Twinkle, twinkle, little .sig,	*(==(/_______\)==)
*	Keep it less than 5 lines big.	* \==\/     \/==/

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84122
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: ABORTION and private health coverage -- letters regarding


<DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
| For an illustrative example in the opposite direction, it may be possible
| to ADD services to an insurance contract and REDUCE the premium.  If you
| add preventative services and this reduces acute care use, then the total
| premium may fall.

Women who are known not to want abortion services, for example,
might be judged to be more likely to require prenatal care &
coverage for childbirth... which can be an order of magnitude
more expensive than abortion. 

This topic should really be restricted to talk.abortion, which
exists to relieve t.r.m & t.p.m of abortion flamage.  

---
C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
"In Melbourne, Fla., meanwhile, anti-abortion marchers rallied to 
celebrate the death of Dr. David Gunn.  "Praise God!" they shouted."
	      (NY Daily News, Fri. March 12, p. 20)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84123
From: lanphi872@moscow.uidaho.edu (Rob Lanphier)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!

Malcolm Lee (mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca) wrote:
: I will clarify my earlier quote.  God's laws were originally written for 
: the Israelites.  Jesus changed that fact by now making the Law applicable to
: all people, not just the Jews.  Gentiles could be part of the kingdom of
: Heaven through the saving grace of God.  I never said that the Law was made
: obsolete by Jesus.

Just for reference, here's the earlier quote:
Malcolm Lee (mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca) wrote in reference to Leviticus 21:9
and Deuteronomy 22:20-25:
: These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had
: expressly set apart from the rest of the world.  The Israelites were a
: direct witness to God's existence.  To disobey God after KNOWing that God
: is real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately
: punishable.
: Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to
: God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We are living in
: the age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death.  There
: is repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.  And
: not just for a few chosen people.  Salvation is available to everyone, Jew
: and Gentile alike.

These are two conflicting statements.  To say one is a clarification of the
other is a breach of logic.  I don't mind people shifting their position on
an issue.  It irritates me when it is said under the premise that no change
was made.  What about Deuteronomy 22:20-25?  Is it wrong now?  Did Jesus
change that?

: If anything, He clarified the Law such as in that quote you made.  In the
: following verses, Jesus takes several portions of the Law and expounds upon
: the Law giving clearer meaning to what God intended.

Sure he does this.  However, he doesn't address the notion of stoning
non-virgin brides, because this needs no clarification.  Are you going to
deny that Deuteronomy 22:20-25 is not patently clear in its intent?

: I think you will agree with me that there are in today's world, a lot of
: modern-day Pharisees who know the bible from end to end but do not believe
: in it.  What good is head knowledge if there is nothing in the heart?

I'll agree that there is a lot of modern day Pharisees that know the Bible
from end to end and don't believe in it.  Depending on how they use this
knowledge, they can be scary.  They can argue any position they desire, and
back it up with selected parts of the Bible.  Such Pharisees include David
Koresh and Adolph Hitler.  I will qualify this by saying *I don't know* if
they actually believed what they were preaching, but the ends certainly
made the means look frightening.

However, just as scary are those that don't know much of the Bible, but
believe every word.  In fact, this is probably scarier, since there are far
more of these people, from what I've seen.  In addition, they are very easy
to manipulate by the aforementioned Pharisees, since they don't know enough
to debate with these people.

: Christianity is not just a set of rules; it's a lifestyle that changes one's
: perspectives and personal conduct.  And it demands obedience to God's will.

No, it demands obedience to a book.  If God came down and personally told
me how I should behave, then I would say that I would be doing God's will
by doing it.  However, if preachers, pastors, and evangelists tell me to
obey the will of a book written by people who have been dead for close to
two millenia (even longer for the OT), even if I follow everything in it
with my heart, I could scarcely be honest with myself by saying I'm doing
the will of God.

: Some people can live by it, but many others cannot or will not.  That is
: their choice and I have to respect it because God respects it too.

Well, if God respects it so much, how come there is talk in the Bible about
eternal damnation for non-believers?  I see little respect eminating from
the god of the Bible.  I see a selfish and spiteful god.

: God be with you,

Not yours, thanks ;)

: Malcolm Lee  :)

Rob Lanphier
lanphi872@snake.cs.uidaho.edu
lanph872@uidaho.edu

And for the curious, here is my earlier post:
> Hmm, for a book that only applied to the Israelites (Deuteronomy), Jesus sure
> quoted it a lot (Mt 4: 4,7,10).  In addition, he alludes to it in several
> other places (Mt 19:7-8; Mk 10:3-5; Jn 5:46-47).  And, just in case it isn't
> clear Jesus thought the Old Testament isn't obsolete, I'll repeat the
> verse in Matthew which gets quoted on this group a lot:
> 
> "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have
> not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until
> heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke
> of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is
> accomplished.  Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments
> and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of
> heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called
> great in the kingdom of heaven.  For I tell you that unless your
> righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law,
> you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."  (Mt 5:17-20 NIV, in
> pretty red letters, so that you know it's Jesus talking)
 
> This causes a serious dilemma for Christians who think the Old Testament
> doesn't apply to them.  I think that's why Paul Harvey likes quoting it so
> much ;).

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84124
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <C5soDA.3L8@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
>Ken Arromdee writes
>>>Did they not know that these men were federal officers?
>>Do you know what a "no-knock search" is?
>Yes, but tell me how you think your question answers my question. If
>the BDs didn't know immediately that they were dealing with feds
>(uniform apparel, insignia), they must have figured it out in pretty
>short order. Why did they keep fighting? They seemed awfully ready
>for having been attacked "without warning". 

Oh, bloody sorry old chap, why didn't you tell me you were a federale?
Tough luck, eh? What's that? You say you're not dead yet?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84125
From: tims@megatek.com (Tim Scott)
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.taoism

In article <79899@cup.portal.com> Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:


I would like to add my support for a misc.taoism discussion group.
I applaud the enthusiam shown by the person posting <79899@cup.portal.com> 
"Thyagi@cup.portal.com" (I read in alt.magick), but I differ
with him/her in believing that at least some minimal parameters 
should be agreed upon.

Thyagi wrote:

> I recommend that the depth of generality, indeed, of AMBIGUITY, in this
> newsgroup (misc.taoism) be maximized.  Calling the Tradition old or new
> is rather unnecessary, and only leads to foolish squabbles.  There is no
> doubt that Nature is a splendid teacher, whether she appears in the words
> spoken by a tree or by a stream, a microbe or a star.  Let us not limit
> 'misc.taoism' to 'philosophy'.  

But if we don't limit it to *something*, the discussion degenerates into
a big amorphous glob. 

Other questions Thyagi proposes are:

> 1) What is this 'actual process of reality'?
> 2) Why is Taoism based upon an assumption?
> 3) Why does this assumption concern knowledge and what can be known?
> 4) What is the value of not knowing?
> 5) What is 'a Tao'?  What does it mean to be 'Tao'd'?

It seems to me that these questions more properly fall into the
category of "general metaphysics". I would prefer any misc.taoism
to deal more closely with topics and works more closely associated
with at least "semi-orthodox" Taoism: with established classic works 
definitely included and works like Mantak Chia's argued about! 

I think "neo-Taoism" should be excluded or get its own group (what I
mean by this is "Humpty-Dumpty Taoism", in which Taoism means whatever 
a poster says it means.) This "alt.taoism" could also be a refuge 
for debates about what "Taoism *REALLY* means" or speculations on sexual
alchemy, etc..

e.g. (from Thyagi again):
> Taoism does what the hell it wants, I tell you.
> Taoism doesn't exist.  'Taoism' is no more real that 'Tao'.  Decide, now.
> Real or not real?  Exist or not-exist?  When shall we be certain

Kent gloomily predicts (quoting from Thyagi's article):

> However most traffic in 
> the group will likely concern the philosophical, secular taoism
> averred by Alan Watts and Niels Bohr, and yogic taoism as it pertains
> to medical, sexual and martial techniques.

I think that discussions of this nature are not completely out of
place. What's happening is that that the term "Taoism" is becoming
completely polluted and trivialized like the words "magic", "Alchemy", 
"Zen," etc., by writers appropriating the word to mean whatever they 
want. This is seen by the spate of new age books entitled "The
Tao of" this, that, and everything else. (With respect to some exceptions
like the books by Jou, Tsung-Hwa.)

Any other comments/ideas? I look forward to seeing them. On balance,
I say let misc.taoism rip and let the chips fall where they may. If
it just gets filled up with college freshmen asking about the
Tao of Sex then it will have been a failure and people will post to
these groups just as they do now.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim P. Scott sending from: Megatek Corporation    (619)455-5590 ext.2610
9645 Scranton Rd. San Diego, CA 92121-3782 USA        FAX: (619)453-7603
Internet: tims@megatek.com [or] ...uunet!megatek!tims 

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84127
From: ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: What part of "No" don't you understand?

In article <1993Apr24.214843.10940@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1rbh3n$hav@kyle.eitech.com>
>ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr24.002509.4017@midway.uchicago.edu>
>>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>>A "moment of silence" doesn't mean much unless *everyone*
>>>participates.  Otherwise it's not silent, now is it?
>
>>>Non-religious reasons for having a "moment of silence" for a dead
>>>classmate: (1) to comfort the friends by showing respect to the
>>>deceased , (2) to give the classmates a moment to grieve together, (3)
>>>to give the friends a moment to remember their classmate *in the
>>>context of the school*, (4) to deal with the fact that the classmate
>>>is gone so that it's not disruptive later.
>
>>Yeah, all well and good. The fact is, though, that the pro-school
>>prayer types have tried to use a moment of silence as a way
>>to get prayer back. At my high school for instance, our dear
>>principal ended the moment of silence with "Amen."
>I can certainly see opposing the "Amen" -- but that doesn't require 
>opposing a moment of silence.
I see it as the camel's nose.

>>I'll back off when they do.
>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.
I'm willing to take my chances on winning the whole thing, personally.
-Ekr


-- 
Eric Rescorla                                     ekr@eitech.com
        "What we've got here is failure to communicate."
        

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84128
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Subject: Re: What RIGHT ?

In article <1993Apr24.171130.8975@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:

>In article <1993Apr22.133142.23772@ifi.uio.no>, joakimr@ifi.uio.no (Joakim Ruud) writes:

>|> Recently, I've asked myself a rather interesting question: What RIGHT does
>|> god have on our lives (always assuming there is a god, of course...!) ??


>He is God.

In other words, the right of might.

>|> In his infinite wisdom, he made it perfectly clear that if we don't live
>|> according to his rules, we will burn in hell. Well, with what RIGHT can god
>|> make that desicion? 

>He is God.

In other words, the right of might.

>|> Let's say, for the sake of argument, that god creates every
>|> one of us (directly or indirectly, it doesn't matter.). What then happens, is
>|> that he first creates us, and then turns us lose. Well, I didn't ask to be
>|> created. 


>God granted you the gift of life whether you were sinner or saint.

In other words, he can do it, he did it, and your in no position to
argue about it.
 
>|> Let's make an analogue. If a scientist creates a unique living creature (which
>|> has happened, it was even patented...!!!), does he then have the right to
>|> expect it to behave in a certain matter, or die...?


>The scientist creates the living creature to examine it, poke and prod it and
>learn about its behaviour.  He will kill it if it becomes a threat.  For
>example, let's say the scientist creates a Tyrannosaurus Rex and it breaks
>free of its confines and starts devouring the population.  The scientist
>would not hesitate in killing it.

>God creates us to be His loving companions.  He knows whether we are true in 
>our love for Him or not.  And He lets us know the consequences of rejecting Him.
>God cannot abide by sin.  By rejecting God, a person becomes an enemy of God,
>one that must be killed by Him.  Note:  I say that God and God alone is
>worthy to be Judge, Jury and Executioner.  We are not called to carry out
>such duties because we are not worthy.
 
In other words, you better do what this God wants you to do, or else!

>|> Who is god to impose its rules on us ? Who can tell if god is REALLY so
>|> righteous as god likes us to believe? Are all christians a flock of sheep,
>|> unable to do otherwise that follow the rest? 


>God is God.  Who are we to question the Creator?  If you doubt God's doing
>in certain situations, do you claim to know a better solution?  Would you
>be playing the role of God?

In other words, its his game, he made the rules, and if you know whats
good for you you'll play his game his way.



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84129
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: What is a Christian? was Re: Davidians and compassion

In article <1993Apr21.211707.7828@ra.royalroads.ca> 
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>In article <f2dutxH@quack.kfu.com>, pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>|> In article <1993Apr20.144825.756@ra.royalroads.ca> 
>|> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>|> >If one does not follow the teachings of Christ, he is NOT Christian.  
>|> >Too easy?  
>|> That would exclude most self-proclaimed "Christians." 
>|> Do you follow the Ten Commandments?
>As a matter of fact, yes I do or at least I strive to.  I will not
>be so proud as to boast that my faith is 100%.  I am still human
>and imperfect and therefore, liable to sin.  Thankfully, there is
>opportunity for repentence and forgiveness.
>God be with you, Malcolm Lee  :)

It sounds like you're modifying your definition of Christian to anyone
who *strives* to follow the teachings of Christ. Do I read you
correctly? And just what constitutes *strive*? Did Jesus say this and
define just what "striving" means? Can you give an example of striving 
that is insufficient to qualify one as a Christian and thus condemns one 
to eternal damnation in fiery torture? Do you self-proclaim yourself a
Christian and if so on what basis?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84130
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion

In article <sandvik-190493200420@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>So we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire
>on their house, killing most of the people inside.
>
>I'm not that annoyed about the adults, they knew supposedly what
>they were doing, and it's their own actions.
>
>What I mostly are angry about is the fact that the people inside,
>including mothers, let the children suffer and die during awful
>conditions.
>
>If this is considered religious following to the end, I'm proud
>that I don't follow such fanatical and non-compassionate religions.
>
>You might want to die for whatever purpose, but please spare
>the innocent young ones that has nothing to do with this all.
>
>I have a hard time just now understanding that Christianity
>knows about the word compassion. Christians, do you think 
>the actions today would produce a good picture of your 
>religion?
>
>
>Kent
>
>---
>sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.


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

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84131
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?

In article <93109.211935ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET> ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET (Casper C. Knies) writes:
>
>Please allow me to explain myself.  In 1838, the governor of Missouri,
>..............
>
>
>Casper C. Knies              isscck@byuvm.bitnet
>Brigham Young University     isscck@vm.byu.edu
>UCS Computer Facilities


Capser, before you deceive everone into thinking that the latter-day
saints have undergone undue persecution through the years for just
believing in their religion, perhaps you would like to tell us all what
happened in the Mountain Meadow Massacres and all the killings that were
done under the Blood Atonement Doctrine, at the command of Brigham Young?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84132
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Subject: Re: Info about New Age!

In article <1qvnu9$a8a@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> hawk@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu writes:
>Greetings!  Could anybody here give me any information about New Age religion?
>About the history, the teachings, ...???  Or may be suggestions what books I 
>should read in order to get those info?  Any help would be greatly appreciated.


Contact:   WATCHMAN FELLOWSHIP
           P.O. Box 171194
           Holladay, UT 84117-1194

Ask for their book:  The New Age and Space Age Heresies
                     The New Age In Our Schools

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84133
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Subject: Re: [rw] Is Robert Weiss the only orthodox Christian?

In article <93111.074840LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET> LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET writes:
>
>  Robert, you keep making references to "orthodox" belief, and saying things
>like "it is held that..." (cf. "Kermit" thread).  On what exact body of
>theology are you drawing for what you call "orthodox?"  Who is that "holds
>that" Luke meant what you said he meant?  Whenever your personal interpretation
>of Biblical passages is challenged, your only response seems
>to be that one needs merely to "look at the Bible" in order to see the truth,
>but what of those who see Biblical things differently from you?  Are we to
>simply assume that you are the only one who really understands it?
>  Just curious,
>--
>Rick Anderson  librba@BYUVM.BITNET


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.

Therefore, when people like Joseph Smith come along with a vision and
thinks he can undo centuries of a doctrine that is supported by the
Bible, people consider him a cult.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84134
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion

sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>In article <1993Apr20.143400.569@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca
>(Malcolm Lee) wrote:
>> Do you judge all Christians by the acts of those who would call
>> themselves Christian and yet are not?  The BD's contradicted scripture
>> in their actions.  They were NOT Christian.  Simple as that.  Perhaps
>> you have read too much into what the media has portrayed.  Ask any
>> true-believing Christian and you will find that they will deny any
>> association with the BD's.  Even the 7th Day Adventists have denied any
>> further ties with this cult, which was what they were.

>Well, if they were Satanists, or followers of an obscure religion,
>then I would be sure that Christians would in unison condemn and 
>make this to a show case.

You might be sure, but you would also be wrong.

>And does not this show the dangers with religion -- in order 
>word a mind virus that will make mothers capable of letting
>their small children burn to ashes while they scream?

I suspect the answer to this question is the same as the answer to,
"Do not the actions of the likes of Stalin show the dangers of
atheism?"


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84135
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: commandments I (the basics)

Why should anyone (check: let's restrict this to Christians, why do *we*)
want to find "commandments" in the books regarded as scripture?  What's
going on? I will pass on psychologizing answers (whether dismissive or more
open) as not the kind of issue to deal with here -- the question is what is
the *theological* point involved?  And it has been quoted "at" me often
enough by those who don't believe I take it seriously, that Jesus (is said
to have) said, "If you love me, you will obey my commands."  [John 14:15]

I am, like any Christian, the slave of Christ, and it is my will that I
should do as He wills me to do.  I am (also, or instead) His younger brother,
but still under His direction, though we both call God "Abba."  Christians,
therefore, will try to find what it is that their Lord commands them, and
discovering it will feel obligated to do it, or to confess their failure.
Readers here may set aside the theologizing jargon (such as "slaves of
Christ") -- the point is that adherents of a religion *will* read the texts
(whether classified as "inspired" or not) that are held up as models, in an
effort to find application to their own situations.  This practice ranges
from "devotional" reading of sermons and the like to the exegesis of canon-
ical scripture as "the Word of God."  And at the highest pitch, this leads
to a question of whether we *can* find in inspired scripture something that
can act as "absolute" guidance for our actions.

The problem is in finding out just *what* it is our Lord commands.  I am
going to set aside for this essay one major direction in which Christians
have looked for these commands, namely Christian tradition.  That is not
because *I* reject tradition, but because my primary audience in this essay
is Protestants, who deny tradition a determinative value, in favor of the
witness of Scripture.  The question I want to deal with is, WHAT commandments
can we find from our Lord in Scripture?  And that turns out to be a hard
question.  [ If any of my Protestant Inquisitors would *like* to turn the
discussion to the authority of tradition, I can accomodate them :-), unlike
*most* Protestants, Episcopalians admit claims from a) Scripture b) Reason
and c) Tradition on roughly equal standing. ]

Earlier in John than my quote above, we read [John 13:34] "I give you a new 
commandment: love one another."  This is the ONLY place in the NT where
Christians are given an explicit commandment, with the context commenting
on its imperative mode pronouncement by Jesus.  At the same meal [so we
*readers* infer, since it is *not* in John, but in the Synoptics] Jesus
says, "Take this [bread]; this is my body."  [Mark 14:22, cf. Matthew 26:26,
Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24]  The mode is imperative (Greek _labete_),
and hence this, too, is a "commandment."

In *both* cases we have to *infer* that the command is directed to a wider
circle than the immediate collocation of disciples -- because we judge the
evangelist's point in mentioning it (with the disciples by then mostly or
entirely dead) is that *we* are expected to follow this as a commandment
from our Lord.  In the case of communion, Paul's mention (at least; this
is probably true of the evangelists also) implies an ongoing ritual liturgy
in which these words operate to "bind" Christians to the original command
to his disciples, as a continuing commandment to the Christian community.

I am entirely comfortable with this inference, but I *must* point out that
it is THERE, between us and the occasion on which Jesus spoke the command.
I take it as a clear inference, at the very least the EVANGELIST'S notion,
that *all* Christians are called to love one another, in Jesus' command
directed at the disciples.  But I have to call attention to the inference.
The command CANNOT apply to me without the generalization from the specific
context of its statement to my own context as a "disciple" of Christ.

All reading of scripture has to make such inferences, to get any sense out
of the text whatsoever.  This is a general problem in reading these texts
-- we cannot read them at all without our *own* understanding of our native
languages in which we (normally) read the (translated) texts, and without
*some* appreciation of the original context (and at points, the original
languages, when English misleads us.) I am going to presume, in what follows,
that we have the *general* problem of how to read scripture under control
[ I don't *really* think this is true, but it will suffice for my current
purposes. ]  I will address ONLY the issues that arise when we have already
coped with the understanding of a 2000 year old text from another world
than the one we live in.  Questions at THAT level only introduce MORE reser-
vations about the commandments issue than will be found stipulating that we
can read the texts as the original audience might have done.

Among the reasons we have for seeing John's _agapate allelou_ as a *general*
commandment (not merely an instruction by Jesus to this disciples on that
one occasion), and one linking it to the Synoptic "Great Commandment" is
that we have criticism, from Jesus, about limiting our love to those whom
we congenially associate with.  In Matthew 5:43ff we read, "You have learnt
how it was said: 'You must love your neighbor' and hate your enemy.  But I
say to you: love your enemies."  In fact, the Leviticus context quoted
does NOT say 'hate your enemy' -- it is merely the common human presumption.
(And Leviticus is at pains to say that the "love" should extend to strangers
amongst the people of Israel.)  Luke, in expanding on this same Q context,
goes on to have Jesus say. "Even sinners love those who love them." [6:27]
All of this suggests [quite strongly, I'd say :-)] that *limiting* the
scope of the "new commandment" is not quite what Jesus has in mind.  In
short, inference *leads me* to generalizing the actual text to a command
that is "in force" on Christians, and with objects not limited to other
Christians.

Trickier than the _agapate allelou_ or Institution of communion, there is
the case of the "Great Commission" where (Matthew 10, Mark 6) the Twelve
are sent out to evangelize, "Proclaim that the kingdom of heaven is close
at hand."  The verb is imperative (_ke:russete_), but the context is rather
specific to the Twelve, and there are further specifiers (as in "Do not
turn your steps to pagan territory, and do not enter any Samaritan town"
-- the Lukan parallels are even more specific to Jesus' final journey to
Jerusalem) which make it harder to see this generalizing to all Christians
than the previous examples.  That hasn't prevented Christians from MAKING
such an inference; what I have to call attention to is that such inference
is NOT justified in the text, nor (unlike the first two cases I cite) by
the rhetoric of the evangelist urged on the reader.  Still, Paul seems to
have felt obliged to "proclaim that the kingdom of heaven is close at hand"
even (contrary to Jesus' instructions to the 12 :-)) to the gentiles, to
the ends of the earth.  So, Christians after him have also taken this as
a "commandment" in the sense of John 14:15.  Do I "accept" this?  I don't
know.  It is surely rather speculative.  But you see how the ripples of
inference spread out from the text that is the pretext -- Christians (may)
infer a general commandment, applicable to all, from what is presented in
the gospels as a specific occasion.  I do not (necessarily) object to this
kind of generalization -- but I *insist* that people who make it *must*
have an understanding that they are *reasoning* (at some considerable
length) from what we actually *have* in scripture.  There are *assumptions*
involved in this reasoning, and *these* are *not* themselves scriptural
(though people will do their best to "justify" their assumptions by OTHER
references to scripture -- which simply adds MORE inference into the mix!)

Let's move on to the "Great Commandment" -- that we should love God with
our whole hearts and minds and souls.  This is, perhaps, the Synoptic
"equivalent" of John's _agapate allelou_.  And yet,  it is not PRESENTED
as a commandment, in our texts.  Rather, the context is controversy with
the Pharisees.  To cite Matthew [22:34ff]

	"But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees
	they got together and, to disconcert him, one of them put a question,
	"Master, which is the greatest commandment of the Law?"

It is by no means obvious here (though I accept it as such) that Jesus'
answer is meant to be a commandment *to Christians*.  He is answering a
polemic from his enemies.  [ Mark's account, in  12:28-34 casts the answer
in a far more positive light as (so the "scribe" in this version says)
"far more important than any holocaust (I need to point out that this word
originates in the context of animal sacrifice; forget the Nazis for this)
or sacrifice."  Luke is intermediate -- he has a lawyer posing the question
"to disconcert" Jesus, and gets the Good Samarian parable for his pains
[ Luke 10:25-37 ].  The contexts here are so confusingly various that one
could be forgiven for drawing *no* inferences :-)  In *no* account is this
said as if it were obviously to be taken as a commandment binding on
Christians -- though I think it an entirely reasonable conclusion in each
case that Jesus thinks it to be so.  The point is that our mental gears
HAVE to grind a cycle or so to get to any conclusion from all of this about
what WE are commanded to do, by Jesus.  And all of this is contingent on
our understanding the point of Jesus' use of the Torah in the (all quite
different) gospel accounts, and the application of such a context to *us*.

The different contexts among the Synoptics are curious.  It should be noted
that ONLY in Luke do we get the "fixing" of this command by the parable of
the Good Samaritan.  We may look for an analogous *intent* in Matthew, where
7:12 gives the "Golden Rule" as "the meaning of the Law and the Prophets"
(and where we may also hear an echo of Hillel saying the same, a generation
before Jesus.)  If we make these associations (which I think are entirely
reasonable), we are -- again -- indulging in inference.  The texts do not
*explicitly* support us; rather, we *read* the texts as having this kind of
inter-relationship.  Current literary theory calls this "intertextuality."

My discussion of why the _agapate allelou_ "has" to apply beyond the 
community of the disciples, and beyound the circle of Christian believers,
applies again here, to buttress a conclusion that this *is* (despite the
presentation not saying so explicitly) a "commandment" to Christians.
Few Christians would disagree with my conclusions -- but I *must* point
out that they *are* conclusions, they *depend* on rather elaborate chains
of reasoning that are simply NOT present in the texts, themselves.

The contextual problem keeps coming up, more and more severely as we look at
those sayings of Jesus that are NOT so universally taken by Christians as 
commandments.  And we get some really hard cases.  Take divorce.  Mark is 
pretty clear, "The man who divorces his wife and marries another is guilty
of adultery against her."  [ 10:11, cf. Luke 16:18 ] -- except that Matthew
has an escape clause [ "except in the case of fornication", 5:31 ]. This
seems to be a rather clear "commandment" (whether or not we take Matthew's
reservation); and some Christians, to this day, take it so.  But some don't,
at least in practice.  This is rather peculiar; it is not as if Jesus were
not explicit about this (whereas He says nothing at all about some of the
things people gnash their teeth over.)  How is it possible, if the commands
of Christ are clear, that Matthew can so disagree with the other evangelists
of the synoptic tradition?

I'm going to continue this examination, into ever-murkier waters, but this
is enough to start with.  The theme is: "finding commandments in scripture
is an exercise in inference; our inferences are informed by OUR assumptions,
that is, our own cultural biases."  I have, so far, identified a very few
"commandments" that are generally accepted by all Christians -- and yet in
these, already, some of the difficulties start to surface.  It is these
difficulties I want to discuss in my next essay on this topic.  The divorce
commandment already strikes at some of the difficulties: I see almost no
evidence that the people who are so eager to find commandments to condemn
*me* with, spend any time at all writing nasty screeds to soc.couples or
misc.legal about the horrors or viciousness of divorce, or demanding that
US law refuse to allow it, or refuse "unrepentant divorcees" places in
their churches.  [ That is not to say that divorce *doesn't* enter into 
consideration in general -- it is most definitely a matter of concern, in
even the most "liberal" church circles.  For example, a (wildly) liberal
Episcopalian priest of my aqauintence, in a (wildly) liberal diocese, has
recommended to a couple who approached him to marry them that they have a
"private" secular ceremony before a judge, so that the "public" ceremony
he celebrated need not go through an agonizing "examination" by officials
who would just as soon NOT take on this role of interpreting the commands
we are faced with as Christians.  This, in a church that was effectively
CREATED by a famous divorce! ]
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84136
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: What part of "No" don't you understand?

In <1rbh3n$hav@kyle.eitech.com> ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>At my high school for instance, our dear
>principal ended the moment of silence with "Amen."

An extremely good example of "circumstantial evidence!"
Every time these right-wing control-freaks start spouting
about prayer in schools, I get this nagging commentary
from the Sermon on the Mount [Matt: 6:5-6] "And when you
pray, do not imitate the hypocrites: they love to say their
prayers standing up in the synagogues and at the street
corners for people to see them.  I tell you solemnly, they
have had their reward.  But when you pray, go to your
private room and, when you have shut your door, pray to
your Father who is in that secret place."

But no. THEY want PUBLIC prayers, the better to manipulate
children.  "Amen" indeed.

>When the pro-school-prayer types stop trying to sneak religion
>in, I'll stop opposing everything that even looks remotely
>like religion, thank you.

I hope you don't mind if I say "amen" to this? :-)
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84137
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: 25 Apr 93   God's Promise in Psalm 56:4



	In God,
	whose word I praise,
	in God I trust;
	I will not be afraid.
	What can mortal man do to me?

	Psalm 56:4 (NIV)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84138
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Christians above the Law? was Clarification of pe

In article <1993Apr21.234159.1206@ualr.edu> 
NUNNALLY@acs.harding.edu (John Nunnally) writes:
>> When are we going to hear a Christian answer to this question? 
>> In paraphrase: 
>> On what or whose authority do Christians proclaim that they
>> are above the Law and above the Prophets (7 major and 12 minor) and not 
>> accountable to the Ten Commandments of which Jesus clearly spoke His opinion 
>> in Matthew 5:14-19? What is the source of this pseudo-doctrine? Who is
>> the pseudo-teacher? Who is the Great Deceiver?
>OK, here's at least one Christian's answer:
>Jesus was a JEW, not a Christian.  In this context Matthew 5:14-19 makes
>sense.  Matt 5:17 "Do not think that I [Jesus] came to abolish the Law or
>the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill."  Jesus lived
>under the Jewish law.  However, He was the culmination of the promises
>of the Prophets.  He came to *fulfill* the prophecies and fully obey
>God's purposes.
>Verse 18 says "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass
>away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law,
>until all is accomplished."  The key to this verse IMHO is the last 
>phrase.  Jesus, as the fulfillment of the law, "accomplished" what the 
>Law was supposed to accomplish.  

Jesus did not say that he was the fulfillment of the Law, and, unless
I'm mistaken, heaven and earth have not yet passed away. Am I mistaken?
And, even assuming that one can just gloss over that portion of the word
of Jesus, do you really think that "all is accomplished?"

>Verse 19:  "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments,
>and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven;
>but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the
>kingdom of heaven."  Taken in the context of Jesus teaching Jewish 
>people about living lives under the law, this makes sense.

Then why didn't Jesus say "Any Jew who annuls ..." in v. 19? Are you
saying that all of Jesus' recorded words mean nothing to Gentiles? Are
you really saying that Jesus only spoke for and to the Jews? Jesus
didn't mention your name, does that mean he wasn't speaking to you? When
you read the words of Jesus, do you think he is speaking to someone
other than you?

>In general, it appears that Jesus is responding to some criticism he 
>must have received about "doing away with the Law."  That was not 
>Jesus' intent at all.

You said above that Jesus was the "fulfillment" of the Law. Are you
saying that does not mean "doing away with the Law"?

>He had come to earth to live the Law as it 
>should be lived and fulfill the promises made by God to his 
>people all the way back to Eve [Gen 3:15-The serpent will bruise your 
>heel, but *He* will bruise his head.]

Gen3:15(JPS) I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between
your offspring and hers; they shall strike at your head, and you shall
strike at their heel.

Gen3:15(NRSV) I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your
offspring and hers; he will strike your head, and you will strike his
heel."

Gen3:15(KJV) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and
between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt
bruise his heel.

Looks like your translation has taken a few liberties with the Word?

>Jesus appeared to be "doing away with the Law" 
>because he did not honor the traditions of men as 
>equal to the Law of God.  He regularly locked horns with the religious 
>leaders of the day because he would not conform to *their* rules, only 
>God's Law.
>In the Matthew passage Jesus is defending his dedication to the Law 
>and defending himself against his accusors.  Almost the entire Sermon 
>on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) is dedicated to helping the Jewish people 
>understand the true intent of the Law, sweeping away the clutter which 
>had been introduced by the Pharasees and their traditions.

Only "helping the Jewish people?"

>In Galatians 3:23-26, Paul describes the relationship of Jesus to the 
>Law in this way:
>[23] But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being 
>shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.  [24] Therefore 
>the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be 
>justified by faith.  [25]  But now that faith has come, we are no 
>longer under a tutor.  [26] For you are all sons of God through faith 
>in Christ Jesus.
>I believe this says that after Christ was revealed, the Law had 
>served it's purpose, i.e. "our tutor to lead us to Christ," and
>now, "we are no longer under a tutor."  The law has been "fulfilled" 
>as Christ said he would do.

You are using your interpretation of Paul as an argument against the
clear words of Jesus?

>God, the author of the old Law, and the Christ/Man, Jesus, are the same
>personality.  Therefore, the old Law and the new Testament (the "last
>will and testament" of Jesus) are based on the same moral principles. 
>It makes sense that many of the principles in the old Law are
>re-expressed in Christianity. 

"Re-expressed?" Care to define that a bit better?

>On the other hand, now that the Law has fulfilled it's purpose and 

What? Are heaven and earth gone away? Where did they go? Is all
accomplished, for example Revelations? Explain please.

>Christians relate to God through Christ, not the Law, it also makes 
>sense that new practices and new symbolisms were established to 
>represent the "mysteries" of this new relationship.  i.e. Baptism 
>representing Christ's death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-8),
>The Lord's supper as a memorial to His sacrifice (I Cor. 11:26), and
>Sunday as a day of worship commemorating His resurrection (Matt 28:1ff,
>Acts 20:7)

Again, your interpretation of Paul versus the clear word of Jesus. Do
you see any problems here? When did heaven and earth go away? When was
all accomplished?

>OK, That's one Christian's explanation.  I don't claim to have all
>these issues completely settled even in my own mind and I welcome
>other Christians to offer other alternatives.
>Please excuse the long posting.  Thanks for your interest if you have read 
>this far...

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84139
From: hexham@acs.ucalgary.ca (Irving Hexham)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

	Would someone be kind enought to document the exact
nature of the evidence against the BD's without reference to
hearsay or newsreports. I would also like to know more about
their past record etc. but again based on solid not media
reports. 

	My reason for asking for such evidence is that last night
on Larry King Live a so-called "cult-expert" was interviewed from
Australia who claimed that it was his evidence which led to the
original raid. This admission, if true, raises the nasty
possibility that the Government acted in good faith, which I
believe they did, on faulty evidence. It also raises the
possibility that other self proclaimed cult experts were advising
them and giving ver poor advice.

	A few years ago Anson Shupe and David Bromley published
STRANGE GODS: THE GREAT AMERICAN CULT SCARE (Beacon, Boston, 1981
- and THE NEW VIGILANTES: ANTI-CULTISTS AND NEW RELIGIONS -Sage,
Beverly Hills, 1980. Both books suggested the possibility of
tragic results if self-proclaimed cult experts were ever taken
seriously. Perhaps their diagnosis of the anit-cult movement
needs investigating in light of the Waco tragedy.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84140
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: What part of "No" don't you understand?

In <1993Apr24.214843.10940@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu
(E. Elizabeth Bartley) writes:

>I can certainly see opposing the "Amen" -- but that doesn't require 
>opposing a moment of silence.

If the ONLY people proposing a "moment of silence" are doing so as a
sham to sneak in prayers, then it MUST be opposed.  What the HELL have
prayers to do with public schooling?  [I ask this question as a devout
Christian.]

>>I'll back off when they do.

>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.

Their kids can bloody-well pray any God-damned time they WANT to.  And
nothing, on heaven or earth, in government or the principal's office,
can prevent or in any other way deal with their doing so.  *Especially*
if the prayer is silent (as bursting out into the "Shema Yisrael" or
some other prayer *might* be construed as disruptive if audible :-))
No one ever prevented ME from praying in public school!  They hardly
even prevented me from masturbating in study hall.

I should have thought better of someone posting from a UChicago address.
How can you manage to say such nonsense without shame?

Muslim students might have a complaint, if they are prevented from setting
out their rugs and doing the proper ablutions before prayer at the times
specified in the Qu'ran.  Jews would probably like the opportunity to daven
with tefillim and whatever else *they* require, at *their* appropriate times.
I do not see THEM complaining (though Muslims and Jews have a case that no
Christian I have ever heard has been able to make.)

The "Christian" insistence on a PUBLIC, UNIVERSAL, ENFORCED "moment of
prayer^H^H^H^H^H^Hsilence" is nothing but the Inquisition "naturalized"
into the American context.  It is offensive to the Gospel of Christ.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84141
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: What part of "No" don't you understand?

In <1993Apr24.214843.10940@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu
(E. Elizabeth Bartley) writes:

>I can certainly see opposing the "Amen" -- but that doesn't require 
>opposing a moment of silence.

I already responded to this on one dimension, but afterthoughts cause
me to make another, independent reply.  The problem with a "moment of
silence" is that it is NOT an even-handed way of "allowing" for religion
amongst students in the public schools.  As I noted before, Muslims need
more than a moment of silence in order to perform the prayers they are
required by Muhammad to do.  And (at least Orthodox) Jewish prayer also
has requirements that are not addressed by this.

There is, in fact, a highly selective BIAS towards Christian prayer in
this "moment of silence" shit.  And that is especially bizarre in that
Christian prayer DOESN'T NEED this stuff -- a Christain may pray totally
incognito AT ANY TIME (to some extent, this is true of Muslims and Jews
as well -- what I intend in my first paragraph is that there *are* some
characteristic forms of prayer in *these* religions which DO need special
times and/or behavior, which cannot be undertaken without an observer 
being able taking note of it.)

A Christian may pray, at ANY time -- silently and without any trace of
his activity being evident to others.  That may or may not be true of the
other religious traditions amongst us: certainly, these tend to have SOME
forms of prayer that WOULD evidence differences from American/Protestant
"mainstream" religion.

All that a "moment of silence" does is to allow THAT ONE tradition which
doesn't NEED it, to have a "special" place set aside in the public schools.
There is NOTHING in Christian prayer that requires public forms, or rugs,
or phylacteries, or anything else at all visible to the outside world.  A
Christian student MAY (and probably does) pray at innumerable times during
the day, without anyone else knowing it.  [That may also be true of non-
Christians -- I am not claimng otherwise].  In the "moment of silence" it
would STILL be difficult for the Jews to gather and daven, for the Muslims
to do their ablutions and find qiblah to Mecca and engage in the prescribed
forms.  But *of course* Christians can do *their* thing -- and therefore,
the provision is nothing but a disguised attempt to encourage just that.

Luckily, there *is* a strong Jewish presence in this country (and I, as
a Christian, revere some of the Jewish teachers I had in public schools),
and a growing Muslim presence as well.  I can only hope that the political
forces consequent on this will PREVENT the imposition of Christian forms
on non-Christians.

As far as I can see (as a Christian) there is NOTHING in this "moment of
silence" campaign but an attempt to use PUBLIC social pressure to FORCE
children to adhere to a pattern that is biased towards Christianity.  And
as a Christian, I *must* protest such coercion.  For what it's worth, I
suspect that the coercion is not really targeted at the non-Christians --
it is yet another case of FAILURE amongst Christian parents in "making"
their children prayerful, so that they want the public schools to teach
what THEY cannot manage to teach, despite having all the opportunity in
the world to do so.

If you have taught your children to pray, they do NOT need a moment of
silence in school.  If you have NOT managed to teach them, the moment
will only embarrass you.  Give it up.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84142
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

Jesus:

>     "This is the verdict:  Light has come into the world, but
>     men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds
>     are evil.  Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will
>     not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be 
>     exposed."

Kent Sandvik says:

>It seems we are dealing with a black-and-white interpretation.
>Brian, are you subtly accusing me of evil things because I never
>saw the light? However, this is even more confusing because
>I even admit that I don't like the situation where I'm not 
>informed.

Black and white.  A spade is a spade.  There is no hidden
agenda behind this, so stop trying to look for one.   It is an
easy and as straight forward as it reads.

Kent, I am not accusing you of evil things.  Jesus is accusing you.
And it is not only you that He is accusing.  He is accusing everyone.
Me, you and everyone in the world is guilty.  Whether one
sees the light or does not seen the light has nothing to do with 
whether we do evil things.  We do them regardless.  

Jesus uses the word "men".  I am included.  Jesus is not soloing you out.
Jesus is making a general statement about out the sad state of man.
Christians are not immuned from doing evil things.  A Christian 
is just a person in whom the Holy Spirit indwells.  A Christian 
can see the evil he is doing--because his evil has been brought
out into the light.  Jesus is not saying that just because evil has been
exposed, that the Christian will stop doing evil.  If you haven't
seen Jesus's light, your evil deeds simply haven't been
exposed to the His light.  You may shed some light on your
own.  Your human spirit shines at perhaps 1 candela.  But the
Holy Spirit shines at a Megacandela.  The Holy Spirit can
shine light into places inside us where we didn't even know
existed. 

So do you see Jesus's point?  Christians are not perfect.  Nonchristians
are not perfect.  Nonchristians do not want to come into the
Light of Jesus because they will see all the problems in their lives,
and they will not like the sight.  It is an ugly thing to see how far
we have fallen from Jesus's perspective.  Do you think you want to
know how really ignorant you are?  Do you think Brian Kendig wants
to know?  Do you think I want to know?  Ego verses the truth,
which do you choose?

>I'm watching the news about a man who saw the light, and made
>sure that the 19 children burned to death as part of his insight
>into the light. I don't think the world is that simple. And if 
>you act in such ways when you are enlighted, then I'm a happy
>man and I pray I will never receive such 'light'.

And I watched Koresh too, an imposter who thought he saw the light, 
who made sure that the 19 children burned to death, sadly, as part
of his delusion.  It is even sadder that the people who
died with him chose to die with them, and that ignorance was
their downfall to death. 

And Kent, don't you bury yourself underneath a rock with an
excuse like bringing up Koresh--as if Koresh actually had truth in him.
David Koresh was no light and no excuse for
you to stay away from the real Jesus Christ.  David Koresh, who
claimed to be Jesus, was a fraud.  It was obvious.  David Koresh
was born in America. Jesus was born in Bethlehem.  Koresh wasn't
even a good imposter having missed an obvious point as that.

Jesus warned of such imposters in the end-times.  David
Koresh wasn't anything new to Jesus.  Jesus told us to be
aware of imposters 2000 years ago.  

So the next time an imposter makes a scene and claims to
be Jesus.  Ask the obvious.  Where were you born?  Was your
mother's name Mary?  If the Branch Davidians asked that
simple question, they would have labeled Koresh a liar
right from the start.  The wouldn't have followed Koresh.
They wouldn't have died.  But look what happened.  Their
ignorance cost them their lives.  Their choice to be ignorant
cost them a lot.

Kent, since you studied the Bible under Lutheranism, do you
not remember what tactic Satan used to try to tempt Jesus?  
Did not Satan quote the Bible out of context?  Do you
remember what tactic the serpent of Genesis used to tempt
Eve?  Did he not misquote God?  What Satan used on Eve and succeeded, 
was the same ploy he tried on Jesus.  But in Jesus's case,
Jesus rebuked Satan back with the Bible _in_ context.  It
didn't work with Jesus.  

Does what Satan did to Eve in the Garden and what Satan
tried to do with Jesus in the desert remind you of what
Koresh did to his followers?  Who did Koresh emulate?
Who was Koresh's teacher?  Koresh did to his followers what
Satan did to Eve.  Did not Koresh kill his followersr?  Did
not Satan cause Adam and Eve to die as well?  Did not
the cult followers believe Koresh even though they knew
the real Christ was born in Bethlehem?   Did not Eve
choose to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil despite knowing that it would cause her death?  God
held them all responsible--deceiver and the rebeller.  None 
of them had an excuse.  

As opposed to the Branch Davidians, we have a second chance.
Follow Jesus and he will escort us to the path of eternal life.
Don't follow Jesus, and you stand condemned already, for like
the Branch Davidian complex, your house is already on fire.
Satan, Adam and Eve have already set it ablaze.   It is just
a slow burn, but it is burning nevertheless.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84143
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?


In a previous article, spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont) says:

>... or consider the thousands in Central America killed by those brave
>CIA/NSC sponsored "Freedom Fighters."
>
>Thus far, Slick Willie is a piker.


      ONLY if you weight Americans equal to SAlvadorans.

      I don't.




Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84144
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?


In article <9601@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, rjl+@pitt.edu (Richard J. Loether) writes:
|> 
|> Yes, of course, as in Matthew 10:34-35 "Do not suppose that I have come to 
|> bring peace to the earth; it is not peace I have come to bring but a sword..."
|> :

Remember the armor of God?  The sword that Christians wield is the
Word of God, the Bible.

God be with you,

Malcolm Lee  :)


|> RJL
|> -- 
|> Rich Loether          Snail mail: University of Pittsburgh     The Ideas:
|> EMail: rjl+@pitt.edu              Computing and Info Services      Mine,
|> Voice: (412) 624-6429             600 Epsilon Drive                   all
|> FAX  : (412) 624-6426             Pittsburgh, PA 15238                  Mine.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84145
From: <A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick


In article <ss.113@apmaths.uwo.ca>, ss@apmaths.uwo.ca (SULTAN SIAL) says:
>
>In article <93111.195217A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET> <A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>
>[stuff about Mithras deleted]
>
>>Oh, His B-day was 25 Dec. Ahem.
>
>I thought that Saturnalia was celebrated by the Romans at that time.  Was
>Mithras connected with this?
>

I also heard the Romans had a large Solar festival on this day because this
day, about 3 days after the Winter Solstice, was when you could notice a
change in the shadows and be sure that the Sun was indeed returning. In fact,
I remember the latin phrase Natalis Solis Invicti (sp!) associated here.

I can't say for certain when Saturnalia was, since I can't locate my Master
Holiday List. I think it was 2 weeks or so however.


-------
CHARLES HOPE   A54SI@CUNYVM   A54SI@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
GOVERNMENT BY REPORTERS...MEDIA-OCRACY.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84146
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion


In article <f2dutxH@quack.kfu.com>, pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr20.144825.756@ra.royalroads.ca> 
|> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
|> >If one does not follow the teachings of Christ, he is NOT Christian.  
|> >Too easy?  
|> 
|> That would exclude most self-proclaimed "Christians." 
|> Do you follow the Ten Commandments?

As a matter of fact, yes I do or at least I strive to.  I will not
be so proud as to boast that my faith is 100%.  I am still human
and imperfect and therefore, liable to sin.  Thankfully, there is
opportunity for repentence and forgiveness.

God be with you,

Malcolm Lee  :)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84147
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?
From: "Casper C. Knies" <ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET>


Isaac Kuo (saackuo@spam.berkeley.edu) writes:

#In article <93109.231733ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET> "Casper C. Knies" <ISSCCK@BYUVM#.B
#>Gedaliah Friedenberg (friedenb@maple.egr.msu.edu) writes:
#>As a Latter-day Saint, I found John's statement *not at all* ludicrous...
#>
#>Please allow me to explain myself.  In 1838, the governor of Missouri,
#>governor Boggs, issued his so-called "Mormon extermination order."  The
#>only crime ("illegal activity") the Latter-day Saints had committed, was
#>their religious affiliation, their anti-slave stance (Missouri still
#>allowed slave practices), and their growing numbers/influence in Missouri.
#>
#>I guess the Mormons "got what they deserved," because they refused to bow
#>to the will of (corrupt and evil) secular authorities. This "disobedience"
#>brought upon them persecution, murder, and finally forced expulsion from
#>their lands and settlements...
#
#It is significant to remember that these secular positions were held by
#"average" people, and that at the time, almost all Americans were pretty
#homogeonously Christian. It was largely the mainstream Christian's disgust
#at such practices as polygamy which resulted in their irrational hatred.

True, but that is exactly the "problem": the Mormon extermination order
was issued not just by a Christian, it was ALLOWED under the Constitution
of the United States, which was instituted precisely to prevent incidents
like this "order" from occurring in the first place...  As I indicated in
an earlier posting, your "irrational hatred" is clearly evidenced by
individuals like Robert Weiss (who could have been Gov. Boggs' Lieutenant;
he would have fitted right in, drewling et al), and seems a modern-day
occurrence, based on results (slander, persecution, misrepresentation,
lies, denying Mormons representation in their own user group, etc. etc.

In intent and purpose, what really has changed?

#The situation is not entirely different today.  Many irrational feelings
#and beliefs are justified through religion.  I don't think most of them
#are started because of religion, but religion certainly helps justify and
#perpetuate prejudices and practices by providing a neat justification
#which discourages critical thought.

True, as evidenced by numerous examples, as I am sure you're aware.

#>In any regard, Mormon history alone indicates that secular authorities (and
#>I don't even discuss how Uthan's were suckered into allowing part of their
#>lands in becoming nerve-gas and atomic bomb testing grounds...) is far from
#>being trusted or righteous.  Have things really changed for the better?  I
#>may be a born cynic, but I have NO reason whatsoever that such has been the
#>case. In the early 1980s, I believe, the late President Kimball (lds church
#>leader) strongly protested federal attempts to locate the MX-"Peace Keeper"
#>missile maze from being built in Utah (yet another "inspired" decision from
#secular authorities).  Fortunately, his opposition was influential enough
#for the feds to back off.
#
#Do you mean that the "secular authorities" are some continuous group of
#people with the common and uninterrupted goal of harrassing/eradicating the
#Mormons?  Do you honestly believe that the main reason for using Utah for
#nuclear testing etc.. was to "get them thar Mormons"?  And what about the
#majority of Uthan's who aren't Mormons?  You seem to be searching for enemy
 ^^^^^^^^
(Correction: the majority of Utahn's ARE Mormon (60-70% I believe, up to a
 100% in many cities and settlements throughout the Western states.)

#conspiracies.  It is paranoid to believe that everything that affects you
#badly must have been done primarily for that purpose.

What I mean is that secular authorities are to be watched, as we believe
that Satan has been given some power and dominion over the earth to divert
truth, judgment, and justice.  In addition, we believe that the adversary
has power to influence the unjust and idolatrous (greed for money would be
a good example) in order to bring about persecution, war, oppression, and
evil combinations.  As an intelligent being, don't you suppose that the
destroyer would yield his influence foremost on those with political power?

As far as Utah is concerned, what I pointed out were some horrible examples
of environmental nightmares imposed upon by secular authorities, which have
brought death, disease, (i.e. the "downwinders") and environmental contami-
nation.  I am hardly "paranoid," I am just not "expecting" too much from a
secular government that may not share our values and faith, and which indeed
(as Gov. Boggs et al.) may be out to harm and destroy us.  As a matter of
fact, prophecies in my church indicate that in future years, (global)
persecution against Mormons will so increase in intensity and scope, that
(paraphrasing) "all those who wish to escape persecution and murder must
flee to Zion."  Zion (the "pure in heart") will be re-established in those
days, and it AIN'T our current secular authorities who will rule over it...

#>...  David Koresh did NOT pose a great
#>threat to the federal authorities or the security of this nation, and with
#>John, I too wonder who or what's next...
#
#I personally feel that we should try to stop anyone who is a threat to the
#life of even one person.  Sure, he did not pose a threat to the security of
#this nation.  But he did pose a threat to the lives of his followers.  That
#much is definite.

Hmmm.  "definite" by whom?  --Until such has been established beyond reason-
able doubt, this alleged "threat" may have been less than the "threat"
imposed upon him and his followers by the BATF and FBI...

#>Who killed who?  What constitutional right did the ATF officers have to
#>invade upon private land and to force themselves into the compound?
#>What REALLY caused the "murder" of the little children?  Could it be that
#>the ATF/FBI presence has any bearing upon the events?  How would you
#>interpret the Mt. Masada events?  --Blame the Jews?  (What the heck did
#>the Romans do there anyway?  What business did the ATF/FBI has in Waco,
#>Texas???)  The Branch Davidians NEVER posed any threat to society.
#
#This is like asking who REALLY caused the deaths of the Israeli Olympic
#team in 1976?  In that case, the police botched the job as well.  But to
#lay a heavier burden on them than the terrorists would be a terrible
#mistake.  I think the same sort of reasoning applies in this case.
#Certainly, if David Koresh chose any peaceful option, the ATF and FBI
#would have complied.  The responsibility is more his than the authorities.

Come now, at issue is in how much the authorities escalated an otherwise
peaceful stand-off: "let's get it over with, and "force" David Koresh to
come out???"  --By gassing them???  Were they naive, or what?  They played
right into the hands of an apocalyptic-thinking individual (he had prepared
his people for this eventuality for years), and not *one* firetruck or plan
was in place to deal with this scenario???  I feel that the authorities
had "some" responsibility to protect their own citizens, even if they were
religious zealots, and guilty of ... not paying a $200 gun license???
(Has the BATF become an extension of the local tax-collectors?)

#>David Koresh, no doubt, will be described as the "evil" guy (by the
#>executioners), while the actions of all those "valiant and brave" officers
#
#Characterizing the ATF/FBI as executioners is inaccurate and unfair.  In
#order to be an executioner, the least one must have done is have the intent
#to kill.

Que?? --Intrusion into private property with semi's, loaded with life
ammunition, isn't that implicit "intent (or at least "prepared") to kill"?
I ask you, would the BATF warrant stand up in a civil court of justice?
I do not mind if criminals (such as dangerous drug lords) are brought to
justice, but escalating events to the point of allowing to, if not compli-
city with, the destruction of a people?

#--
#*Isaac Kuo (isaackuo@math.berkeley.edu)                   *        _____
#*"How lucky you English are to find the toilet so amusing.* ______//_o_\\__
#* For us, it is a mundane and functional item.  For you,  *(==(/___________
#* the basis of an entire culture!" Manfred von Richtofen  * \==\/         \


Casper C. Knies              isscck@byuvm.bitnet
Brigham Young University     isscck@vm.byu.edu
UCS Computer Facilities

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84148
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?
From: <ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET>


Dan Sorenson (viking@iastate.edu) writes:

#In <mcclaryC5snpq.KB1@netcom.com> mcclary@netcom.com (Michael McClary)
#writes:
#        Just thought I'd clear up a few of the murky areas...
#
#>Actually, after surviving being driven out of Nauvoo, and later Carthage,
#>the Mormons DID fortify Utah.  They still arm themselves to "defend the
#>faith", and stockpile food as well.  They have been involved in quite a
#>lot of illegal activity - including multiple (and often underage) wives
#>for the leaders - a practice still in vogue with some splinters of their
#>sect.  The parallels between Koresh and Joseph Smith are striking.
#                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^

By "they," you mean the leaders of the lds church?  I grant you that when
Joseph Smith was still alive, plenty of "accusations" were filed, most of
which had little bearing with reality, as evidenced by various verdicts.
I have studied lds history for 15 years now, and I have yet to see prove
that the lds leadership was involved, in quote: "illegal activities."
Plural marriage, yes, but your charge of "underage" wives sounds like it
could have originated from a tabloid, and discredits the high moral
standards which characterized these leaders and families, unlike, as it
appears, those of David Koresh.

#        Joseph Smith started the sect.  After he and his brother Hyram
#were murdered in a Nauvoo, Il. jail cell, church membership split over
#who to follow.  Initially, Smith was considered a prophet (just like
#Mohammed, a rather interesting parallel considering Muslims consider
#Christ to be a prophet the same as Jews, I'm led to understand.  Make
#no mistake, this was no messiah we're talking about in Smith).  The

And neither did he claim he was.  As the church reflects the moral
aptitude of its leaders (and especially those of Joseph Smith), I have
nothing but the highest respect for this inspired man, whose only "crime"
was that he refused to deny that he had seen a vision...  Many have tried
to explain the "Smith phenomenon" away, but the bold presence of an 8.5
million member strong church stands as a witness that Joseph Smith's
testimony had enough resilience and power to carry on the message.

#thought at the time was that the gift of prophecy was to be handed
#down father to son.  After Joseph Smith died, his son was only
#entering his teens.  Brigham Young and a few others claimed to have
#been bequeathed the gift and leadership prior to his death.  The
#Council of Twelve, the Church governing body, wasn't of much help
#here, and this basic conflict is still a wedge between the sects.
#Brigham Young took his followers to Salt Lake.  The rest waited
#for Smith Jr. to grow up enough to assume leadership.  The other
#claimants to the leadership were soon ignored, like Mike Dukakis. ;-)

"The rest" were apostates and excommunicated members of the Church,
while the great majority of the membership, the Twelve, and the various
auxiliary organizations, chose to accept Brigham Young as the new
prophet and leader of the Church.  If you knew your lds scriptures and
doctrine, you would have known that Brigham Young was the FIRST in
line to fill the prophet Joseph Smith's vacancy: he was the senior
apostle in the Quorum, and various comments made by Joseph indicated
that it was Brigham who would lead the latter-day exodus to the West.

Other rightful "heirs" were either dead (Hyrum Smith) or excommunicated
(Oliver Cowdery), and while persecutions abounded and intensified,
Joseph Smith had already given orders to look for a new place, an empty
land beyond the boundaries of the United States (at that time).  This
"Rekhabite" principle (pseudographia) was well understood and antipated
by the great majority of lds faithful, and was not questioned by them.

Granted, a couple of "do-it-yourselfers" stayed behind, unwilling to
sacrifice and to undertake the perilous journey to the unknown, but
this also was necessary to separate the tares from the wheat.  The
church benefitted from this purification process: they became even
more unified and willing to carry out their mission to the world.

#        Both sects practiced the "1-year food stockpile" doctrine,
#and this being frontier and farming country most carried or at
#least owned weapons.  There is little evidence that they were a
#militaristic sect, given that they tended to move on rather than
#face large-scale opposition.  Brigham Young, having suffered a
#great deal getting to Salt Lake, seems to have been quite
#justified in making military training a good thing.  Remember,
#this was far beyond where even the US Army went, and these people
#had nobody to turn to save themselves.
#
#        Just a little context to put this all in perspective.

BTW, since when is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (one of
the largest denominations in the country) a "sect"???  It didn't "splinter"
from any other religion, as did say, the Southern Baptists or Methodists.

#>So what did the Mormons get?  It seems that J. Edgar Hoover was very
#>impressed with the way they kept secrets.  (They're pledged to defend
#>secrets with their lives and atone for sin with blood.  Many actually
#>do - even to the point of suicide.)

What a balloney.  Suicide is sinful and against the law of God.  I am
not comfortable with this alleged "cosiness" with Mammon: I assure you
that *many* among us reject this attitude categorically.  Period.  Our
ONLY true allegiance is to our God and to the leaders which He has
appointed to represent Him.  In any regard, to read this TRASH (about
suicide and "atone for sins with blood") is yet another insulting
misrepresentation of what my church believes in and stands for...

#
#        The RLDS, the Reorganized LDS, are friendly rivals of the LDS
#and delight in telling stories about them, which generates quick retorts
#from the LDS members and everybody has a grand time.  At no time have
#I ever even heard this hinted at.  I'm taking it with a salt block.

Make it a really big salt mountain with a glacier on top.

#>  So he hired virtually no one but
#>Mormons, until the FBI was almost exclusively staffed by members of the
#>Church of Later Day Saints.  Though J. Edgar is finally gone, the FBI
#>personnel (especially the field agents) are still heavily Mormon.
#>I have often wondered how this might affect the FBI's treatment
#>of religious organizations a Mormon would consider heretical.

Preposterous.  Even if this were true (reliable data, please), I
am convinced that those officers would perform to the highest codes
of honor and conduct (that's why they were selected for in the
first place, remember?).  Besides, one of our Articles of Faith
STRONGLY states the principle of freedom of religion, and that all
people are free to worship "*how*, *where*, or *what* they may."

#        If it's true, there would be little affect.  LDS and RLDS
#philosophy is that all other religions have strayed from the true
#Church as set down by Jesus, but that God will judge each on his
#own merits.  In addition, the RLDS also contend (and the LDS may
#as well) that ignorance of the True Way (tm) is an excuse.  You
#can only be condemned if you had been tought the way and rejected
#it.  In short, LDS and RLDS suffer everybody from Lutherans to
#Buddhists, secure in the knowledge that though they are wrong they
#will not be penalized for ignorance.  It is more likely that Hoover
#liked them because of their rather strict upbringings which forbade
#alcohol, tobacco, hot drink (like coffee or tea), and the like.
#These people are the "salt of the Earth" and as such are more
#easily made to follow orders and have few vices to be used against them.

A good explanation, I can accept that.  You are right that lds people
are sometimes a little too cosy with Mammon's "orders" (the late
president Kimball, for example, was an exception with his strong
opposition of the selection of the MX "Peace Keeper" missile maze
in Utah).

#        That's my somewhat educated guess, anyway.  Both sects have
#splinter groups that don't mirror the masses, but these are small
#and rare, and hardly worth noting their common ancestry.
#
#        None of this has any relevance to guns, though.  When a
#man's religion is used to deny him the right of self-protection with
#the weapons suitable for the job, he'll find an ally in me.
#
#< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
#<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
#<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
#<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >


Casper C. Knies              isscck@byuvm.bitnet
Brigham Young University     isscck@vm.byu.edu
UCS Computer Facilities

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84149
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <1993Apr21.164554.1@ccsua.ctstateu.edu>, parys@ccsua.ctstateu.edu writes:
> I told some friends of mine two weeks ago that Koresh was dead.  The FBI and
> the BATF could not let a man like that live.  He was a testimonial to their
> stupidity and lies.    
> 
	[...deleted...]

Unfortunately, I think you've got it figured pretty well.  I also ask
myself the question "Why did they plan for so many months.  Why was
this so important to them?  What was the government really up to?
Why did they seal the warrant?  Were they after Koresh or were they after      
the first and second amendments, among others?

> 
> We waited 444 days for our hostages to come home from Iran.  We gave these
> people 51 days.  
> 
-- 
 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
 Joe Gaut                    |   In the super-state, it really does not
 <f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> |   matter at all what actually happened.
     Remember the Alamo      |   Truth is what the government chooses to 
       Remember Waco         |   tell you.  Justice is what it wants to happen.
                                        --Jim Garrison, New Orleans, La.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84150
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <bskendigC5rCBG.Azp@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>They used a tank to knock a hole in the wall, and they released
>non-toxic, non-flammable tear gas into the building.

How do you know? Were you there?

While obviously Koresh was a nut case, the (typical) inability of the
government/media to get its story straight is quite disturbing. On
tuesday night, NBC news reported that the FBI did not know the place
was burning down until they saw black smoke billowing from the
building. The next day, FBI agents were insisting that they saw Davidians
setting the fire. The FBI was also adamantly denying that it was possible
their battery of the compound's wallks could have accidentally set the
blaze, while also saying they hadnt been able to do much investigating
of the site because it was still too hot. So how did they KNOW they
didnt accidentally set the fire.

Sounds like the FBI just burned the place to the ground to destroy
evidence to me.


--
Legalize Freedom

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84151
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <sandvik-190493200323@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>I'm mostly angry why the Davidians didn't spare the children the
>awful suffering. See my other posting, I'm in a bad temper.

Well, dozens of children left the compound between the original BATF assualt
and the FBI assault 7 weeks later. So if Koresh really wanted to kill
children, why did he let so many go?


--
Legalize Freedom

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84152
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: That Kill by Sword, Must be Killed by Sword

In article <sandvik-190493201048@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>
>So are you happy now when 70+ people, including innocent kids,
>died today?

No, and Im especially unhappy that these 70+ people died in an assault
on private property with government armored vehicles.

I am also unhappy (or actually, very suspicious) that the FBI was dismissing
out of hand any chances that they might have accidentally set the blaze 
themselves. I mean, I guess we are just supposed to believe that
ramming modified tanks into the walls of a building and injecting
toxic gases into the building are just routine procedures, no WAY
anything could go wrong.


--
Legalize Freedom

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84153
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <visser.735284180@convex.convex.com> visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:

>	Please get an explaination of exactly what this "non-toxic" tear
>gas was and what the delivery system was.  I refuse to believe any 
>explaination provided by the FBI/ATF without lots of facts.
>
>	I do not believe that there is such a thing as "non-toxic" tear
>gas.
>

You are correct. See today's (4/21) Washington Post. The gas the
FBI used is most certainly fatal in high concentrations. Of course,
non-toxic tear gas is an oxymoron; the whole point of tear gas is
that it is toxic, and its toxic effects cause people to seek
fresh air.

--
Legalize Freedom

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84156
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick
From: <A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>

In article <ss.113@apmaths.uwo.ca>, ss@apmaths.uwo.ca (SULTAN SIAL) says:
>
>In article <93111.195217A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET> <A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>
>[stuff about Mithras deleted]
>
>>Oh, His B-day was 25 Dec. Ahem.
>
>I thought that Saturnalia was celebrated by the Romans at that time.  Was
>Mithras connected with this?
>

Rome was under attack by barbarians, they sent for advice to some Oracle,
and she said Worship Cybele and you'll be saved. They did, they were.

Cybele was the quintessential wiccan goddess, there was Her and her son &
lover, Attis. Yucky idea if you ask me. OK the book says she was Phrygian,
from the neolithic matriarchal society Catal Huyuk (Turkey). Worshipped 1st
as Black Stone (that Kaaba in Mecca ring a bell maybe????) Carried to Rome
in 205BC to save them from Hannibal.

It gets more interesting. Romans called her Great Mother (Magna Mater),
could be the reason why so many of those Mary statues in Europe are black,
prob. IS connected to that Ka'aba they've got in Mecca, 3rd cent. AD She was
supreme Goddess in Lyons, France . . . Attis was castrated and formed into
a pine tree . . . she should be worshiped on 25 Mar . . . in Rome it was
an ecstatic cult, her priests wore drag, worked themselves up in dance and
castrated themselves in order to initiate to her, lived their lives as women.
They wore make up and jewelry and the whole bit.

Wow.

Only other such primitive transsexualism I know of goes on in India (where
else?) where they do that castration thing under some meditation maybe, I
forget by now...there's a book on that.)

Of course, that excepts that weird Russian / Romanian 18th cent. Xian cult
that did all kinds of self-castration too, I forget their name.
-------
CHARLES HOPE   A54SI@CUNYVM   A54SI@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
GOVERNMENT BY REPORTERS...MEDIA-OCRACY.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84157
From: edmahood@infoserv.com (Ed Mahood, Jr.)
Subject: Re: Greek myth and the Bible

In <Pegasus-130393124328@fp1-dialin-7.uoregon.edu>, Pegasus@AAA.UOregon.EDU (Laurie EWBrandt)  wrote:
> 
> [irrelevant inserts from previous postings deleted]
> 
> A definiation from a text book used as part of an introductory course in
> social anthorpology "The term myth designates traditionally based, dramatic
> narratives on themes that emphasize the nature of humankind's relationship
> to nature and to the supernatural. ...  legends are ususally defined as
> tales concerning other times and places that do not give the same extensive
> emphasis to supernatural themes. Legends, more often than myths, are retold
> purely as entertainment." from Peter B. Hammand's .An introduction to
> Cutural and Social Anthropology. second ed Macmillion page 387. This makes
> the Bible a Fibber Magee's closet, over stuffed with a little bit of every
> thing gleened by a wandering people.
> Pegasus 

     Now doesn't this sound a lot like the "colorful (or otherwise) story 
     from antiquity that somehow tries to (or does) explain natural pheno-
     mena"?  I think I hear what you're saying, but I'm not convinced that
     I know what you mean.  The possibility exists that what _looks_ like
     "myth" on the surface may be after all much more than "just" a story.
     
      

     * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     ed mahood, jr.  < edmahood@infoserv.com >

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84158
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Hitler - pagan or Christian? (Was: Martin Luther...)

In article <9c9e02703ak901@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> 
czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:
>In article <93074.033230KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET> KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
>>The Irish have their version of the swastica called St. Brigid's cross.
>There's also the three-legged symbol of the Isle of Man.

The three-legged symbol is a bit different, there is a word for them but
I can't recall it, tri something, trieskalon?, don't know. These have
more to do with the triple goddess in her three phases as reflected in
females: girl-woman-crone.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84159
From: cutter@gloster.via.mind.org (cutter)
Subject: Re: That Kill by Sword, Must be Killed by Sword

sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> 
> And I find is extremely discusting to talk about politically
> incorrect actions, and forget the actual tragedy. Think,
> imagine your eight month old son dying in flames...
> 
> Kent
> ---
> sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

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


---------------------------------------------------------------------
cutter@gloster.via.mind.org (chris)     All jobs are easy 
                                     to the person who
                                     doesn't have to do them.
                                               Holt's law

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84164
From: merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93 God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>In article <bskendigC5Ku3C.6Dx@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>I've asked your god several times with all my heart to come to me...

>Brian K., I am pleased with your honesty.  And to be honest as well, I
>believe you have not asked my god to come to you.  Why do I say this?

Because that would contradict your religious beliefs; therefore,
you feel more comfortable simply accusing his sincerity, so you will
not have to critically examine your religious beliefs.

---
Merlyn LeRoy

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84165
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: 17 Apr 93   God's Promise in Luke 11:28


	But he said,
	Yea rather,
	blessed are they
	that hear the word of God,
	and keep it.

	Luke 11:28

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84169
From: jeffjc@cs.mcgill.ca (Jeffrey CHANCE)
Subject: Peace Run '93


                     Welcome to the Peace Run

                     You're invited to join in
                     a Global Relay Run... and
                     help light the Way.



                     ----  Why the Peace Run  ----

There's a new spirit in the Nineties: a spirit of oneness, a growing
belief in the possibility of true global peace.

The goal of the Sri Chinmoy Oneness-Home Peace Run is simple: to
bring this spirit forward in a concrete way, to transform it into
a reality in their own lives.

Every other year, thousands of men, women and children from more
than 70 nations - passing a flaming Peace Torch from hand to hand -
join together in a relay run that virtually circles the globe.
Transcending political and cultural boundaries, they go from
nation to nation - across mountains, jungles and deserts - carrying
the message of brotherhood to all humankind.

Each person who holds or runs with the Peace Torch lights a path
for those who follow. Each time the Peace Torch changes hands, the
flame of oneness burns a little brighter - until one day it will
shine in the hearts and minds of every individual on earth.


		    ----  Making History  ----

The three Peace Runs since 1987 have achieved some historic break-
throughs: in the Middle East, a landmark run crossed the Egyptian-
Israeli border; in Europe, a precedent-setting run linked Eastern
and Western Europe with Russia; in the United States, Mexico and
Canada, entire cities were dedicated to the cause of world peace;
and in Poland, the Peace Torch was blessed by Pope John Paul II.


		 ----  Speaking as One: World  ----
             ----  Leaders, Celebrities - and You  ----

The Peace Run has won the support of leaders the world over -
Presidents, Prime Ministers, religious leaders, sports figures and
entertainment personalities.

Its message has spread to a half billion people though newspaper
reports, magazine articles and radio and TV broadcasts, including
specials on PBS, MTV and NBC's Today Show.

> "I am happy to support your Peace Run for justice, peace and
reconciliation. The world must know that God wants us to live
amicably as brothers and sisters, members of one family, the human
family, God's family."  - Archbishop Desmond Tutu,
			  Nobel Peace Prize Winner


		   ----  How It All Works  ----

Peace Run 1993 started with a five-borrough relay in New York
City on Saturday April 17, converging at various points to lead
up to the opening ceremony outside the United Nations Dag
Hammarskjold Building. There, runners from around the world
were gathered for the fourth lighting of the Peace Torch.

From there, Peace Torches are now being transported to over
seventy countries for a series of concurrent international or
cross-country relay runs including the United States, Canada,
Japan, Australia, Russia and Eastern and Western Europe. Smaller
runs will take place in the Philippines, Mexico, Israel, South
America, Egypt and elsewhere in Africa. Distance to be covered:
31,000 miles.

>"The Peace Run wil do much to inspire the hearts and stimulate
the minds of those who support, participate in, witness, or hear
about the event."  - Carl Lewis,
                     Six-Time Olympic Gold Medalist


                  ----  Who's Behind It  ----

The Peace Run is sponsored by the Sri Chinmoy Marathon Team, an
international running organization that believes sports can be a
powerful instrument for promoting world peace. Each year the Team
puts on hundreds of athletic events, including several world-class
ultramarathons, marathons and triathlons, in dozens of countries.

The Peace Run itself is inspired by the global peace ambassador
Sri Chinmoy, who has written and lectured extensively on peace,
offered hundreds of free peace concerts and met with countless
world figures to advance the cause of international harmony.

The Run is managed by Peace Runs International, a non-profit
organization based in the United States.


               ----  Take a Step For Peace  ----

The Peace Runs in 1987, 1989 and 1991 attracted nearly half a
million participants. We're expecting even more people to join
Peace Run '93.

You can also join the Run - carrying the Peace Torch a few steps,
a few blocks or a few miles. Or you can come out and cheer the
runners as they carry the Torch through your community.

You can also join local celebrities and government officials in
one of the thousands of welcoming ceremonies scheduled along the
70-nation route.

Your inner support is important too. If you're a runner, each time
you go out, you can dedicate your run to the cause of world peace.


		 ----  The Next Step is Yours  ----
		 ----  Make It One For Peace  ----


For information contact:
Peace Runs International
161-44 Normal Road
Jamaica, NY 11432 USA
tel. 718/291-6637  Fax: 718/291-6978

Peace Run Canada
2456 Agricola Street
Halifax, Nova Scotia  B3K 4C2
tel. 902/425-1174  Fax: 902/420-0773

or for the phone number or address of
a Peace Run office in your town or country,
reply to this message by e-mail.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84170
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin
From: rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota)

In article <1quim9INNem8@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
>
>
>rfox@charlie.usd.edu writes:
>
>>Bill, I have taken the time to explain that biblical scholars consider the
>>Josephus reference to be an early Christian insert.  By biblical
>scholar I mean
>>an expert who, in the course of his or her research, is willing to let
>the
>>chips fall where they may.  This excludes literalists, who may
>otherwise be
>>defined as biblical apologists.  They find what they want to find. 
>They are
>>not trustworthy by scholarly standards (and others).
>
>I've seen this claim about the "Josephus insert" flying around the
>net too often to continue to ignore it.  Perhaps it's true.  Was
>there only one Josephus manuscipt?  If there were, say, 100 copies,
>the forger would have to put his insert into all of them.  By the
>same token, since Josephus was a historian, why are biblical scholars
>raising the flag?  Historical scholars , I would think, would have
>a better handle on these ancient secular documents.  Can you give 
>researchers documents (page numbers, etc)?
>
>Jack

I became aware of the claim years ago.  So I decided to check it out, on my
own.  But, then, that was in BN times (Before Net).  So, here are some 
references.  See Robin Lane Fox's _The unauthorized version_, (p.284) where 
Lane Fox writes, "... the one passage which appears to [comment on Jesus' 
career] is agreed to be a Christian addition."

In my Re:Albert Sabin response (C5u7sJ.391@sunfish.usd.edu) to Jim Lippard (21
April 93), I noted that consensus is typically indicated subtly as in Elaine 
Pagel's _The gnostic gospels_ (p.85), to wit:  "A comment *attributed* to
Josephus reports ... [emphasis mine]".  Scholars sometimes do not even mention
the two Josephus entries, another subtlety reflecting consensus.

So far as I can deduce, today's consensus is built on at least three things: 
1) the long passage is way out of context, 2) Origen did not know about the
long passage, and 3) the short and long passages are contradictory. 
I don't know the references wherein the arguments which led to consensus are
orginally developed (does anyone?).

Biblical scholars as I defined them include theologians and historians.  The
former, like the latter, incorporate historical, social, technological and
ideological contexts as well as theology.  So the distinction is blurred.  I 
didn't elaborate on that.  Sorry.  (In turn, historians are compelled to
incorporate theology).

Can't say about the number of copies.  These were, however, BG times (Before 
Gutenburg).  A hundred first editions seems exceedingly high; counting on one 
hand seems more reasonable.  Perhaps those mss. without the long insert (if any,
because anything is possible) have been destroyed.  Such a practice is 
certainly not foreign to religions.  Anyway, all we have are mss. which have 
the two entries.  Lippart (in the message noted above) talks about an Arabic 
ms.  But here the ms. date is critical.

:-)

Rich Fox, Anthro, Usouthdakota

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84174
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Abortion

In <18275.459.uupcb@ozonehole.com> anthony.landreneau@ozonehole.com (Anthony Landreneau)  writes:
>To: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
>From: anthony.landreneau@ozonehole.com
>
>LM>>  >>The rape has passed, there is nothing that will ever take that away.
>LM>>
>LM>>LM>True.  But forcing her to remain pregnant continues the violation of
>LM>>LM>her body for another 9 months.  I see this as being unbelievably cruel.
>LM>>
>LM>>Life is not a "violation".
>
>LM>But forcing someone to harbor that life in their body *is* a violation.
>
>Letting a mother force a child from her body, in order to end that
>childs life is the ultimate violation.

I happen to take the violation of a person much more seriously than the
"violation" of a mindless clump of cells smaller than my thumb.

Your mileage may vary.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84175
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: What we can learn from the Waco wackos


	There are actually a few important things we can glean from this mess:
1)	When they start getting desperate for an answer to the question: "What's
it all about. Mr. Natural?", pinkboys will buy darn near *anything*, which
means:
2)	There's still plenty of $$$$ to be made in the False Jesus business
by enterprising SubGenii.  Just remember that:
3)	Once you've separated the pinks from their green, don't blow it all
on automatic weapons from Mexico.  Put it in a Swiss bank account.  Smile a
lot.  Have your flunkies hand out flowers in airports.  The Con will just
shrug you off as long as:
4)	You never, never, NEVER start to believe your own bulldada!  If
"David Koresh" hand't started swallowing his own "apocalypso now" crap, he'd
be working crossword puzzles in the Bahamas today instead of contributing to
the mulch layer in Waco.  This is because:
5)	When you start shooting at cops, they're likely to shoot back.  And 
most of 'em are better shots than you are.

	In short:
	- P.T. Barnum was right 
		and
	- Stupidity is self-correcting
Thus endeth the lesson.

	************************************************************
	*  	The_Doge of South St. Louis			   *
	*		Dobbs-Approved Media Conspirator(tm)	   *
	*	"One Step Beyond"  -- Sundays, 3 to 5 pm	   *
	*		88.1 FM		St. Louis Community Radio  *
	*  "You'll pay to know what you *really* think!"           *
	*			-- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs"		   *
	************************************************************



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84178
From: jwmorris@netcom.com (John W. Morris)
Subject: Re: What RIGHT ?


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

 Careful there, you make God out to be some spoiled little deity that when
he can't have his way takes his ball and goes home.

Now that you mention it....

Naw... Can't be right, makes sense. 
-- 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| John Morris                                    jwmorris@netcom.com |
| San Diego, CA                    I have no opinion, but if I did...|
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84182
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!

In article <1993Apr21.141714.5576@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:

[Jesus' comments about how Christians have to follow the OT deleted...]

>I will clarify my earlier quote.  God's laws were originally written for 
>the Israelites.  Jesus changed that fact by now making the Law applicable to
>all people, not just the Jews.  Gentiles could be part of the kingdom of
>Heaven through the saving grace of God.  I never said that the Law was made
>obsolete by Jesus.

Exodus 31:12-17.  How many people have you put to death for working on
the Sabbath?

>If anything, He clarified the Law such as in that quote you made.  In the
>following verses, Jesus takes several portions of the Law and expounds upon
>the Law giving clearer meaning to what God intended.  If you'll notice, He
>also reams into the Pharisees for mucking up the Law with their own contrived
>interpretations.  They knew every letter of the Law and followed it with their
>heads but not their hearts.  That is why He points out that our righteousness
>must surpass that of the Pharisees in order to be accepted into the kingdom
>of Heaven.  People such as the Pharisees are those who really go out of their
>way to debate about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
>They had become legalistic, rule-makers - religious lawyers who practiced the
>letter of the Law but never really believed in it.  

Leviticus 17:10.  How as that medium-rare steak last night?

>I think you will agree with me that there are in today's world, a lot of
>modern-day Pharisees who know the bible from end to end but do not believe
>in it.  What good is head knowledge if there is nothing in the heart?

Leviticus 19:19.  What did you wear to work friday?

>Christianity is not just a set of rules; it's a lifestyle that changes one's
>perspectives and personal conduct.  And it demands obedience to God's will.

Deutromony 18:1.  I can you can now justify discrimination.

>Some people can live by it, but many others cannot or will not.  That is their
>choice and I have to respect it because God respects it too.

Right.

>God be with you,

She is.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=                 "Because I'm the Daddy.  That's why."                       =

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84183
From: caldwell@facman.ohsu.edu (Larry Caldwell)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick

In response to: Whitten@Fwva.Saic.Com (David Whitten):

I wrote:

>>There evidently was a feast of bread and wine associated with Mithras.  I
>>have often wondered if Yeshua intentionally introduced this ritual to
>>expand the appeal of his religion, or if it was appropriated by later
>>worshipers.

And you responded:

>You could argue that if you wanted, but I think a more reasonable 
>argument would point out the fact that the remembrance feast was
>very similar to the Pesach (Passover) meal during Seder, a very
>Jewish ritual.

Of course.  The feast WAS the Seder, and the accounts of it are very clear
on this point.

The difference is the connection between the bread and wine and the body
and blood of god.  This is an old association of the Tammuz/Osiris/Mithras
line, and not really related to Judaism.  In any case, I didn't really
intend to argue the point.  I saw a possible association and pointed it
out, but I haven't the foggiest notion what really happened.

-- 
-- Larry Caldwell  caldwell@ohsu.edu  CompuServe 72210,2273
Oregon Health Sciences University.  (503) 494-2232

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84184
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: Burden of Proof

In article <1993Apr21.182030.888@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>Actually, both are positive arguments.  ("Positive" may not be the best
>description here due to possible misunderstanding, but it's the term you
>used.)  Positive arguments/assertions can be both affirmative (i.e. God 
>exists) and negative (i.e. God does not exist).  Both carry an equal 
>burden of proof because they are both asserting that a certain idea
>is true.  The default condition, in the absence of a preponderance of
>evidence either way, is that the proposition or assertion is undecidable.
>And the person who takes the undecidable position and says that he/she
>simply disbelieves that the proposition is true, is the only one who
>holds no burden of proof.  This is why the so-called "weak atheist"
>position is virtually unassailable -- not because it stands on a firm
>foundation of logical argument, but because it's proponents simply
>disbelieve in the existence of God(s) and therefore they hold no burden
>of proof.  When you don't assert anything, you don't have to prove
>anything.  That's where weak atheism draws its strength.  But its
>strength is also its Achilles' heel.  Without assertions/axioms, one
>has no foundation upon which to build.  As a philosophy, it's virtually
>worthless.  IMO, of course.

	So, if I were to assert that there are no thousand year old 
invisible pink unicorns* residing in my walls, I need to support this with 
evidence? I think the _lack_ of evidence shall suffice.


	* Who happen to like listening to satanic messages found in playing 
Beethoven's 45th symphony backwards.
---

        "FBI officials said cult leader David Koresh may have 
         forced followers to remain as flames closed in. Koresh's 
         armed guard may have injected as many as 24 children with 
         poison to quiet them."

        -
        
        "And God saw everything he had made, and, behold, in was very 
         good."

         Genesis 1:31


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84185
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: The fact of the theory

In article <C5u6p5.5nx@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:

[...stuff deleted...]

Andy-- I think we do agree, given your clarification of how we were 
each using the terms fact and theory.  I'll only add that I
think perhaps I feel more strongly about separating them,
though your usage is quite valid.

>Note that the fact of evolution is still a theory.  In other words, it
>could, theoretically, still be falsified and rejected.  But since it's
>so predictive, and so consistently supported by evidence, it seems
>pointless to explicitly try to falsify it anymore.

I'll add here that any falsification or rejection does not in any way
reduce its current usefulness.  So long as it accurately predicts or 
describes things we can observe.

Not to be a pain in the ass, but is there any reason you don't
just say _the theory of evolution_ rather than the _fact of evolution
is still a theory_.  I'm asking because this whole thread got started
because I was bothered by a post that referred to _the fact of evolution_,
basically leaving off the phrase _is still a theory_.  Without a 
clarification, like the one you just gave, just saying _the fact of
evolution_ has a very different meaning to me.
>
>[description of atomic theory, and alternative theories of gravity, deleted]
>>Both are very useful models that 
>>have no religious overtones or requirements of faith, unless of course you 
>>want to demand that it is a factual physical entity described exactly 
>>the way the theory now formulated talks about it.
>
>Here is where you fail to make an important distinction.  You have
>shoehorned the _facts_ of the _existence_ of gravity and atoms and
>evolution into one category with the _theories_ which have been
>proposed to explain the _mechanisms_.  The existence of these things
>is so predictive as to be considered fact.  The mechanisms, on the
>other hand, are still worth discussing.  

I'm not sure I agree here.  Again, it may be because I feel stronger
about separating terms.  I was trying to say that the _theories_
proposed to explain the _mechanisms_ and the _mechanisms_ themselves
are the only realities here.  It is the existence of mechanisms, not 
the things themselves, that are so predictive as to be considered 
fact (as you would say).  There aren't really little planetary particle 
systems called atoms out there.  Or I should say, and more to my original 
point, it would be a leap of faith to say there are, because we observe only 
the mechanisms.  There is no need to _believe_ there are _actually_
atoms out there as we have decided to think about them.  It's enough
to discuss the mechanisms.  At any rate, I'm not sure I am being 
any clearer than before, but I thought it was worth a shot.

The bottom line, though, is I think we agree on two fundamental ideas:

   1. --evolution is a theory supported by observational evidence (my way)
      --the fact of evolution is a theory supported by observational
        evidence (your way)

   2. --creation is just an opinion.  If a theist wants to call it
        a theory then he can.  I won't:  it has no supporting evidence 
	and it neither predicts nor supports any observations that can
        be made.  With no mechanisms to talk about, there really isn't
	much to say.

Do you agree?

-- 
 jim halat         halat@bear.com     
bear-stearns       --whatever doesn't kill you will only serve to annoy you--
   nyc             i speak only for myself





Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84186
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1r3qab$o1v@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <930421.102525.9Y9.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>#frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>#> In article <930420.100544.6n0.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew
>#> <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>#> #This is complete nonsense.  Relativism means saying that there is no absolut
>#> #standard of morality; it does NOT mean saying that all standards of morality
>#> #are equally good.
>#> 
>#> Presumably this means that some moral systems are better than others?
>#> How so?  How do you manage this without an objective frame of reference?
>#

Either Frank O'Dwyer or mathew said:

[...stiff deleted...]

>#Which goes faster, a bullet or a snail?  How come you can answer that when
>#Einstein proved that there isn't an objective frame of reference?

[...stiff deleted...]

Speed is a quantifiable measure resulting from a set of methods that
will result in the same value measured no matter the reference.  A 
bullet with zero velocity sitting on a table on a train moving 60mph
will be moving at a speed of

        (a) 0mph to someone on the train.
        (b) 60mph to someone stationary next to the train.

The reference frame makes the speed relative.  But what's interesting
here is that every person on the train will see a stationary bullet.
Every person off, a bullet moving 60mph.  

I know of no train where all the people on it, every time it is
filled, will see a moral problem in exactly the same way.

-- 
 jim halat         halat@bear.com     
bear-stearns       --whatever doesn't kill you will only serve to annoy you--
   nyc             i speak only for myself





Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84187
From: david@terminus.ericsson.se (David Bold)
Subject: No News Is Bad News

I'm having trouble receiving News at the moment due to an overloaded
News server. I think that I can post out reasonably quickly, though.

I'm in a couple of threads at the moment which may be pending replies.
If anyone wants a reply from me over something I've posted then I
suggest sending an e-mail copy of the point to me so that I can reply by
News.

This is one way to shut me up!!

Cheers,

David.

---
On religion:

"Oh, where is the sea?", the fishes cried,
As they swam its clearness through.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84188
From: kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: Food For Thought On Tyre


There has been a lot of discussion about Tyre.  In sum, Ezekiel prophesied
that the place would be mashed and never rebuilt; as there are a lot of
people living there, it would appear that Ezekiel was not literally correct.

This doesn't bother me at all, because I understand the language Ezekiel used
differently than do so-called Biblical literalists.  For example, it sometimes
happens that someone says "My grandson is the cutest baby!" and then turns
around and sees the granddaughter and says "Oh!  Isn't she the cutest thing!?"

This person is not literally claiming to have lined up all the babies in the
world according to cuteness and discovered his own grandchildren tied for
first.  Rather, he is trying to express his emotions using words that are very
object-oriented.  Because this example is one that is common to many people,
nobody misunderstands the intent of the statements; the Bible, however, is
often at the mercy of people who assume that everything within must be exactly
literally true.  For those people, the existence of Tyre is a problem; for me,
it is not.


Turning to the latest person trying to defend Ezekiel, we read this from
John E King:

> The prophesy clearly implies that people would still be living in the
> area[.]

No, it implies nothing of the kind.  If you had nothing but the prophecy from
Ezekiel, and you were told you interpret it literally, you would never say
"Oh, he means that there will be houses and businesses and plants and stuff
like that."  You would read "I will make you a bare rock" and "You will never
be rebuilt", and you'd conclude that Tyre would be a bare rock.  The only way
to get from `fishing nets' to `houses and buildings and a medium-large
population' is if you KNOW that all that latter stuff is there.

In other words, your answer means that Ezekiel misled everybody who read the
prophecy at the time it was written.  There is no way that, given a literal
reading, they could read this passage and conclude "medium-size city".

You seem to feel that "Never be rebuilt" means "be rebuilt" -- maybe so, but
it is hardly a `clear implication'.


Mr King also writes:

> So far I've seen stated figurers ranging from 15,000 to 22,000.
> Let's assume the latter one is correct.  By modern standards
> we are talking about a one-horse town.

Well, no.  That's only a bit less than the population of Annapolis, where I'm
from.  You know, the Naval Acadamy, the state capital, George Washington
resigned his commission in the statehouse?  Annapolis may not be New York, but
it's at least a two-horse town.

But supposing 22,000 people is a "small town" -- it's still 22,000 people
MORE than Ezekiel predicted.


And you've said nothing about the other problem.  In chapter 26, Ezekiel
predicts that Nebuchadnezzar will will destroy Tyre and loot all their
valuables.  However, Nebuchadnezzar did NOT destroy Tyre, and in chapter 29
Ezekiel even quotes God as saying "he and his army got no reward from the
campaign he led against Tyre."

Let's ignore Alexander for a moment, and just pay attention to chapter 26.
Ezekiel says N. would destroy Tyre, and N. did NOT destroy Tyre.  Ezekiel says
that N. would plunder their valuables, but N. did NOT plunder their valuables.

Regardless of what you think about Tyre _now_, the fact is that N. died before
the place was destroyed.  Ezekiel said N. was going to do it, and N. did not.

 *

This post is, of course, pointless.  Inerrantists have an amazing ability
to rewrite the Bible as needed to fit whatever they want it to say.

For example, I expect Mr King to respond to the comments about Ezekiel 26
by pulling some "clear implications" out of hat.

When Ezekiel said that N. would "demolish your towers", that clearly implied
that the walls would still be standing so people would know where the towers
used to be.  And when Ezekiel said that N. would "demolish your fine houses
and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea", that clearly implied
that N. would never set foot on the island.  And when Ezekiel wrote that N.
would "build a ramp up to your walls", that clearly implies that N. would
spend 13 years stomping around on the mainland and never get close to the
walls.

See?  A few "clear implications" that are totally contrary to the text, and
you can reconcile anything you want.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
"[Do] You know why I'm the enabler?  Because you demand it!" -- Cliff Claven

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84189
From: watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson)
Subject: Re: Koresh Doctrine -- 4 of 4

Question for those of you who seem to be fundamentalists (Stephen
Tice, the Cotera, Joe Gaut, et al)(apologies if I've mislabelled any
of you, I've only started reading t.r.m since the BD disaster.  But I
know the Cotera is a fundy) and are defending Koresh and his beliefs
as an example of True Christianity under persecution from the the Big
Bad Secular State: what is your opinion of his reported sexual habits?
If the reports are accurate, what IYO does this say about the quality of
his Christianity?  Or are the allegations just part of the Big
Cover-Up?

(I remain deliberately neutral on the cause of the fire: I wouldn't
put it past Koresh to have torched the place himself.  On the other
hand, if the propane-tank-accident story is correct, I wouldn't put it
past the FBI to try to cover its ass by claiming Koresh did it.  I
hope your government does a VERY thorough investigation of the whole
debacle, and I'll be disappointed if a few heads don't roll.  The
authorities seem to have botched the original raid, and in the matter
of the fire, are guilty of either serious misjudgement, or reckless
endangerment.)
--
| Steve Watson a.k.a. watson@sce.carleton.ca === Carleton University, Ontario |
|  this->opinion = My.opinion;  assert (this->opinion != CarletonU.opinion);  |
"Somebody touched me / Making everything new / Burned through my life / Like a
 bolt from the blue / Somebody touched me / I know it was you" - Bruce Cockburn

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84190
From: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Subject: Re: Societal basis for morality

In article <merlyn.735422443@digibd> merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>Prayer in school is legal; what is illegal is telling children
>what to pray, or not to pray.  Many people confuse "you can't
>tell kids that they ought to pray now" with "kids aren't allowed
>to pray", possibly because so few kids do so without being told.

Or perhaps it's because they think that all governmental bodies should be in
the business of suppressing all beliefs other than their own, or else they're
some sort of Satanic Humanist Conspiracy.

It's the old "if you're not for us you're against us" bit.

-EMP

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84192
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: To Rob Lanphier

You just don't get it, do you?

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>
>Me:  "Brian K, please step aside before you get run over." 
>BK:  "There is no truck."
>Me:  "Turn around at look."
>BK:  "No."
>Me:  "Look!  You will be healthier if you do take a look at
>     the oncoming truck."
>BK:  "No. Explain to me why trucks exist."
>Me:  "Turn around or you will run over."
>BK:  "No. I won't because I like hiking and tomorrow is Tuesday."
>Me:  "You blind fool!  Why do you choose ignorance? You have nothing
>      to lose if you look.  But if do not look, you will certainly lose your life."
>      I do not want to see you squashed all over the road.
>BK:  "It is my life to lose.  I rather not look.
>      Besides, a truck running over me will not harm me."
>      And by the way, I really have an open mind."

I think the discussion is more like this...

Me: [ happily picking daisies by the side of the road ]
BC: [ dancing on the double yellow broken line ]
    "Come on out and play on the highway!"
Me: "Why?"
BC: "The highway was put here for people to be on.  We must work towards
     fulfilling its purpose."
Me: "But --"
BC: "Look, the highway has been here for several generations.  Look, I
     have a story about how it was actually created by a divine being!
     And several people actually saw Elvis bless it!"
Me: "But --"
BC: "Look, are you going to come out here, or not?"
Me: "But --"
BC: "You probably think that picking daisies is fun.  Well, you're wrong."
Me: "Where in blazes did you get this silly idea that you're supposed to
     be playing on the highway?  You'll get yourself killed!"
BC: "Better to be killed on the highway than to live an empty life off
     of it.  Besides, you're just asking pointless questions.  You know
     you really want to be playing on the highway too; you're just
     denying it."
Me: "If you want to get run over, then fine, but I'd much rather enjoy
     the daisies, if you please."
BC: "Why do you shun me like this?  The Creator of the Highway will flatten
     you with a steamroller if you don't see the light and come join me!"
Me: "Well, if he's gonna be THAT way about it, maybe I want to get as
     far from the highway as I can..."
BC: [ incoherent but quite familiar righteous sputtering ]

Brian C., don't you see?  I do not believe that your god is:

	(a) real, or even

	(b) beneficial.

In fact, I believe your religion is imaginary and, carried to
extremes, harmful.  I would like to help you see its shortcomings, and
perhaps someday finally become strong enough to see it for what it is:
an elaborate lie, kept alive by the elite priesthood to keep the
masses properly submissive to their influences.

Please offer me an argument that's more convincing than "you just
don't believe 'cos you don't want to."  Everything you've said so far
could apply equally to any religion -- why do you believe yours is the
real one?

(Note that saying "it's the only one that promises eternal life" or
something like that isn't an answer to my question, unless you show
that (a) no other religion promises eternal life and (b) it is
unarguably true that eternal life must be a reality.)

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84193
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1r3570$hkv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> In article <1r2ls3$8mo@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> #|> 
|> #|> #This is quite different from saying "Employing force on other people
|> #|> #is immoral, period.   Unfortunately, from time to time we are obliged
|> #|> #to do this immoral thing for reasons of self-preservation, and so
|> #|> #we have to bear the moral consequences of that.
|> #|> 
|> #|> Since both statements, to all intents and purposes, say effectively
|> #|> the same thing, 
|> #
|> #Are you serious?  Two statements, one of which says that use of force
|> #in the given situation is moral, and the other of which says it is
|> #not moral "say effectively the same thing?"
|> 
|> Yes, when you tag on the "Unfortunately, ...", then to all intents and
|> purposes you are saying the same thing.

Then delete the "unfortunately".   Now tell me that the two statement
say effectively the same thing.

And to save everyone a couple of trips round this loop, please notice
that we are only obliged to use force to preserve self.   We can choose
*not* to preserve self, which is the point of pacifism.

|> 
|> #Would you say this of any two statements, one saying "X is moral" and
|> #the other saying "X is immoral?"   How would you decided when two 
|> #statements "X is moral" "X is immoral" actually conflict, and when
|> #they "say effectively the same thing".
|> 
|> What they prescribe that one should do is a pretty good indicator.

And in this case they don't prescribe the same things, so.....

|> 
|> #|>                  and lead one to do precisely the same thing, then 
|> #|> either both statements are doublespeak, or none.
|> #
|> #They might lead you to do the same thing, but the difference is what
|> #motivates pacifism so they obviously don't lead pacifists to to the
|> #same thing.
|> 
|> That's not true.  You could formulate a pragmatic belief in minimum 
|> force and still be a pacifist.  If the minimum is 0, great  - but one is
|> always trying to get as close to 0 force as possible under that belief.
|> Not the same as 'force is immoral, period', but still tending to pacifism.

If you don't think the use of force is immoral, why minimise its use?

jon.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84194
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1993Apr21.141259.12012@st-andrews.ac.uk>, nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson) writes:
|> In article <1r2m21$8mo@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >In article <1993Apr19.151902.21216@st-andrews.ac.uk>, nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson) writes:
> >Just as well, then, that I'm not claiming that my own moral system is
> >absolute.
> >
> >jon.
> >
> >[list of references stretching from here to Alpha Centauri deleted.]
>
> Jon-
>
> [and I thought to impress with my references!]
>
> Ok, so you don't claim to have an absolute moral system.  Do you claim
> to have an objective one?  I'll assume your answer is "yes," apologies
> if not.

I've just spent two solid months arguing that no such thing as an
objective moral system exists.

jon.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84195
Subject: Re: Christians above the Law? was Clarification of pe
From: NUNNALLY@acs.harding.edu (John Nunnally)

> When are we going to hear a Christian answer to this question? 
> 
> In paraphrase: 
> 
> On what or whose authority do Christians proclaim that they
> are above the Law and above the Prophets (7 major and 12 minor) and not 
> accountable to the Ten Commandments of which Jesus clearly spoke His opinion 
> in Matthew 5:14-19? What is the source of this pseudo-doctrine? Who is
> the pseudo-teacher? Who is the Great Deceiver?

OK, here's at least one Christian's answer:

Jesus was a JEW, not a Christian.  In this context Matthew 5:14-19 makes
sense.  Matt 5:17 "Do not think that I [Jesus] came to abolish the Law or
the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill."  Jesus lived
under the Jewish law.  However, He was the culmination of the promises
of the Prophets.  He came to *fulfill* the prophecies and fully obey
God's purposes.

Verse 18 says "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass
away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law,
until all is accomplished."  The key to this verse IMHO is the last 
phrase.  Jesus, as the fulfillment of the law, "accomplished" what the 
Law was supposed to accomplish.  

Verse 19:  "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments,
and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven;
but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the
kingdom of heaven."  Taken in the context of Jesus teaching Jewish 
people about living lives under the law, this makes sense.

In general, it appears that Jesus is responding to some criticism he 
must have received about "doing away with the Law."  That was not 
Jesus' intent at all.  He had come to earth to live the Law as it 
should be lived and fulfill the promises made by God to his 
people all the way back to Eve [Gen 3:15-The serpent will bruise your 
heel, but *He* will bruise his head.]  Jesus appeared to be "doing 
away with the Law" because he did not honor the traditions of men as 
equal to the Law of God.  He regularly locked horns with the religious 
leaders of the day because he would not conform to *their* rules, only 
God's Law.

In the Matthew passage Jesus is defending his dedication to the Law 
and defending himself against his accusors.  Almost the entire Sermon 
on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) is dedicated to helping the Jewish people 
understand the true intent of the Law, sweeping away the clutter which 
had been introduced by the Pharasees and their traditions.

In Galatians 3:23-26, Paul describes the relationship of Jesus to the 
Law in this way:

[23] But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being 
shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.  [24] Therefore 
the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be 
justified by faith.  [25]  But now that faith has come, we are no 
longer under a tutor.  [26] For you are all sons of God through faith 
in Christ Jesus.

I believe this says that after Christ was revealed, the Law had 
served it's purpose, i.e. "our tutor to lead us to Christ," and
now, "we are no longer under a tutor."  The law has been "fulfilled" 
as Christ said he would do.

God, the author of the old Law, and the Christ/Man, Jesus, are the same
personality.  Therefore, the old Law and the new Testament (the "last
will and testament" of Jesus) are based on the same moral principles. 
It makes sense that many of the principles in the old Law are
re-expressed in Christianity. 

On the other hand, now that the Law has fulfilled it's purpose and 
Christians relate to God through Christ, not the Law, it also makes 
sense that new practices and new symbolisms were established to 
represent the "mysteries" of this new relationship.  i.e. Baptism 
representing Christ's death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-8),
The Lord's supper as a memorial to His sacrifice (I Cor. 11:26), and
Sunday as a day of worship commemorating His resurrection (Matt 28:1ff,
Acts 20:7)

OK, That's one Christian's explanation.  I don't claim to have all
these issues completely settled even in my own mind and I welcome
other Christians to offer other alternatives.

Please excuse the long posting.  Thanks for your interest if you have read 
this far...

John Nunnally
Nunnally@acs.Harding.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84196
Subject: Re: ALT.SEX.STORIES under Literary Critical Analy
From: NUNNALLY@acs.harding.edu (John Nunnally)

In <sandvik-170493170457@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com writes:

> In article <1qevbh$h7v@agate.berkeley.edu>, dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis
> Kriz) wrote:
> > I'm going to try to do something here, that perhaps many would
> > not have thought even possible.  I want to begin the process of
> > initiating a literary critical study of the pornography posted on
> > alt.sex.stories, to identify the major themes and motifs present
> > in the stories posted there -- opening up then the possibility of
> > an objective moral evaluation of the material present there.  
> 
> Dennis, I'm astounded. I didn't know you were interested to even
> study such filth as alt.sex.stories provide...
> 
> Cheers,
> Kent
> ---
> sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

"Finally, brethern, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is
right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute,
if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your
mind dwell on these things."  Phil. 4:8.

More cheers,
John
Nunnally@acs.Harding.edu


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84197
From: royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)
Subject: Re: That Kill by Sword, Must be Killed by Sword

In article <sandvik-210493014635@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <C5tCz8.4z9@rbdc.wsnc.org>, royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)
>wrote:
>> In article <20APR199306173611@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>> >In article <sandvik-190493201048@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, 
>> >sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes...
>> ...
>> >>So are you happy now when 70+ people, including innocent kids,
>> >>died today?
>> 
>> 	It's amazing how everyone automatically blames one side or the other.
>> 	One thing for sure:  Koresh will have no chance to defend himself
>> 	against the statements (lacking in fact or COurt sponsored verification)
>> 	made  by agents who participated in the situation that killed him.
>
>Frankly speaking I don't care who started this whole show. I just 
>feel sad about the children that were trapped, and had to die
>for a case that didn't have any reason whatsoever. All Mr. 
>Koresh could have done would have been to release these 19
>children. 

	COuld he?  And the first three that died, when guns ablazing in came
	the BATF and FBI?

	I imagine I would have some trouble giving up my children to
	someone who had just shot -- what -- two of them?

	NB:  It takes two sets of guns in a situation like this.

>
>Yes, I put the blame on Koresh and similar fanatical religious
>leaders that think more about their cause than about keeping

	Fanatical:  those whowill not tolerate another's way of life
	Religious:  Based on emotional, internal, or otherwise
		lacking in commonly defined _scientific_ basis,
		including legal ones, such as this old saw:

			Innocent untilproven guilty

		not
			Innocent until presumed guilty

	Who is the fanatic?  Note who is dead; this usually bespeaks
	a fair bit for the idea that the OTHER side also had lethal
	weapons, used fatally.

		They are dead:  the children.
			At best Koresh was an asshole and the government
			criminally negligent in its hadni\ling of the case.

			At worst, Koresh and his followers were
				innocent
				not brainwashed
				guilty of illegal arms possession
					(as yet unproven)
				and murderedd
				along with 25 children
			They cannot speak for themselves
			Members of the (surviving, alive, and not burned
				to death) BATF/FBI can, and are
				inappropriately
				to the public eye
				outside the bounds of their legal authorities
					read the charter:
					the Constitution specifies that
					the COURTS convict, while the
					enforcement arm INVESTIGATES,
					and that the evidence involved
					shuld not be disseminated in a
					way to harm or injure a party
					involved prior to that action;
					its called slander or libel
					(even where factually true butthen
					distoted or disseminated with intent
					to harm
				for the purpose of covering their butts

			because the bottom line is:
				they SAID they wanted the kids to get out
					alive
				and theFBI, the BATF, Ms. Reno, the Prez,
					and EVERYBODY ELSE IN THIS

						SICK
						SELFSERVING
						GROUP OF UPRIGHT ANIMALS
					that used to be a freedom loving
					peaceful country called

						America:  look up the name,
						it might surprise you
				has turned the "point the finger of blame"
				on the OTHER guy.
			
				and LET THOSE KIDS DIE.

				Note well:  they lived 51 days; they only
				died when attacked by outside force.

			SPock's World, Diane Duane:

				The spear in the heart of another
				is the spear in your own ....

		ALL of us are responsible.

		Iam; you are.  The question is not whether, but how:

			Guess what:  you get to make up your own mind
			on that.

>children out from the war zone. I'm not ashamed of this statement.

	Who created the war zone?  You should be ashamed of bypassing that.
	It's the same damned (Literally) comment made by the folks in
	the former Yugoslavia to justify Ethnic Cleansing:

		"Gee, they had the guns, all they had to do was surrender".

>
>To justify other means does not eliminate the fact that children
>died for a cause that they should not have been part of. 

	Whose "cause" did they die for?  The one where they lived,
	peacibly, to all known purposes (until proven in COurt,
	folks!), or the Cuase of Righteous Government SafeGuarding 
	The Freedom Of The CHildren

		Who are now dead.


	AgainI say:

		I do NOT know who did what
		I was NOT there.
		The FBI leaders show moral SICKness trying to
			convict in the press ahead of schedule
		And you should look over your shoulder,

		becuase if there is anything my ruminations that
		actually  sets onto real fact of what happened

			and I do not know that; I am defending
			people who ahving been burned to death cannot
			speak for themselves

		you may, in 22-5 years, find that the concept in our
		Court system  has gone from

			Due Processss

		to

			Due Profit

		and the BATF come to collect their fair share of the tax
		on the value of your house if you rented it for income

			which is going down now, folks.
			Read Bankruptcy 1995
				Its accurate in figures
				and it bypasses the greedy
					businessman and
					mankers who have
				taken profit from the corruption
				of our govbernment.

			Look to where the money went, folks.

			You  got $10 for medicare that paid a doctor for
			$00.50 worth of medicine.

				This is the customaryprofitmargin
				to businessmen for goernment entitlements.

	Who wll own the land of the cult now?  Note well:  it WAS nonproift,
	religious, and nontaxable.  Large tract of land .... hmmm.

	Use your brains, folks:  it happened Germany, and it can happen
	here.
			4.3 trillion (admitted) and counting....
>
>Kent

royc.

>---
>sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84198
From: royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <bskendigC5rCBG.Azp@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
>>
>>	They cut off the water, there were no fire trucks present
>
>They refused to bring in fire equipment for fear that the firemen
>would be shot at.
>
>>and the FBI/ATF go blasting holes into the builing and firing gas munitions.
>
>They used a tank to knock a hole in the wall, and they released
>non-toxic, non-flammable tear gas into the building.

	Take a second look at "non-toxic, non-flammable":

		MACE (sold tothe public) is supposedly nontoxic.
		Whatthey do not tell you is that if you get mace directly
		on the linings of the lungs (such as a direct snort to
		the face) above certain quantities, it reacts similarly
		to a mustard gas inhalation.

			I know:  my father and grandfather were exposed
			to poison gas in WWI and WWII; Dad went through
			the side effects of any WEAPON, including those
			"non-toxic" aerosols.

		WHat the label ACTUALLY means is ::

			usually, it wont kill you
			it may give you permanent CSS asthsma
			but that's better than blowing a hole in your
				head ...

		ALL aerosols are flammable IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH OXYGEN
		AND HIT IT WITH THE RIGHT IGNITER.  SOme of the most
		non-flammable substances known will BOOM or SEARFLAME
		if you hit it with the right combo.


		Let's take one:  a trash can fire.  Makes black smoke;
		already burned right?  Can't go boom, right?  Wrong.

		Suck that smoke (made up of paper that has carbonized,
		or burned about 35% of the fuel in it) into an air
		conditioning return, mix with about 5:1 air, and light
		a match.  200 feet of conduit is about the same, when
		filled with that smoke mixture, as oh, say 200 pounds TNT

			THAT is why the fire codes say NO OPEN CEILING
			TILES IN BUILDINGS.  Because 3-5 stories of
			a building have blown OUT by "nonflammable _smoke_"

	So:
		Take a little "nonflammable aerosol"
		Mix with gasoline or kerosene fumes

			NO electricity, remeber?  A bit of heating
			on the WACO plains?  Boil water to drink
			since the water was cut off?

		liberally mix and allow to settle for 1-4 hours

		Fumes vent down into the bus underground, and the Davidians
		move the children UPSTAIRS to a saferoom (they had one,
		armor plated, remember?) to BREATH, because kids get sick
		and die from tear gas.

		and along comes a tracer, a spark, what have you:

			everyone burns to death.

Try thinking before opening mouth: it may not have happened the
way the Gmen say it did.

>
>-- 
>_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
>/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
>_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
>  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
> /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84199
From: royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <C5tByD.6zD@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
...
>Hang on you missed the point entirely, they are protesting the lack of
>water because it DEPRIVED Koresh of his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to prove
>his DIVINITY by WALKING on it.

	You can tell, folks, when the man has run out of reason:
	attack the man's beliefs (in legal terminology, argument
	ad hominem:  attack the man, not what he did that has yet to
	be proven illegal)>

>
>
>|>>and the FBI/ATF go blasting holes into the builing and firing gas munitions.
>|>
>|>They used a tank to knock a hole in the wall, and they released
>|>non-toxic, non-flammable tear gas into the building.
>
>You can tell that the gas did not burn because dispite the fact that


	WRONGo.  Remember the fire movie a couple of years ago?
	"Backdraft"?  The scene in the factory with propane gas
	coming out of pipes and gasoline all over the floor,
	with a 750 degree flame front overhead?

		Note that it did not flash all at once?

	Fires ignite and burn unpredictably.
	Gases (like tear gas) mix and distribute unevenly.
		And flash unevenly.

	You are not a fire analyst.  You cannnot tell.
		(NB:  Neither am I.  And I cannot tell
		Nor is the FBI spokesman
		Nor is Reno
		Maybe we all should shut up and get a
			forensics analysis first.

>the building was full of it there was no flash of gas flame.

	Yes,. there was a flash:  in one room, just pumped full of it.,

>
>
>
>Phill Hallam-Baker

royc

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84200
From: royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <1qvv7u$kc1@morrow.stanford.edu> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:
...
>	I think that the consensus will become that FBI/ATF muffed it,
>not merely because they walked into an ambush on Feb 28, and Koresh
>got his prophesy today, against their stated intentions, but because
>they played right into polarizing the situation and not diffusing
>it.
>
>	Koresh had set up all the conditions of a classic cult
>confrontation and had stated publically what the outcome would become.

	Before or after his kids were shot?

>The government upped the ante and parcipitated the conclusion today.
>It does seem that the fires were set from within the compound by the
>members of the group and not caused by the CS gas or the way it was
>delivered. Let the subsequent investigation shed light on that. Suppose

	Then why make the comment?

>that the government had used pyrotechnics and started the fire. The
>Dividians still had the decision to stay or leave. They never intended

	As did the Jews against the Nazis in WW II:  do what I say or die.

>to leave.
>
>>The building burns, almost everyone dies.  It probably doesn't bother
>>you much, but it bothers many other people.....most of whom dont believe
>>particularly in Koresh or his message.


	ALl humans, I hope.

>
>	Yes, the finger pointing has begun.
>
>>	Four ATF agents and 90 branch Davidians are now dead because of
>>crazy tactics on the part of the ATF and FBI.
>
>	Yeah, they blew it. They were being too "rational" in a
>situation that was not your ordianry criminal game. They haven't learned
>that much from Jonestown, or The Move House, or the SLA shootout.

	Or perhaps they have:  kill first, blame the dead ones,
	destroy all the evidence.

>

royc

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84201
From: royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <C5s9CK.2Bt@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>  who would be alive today if they had been released back when we were

	The word "released" is loaded:  until convicted in CXOurt,
	my children are my own.

	WHen the Feds use this type of loaded logic, you cannot win:
		1)  we accuse you
		2) we shoot a couple of your kids
		3)  we blame you for those shots
		4) we harrass you for 51 days
		5) we tell you to come out or die
		6) we gas you
		7) you burn to death
		8)  we blame you (prior to trial) for all of it
>  debating this a few weeks ago.
>
>
>---peter
>
>
>
>
>



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84202
From: royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <keng.735334134@tunfaire> keng@den.mmc.com (Ken Garrido) writes:

[lotsa stuff taken out]

Bottom line: due process was not served.  No peaceful attempt to serve
a warrant occurred.

Think on that.

royc


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84203
From: royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <C5srEw.FCG@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tbrent@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:
...
>Give me a break!  What fireman should have to deal with a blaze like that
>AND get shot at at the same time.

	Nearly all of them.  Witness LA>  Firemen are among our real
	heroes most of the time.  I wonder when they were actually
	aasked to come, or if they found out about the fire over the
	TV ....


	Shot at by whom?  prove it!

>
>These people were breaking the law.  I agree these weren't the best tactics,

	When "law" replaces "justice" the system is dying or dead.
	Note that we had a small revolution 216 years ago on this
	point.

>they probably should have backed off, pulled the perimeter way back, and let
>them sit there with no media attention until they decided to come out.  The 
>only other alternative I see would have been to send in a couple of special
>forces guys to capture or assassinate Koresh.  But remember, these fruit-

	Or perhaps just wait.
	Or maybeeven send in a few agents who are Christian to
		sit down and pray outside the line?  Try affinity
		rather than subversion?


>loops were putting their lives on the lines voluntarily.  Why should 

	Chuckle.  SO would you if someone points a gun at you.
	At that point you can die or live; and if living means
	stayng in a building to keep badge carrying nuts off your
	kids, I suspect you might as well.

BOTH sides were wrong.

>law-abiding citizens have to put themselves in any more danger than necessary
>when dealing with a nut?  Look at the man who jumped out of his Bradley to
>grab a flaming women who was running back into the building.  Yeah, I would
>have to say they were trying to save those people.  I don't think I would 
>risk my life that much to save someone that stupid that obviously didn't
>even want to be saved.

	Try again:  go see the movie Sophie's CHoice.
	Grow up.

>
>-Tim

royc

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84204
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: Ancient references to Christianity (was: Albert Sabin)

In article <C5ztJu.FKx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>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?

	It is not tossed out as a source, but would it be regarded as
unbiased and independant? 


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84205
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <1993Apr22.213142.6964@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> 
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>And we do not end perfect either.  We are never perfect.  Can you name
>one person, young or old, past or present, that you deem perfect? 

Krishna.

BG10:20(Miller) I am the self abiding in the heart of all creatures; I am
their beginning, their middle, and their end.
BG10:32(Miller) I am the beginning, the middle, and the end of
creations, Arjuna; of sciences, I am the science of the self; I am the
dispute of orators.
BG10:41(Miller) Whatever is powerful, lucid, splendid, or invulnerable
has its source in a fragment of my brilliance. (42) What use is so much
knowledge to you, Arjuna? I stand sustaining this entire world with a
fragment of my being.
BG11:32(Miller) I am time grown old ...

I can provide more names of perfect people should just one be insufficient.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84206
From: ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (David Ash)
Subject: Theory on David Koresh 

My theory is that Koresh was seriously wounded in the initial gunbattle
and died on Day 9 of the siege.  On Day 11 of the siege he rose from the
dead and periodically appeared to his followers and the FBI over the
next 40 days.  Living with someone who's risen from the dead isn't easy,
as Timmy Baterman's father in *Pet*Sematary* could attest, so after 40
days they did what Baterman did--shot themselves and burned the place
to the ground.

Consistent with the facts, isn't it?  Did anyone actually *see* Koresh
between Day 9 and Day 11?
-- 
David W. Ash               | "What profits a man if he keeps his eternal soul
ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu |  when he could have lived life to the full and
HOME: (415) 853-6860       |  been forgiven at the end of it all anyway?"
                           |         --David Merritt, a.k.a. THE RED SHARK

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84207
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

Brian Kendig says:

> And since I felt reasonably sure of myself, I decided to start analyzing the
> Bible very closely.  That was the catalyst to my break with my faith,
> though it was a long and difficult effort.

Brian Kendig also declares:

> "Christ" means "chosen", the person chosen to fulfill the prophesies
> of the Old Testament and bring about a new age of hope and spiritual
> growth for mankind.

"Christ" is Greek for "Messiah".  "Messiah" means "Annointed One".
"Annoint" means "to rub with oil, i.e. to anoint; by impl. to
consecrate"     The major prophet Daniel uses the word "Messiah"
in Daniel chapter 9.

How "closely" did you analyze the Bible?  Looks as if you didn't
get past the first word.   So was the catalyst to break your faith the
"priests" who interpreted the Bible for you?   Did you ever do what
the Bereans did to Paul's teachings in Acts 17?  

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84208
From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Subject: Theists And Objectivity

Can a theist be truly objective?  Can he be impartial
     when questioning the truth of his scriptures, or
     will he assume the superstition of his parents
     when questioning? 

I've often found it to be the case that the theist
     will stick to some kind of superstition when
     wondering about God and his scriptures.  I've
     seen it in the Christian, the Jew, the Muslim,
     and the other theists alike.  All assume that
     their mothers and fathers were right in the
     aspect that a god exists, and with that belief
     search for their god.
     
Occasionally, the theist may switch religions or
     aspects of the same religion, but overall the
     majority keep to the belief that some "Creator"
     was behind the universe's existence.  I've
     known Muslims who were once Christians and vice
     versa, I've known Christians who were once
     Jewish and vice versa, and I've even known
     Christians who become Hindu.  Yet, throughout
     their transition from one faith to another,
     they've kept this belief in some form of higher
     "being."  Why?
     
It usually all has to do with how the child is
     brought up.  From the time he is born, the
     theist is brought up with the notion of the
     "truth" of some kind of scripture-- the Bible,
     the Torah, the Qur'an, & etc.  He is told
     of this wondrous God who wrote (or inspired)
     the scripture, of the prophets talked about in
     the scripture, of the miracles performed, & etc.
     He is also told that to question this (as
     children are apt to do) is a sin, a crime
     against God, and to lose belief in the scrip-
     ture's truth is to damn one's soul to Hell.
     Thus, by the time he is able to read the
     scripture for himself, the belief in its "truth"
     is so ingrained in his mind it all seems a
     matter of course.
     
But it doesn't stop there.  Once the child is able
     to read for himself, there is an endeavor to
     inculcate the child the "right" readings of
     scripture, to concentrate more on the pleasant
     readings, to gloss over the worse ones, and to
     explain away the unexplainable with "mystery."
     Circular arguments, "self-evdent" facts and
     "truths," unreasoning belief, and fear of
     hell is the meat of religion the child must eat
     of every day.  To doubt, of course, means wrath
     of some sort, and the child must learn to put
     away his brain when the matter concerns God.
     All of this has some considerable effect on the
     child, so that when he becomes an adult, the 
     superstitions he's been taught are nearly
     impossible to remove.
     
All of this leads me to ask whether the theist can
     truly be objective when questioning God, Hell,
     Heaven, the angels, souls, and all of the rest.
     Can he, for a moment, put aside this notion that
     God *does* exist and look at everything from
     a unbiased point of view?  Obviously, most
     theists can somewhat, especially when presented
     with "mythical gods" (Homeric, Roman, Egyptian,
     & etc.).  But can they put aside the assumption
     of God's existence and question it impartially?
     
Stephen

    _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/       _/    * Atheist
   _/        _/    _/   _/ _/ _/ _/     * Libertarian
  _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/   _/  _/      * Pro-individuality
       _/  _/     _/  _/       _/       * Pro-responsibility
_/_/_/_/  _/      _/ _/       _/ Jr.    * and all that jazz...



-- 

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84209
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: 22 Apr 93   God's Promise in Psalm 34:5


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

	Psalm 34:5

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84210
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: Re: [rw] Is Robert Weiss the only orthodox Christian?

In article <93111.074840LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET>, LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET writes...

Rick Anderson writes:

ra>   Robert, you keep making references to "orthodox" belief, and saying
ra> things like "it is held that..." (cf. "Kermit" thread).  On what
ra> exact body of theology are you drawing for what you call "orthodox?"

     "Orthodox" is a compound word. It comes from 'orthos' (straight, true, 
     right) and from 'doxa' (opinion, doctrine, teaching). I use orthodox to 
     refer to 'right teaching.' Right teaching is derived from letting God 
     speak to us through the Bible. This can be from reading simple truths 
     in the Scriptures and by using the Bible to interpret the Bible.

ra> Who is that "holds that" Luke meant what you said he meant?

     I think that it is apparent from reading the Scriptures that are
     pertinent.

     Luke 23:43 records Christ's promise to the repentant thief who hung on
     an adjacent cross: "Truly I say to you, today you will be with Me in
     paradise." But was it not until later that Christ rose from the dead
     and ascended to heaven? If Christ Himself was not in heaven until
     Sunday, how could the repentant thief have been there with Him? The
     answer lies in the location of "paradise" when Jesus died.

     Apparently paradise was not exalted to heaven until Easter Day.

     Jesus refers to it in the middle of the story of the rich man and 
     Lazarus as "Abraham's Bosom," to which the godly beggar Lazarus was
     carried by the angels after his decease (Luke 16:19-31).  Thus
     "Abraham's Bosom" referred to the place where the souls of the redeemed
     waited till the day of Christ's Resurrection.

     It was not yet lifted to heaven but it may well have been a section of 
     hades (Hebrew: Sheol), reserved for believers who had died in the faith
     but would not be admitted into the glorious presence of God in heaven
     until the price of redemption had actually been paid on Calvary; or
     even that none would precede the presence of Jesus back to glory with
     the Father.

     Doubtless it was the infernal paradise that the souls of Jesus and the
     repentant thief repaired after they each died on Friday afternoon. But
     on Sunday, after the risen Christ had first appeared to Mary Magdalene
     (John 20:17) and her two companions (Matthew 28:9), presumably He then
     took up with Him to glory all the inhabitants of infernal paradise
     (including Abraham, Lazarus, and the repentant thief). We read in
     Ephesians 4:8 concerning Christ: "Ascending on high, He led captivity
     captive; He gave gifts unto men." Verse 9 continues: "But what does `He
     ascended' mean but that He also descended to the lowest parts of the
     earth?" -i.e., to hades. Verse 10 adds: "He who descended is the same
     as He who ascended above all the heavens." Presumably He led the whole
     band of liberated captives from hades (i.e., the whole population of
     preresurrection paradise) up to the glory of heaven.

ra> Whenever your personal interpretation of Biblical passages is
ra> challenged, your only response seems to be that one needs merely to
ra> "look at the Bible" in order to see the truth, but what of those who
ra> see Biblical things differently from you?

     I think that this characterization is faulty. Whenever my 'personal 
     interpretation' is questioned, I usually give a reason.

     As for those that see things differently, please, put forward where
     there is a valid difference, and we can discuss it. 

     I seem to be seeing from you the notion that any difference in how one 
     views the Bible is somehow legitimate, except, or course, for the stuff 
     that I glean from it. Put forward a contrary view and perhaps we can 
     have a discussion on that topic. But to decry something that I put 
     forward, without putting forward something else to discuss, and to 
     dismiss what I put forward while giving credence to other alleged views
     that have yet to be put forward is simply being contentious.

ra> Are we to simply assume that you are the only one who really
ra> understands it?

     If you believe that something that I have drawn from Scripture is 
     wrong, then please, show me from Scripture where it is wrong.  Simply 
     stating that there are other views is not a proof. Show it to me from 
     Scripture and then we can go on.


=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84211
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <1993Apr21.231552.24869@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:
> Kent, I am not accusing you of evil things.  Jesus is accusing you.
> And it is not only you that He is accusing.  He is accusing everyone.
> Me, you and everyone in the world is guilty.  Whether one
> sees the light or does not seen the light has nothing to do with 
> whether we do evil things.  We do them regardless.  

Hmm, it seems that this is the core of Christianity then, you 
have to feel guilty, and then there's this single personality
that will save you from this universal guilt feeling.

Brian, I will tell you a secret, I don't feel guilty at all,
I do mistakes, and I regret them, however I've never had this
huge guilt feeling hanging over my shoulder.

If things happen wrong, I will try to learn from the mistakes
and go on.

This all is a very clear indication that you need a certain
personality type in order to believe and adjust to certain
religious doctrines. And if your personality type is 
opposite, then you are not that easily attached to a certain
world view system.

> So do you see Jesus's point?  Christians are not perfect.  Nonchristians
> are not perfect.  Nonchristians do not want to come into the
> Light of Jesus because they will see all the problems in their lives,
> and they will not like the sight.  It is an ugly thing to see how far
> we have fallen from Jesus's perspective.  Do you think you want to
> know how really ignorant you are?  Do you think Brian Kendig wants
> to know?  Do you think I want to know?  Ego verses the truth,
> which do you choose?

All I know is that I don't know everything. And frankly speaking
I don't care, life is fun anyway. I recognize that I'm not 
perfect, but that does not hinder me from have a healthy
and inspiring life.

There are humans that subscribe to the same notion. The nice
thing is that when you finally shake off this huge burden,
the shoulders feel far more relaxed!

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84212
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: To Rob Lanphier

In article <1993Apr22.003024.25620@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:
> My hope is that Brian will look and will see the ramifications of the
> truck coming towards him.  My hope is that Brian will want to step out
> of the way.  My fear, though,  is that Brian will instead choose to glue himself
> to the middle of the highway, where he will certainly get run over.  But if
> he so chooses, he so chooses, and there is nothing I can do beyond that
> to change his mind.   For it is his choice.   But at this very moment,
> Brian hasn't gotten even that far.  He is still at the point where he
> does not want to look.  Sure he moves his eyeball to appease me, but his
> head will not turn around to see the entire picture.  So far he is
> satisfied with his glimpse of the mountains off in the distance. 


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

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84213
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!

In article <1993Apr21.141714.5576@ra.royalroads.ca>,
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
> |> "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have
> |> not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until


> I will clarify my earlier quote.  God's laws were originally written for 
> the Israelites.  Jesus changed that fact by now making the Law applicable to
> all people, not just the Jews.  Gentiles could be part of the kingdom of
> Heaven through the saving grace of God.  I never said that the Law was made
> obsolete by Jesus.

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

Cheers,
Kent

---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84214
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!

In article <1993Apr21.145336.5912@ra.royalroads.ca>,
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
> And does it not say in scripture that no man knows the hour of His coming, not
> even the angels in Heaven but only the Father Himself?  DK was trying to play
> God by breaking the seals himself.  DK killed himself and as many of his
> followers as he could.  BTW, God did save the children.  They are in Heaven,
> a far better place.  How do I know?  By faith.

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

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84215
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: The Universe and Black Holes, was Re: 2000 years.....

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:

>  Let's say that we drop a marble into the black hole.  It races, ever faster,
>towards the even horizon.  But, thanks to the curving of space caused by the
>excessive gravity, as the object approaches the event horizon it has further to
>travel.  Integrating the curve gives a time to reach the event horizon of . . .
>infinity.  So the math says that nothing can enter a black hole.

This is not correct.  The event horizon is not the "center" of the black
hole but merely the distance at which the escape velocity is equal to the
speed of light.  That is, the event horizon is a finite radius...

keith

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84216
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: The Universe and Black Holes, was Re: 2000 years.....

salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:

>Is this Zeno's Paradox?

No.  Zeno's paradox is resolved by showing that integration or an infinite
series of decreasing terms can sum to a finite result.

>Nothing can get out of a black hole because
>the escape velocity is the speed of light. I don't know how time dialation
>can prevent matter spiraling in from getting to the event horizon. Can any-
>one explain how matter gets in.

Well, suppose a probe emitting radiation at a constant frequency was
sent towards a black hole.  As it got closer to the event horizon, the
red shift would keep increasing.  The period would get longer and longer,
but it would never stop.  An observer would not observe the probe actually
reaching the event horizon.  The detected energy from the probe would keep
decreasing, but it wouldn't vanish.  Exp(-t) never quite reaches zero.

I guess the above probably doesn't make things any more clear, but hopefully
you will get the general idea maybe.

keith

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84217
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <204l02tO40sf01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
=>I don't necessarily agree with Pat Robertson.  Every one will be placed before
=>the judgement seat eventually and judged on what we have done or failed to do
=>on this earth.  God allows people to choose who and what they want to worship.
=
=I'm sorry, but He does not!  Ever read the FIRST commandment?

I have.  Apparently you haven't.  The first commandment doesn't appear to
forbid worshipping other gods.  Yahweh's got to be at the top of the totem
pole, though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84218
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1rdlsf$vi@agate.berkeley.edu>, isaackuo@skippy.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo) writes:
=Hmm.  The police strategy of bursting in with weapons drawn, clearly marked as
=officers and yelling "Police" repeatedly.  This is used every day to bust drug
=houses.  The idea is to awe the suspects into submission with surprise and
=display of firepowere in order to avoid a gun fight.  As for not knocking, it's
=a sad necessity in many cases since the suspects will attempt to escape or even
=fight.  Usually this strategy works; if it didn't, then it wouldn't be used so
=commonly, now would it?

How often is it used when the convoy carrying the brigade is visible for miles
before it reaches the place that's to be searched?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84219
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Subject: Re: Another assertion about macroevolution

In article <1993Apr21.215709.16433@rambo.atlanta.dg.com> wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:

>     Macroevolution has not been observed in action.  Chris Colby's example(s)
>     of speciation (with all due respect to Chris) in the plant example
>     he gave do not consitute macroevolution.  Put another
>     way, there are an incredibly huge number of events necessary to bring
>     non-life to homo sapiens.  How many have we DIRECTLY observed?

Special creation has not been observed in action. Bill Rawlin's
assertions that man was created in his present form do not count 
as creation. Put another way, there are an incredible amount of
species of the planet. How many species have we DIRECTLY observed
being created by a god or gods?

>            //  Bill Rawlins            <wpr@atlanta.dg.com>        //


Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84220
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Subject: Re: The gospels, Josephus, etc and origins

In article <1993Apr21.225146.20804@rambo.atlanta.dg.com> wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:

>       The macroevolutionary tree is full of holes.  (Please show me a few
>        intermediate forms between reptile and bird.)

Are you so ignorant that you have never heard of _Archaeopteryx_?

>            //  Bill Rawlins            <wpr@atlanta.dg.com>        //

The special creation "theory" is nothing but holes. Please show me a
species poofed into existence by your god. I have never seen this.

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84221
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Subject: Re: Branch Athiests Cult (was Rawlins debunks creationism)


    Please excuse the length of this post, but for personal reasons, 
I must go on at some length.

In article <1r9dd7INNqfk@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
|> 
|> scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle) writes:
|> 
|> >   For your information, I checked the Library of Congress catalog,
|> >and they list the following books by Francis Hitching:
|> 
|> 
|> I believe I've just discovered an anthopological parallel.  In my many
|> "discussions" with the fundies, their main tactic is to discredit
|> my sources.  They shrilly bleat:
|> 
|>      "Barclay's claims are bogus; McKenzie's arguements are a sham,
|> Oehler position is specious, Jouon's ideas are fiction, Darby is a
|> fraud, Howard is a counterfeit, Rotherham's claims are vapid."
|> 
|> Ahha...Now with the Branch Athiests zealots we have the following:
|> 
|>      "Hitching`s claims are bogus, Gorman argument's are a sham,
|> Jastrow's position is specious, Stanley's ideas are fiction, Durant
|> is a fraud, Thorpe is a counterfeit, Hoyle's claims are vapid."
|> 
|> Are we witnessing the founding of a new major religion.... or has
|> it really been there all along?!
    [...more deleted...]

    Perhaps it would be instructive to see what my original post had
to say:

In article <1993Apr22.121931.2533@news.nd.edu>, scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle) writes:
|> In article <1r4dglINNkv2@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
|> |> 
|> |> 
|> |> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
|> |> 
|> |> 
|> |> 
|> |> >  Neither I, nor Webster's has ever heard of Francis Hitchings.  Who is he? 
|> |> >Please do not answer with "A well known evolutionist" or some other such
|> |> >informationless phrase.
|> |> 
|> |> He is a paleontologist and author of "The Neck of the Giraffe".  The
|> |> quote was taken from pg. 103.
|> |> 
|> |> Jack
|> 
|>     For your information, I checked the Library of Congress catalog,
|> and they list the following books by Francis Hitching:
|> 
|>     Earth Magic
|> 
|>     The Neck of the Giraffe, or Where Darwin Went Wrong
|> 
|>     Pendulum: the Psi Connection
|> 
|>     The World Atlas of Mysteries
     [followed by my signature]

    I was extremely careful in this posting not to say anything which
was not factual.  I made no judgement about Hitching or the quality of 
the quotation attributed to him.  I have not read any of the books 
listed (although I did glimpse briefly at "Earth Magic", I saw nothing 
that I would care to comment on).  It was solely in response to an
inquiry by Warren about Hitching, and your assertion that he is a
paleontologist.  I do not know whether he is or is not a paleontologist.
I do not claim to know anything about him, except this listing of his
publications.

    However, I get the decided impression that I am being included
among the "Branch Atheists" on the basis of this post.  If that 
impression is mistaken, please let me know.  Otherwise, I should let
you know that the implications are very offensive to me, and I 
would certainly appreciate a clarification of your posting.

-- 
Tom Scharle                |scharle@irishmvs
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84222
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Subject: Re: What part of "No" don't you understand?

In <C60y12.E9J@panix.com> mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:

>In <1993Apr24.214843.10940@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu
>(E. Elizabeth Bartley) writes:

>>I can certainly see opposing the "Amen" -- but that doesn't require 
>>opposing a moment of silence.

>If the ONLY people proposing a "moment of silence" are doing so as a
>sham to sneak in prayers, then it MUST be opposed.  What the HELL have
>prayers to do with public schooling?  [I ask this question as a devout
>Christian.]

   Uh oh, Michael; you typed "hell" and capitalized it to boot! Now
Peter Nyikos will explain that you're not a real Christian!

>>>I'll back off when they do.

>>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.

>Their kids can bloody-well pray any God-damned time they WANT to.  And
>nothing, on heaven or earth, in government or the principal's office,
>can prevent or in any other way deal with their doing so.  *Especially*
>if the prayer is silent (as bursting out into the "Shema Yisrael" or
>some other prayer *might* be construed as disruptive if audible :-))
>No one ever prevented ME from praying in public school!  They hardly
>even prevented me from masturbating in study hall.

BZZT! Sorry Michael--the Nyikos Inquisition pointed out that I was
hell-bound after one mildly scurrilous pun on "revealing oneself."
Admitting to masturbation--well, I'm just shocked!

                                                                mp

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84223
From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Tieing Abortion to Health Reform -- Is Clinton Nuts?

exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor, The Sounding Board) writes:

>In article <C5tE71.7CM@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:

>Read the whole thing.  There's some pretty hot stuff in here...

Apparently you *didn't* read the whole thing.  You continue to miss the point.

>>skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:

>>>parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:

[deletions]

>[soapbox on]

>If it's ok to pay for legal procedures with gov't money, then let's get the 
>government to pay for counselling that provides abortion alternatives.  
>Let's get the government to pay for adoption fees.  Let's get the government 
>to pay for all the things that make abortion "necessary".  Why not?  They 
>are certainly legal procedures.

Counselling that only provides alternatives to abortion would be just as
biased as counselling that only provides *abortion* information.  How about
providing counselling that will give a woman help in finding what *she* is
comfortable with.

Your adoption-funding idea may be a good one.  Any idea if it is feasable?


>The only way hell is involved is that it is going to be a good skiing resort 
>before I give in to paying for abortions.  I believe it is wrong, and I 
>won't pay for it without a gripe.  I'm not for making them unlawful; I'd 
>rather spend money on saving lives than a bunch of investigations and court 
>hearings and all this other CRAP we are spending our time on. 

>You know who's really cleaning up on all this abortion stuff?  Lawyers.  I 
>say let's pass laws to make adoption cheaper, easier, and infinitely more 
>supportive of the birth mother.  Let's eradicate the stigma, reduce the 
>cost, pay the price for life.

Making adoption easier on the birth-mother may help reduce abortion, but
it will *not* eliminate the need for it.  Abortion is not done just because
the mother can't care for the child and doesn't feel good about giving it
to strangers.  Abortion is done because the mother can not afford the
*pregnancy*.

>[soapbox off]


>>A person has a right to do anything that does not interfere with the rights
>>of another person.  

>Cool enough.  You'll have more trouble defining the terms in that statement 
>than getting people to agree to it.  For example, I perceive I have a right 
>not to participate in what I feel is murder.  I don't think the government 
>should, either.  On the other hand, since we are having trouble proving that 
>it is murder, there is no right to stop someone from doing it if they so 
>choose, either by legal means or harassment.  Of course, persuasion is 
>allowed, but watch that line between persuasive and harassing.

>>The second part is a definition of a person.  A simplistic explanation is
>>that a "person" is a member of society.  Most normal adult human beings are
>>good examples of "people".  Most children over two years old are "people" as
>>well.  The simple way of determining this is that you can have a conversation
>>with them.  It is actually more complicated than that, but I have no desire
>>to spend the time it would take to explain it to you.  Read the thread "Why
>>is bodily autonomy so important?" for more explanation and justification.

>But why is your definition authoritative enough for the whoe US?  Surely
>you can understand there are other definitions with equal "right" of 
>consideration?

Then please justify why being "human" automatically makes something valuable.
And why that includes the unborn.


>>>>If the government refused
>>>>to fun abortions (due to the qualms of a minority of the population) then
>>>>it would then have to pay *far more* in the delivery of babies whose
>>>>mothers wanted an abortion, but could not afford one, and now that baby
>>>>will also require care for 18 years.

>True.  That needs to be fixed.  It is part of the problem.  If Clinton has a 
>medical program to get underway, let him address this, too.  It is cheaper 
>in the long run to save lives; later they will be productive members of 
>society.  At least, if his plan works...

No, they are not guaranteed to become productive members of society.  Even
if they do that is *MANY YEARS* in the future--until which they are a burden
on someone, or society.  There is also the matter of the mother.  Forcing
her to carry a pregnancy to term at a critical time in her life could prevent
her from being a productive member of society.

>>Actually, I was refering to the minority that objects to abortion, not
>>those who object to federal funding.  I admit I did not say it very
>>clearly, and apologize for that.


>>>>To refuse to fund abortions [...] is to remove that choice from some
>>>>women, *and* add the additional burden to society for no reason.

>No.  This is really flawed logic.  It would be like me saying "I was born 
>with a disfigured face and I want cosmetic repair.  It is 
>discriminatory that I cannot make that choice, and so you must pay for it."  

>That a person has a right to make a choice does not imply legally or 
>otherwise that someone else should Foot the Bill [sic] for that choice.

Ok, look.  It's like this.  We *are* footing the bill.  Maybe they will
take choice A.  Maybe they will take choice B.  Maybe they will take choice
C.  They can't afford any *one* of them.  If they take choice A we'd have
to pay them, say $5.  If they take choice B it would cost us $20.  If they
take choice C it will cost us $20 now and a hell of a lot more for the next
18 years.  Which one sounds the most realistic for us to be willing to pay
for?  Now some people happen not to like choice A.  Other people happen
not to like choice C (paying for it, that is).  C has been around and paid
for for years.  Even though it means we spend a lot of money, we can't in
conscience refuse to pay for it.  Now A has been around and is perfectly
legal, but it hasn't been funded in the past.  Now A is going to be funded
but some people object.  They don't like the idea of their tax money going
to pay for choice A.  So we could refuse to fund A at all.  Then those
women who can't afford any of those choices will be forced to take choice
B or C, which will cost *all of us* more money.  Most of us don't see any
reason at all why *more money* should be spent to the effect of *removing
personal choice* from some women.  The alternative is to fund A if that is
what the mother chooses.  We will also still fund B and even C if *that*
is what the mother chooses.  However, some women will certainly choose A,
and that will then save us $15 we otherwise would have had to spend.  Your
"taxes" are not being raised to fund a choice you object, they are being
*lowered* because we will fund a choice that is *legal*, despite your
objections to it.  (Actually, your taxes are not really going to go down,
as I'm sure you would point out.  But the amount that is saved in that
area can help out in another--like our massive debt.)


>>If you disagree then give us some "reasons".  Given that abortion is
>>*LEGAL* and the right to abortion is supported by the majority of the
>>population ...
>>...it is not justifiable to refuse abortions to women who can not afford
>>them, who will simply require even greater funds for the delivery you
>>would force upon them.  I refuse to pay *more taxes* to remove choice
>>from those women just because you object to a legal medical procedure.

>WHAT?

>I say objection to the procedure is irrelevant.  Uncle Bill doesn't pay for 
>breast augmentation, facelifts, etc...  Why abortions?  It's elective 
>surgery!  

Those other procedures you mention only cost money.  There is no savings
in other procedures that would be required down the road without them.
(In fact, there could be additional costs down the road *because* of them.)
This is quite different from the case of abortion.

>As for your argument, you are enticing a young girl to kill a baby by making 
>it affordable and refusing to make the alternative affordable too, SO YOU 
>ARE JUST AS GUILTY OF REMOVING A CHOICE BY WITHHOLDING FUNDS!  Think about 
>it.  A poor girl is pregnant and abortions are federally funded, what's she 
>gonna do.  What choice have YOUR PLANS given her.  Your kind of double-
>talk really makes me ill.

This is bullshit.  We are *not* refusing "to make the alternative affordable
too".  If we refused to pay for the more expensive choice of birth, *then*
your statement would make sense.  But that is not the case, so it doesn't.
If Clinton tried to block funding for pre-natal care and delivery (or left
it out of his health-care plan), I would certainly object.  I would also be
quite surprised.


>"Pro-choice".  Ha!  Pro-Abortion really fits in your case.

Yes, but probably not your definition of it, or for the reasons you think.

>If you're gonna fund one choice, you have to fund them all, at the very 
>least.

YOU STUPID FUCK!  *WE DO* want to fund *all* the choices.  *YOU* are the
one who wants to *NOT* fund all the choices.

>        IMHO if we fund the adoption choice right, (meaning not just 
>throwing money at it but cutting costs, esp. legal costs) we won't need 
>abortion anymore.

Your humble opinion is still wrong.  Even with easy adoption, there is still
the fact that pregnancy takes several months.  Months in which a young woman
could need to be getting an education.  (like finishing High School, entering
college, finishing college, getting a job...things that are much harder to
do if you have to "take a break" for a few months...things that have a massive
impact on her future productivity.)


>>have a "right to life".  A fetus is not a person.  You can not have a
>>conversation with them.  

>Ah.  Let's kill the mentally incompetant as well.  Or how about people we 
>just don't like, since we can't have a conversation with them...

You *can* have a conversation with the "mentally incompetant".  And even
though *you* personally may refuse to have a conversation with "people
you just don't like", it is still *possible* for others to have a conversation
with them.  It is *not* possible for *anyone* to have a conversation with
a fetus.

>>They are not biologically independent.  

>Nor was my son at the age of 6 weeks.  He was breastfed, and would not take
>a bottle.  Just what does "biologically independent" mean?  I'll be happy to 
>punch any definition full of loopholes.

He was still biologically independent.  At least to the same extent you are
now.  He consumed nutrients and digested them in the normal manner.  He
breathed his own air.  A fetus on the other hand, gets it's nutrients already
digested by the mother.  It gets its oxygen from the mother as well.  That
is not biologically independent.

>>Their
>>awareness is questionable.  

>Aha! You admit it is questionable.  Yet you are willing to kill it, even if 
>it *may* be very aware.  I suggest you re-think your viewpoint.

Awareness is only *part* of what makes a "member of society".  It is the
minimal conceivable requirement, yet many people seem to think that something
without awareness could still be important enough to justify the suffereing
of a true member of society.  I keep asking, but I still haven't seen a real
justification for why the life of a non-sentient creature should be worth the
suffering of a sentient being.  (I haven't read every response on the threads
I've been asking on, yet, so we'll see if I see one later.)

>>They have no experiences in the "real world" to make up a personality.

>This is also true of quite a few Unix programmers.  So what.  :-D

Anyone who can program in UNIX has a lot of experiences in the real world.

-Rob

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84224
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.taoism

In article <1993Apr21.172806.679@megatek.com> tims@megatek.com writes:

>> Let us not limit
>> 'misc.taoism' to 'philosophy'.  
>
>But if we don't limit it to *something*, the discussion degenerates into
>a big amorphous glob. 

Hmm...are you a Taoist?  Imposing limits *does* do something useful...it gives
you something to go beyond.

>It seems to me that these questions more properly fall into the
>category of "general metaphysics". I would prefer any misc.taoism
>to deal more closely with topics and works more closely associated
>with at least "semi-orthodox" Taoism: with established classic works 
>definitely included and works like Mantak Chia's argued about! 

I tend to be a bit critical of any stratification of Taoism.  I especially
tend to frown on any suggestion that "orthodoxy" or "classics" have any
special place in Tao.

>I think "neo-Taoism" should be excluded or get its own group (what I
>mean by this is "Humpty-Dumpty Taoism", in which Taoism means whatever 
>a poster says it means.) This "alt.taoism" could also be a refuge 
>for debates about what "Taoism *REALLY* means" or speculations on sexual
>alchemy, etc..

So rather than debate what "Taoism *REALLY* means" you are suggesting that
we take someone else's word for it and work thusly?  I'd rather not, thank
you.

>What's happening is that that the term "Taoism" is becoming
>completely polluted and trivialized like the words "magic", "Alchemy", 
>"Zen," etc., by writers appropriating the word to mean whatever they 
>want. This is seen by the spate of new age books entitled "The
>Tao of" this, that, and everything else.

Whereas you, of course, have a clear idea of what the word means?  Can
you tell the Tao? :-)

>Any other comments/ideas? I look forward to seeing them. On balance,
>I say let misc.taoism rip and let the chips fall where they may.

Wonderful idea.

>it just gets filled up with college freshmen asking about the
>Tao of Sex then it will have been a failure and people will post to
>these groups just as they do now.

Only if you choose to define failure in that way.  Or to define it at all.



-- 
I believe in the flesh and the appetites,
Seeing hearing and feeling are miracles,
	and each part and tag of me is a miracle.
	                               -- Walt Whitman

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84225
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <C5yMIr.FnE@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>You said everyone in the world.  That means *everyone* in the world, including
>children that are not old enough to speak, let alone tell lies.  If Jesus
>says "everyone", you cannot support that by referring to a group of people
>somewhat smaller than "everyone".

That's right.  Everyone.  Even infants who cannot speak as yet.  Even
a little child will rebelliously stick his finger in a light socket.
Even a little child will not want his diaper changed.  Even a little
child will fight nap-time.

So far as Jesus saying "everyone":  

    A certain ruler asked Jesus, "Good teacher, what must I do to
    inherit eternal life?"

    "Why do you call me good?"  Jesus answered.  "No one is good--
    except God alone."

Ken, the book of Romans states that we are born sinners.  We do
not grow into being a sinner.  We sin because we are sinners.  The
common mistake, even in Christian circles, is to think the reverse
true.    So for as surely as you grew to look like you parents,
you not only inherited their appearance, but also their sin nature.
It goes with being human.
 
Even though a new-born is innocent as can be, his sinful nature
will surely manifest itself more explicity as he gets older.  For
as surely as he grows hair on his head and teeth within his mouth,
he will show the signs of his innate sin by rebelling
against mommy and daddy with that loud proclamation "No."
  

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84226
From: rocker@acm.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: ABORTION and private health coverage -- letters regarding

In <1qk73q$3fj@agate.berkeley.edu> dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis Kriz) writes:

>If one is paying for a PRIVATE health insurance plan and DOES NOT WANT
>"abortion coverage" there is NO reason for that person to be COMPLELLED
>to pay for it.  (Just as one should not be compelled to pay for lipposuction
>coverage if ONE doesn't WANT that kind of coverage).

You appear to be stunningly ignorant of the underlying concept of health
insurance.

>dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu

                          -rocker

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84227
From: <A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick


What an exciting thread (finally!)

Mitra is Sanskrit for Friend, as such He started out as an avatar of Lord Visnu
 mentioned first in the Vedas. Later he seems to have risen to chief prominence
 worshipped by the Persians. Associated with the Sun but NOT the Sun, he is
 the lord of contract honor and obedience, therefore naturally worshipped by
 soldiers. He was ordered by the Sun to slay the bull of heaven and He reluct-
 antly agreed because of His obligation...the blood of that bull spilled and
 grew all earth life...then Mitra and the Sun sat down to eat.

Worship of Lord Mitra ended in Persia with the ascension of the Zoroastrians.

Hundreds of years later He was rediscovered and thrown into the Official Roman
 Pantheon (tm) for some semi-tricky reason, I forget why. But all references of
 Him ended abruptly when He was stricken from same, so apparently His worship
 was some sort of vehicle for advancement in the bureaucracy, like membership
 in the Communist Party was in the Soviet Bloc. The sociology of religion in
 ancient times is fascinating!

Oh, His B-day was 25 Dec. Ahem.

I am not sure if the mystery cult really lasted after His was booted from the
 Roman Imperial God Roster or what. It contained mostly soldiers, with 7 levels
 of initiation. They worshipped underground in caverns in pews. The bull horns
 in those temples were for scaring away or impaling evil spirits, I'm not sure
 that they had Mithraic significance or not.

I don't know that the ritual meal was of a cannibalistic nature as is the
 Christian masses. But eating deities goes way back to Old Kingdom Egypt.

Someone mentioned bullfighting. Did Mithraists sacrifice bulls? I forget. More
 likely, for a religious source, might be the shower of bull's blood enjoyed
 by the worshippers of Cybele on the Day of Blood? Cybele worship extended all
 throughout even up to France bigtime.
-------
CHARLES HOPE   A54SI@CUNYVM   A54SI@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
GOVERNMENT BY REPORTERS...MEDIA-OCRACY.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84228
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1r59i4$e81@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
#In article <1r3570$hkv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
#|> In article <1r2ls3$8mo@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
#|> #|> 
#|> #|> #This is quite different from saying "Employing force on other people
#|> #|> #is immoral, period.   Unfortunately, from time to time we are obliged
#|> #|> #to do this immoral thing for reasons of self-preservation, and so
#|> #|> #we have to bear the moral consequences of that.
#|> #|> 
#|> #|> Since both statements, to all intents and purposes, say effectively
#|> #|> the same thing, 
#|> #
#|> #Are you serious?  Two statements, one of which says that use of force
#|> #in the given situation is moral, and the other of which says it is
#|> #not moral "say effectively the same thing?"
#|> 
#|> Yes, when you tag on the "Unfortunately, ...", then to all intents and
#|> purposes you are saying the same thing.
#
#Then delete the "unfortunately".   Now tell me that the two statement
#say effectively the same thing.
#
#And to save everyone a couple of trips round this loop, please notice
#that we are only obliged to use force to preserve self.   We can choose
#*not* to preserve self, which is the point of pacifism.

O.K., got you.  I concede your point, though the word "obliged" strongly
implies that one must sometimes use force.  A further rephrasing would
give you the distinction you mention, however.  If I have you right, a pacifist
would not even go on to say, "unfortunately,etc."

#|> #Would you say this of any two statements, one saying "X is moral" and
#|> #the other saying "X is immoral?"   How would you decided when two 
#|> #statements "X is moral" "X is immoral" actually conflict, and when
#|> #they "say effectively the same thing".
#|> 
#|> What they prescribe that one should do is a pretty good indicator.
#
#And in this case they don't prescribe the same things, so.....

Yes, fair enough, though why confuse things by saying that "one is 
somtimes obliged" if the real meaning is that "one is never obliged".

#|> #|>                  and lead one to do precisely the same thing, then 
#|> #|> either both statements are doublespeak, or none.
#|> #
#|> #They might lead you to do the same thing, but the difference is what
#|> #motivates pacifism so they obviously don't lead pacifists to to the
#|> #same thing.
#|> 
#|> That's not true.  You could formulate a pragmatic belief in minimum 
#|> force and still be a pacifist.  If the minimum is 0, great  - but one is
#|> always trying to get as close to 0 force as possible under that belief.
#|> Not the same as 'force is immoral, period', but still tending to pacifism.
#
#If you don't think the use of force is immoral, why minimise its use?

If you don't think that it is "immoral, period.".   
-- 
Frank O'Dwyer                                  'I'm not hatching That'
odwyer@sse.ie                                  from "Hens",  by Evelyn Conlon

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84229
From: walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (I don't know who discovered water, but it wasn't no fish - Marshall McCluhan)
Subject: waco conflagration - precedents?


burning yourself alive seems a rough way to go, given the waco bunch
had other choices.

but it reminded me of the russian old-believers who, thinking the
antichrist was coming in 1666, grew frantic when Peter the Great 
started westernizing Russia and reforming the Russian Church a few
years later. They locked themselves in their churches and burned
themselves alive by the thousands. 

are there other cases of apocalypse-obsessed christians resorting
to self-imolation? is there a history of precedents?

   andrew.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84230
From: ekr@squick.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1r3le9$mlj@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <1r22qp$4sk@squick.eitech.com> ekr@squick.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>#In article <1r0m89$r0o@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>#>In article <1qvu33$jk3@kyle.eitech.com> ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>#>#>If almost all people agree that the sun exists (in the usual, uncritical sense),
>#>#>and almost all people agree that  a deal is bad,  it's a reasonable 
>#>#>conclusion that the sun really does exist, and that the deal really is bad.
>#>#I disagree completely. Until rather recently, most people did not
>#>#believe in evolution or the possibility of the atom bomb. Popular
>#>#opinion is notoriously wrong about matters of fact.
>#>True, but nevertheless the basis of all "matters of fact" is overwhelming
>#>popular opinion, and some overwhelming popular opinion *is* fact ("the
>#>sun shines").  If it were not so, physics would be a personal matter,
>#>assumed to be different for each of us.  There would be YourGravity and
>#>MyGravity and no theoretical framework to encompass them and predict
>#>both.  
>#This is simply complete nonsense. The basis for 'matters of fact' is,
>#if any class of opinion, the majority of INFORMED popular opinion
>#for some value of informed. I would really hate to base my knowledge
>#of, for instance, QM on what the overwhelming popular opinion is.
>The *basis*, Eric, is people peering at the world and saying what
>they see.  I'm talking about uninterpreted facts - observations.  _People_
>do those.  Agreement on some observations is a prerequisite for a theory
>that is more than personal.
Yes, that's true, but you have to be clear exactly what is
an uninterpreted observation. It's pretty low level stuff.
'The sun shines' is already a LOT higher level than that. We
can agree that 'I perceive brightness' perhaps.

>#>Now I take an experience of good/evil to be every bit as raw a fact as an
>#>experience of pain, or vision.
>#That might seem like a good first pass guess, but it turns out to
>#be a pretty cruddy way to look at things, because we all seem to
>#have rather different opinions (experiences) about what is good
>#and evil, while we seem to be able to agree on what the meter says.
>You're not comparing apples with apples.  If we all look at the same meter,
>we'll agree.  If we're all in the same situation, that's when we'll
>agree on fundamental values, if at all.  People who say that nobody agrees on
>values to the same extent that they agree on trivial observations seem
>to be unaware of the extent of agreement on either.
Huh? What do you mean 'all in the same situation?' Let's take me
and Dennis Kriz as examples. We're in pretty different situations,
but I think we can agree as to whether it's day or night. I don't
think we can agree as to whether or not abortion is morally
acceptable. Yet we are certainly in the same difference of
situations with respect to each other. Looks like weasel-words
to me, Frank. 

>#I don't see that it's any evidence at all.
>#As I point out above, I'm really not interested very much in
>#what the popular opinion is. I'm prepared to trust--to some extent--
>#the popular opinion about direct matters of physical observation
>#because by and large they accord with my own. However, if everyone
>#else said the dial read 1.5 and it looked like a 3 to me, I would
>#hope that I would believe myself. I.e. believing other people about
>#these matters seems to have a reasonable probability of predicting
>#what I would believe if I observed myself, but the possibility exists
>#that it is not. Since I know from observation that others disagree
>#with me about what is good, I believe I can discount popular opinion
>#about 'good' from the beginning as a predictor of my opinion.
>#I would say that the fact that it seems almost impossible to get
>#people to agree on what is good in a really large number of situations
>#is probably the best evidence that objective morality is bogus, actually.
>Firstly, if everyone else said the dial was 1.5 and I saw 3, I'd check
>my lens prescription.
That's up to you, I guess.

>  Secondly, your observation that people
>disagree shows nothing - people may be looking at different things,
>by virtue of being in different situations.  If I look at an elephant, I'll 
>see an elephant.  That doesn't imply that you will see an elephant if you 
>look at an iguana.
This 'different situations' stuff is pretty confusing, Frank. How
do we decide if we are in the same situation? You mind explaining?

>    Thirdly, I question your assumption that when
>people disagree about how to achieve fundamental or secondary goals, that 
>they therefore do not have the same fundamental goals (that seems to be the 
>disagreement you refer to).
Huh? I don't think so. I think that people disagree about
fundamental goals.

-Ekr

-- 
Eric Rescorla                                     ekr@eitech.com
             Would you buy used code from this man?
        

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84231
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin
From: rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota)

In article <1r7houINNop9@titan.ucs.umass.edu>, cma@titan.ucs.umass.edu (COLIN MA) writes:
>I just started reading this newsgroup and haven't been following the
>thread. I'm just curious:  How did this thread get started with
>"Albert Sabin" and changed into something else?  What was it about
>Sabin that initiated a religious discussion?
>
>Colin

Its just variation within a thread.  The variation at times has been so great
that speciation has occurred.  So Albert Sabin is the common ancestor of
several threads, some of which have themselves speciated.  On a separate topic,
I subscribed to t.o. just recently.  Albert Sabin existed at that time, so I
have no clue as to its origins.  Maybe the abiogenesists have an answer.  I
might also point out that evolution is aimless.  Thus why Albert 
Sabin evolved into a religious discussion is probably unexplainable.

Rich Fox, Anthro, Usouthdakota

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84232
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Branch Athiests Cult (was Rawlins debunks creationism)

In article <1r9dd7INNqfk@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
>scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle) writes:
>>  For your information, I checked the Library of Congress catalog,
>>and they list the following books by Francis Hitching:
>
>I believe I've just discovered an anthopological parallel.  In my many
>"discussions" with the fundies, their main tactic is to discredit
>my sources.  They shrilly bleat:
[..]

Possibly the parallel just stems from your tending to use bad sources...
Anyway, don't you think that similarity is rather shallow?  You're only
looking at the surface, at the way of argumentation.  
And now you should perhaps go a little deeper and try to find the difference,
for example, find out whether you can find real science done by Hitching.
If you can't, will you then admit that your attempt at quoting an authority
has backfired?

--
thomas kettenring, 3 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Johannes Scotus Eriugena, the greatest European philosopher of the 9th century,
said that if reason and authority conflict, reason should be given preference.
And if that doesn't sound reasonable to you, you'll just have to accept it...

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84233
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <C5v6rB.37F@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>I've seen referrences to "Creation vs Evolution" several times in a.a
>and I have question. Is either point of view derived from direct
>observation; can either be scientific? I wonder if the whole
>controversy is more concerned with the consequences of the "Truth"
>rather than the truth itself. 
>Both sides seem to hold to a philosophical outcome, and I can't help
>wondering which came first. As I've pointed out elsewhere, my view of
>human nature makes me believe that there is no way of knowing
>anyhthing objectively - all knowledge is inherently subjective. So, in
>the context of a.a, would you take a stand based on what you actually
>know to be true or on what you want to be true and how can you tell
>the difference?

Translation of the above paragraph:
"I am uninformed about the evidence for evolution.  Please send me the
talk.origins FAQs on the subject."

--
thomas kettenring, 3 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Johannes Scotus Eriugena, the greatest European philosopher of the 9th century,
said that if reason and authority conflict, reason should be given preference.
And if that doesn't sound reasonable to you, you'll just have to accept it...

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84234
From: Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Theists And Objectivity

trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
> Can a theist be truly objective?  Can he be impartial
>      when questioning the truth of his scriptures, or
>      will he assume the superstition of his parents
>      when questioning? 

I think that if a theist were truly objective and throws out the notion that
God definitely exists and starts from scratch to prove to themselves that
the scriptures are the whole truth then that person would no longer be a
theist. 

> It usually all has to do with how the child is
>      brought up.  From the time he is born, the
>      theist is brought up with the notion of the
>      "truth" of some kind of scripture-- the Bible,
>      the Torah, the Qur'an, & etc.  He is told
>      of this wondrous God who wrote (or inspired)
>      the scripture, of the prophets talked about in
>      the scripture, of the miracles performed, & etc.
>      He is also told that to question this (as
>      children are apt to do) is a sin, a crime
>      against God, and to lose belief in the scrip-
>      ture's truth is to damn one's soul to Hell.
>      Thus, by the time he is able to read the
>      scripture for himself, the belief in its "truth"
>      is so ingrained in his mind it all seems a
>      matter of course.

You're missing something here.  There are people who convert from
non-theism to theism after being brought up in a non-theist household.  (I
don't have any statistics as to how many though.  That would be an
interesting thing to know.)  I think that religion is a crutch.  People are
naturally afraid of the unknown and the unexplainable.  People don't want
to believe that when they die, they are dead, finished.  That there is
nothing else after that.  And so religion is kind of a nice fantasy.
Religion also describes things we don't know about the universe (things
science has not yet described) and it also gives people a feeling of
security... that if they just do this one thing and everything will be ok.
That they are being watched over by a higher power and its minions.  This
has a very high psychological attraction for quite a few people and these
people are willing to put up with a few discrepancies and holes in their
belief system for what it gains them.  This is why I think it's kind of
useless to try too hard to convert theists to atheism.  They are happy with
their fantasy and they feel that other people will be happy with it too
(they can't accept the fact that there are people who would rather accept
the harsh reality that they are running from).

Anyway, I'm getting kind of carried away here.  But my point is that theism
doesn't have to be ingrained into a child's mindset for that person to grow
up as a theist (although this happens far too often).  Theism is designed
to have its own attractions.

> 
>     _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/       _/    * Atheist
>    _/        _/    _/   _/ _/ _/ _/     * Libertarian
>   _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/   _/  _/      * Pro-individuality
>        _/  _/     _/  _/       _/       * Pro-responsibility
> _/_/_/_/  _/      _/ _/       _/ Jr.    * and all that jazz...

Nanci
.........................................................................
If you know (and are SURE of) the author of this quote, please send me
email (nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu):
If you are one in a million, then there are 7 and a half of you in NYC.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84235
From: nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is oxymoron

In article <a5kB3B1w165w@anarky.tch.org> melchar@anarky.tch.org (Melchar) writes:
>
>      It took someone THIS long to figure that out?

What is "aluminium siding"?  I keep seeing references to it.  Something to do
with railway lines, perhaps?

E-mail reply please, I'll never find it otherwise.

-Norman

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84236
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Christians above the Law? was Clarification of pe

In article <C61Kow.E4z@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
>>Jesus was a JEW, not a Christian.

If a Christian means someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus, it is safe
to say that Jesus was a Christian.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84237
From: towfiq@justice.UUCP (Mark Towfiq)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

>>>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 1993 06:30:24 GMT, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU
>>>>> (Frank Crary) said:

pmy@vivaldi.acc.Virginia.EDU (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:

pmy> ...Anyway, I've often wondered what business followers of Christ
pmy> would have with weapons.

fc> Didn't Christ tell his disciples to arm them selves, shortly
fc> before his crusifiction? (I believe the exact quote was along the
fc> lines of, "If you have [something] sell it and buy a sword.")

  "If you have a purse" it was.

fc> Certainly, Christ said,

fc> "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to
fc> send peace but the sword.  For I am come to set a man at variance
fc> against his father, and the daugher against her mother..."

fc> [Matthew 10 34-35]

  Yes, He said this, but the sword that Jesus brought was the sword of
the Word of God, which divides between those that believe, and those
who do not, even right down a family.

Mark
--
Mark TOWFIQ | Business/Urgent: towfiq@Microdyne.COM  +1 508 392 9953 (fax 9962)
	      Other:   towfiq@Justice.Medford.MA.US  +1 617 488 2818

"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens" -- Baha'u'llah

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84238
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <1993Apr25.194144.8358@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>Even though a new-born is innocent as can be, his sinful nature
>will surely manifest itself more explicity as he gets older.

Ah, so you admit newborns are innocent?  Then you cannot say _everyone_ is a
sinner.

About the only way top get out of this one is to claim that a newborn is a
sinner despite having not committed any sins, which is rather odd.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84239
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: Ancient references to Christianity (was: Albert Sabin)

In <1ren9a$94q@morrow.stanford.edu> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) 
writes:

>In article <C5ztJu.FKx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike 
Cobb) writes:
>>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?

> It is not tossed out as a source, but would it be regarded as
>unbiased and independant? 

This brings up another something I have never understood.  I asked this once
before and got a few interesting responses, but somehow didn't seem satisfied.
Why would the NT NOT be considered a good source.  This might be a 
literary/historical question, but when I studied history I always looked for 
firsthand original sources to write my papers.  If the topic was on Mr. X, I 
looked to see if Mr. X wrote anything about it.  If the topic was on a group, 
look for the group, etc.  If the topic is on Mr. X, and Mr. X did not write 
anything about it, (barring the theistic response about the Bible being 
divinely inspired which I can't adequately argue), wouldn't we look for people
who ate, worked, walked, talked, etc. with him?  If someone was at an event 
wouldn't they be a better "reporter" than someone who heard about it second 
hand?  I guess isn't firsthand better than second hand.  I know, there is bias,
and winners writing history, but doesn't the principle of firsthand being best
still apply?

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             cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
                                              
Nobody can explain everything to anybody.  G.K.Chesterton

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84240
From: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: Burden of Proof

[ NOTE: talk.origins removed from crossposting, as this had no business
  going there in the first place. ]

In <1r4b59$7hg@aurora.engr.LaTech.edu> ray@engr.LaTech.edu writes:

> If I make a statement, "That God exists, loves me, etc." but in no way
> insist that you believe it, does that place a burden of proof upon me.

      No, but you're not achieving anything either. If you don't want to
argue the point you're stating, why do you bother stating it?

> If you insist that God doesn't exist, does that place a burden of proof 
> upon you?

      No. Read the (alt.atheism) FAQ to find out why.

> I give no proofs, I only give testimony to my beliefs.

      Well enough; if I feel interested, I might even listen.

> I will respond to proofs that you attempt to disprove my beliefs.

      I won't; the task is impossible, and I don't have to do it in the
first place. Why should I even bother to change or disprove your beliefs?

      - Mats "Strong apatheist?" Andtbacka

-- 
  Disclaimer?   "It's great to be young and insane!"

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84241
From: bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan)
Subject: Re: [rw] Is Robert Weiss the only orthodox Christian?

In article <1993Apr23.170101.19708@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
   So Rick, why not read the Bible for yourself?  It is written in plain
   english.  Decide for yourself.   

It?  That would imply the singular, yet there are many _translations_
of the Bible, many of which differ in choice of wording and hence can
lead to different _interpretations_.  BTW have you also read the
Koran, Vedas ... etc., plain English translations are available.
Decide for yourself.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84242
From: bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <1993Apr22.213142.6964@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
   To you, it shouldn't matter if you do evil things or good things.  It is
   all meaningless in the end anyway.  So go rob a bank.  Go tell someone
   you dislike that he is a dirty rotten slime bag.  What's restraining you?

Generally, reciprocation.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84243
From: bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan)
Subject: Re: To Rob Lanphier

In article <1993Apr23.225933.22683@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
   Brian, it doesn't offend me if you decide to reject Jesus
   Christ.  I only wish you would make that decision after you
   learn who Jesus is.

Have you rejected Buddha?  If you have, did you really learn who
Buddha is before making the decision?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84244
From: bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion

In article <1e9e02bm40FM01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
   Surely you are not equating David Koresh with Christianity? The two are
   not comparable.

Er, why not?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84245
From: Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Subject: Cybele and Transgender/sexualism

930425 

Charles Hope writes:

Rome was under attack by barbarians, they sent for advice to some Oracle,
and she said Worship Cybele and you'll be saved. They did, they were.

Cybele was the quintessential wiccan goddess, there was Her and her son &
lover, Attis. Yucky idea if you ask me. OK the book says she was Phrygian,
from the neolithic matriarchal society Catal Huyuk (Turkey). Worshipped 1st
as Black Stone (that Kaaba in Mecca ring a bell maybe????) Carried to Rome
in 205BC to save them from Hannibal.


Response:

Is there some relation between the name 'Cybele' and the phenemenon of the
'sibyl'?  Your paragraph above seems to indicate there might be.

My understanding is that Islam was founded on the remains of a goddess
cult or two.  Many Muslims would not like to hear that. ;>


You:

It gets more interesting. Romans called her Great Mother (Magna Mater),
could be the reason why so many of those Mary statues in Europe are black,
prob. IS connected to that Ka'aba they've got in Mecca, 3rd cent. AD She was
supreme Goddess in Lyons, France . . . Attis was castrated and formed into
a pine tree . . . she should be worshiped on 25 Mar . . . in Rome it was
an ecstatic cult, her priests wore drag, worked themselves up in dance and
castrated themselves in order to initiate to her, lived their lives as women.
They wore make up and jewelry and the whole bit.

Only other such primitive transsexualism I know of goes on in India (where
else?) where they do that castration thing under some meditation maybe, I
forget by now...there's a book on that.)

Of course, that excepts that weird Russian / Romanian 18th cent. Xian cult
that did all kinds of self-castration too, I forget their name.


Response:

I'd love to get details or references on any of the above.  My own exploration
of this issue has only extended to a brief examination of the Zuni 'berdache'.
_The Zuni Man-Woman_, by Will Roscoe, University of New Mexico Press, 1991
probably has some interesting things to say about them.  I've yet to
procure it.

Any details or references on:

Ecstatic cults in Rome, India, Russia/Romania (Christian too?) which
exhibit any type of transsexualism or transvestitism, male OR female
(though I expect mostly the former will be found ;>).


Thanks for your interesting posts, Charles. :>


    |                                                      WILL
  \ | /                                                    LOVE
  \\|//    !!          !! 
__\\|//__    \{}}}{{{}/
____|___________|@@|      "Come as you like shall be the whole of the Law."
                |  |                                   - The Abyss
Thyagi         /    \ 
NagaSiva      |(*)(*)|     Thyagi@HouseofKAos.Abyss.com
              \^^^^^^/            House of KAoS
               -^^^^-             871 Ironwood Dr.
                 ~~               San Jose, CA 95125-2815
'Fr.Nigris' on Divination Web
                Telnet seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu 9393

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84246
From: ab4z@Virginia.EDU ("Andi Beyer")
Subject: Re: Ancient references to Christianity (was: Albert Sabin)

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

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84247
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Waco information accuracy

In article <1r9mflINNak4@crcnis1.unl.edu>, e_p@unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
wrote:
>          An example is the FBI report that several of the bodies found 
>        in the rubble had bullet wounds.  The local coroner, who is 
>        independent of the FBI, has so far found no bullet wounds! 

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

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84248
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <1993Apr23.210109.21120@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:
> > Hmm, it seems that this is the core of Christianity then, you 
> > have to feel guilty . . . 
> 
> I think I see where you are coming from Kent.  Jesus doesn't view
> guilt like our modern venacular colors it.   
> 
> "Feelings" have nothing to do with guilt.  Feelings arise from the state of 
> being guilty.  Feeling and guilt are mutally exclusive.  Feelings are a 
> reaction from guilt.  Jesus is talking about the guilt state, not the 
> reaction.   Let me give you an example:
> 
> Have you ever made a mistake?  Have you ever lied to someone?  Even a
> little white lie?   Have you ever claimed to know something that you really 
> didn't know?  Have you ever hated someone?  Have you ever been selfish?
> Are you guilty of any one of these?   The answer is of course, YES.  You
> are guilty.  Period.  That is it what Jesus is getting at.  No big surprise.  
> Feelings do not even enter the picture.   Consider Jesus's use of the word
> "guilt" as how a court uses it.

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

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84249
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <1993Apr25.190040.8071@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:
> "Christ" is Greek for "Messiah".  "Messiah" means "Annointed One".
> "Annoint" means "to rub with oil, i.e. to anoint; by impl. to
> consecrate"     The major prophet Daniel uses the word "Messiah"
> in Daniel chapter 9.
> 
> How "closely" did you analyze the Bible?  Looks as if you didn't
> get past the first word.   So was the catalyst to break your faith the
> "priests" who interpreted the Bible for you?   Did you ever do what
> the Bereans did to Paul's teachings in Acts 17?  

Brian, does all this mean that you have to be well versed in ancient
Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic in order to understand the core of
Christianity? I hope you are not Catholic, because my Christian
upbringing was based on the teachings of Luther, and the one of
the core messages was basically that you don't need to know latin
in order to learn about salvation.

BTW, your statement would also eliminate about 99.5% of all the Christians
in the world, as well.

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84250
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <1993Apr25.194144.8358@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:
> In article <C5yMIr.FnE@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> >You said everyone in the world.  That means *everyone* in the world, including
> >children that are not old enough to speak, let alone tell lies.  If Jesus
> >says "everyone", you cannot support that by referring to a group of people
> >somewhat smaller than "everyone".
 
> That's right.  Everyone.  Even infants who cannot speak as yet.  Even
> a little child will rebelliously stick his finger in a light socket.
> Even a little child will not want his diaper changed.  Even a little
> child will fight nap-time.

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

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84251
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <C62Ar1.LDt@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu
(Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> 
> In article <1993Apr25.194144.8358@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
> >Even though a new-born is innocent as can be, his sinful nature
> >will surely manifest itself more explicity as he gets older.
> 
> Ah, so you admit newborns are innocent?  Then you cannot say _everyone_ is a
> sinner.
> 
> About the only way top get out of this one is to claim that a newborn is a
> sinner despite having not committed any sins, which is rather odd.

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

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84252
From: ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis)
Subject: Re: Christian meta-ethics

Russell Turpin, as is his wont, has raised some interesting issues 
in his struggle with the Christian texts and the Christians. 
Unfortunately, he seems to be hoping for simplicity where it is 
not available. The lukewarm stew he detects may well be an inevitable 
result of the divine mixing himself up with a bunch of losers such 
as humanity. 

Also unfortunately (perhaps) I have a deadline in two weeks, the 
responsibility for which prevents me, in good conscience, 
from writing a more considered response and fully entering the
fray, as it were. 

Let me then say what I can, briefly.

-----

>The two commandments *are* rules; they are merely rules that are
>so vague that they are practically devoid of meaning.  

This point, for the net.browsers who also still read books, is
pursued throughly in Kaufmann, Critique_of_Religion_and_Philosophy.

>The commandment to love your neighbor as yourself can be viewed,
>in part, as reminding man that he is not God and cannot act as if
>he has "ultimate responsibility." 

This is a theological statement worthy of Barth.
Dr Turpin (DD) may wear the black robe of Geneva yet! :-)

>Indeed, many traditions present
>an interpretation where believers are supposed to interpret
>loving one's neighbor as following various other rules, and
>relying on their god to make things come out right, precisely
>because it would be wrong for man to assume such "ultimate
>responsibility." Once again, we are confronted with good sounding
>goo that means whatever the reader wants it to mean. 

This requires the assumption that all interpretations are
equally valid, that there is no way of reasonably distinguishing
among them. I wouldn't make that assumption; I don't think it is
a reasonable assumption. 

>And who is to say that this interpretation is "twisted"?  There
>are many passages in the Bible that in their most straightforward
>reading show the Christian god behaving in just this way.

Michael, and I, and others, read 'the Bible' with Christian
glasses. Among the things that this should imply is that the
NT informs the OT, even to the point of dominanting it. Some
points in the OT (ceremonial & dietary laws) are explicitly 
abrogated by the NT texts. To drive Russell Turpin's point with
adequacy, one needs to begin with NT texts (probably from Matthew,
and probably about damnation) (Just trying to help :-) )

This part is, I discover, what most moves me to post:

mls> I am a "radical" Christian *only* in that I take the gospel seriously.

>No, Michael, the conservative Christians also take the gospel 
>seriously.  What differentiates you is the way you interpret the
>gospel.

Russell Turpin's 'No' here is misplaced, not to say inappropriate.
Michael's self-description much govern.  The equation of radical = liberal, 
which seems implied by Russell Turpin  is wrong.  Radical conservatives are 
possible (if sadly lacking in numbers at present). Thomas Merton
was a radical, even though conservative in some ways. St Francis
was a radical, similarly. How many examples are needed?

mls> ... Why don't I and the (myriads of) other Christians like me
mls> tell you something about Christianity? ...

Michael's question gets to a heart of the matter (Klingons have
two hearts, so my metaphor is not mixed, just extraterrestrial :-) )
Russell Turpin (in an earlier post) had said that Michael (Michael's
theological positions, actually) didn't tell him much about Christianity;
Dean Simeon responds (this time gently): 'What do you mean?' More
direct, perhaps, would have been: 'What could you possibly mean?'
The implied rhetorical effort, to separate Michael from the 
tradition, is a failure. Michael is in the tradition. If your idea
of the tradition doesn't include him, Change your idea of the tradition!

>The irony here is that there is *nothing* in Christianity per
>se that Michael can use to support the cause of lesbians and
>gays.  

How can one answer this while staying on the more general issue?
I'm on the other side of the interpretive fence (from Michael)
on this issue, yet '*nothing*' is a hideous overstatement.

One verse is enough to refute it; I'll offer two, from
Paul (of all people):

'In Jesus Christ there is neither male nor female...'(Galatians 3:28
{I don't quote single verses as a rule, and I don't carry 
them in my head}) and '*Nothing* shall separate us from the glory of God...' 
(roughly, from Romans). [If Russell would promise to convert based
on these or any other verses,  I'd promise to get the full context
for any that he requires :-) :-)]

>In short, it is the extra-Christian principles that
>make Michael's Christianity beneficial, and I suspect they would
>be as beneficial, perhaps moreso, without being filtered by
>Christian interpretation.  

This conclusion does not follow, even in short, from the
argument that goes before. A surprising logical ellipsis.

Dave Davis, ddavis@ma30.bull.com
These are my opinions & activities alone

QOTD:

"Wild beasts trapped in their cages are not so fierce
 as are the Christians to each other."
					Julian the Apostate, c.361


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84253
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Subject: Re: Koresh Doctrine -- 4 of 4

In article <watson.735759766@mariner.sce.carleton.ca>, watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson) writes:
> Question for those of you who seem to be fundamentalists (Stephen
> Tice, the Cotera, Joe Gaut, et al)(apologies if I've mislabelled any
> of you, I've only started reading t.r.m since the BD disaster.  But I
> know the Cotera is a fundy) and are defending Koresh and his beliefs
> as an example of True Christianity under persecution from the the Big
> Bad Secular State: what is your opinion of his reported sexual habits?
> If the reports are accurate, what IYO does this say about the quality of
> his Christianity?  Or are the allegations just part of the Big
> Cover-Up?

Thank you, Steve.  It is refreshing to have someone accuse me of being
a Christian.  I only hope enough evidence can be garnered to get a
conviction.  I am not certain what you mean by the "fundy" part as the
term fundamentalist has a wide variety of uses.  If you refer to
those who actually believe Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God and
wish to follow in his way, then I plead guilty.  But what does it
matter what I think.  The Roman circus is over.  The lions have been
satisfied -- for now.  The Emperor, after the long and gruelling
struggle, sensed the crowd was tiring and gave thumbs down.

With respect to my previous comments about David Koresh, I urge you
to re-examine my previous posts.  I believe you mistakenly assume
that defense of Koresh' right to his own personal beliefs and his
right to express them to others implies agreement with Koresh'
theology.  Actually I understand little about the details of Branch-
Davidian teachings and regret so many are hung-up on that aspect
of the tragic events of the past few days.

Nor do I think Koresh' sex life should be of any interest to the
federal government.  Of course Hillary says he had been molesting
infants so it must be true even though such allegations do not
fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government; they are
state and local matters and have been thoroughly reviewed at the
local level by proper authorities with no successful charge having
ever been levied against him.  Under American law, he was innocent
as Americans are presumed innocent until proven guilty.  At least
that's how it is suppposed to be.  But he was demonized and propa-
gandized against by a powerful machine to have him appear as a
lustful beast and therefore deserving of every ill the fates might
bring upon him.  

But evidence trickles in that the twenty-one children, who left the
building in the early days of the siege,  were carefully examined
by qualified authorities for evidence of physical or sexual abuse
and none was found.  DeGuerin, one of the attorneys who met with
Davidians several times before the conflagration, reported that
the children seemed well adjusted and showed no sign of abuse.

Ultimately, Steve, what I think about the heart of David Koresh
is quite unimportant.  Today he is in the benevolent hands of a
most wise and merciful judge who will one day surely judge us all.
So I withhold any judgment of David Koresh and defer to the One
who has all knowledge.  Meanwhile, let's clean up the mess left
on earth and keep this from happening again by sending a strong
message to the government to respect the inalienable rights of the
people it serves.

--Joe Gaut

> 
> (I remain deliberately neutral on the cause of the fire: I wouldn't
> put it past Koresh to have torched the place himself.  On the other
> hand, if the propane-tank-accident story is correct, I wouldn't put it
> past the FBI to try to cover its ass by claiming Koresh did it.  I
> hope your government does a VERY thorough investigation of the whole
> debacle, and I'll be disappointed if a few heads don't roll.  The
> authorities seem to have botched the original raid, and in the matter
> of the fire, are guilty of either serious misjudgement, or reckless
> endangerment.)
> --
> | Steve Watson a.k.a. watson@sce.carleton.ca === Carleton University, Ontario |
> |  this->opinion = My.opinion;  assert (this->opinion != CarletonU.opinion);  |
> "Somebody touched me / Making everything new / Burned through my life / Like a
>  bolt from the blue / Somebody touched me / I know it was you" - Bruce Cockburn

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84254
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> Specifically, I'd like to know what relativism concludes when two
> people grotesquely disagree.  Is it:
> 
> (a) Both are right
> 
> (b) One of them is wrong, and sometimes (though perhaps rarely) we have a 
>     pretty good idea who it is
> 
> (c) One of them is wrong, but we never have any information as to who, so
>     we make our best guess if we really must make a decision.
> 
> (d) The idea of a "right" moral judgement is meaningless (implying that
>      whether peace is better than war, e.g., is a meaningless question,
>      and need not be discussed for it has no correct answer)
> 
> (e) Something else.  A short, positive assertion would be nice.

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


mathew

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84255
From: tph@susie.sbc.com (Timothy P. Henrion)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

In article <1993Apr21.093914.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>In article <1r17j9$5ie@sbctri.sbc.com>, netd@susie.sbc.com () writes:
>> In article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>>>For those who think David Koresh didn't have a solid structure,
>>>or sound Biblical backing for his hour long tape broadcast,
>> 
>> I don't think anyone really cares about the solid structure of his
>> sermon.  It's the deaths he's responsible for that concern most people.
>
>I assume you have evidence that he was responsible for the deaths?

Only my common sense.  The fire was caused by either Koresh and his
followers or by the FBI/ATF/CIA/KGB/and maybe the Harper Valley PTA.  Since
you are throwing around the evidence arguement, I'll throw it back.  Can
you prove any government agency did it?  (Please don't resort to "they 
covered it up so that proves they did it" or any wild theories about how
the government agencies intentionally started the fire.  The key words
are proof and evidence.)
proves they did it"

>
>> All that "thou shalt not kill" stuff.
>
>I'd like to point out that the Bible says "Do not commit murder." The NKJ
>translation mistranslates.  Self-defense was never considered murder.  The

Please explain how Koresh was defending himself from those children who
burned.  

-- 
  Tim Henrion              Southwestern Bell Technology Resources
  thenrion@sbctri.sbc.com       

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84256
From: popec@brewich.hou.tx.us (Pope Charles)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick

caldwell@facman.ohsu.edu (Larry Caldwell) writes:

> kosinski@us.oracle.com (Kevin Osinski) writes:
> 
> >I recall reading in Michael (?) Rutherford's novel "Sarum" a scene in
> >which the son of a Roman nobleman living in Britain takes part in a
> >secret ceremony involving a bull.  He stands naked in a pit covered
> >with some sort of scaffolding while assistants coax a bull to stand on
> >the scaffolding.  They then fatally stab the bull, which douses the
> >worshipper in the pit with blood.  This is supposedly some sort of
> >rite of passage for members of the bull cult.  I wonder if this is
> >related to the Mithras cult?
> >
> >I don't know where Rutherford got his information for this chapter.
> >The book is historical fiction, and most of the general events which
> >take place are largely based on historical accounts.
> 
> There is a rite like this described in Joseph Campbell's
> _Occidental_Mythology_.  He also described levels of initiation, I think
> 6?  I don't know where Campbell got his info, but I remember thinking he
> was being a little eclectic.
> 
> >I also wonder what if any connection there is between the ancient bull
> >cults and the current practice of bullfighting popular in some
> >Mediterranean cultures.
> 
> Quite a bit.  If you haven't read Campbell, give him a try.  
> 
> -- 
> -- Larry Caldwell  caldwell@ohsu.edu  CompuServe 72210,2273
> Oregon Health Sciences University.  (503) 494-2232


Yes.  I cannot remeber which works I read about this in, as it was many 
years ago.  This ritual was called The Tarobaullum I believe, (The 
spelling may be off).

Pope Charles

------------------
popec@brewich.hou.tx.us (Pope Charles)
Origin: The Brewers' Witch BBS -- Houston, TX -- +1 713 272 7350

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84257
From: popec@brewich.hou.tx.us (Pope Charles)
Subject: Re: Freemasonry and the Southern Baptist Convention

lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:

> In article <1qv82l$oj2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony
> >
> >
> >     With the Southern Baptist Convention convening this June to consider
> >the charges that Freemasonry is incompatible with christianity, I thought
> >the following quotes by Mr. James Holly, the Anti-Masonic Flag Carrier,
> >would amuse you all...
> >
> >
> >     The following passages are exact quotes from "The Southern 
> >Baptist Convention and Freemasonry" by James L. Holly, M.D., President
> >of Mission and Ministry To Men, Inc., 550 N 10th St., Beaumont, TX 
> >77706. 
> > 
> <much drivel deleted>
> >     "Jesus Christ never commanded toleration as a motive for His 
> >disciples, and toleration is the antithesis of the Christian message."
> >Page 30. 
> > 
> >     "The central dynamic of the Freemason drive for world unity 
> >through fraternity, liberty and equality is toleration. This is seen 
> >in the writings of the 'great' writers of Freemasonry". Page 31. 
> <more drivel deleted>
> >     I hope you all had a good laugh! I know *I* did! <g>,
> >
> >
> >Tony   
> A Laugh?  Tony, this religeous bigot scares the shit out of me, and that
> any one bothers to listen to him causes me to have grave doubts about the
> future of just about anything.  Shades of the Branch Davidians, Jim Jones,
> and Charlie Manson.
> 
> --Uncle Wolf
> --Member Highland Lodge 748 F&AM (Grand Lodge of California)
> --Babtized a Southern Babtist
> --And one who has beliefs beyond the teachings of either.
> 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 


Not to worry.  The Masons have been demonized and harrassed by almost 
every major Xian church there is.  For centuries now.  And still they 
stand.  They wil withstand the miserable Southern Boobtists, I am sure.
They may even pick up a little support as people start to listen to the 
Boobtists and realize that subtracting the obvious lies and claims of 
Satanism that the Masons sound pretty good by comparison.  One thing is 
known.  A sizable proportion of Southern Babtists are Masons!  And the 
Masons have already fired back in their own magazines against the 
Boobtist Witch-hunt.
  Since the Consrervatives have already been a divisive element with 
their war on Boobtist moderates and liberals, they may now start in on 
their Mason/Boobtist brothers and hasten their own downfall as more and 
more Southern Boobtists realize their church can't stand being run by a 
handful of clowns looking for holy civil wars and purity tests and drop 
'em out of the leadership positions they have taken over.
  So as far as I am concerned, the louder, ruder, and more outrageous 
an Anti-Masonic Crusade these old goats mount, the better.

Pop some pocorn and get a center row seat.  The circus is about to begin.
And, Oh Look!  HERE COME THE CLOWNS!


Pope Charles    Slack!

------------------
popec@brewich.hou.tx.us (Pope Charles)
Origin: The Brewers' Witch BBS -- Houston, TX -- +1 713 272 7350

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84258
From: joakimr@ifi.uio.no (Joakim Ruud)
Subject: Re: The Universe and Black Holes, was Re: 2000 years.....


In article <1r4cvpINNkv2@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
> 
> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> 
> > Let's say that we drop a marble into the black hole.  It races, ever faster,
> >towards the even horizon.  But, thanks to the curving of space caused by the
> >excessive gravity, as the object approaches the event horizon it has
> further to
> >travel.  Integrating the curve gives a time to reach the event horizon
> of . . .
> >infinity.  So the math says that nothing can enter a black hole.

Isn't that just a variation of the "Achilles & the turtle" paradox, which
states that achilles could never possibly overtake a turtle?

		 	How should one deal with a man who is convinced that
		 	he is acting according to God's will, and who there-
     Jokke		fore believes that he is doing you a favour by
		 	stabbing you in the back?
 
							-Voltaire

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84259
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: After 2000 posts, can we say that this thread is dead?

unfortunately not


--
Legalize Freedom

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84260
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: That Kill by Sword, Must be Killed by Sword

In article <sandvik-210493225738@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <C5uvvD.GDD@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) wrote:
>> I am also unhappy (or actually, very suspicious) that the FBI was dismissing
>> out of hand any chances that they might have accidentally set the blaze 
>> themselves. I mean, I guess we are just supposed to believe that
>> ramming modified tanks into the walls of a building and injecting
>> toxic gases into the building are just routine procedures, no WAY
>> anything could go wrong.
>
>My core point was, and still is, that 19 children died, and Mr.
>Koresh could just have opened the door and asked the children to
>go out before all this happened. You might blaim FBI, ATF,
>President Clinton, Satan, Pepsi Coke or anything else, but
>you can't avoid the fact that one single action would have 
>saved small children from a dreadful and painful death.

1) Well, Mr Koresh allowed other children and adults to leave the compound
during the course of the siege; why didnt these children leave then?
I dont know myself, and certainly havent heard any answers on this here.

2) Yes, one simple non-action, ie NOT attacking the compound with
modified tanks, would have prevented this tragedy. I bet you blamed
the MOVE people for the deaths that occurred in adjacent row
houses in Philadelphia, not the government which dropped the
firebomb, right?


--
Legalize Freedom

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84261
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <sandvik-210493213823@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
#Frank, unless you didn't realize it, you are just now involved
#in a debate where we have various opinions, and each entity
#has its own frame where the opinion is expressed. I think I 
#don't need to state the dreadful r-word.

So, it's _sometimes_ correct to say that morality is objective, or what?
After all, I could hardly be wrong, without dragging in the o-word.
For your part, when you say that relativism is true, that's just
your opinion.  Why do folk get so heated then, if a belief in relativism
is merely a matter of taste?  (to be fair, _you_ have been very calm,
I get the impression that's because you don't care about notions of
objectivity in any flavour.  Right?)

-- 
Frank O'Dwyer                                  'I'm not hatching That'
odwyer@sse.ie                                  from "Hens",  by Evelyn Conlon

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84262
From: kaamran@sun14.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca ()
Subject: What was Koresh's messsage?

Dear netters

I am wondering about the accident of Koresh. I have heard different 
explanations.
Without any explanation about your opinions and believes,
 please kindly tell me:

     1)- What was Koresh talking about?. (Or  what was his message)
     2)- What was the main reason that Government went in war with
             Koresh?
(Some say that due to Tax payment, ....)

Thanks in advance for your historical explanation.

Kaamran

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84263
From: bcash@crchh410.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Are atoms real? (was Re: After 2000 years blah blah blah)

Petri and Mathew,

Your discusion on the "reality" of atoms is interesting, but it
would seem that you are verging on the question "Is anything real":
that is, since observation is not 100% reliable, how can we say
that anything is "real".  I don't think this was the intention
of the original question, since you now define-out the word
"real" so that nothing can meet its criteria.
Just a thought.

Brian /-|-\

PS  Rainbows and Shadows are "real": they are not objects, they
are phenomenon.  An interesting question would be if atoms
are objects (classical) or phenomenon (neo-quantum) or what?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84264
From: joakimr@ifi.uio.no (Joakim Ruud)
Subject: What RIGHT ?


Recently, I've asked myself a rather interesting question: What RIGHT does
god have on our lives (always assuming there is a god, of course...!) ??

In his infinite wisdom, he made it perfectly clear that if we don't live
according to his rules, we will burn in hell. Well, with what RIGHT can god
make that desicion? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that god creates every
one of us (directly or indirectly, it doesn't matter.). What then happens, is
that he first creates us, and then turns us lose. Well, I didn't ask to be
created. 

Let's make an analogue. If a scientist creates a unique living creature (which
has happened, it was even patented...!!!), does he then have the right to
expect it to behave in a certain matter, or die...?

Who is god to impose its rules on us ? Who can tell if god is REALLY so
righteous as god likes us to believe? Are all christians a flock of sheep,
unable to do otherwise that follow the rest? 

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I just want to point out that this is not sarcasm, I mean it.

		 	How should one deal with a man who is convinced that
		 	he is acting according to God's will, and who there-
     Jokke		fore believes that he is doing you a favour by
		 	stabbing you in the back?
 
							-Voltaire


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84265
From: Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Subject: Re: Ceci's "rosicrucian" adventure :-)

930425

Tony Alicia writes:

Let's start with the name "Rosicrucian". I took me a long time to come
to the conclusion that there is a difference between a *member* of a
"rosicrucian" body and BEING *a* ROSICRUCIAN. So when you say that you met
some 'rosicrucians' you mean "members of a group that calls themselves
rosicrucian". At least that is what your observation suggests :-)


Response:

This makes much sense to me.  This is also true of most religions.
There is a difference between being a *member* of a group of people
who call themselves 'Hindus' or 'Christians' or 'Pagans' and actually
*BEING* any of these.  The social groups tend to make very important
requirements about not belonging to other 'religions'.  I find that
the ideal described by the holy texts of most religions can be
interpreted in very similar ways so that one could presume that
'mysticism' is the core of every religion and Huxley's 'Perennial
Philosophy' is the Great Secret Core of all mystical trads. :>


Tony:

I'd prefer if you would have stated up front that it was the Lectorium
Rosicrucianum, only because they may be confused, by some readers of this
newsgroup, with the Rosicrucian Order AMORC based (the USA Jurisdiction) in
San Jose, CA; this being the RC org with the most members (last time I
looked). Of course, "most members" does not *necessarily* mean "best".


Response:

Certainly true.  I didn't know there WERE any groups which called themselves
'Rosicrucians' that didn't associate with AMORC.  Sure, I've heard all the
hubbub about the Golden Dawn and Rosae Crucis in relation to all these
Western esoteric groups, but hadn't heard about other 'Rosicrucians'.
I'll admit my bias.  I live in San Jose. :>


Tony:

"You'll have to trust me" when I tell you that if that
lecture/class/whatever had been presented by AMORC, it is unlikely that you
would have had the same impression, i.e., you'd probably have had a
positive impression more likely than a negative one, IMHO. 


Response:

This may be slightly off.  I've met some of these Rosicrucians and have
a couple friends in AMORC.  The stories I've heard and the slight contact
I've had with them does not give me the hope that I'd be received with
any kind of warm welcome.  I still like to think that most people who
are involved with stratified relationships (monogamy, religion, etc.)
are in DEEP pain and hope to heal it within such a 'cast'.


Tony:

     
It is curious to know that 3 other RC 'orders' (in the USA) claim to be *non-
sectarian*.


Response:

I'd like to know at least the addresses of the 'other orders' which call 
themselves 'Rosicrucians' and especially those which are 'nonsectarian'.
Is this 'nonsectarian' like the Masons, who require that a member 'believe
in God by his/her definition'?

     
     
Tony:

I don't see nothing *fundamentally* wrong with "us containing
something divine"... And yes I don't like phrases like "eternal bliss"
either! :-)


Response:

Let alone us *BEING* something divine. ;>


Tony:

BTW, I have read the intro letters of the LRC which they will mail you free
of charge.


Response:

Addresses, phone numbers of groups?  I'm into networking.  Thanks.


    |                                                      WILL
  \ | /                                                    LOVE
  \\|//    !!          !! 
__\\|//__    \{}}}{{{}/
____|___________|@@|      "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
                |  |                                   - Albert Einstein
Thyagi         /    \ 
NagaSiva      |(*)(*)|     Thyagi@HouseofKAos.Abyss.com
              \^^^^^^/            House of KAoS
               -^^^^-             871 Ironwood Dr.
                 ~~               San Jose, CA 95125-2815
'Fr.Nigris' on Divination Web
                Telnet seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu 9393

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84266
Subject: Re: [rw] Is Robert Weiss the only orthodox Christian?
From: <LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET>

In article <C5vGyD.H7s@acsu.buffalo.edu>, psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert
Weiss) says:
>
>     "Orthodox" is a compound word. It comes from 'orthos' (straight, true,
>     right) and from 'doxa' (opinion, doctrine, teaching). I use orthodox to
>     refer to 'right teaching.' Right teaching is derived from letting God
>     speak to us through the Bible. This can be from reading simple truths
>     in the Scriptures and by using the Bible to interpret the Bible.

  Thanks for the etymology lesson, but I actually know what "orthodox" means.
You're avoiding my question, however, which was: From what body of theology
does your version of orthodoxy come?  You seem to simply be saying that
whatever *you* understand the Bible to say is "orthodox."

>ra> Who is that "holds that" Luke meant what you said he meant?
>
>     I think that it is apparent from reading the Scriptures that are
>     pertinent.

  You are obviously mistaken, since many, many people have read the Bible and
many do not agree with you on this point.  Once again, Robert, is your
interpretation the only "correct" or "orthodox" one?

>ra> Whenever your personal interpretation of Biblical passages is
>ra> challenged, your only response seems to be that one needs merely to
>ra> "look at the Bible" in order to see the truth, but what of those who
>ra> see Biblical things differently from you?
>

>     I seem to be seeing from you the notion that any difference in how one
>     views the Bible is somehow legitimate, except, or course, for the stuff
>     that I glean from it. Put forward a contrary view and perhaps we can
>     have a discussion on that topic. But to decry something that I put
>     forward, without putting forward something else to discuss, and to
>     dismiss what I put forward while giving credence to other alleged views
>     that have yet to be put forward is simply being contentious.

   This whole string began as a response to your attacks on Mormonism; no one
is attacking your personal beliefs, only your tendency to present them as
"orthodoxy."  I don't much care *what* you believe about the Bible; just don't
present you personal understanding as the only "orthodox" one.

>
>ra> Are we to simply assume that you are the only one who really
>ra> understands it?
>
>     If you believe that something that I have drawn from Scripture is
>     wrong, then please, show me from Scripture where it is wrong.  Simply
>     stating that there are other views is not a proof. Show it to me from
>     Scripture and then we can go on.

   I have never attacked your specific beliefs -- that's *your* approach,
remember?
    Stating that other people who depend solely on the Bible have other views
is indeed proof that the Bible can be interpreted many ways, which has been
my whole point all along.  The specifics of your belief are your business;
just don't pretend that they are anything more than your personal
intepretation, and be careful about crying "heresy" based on your private
belief system.

>=============================
>Robert Weiss
>psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

--
Rick Anderson  librba@BYUVM.BITNET

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84267
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> In article <930421.102525.9Y9.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew 
> <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> #frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> #> Presumably this means that some moral systems are better than others?
> #> How so?  How do you manage this without an objective frame of reference?
> #
> #Which goes faster, a bullet or a snail?  How come you can answer that when
> #Einstein proved that there isn't an objective frame of reference?
> 
> Not that Einstein "proved" anything,

Oh, yes he did.  You may not agree with his premises, and what he proved may
not apply to "reality" (if such a thing exists), but he certainly proved
something.

>                                        but you can't answer it, and your 
> answer be in general true.

Got it in one.  Similarly, a moral relativist will not judge one moral system
to be better than another in every possible circumstance.  This does not,
however, preclude him from judging one moral system to be better than another
in a specific set of circumstances.  Nor does it preclude a set of moral
relativists from collectively judging a moral system, from some set of
circumstances which they all agree they are in.

>                             And even that statement assumes an
> objective reality independent of our beliefs about it.

Eh?  Could you explain this?  Which "that statement" are you talking about?

> #> And what weasel word do you use to describe that frame of reference, if
> #> it isn't an objective reality for values?
> #
> #I'm sorry, I can't parse "an objective reality for values".  Could you try
> #again?
> 
> s/an objective reality for values/some values are real even in the face
> of disagreement/

I still don't quite see what you're trying to say.  I assume by "values" you
mean moral values, yes?  In which case, what do you mean by "real"?  What is
a "real" moral value, as opposed to an unreal one?

> If you are saying that some moral systems are better than others, in
> your opinion, then all you get is infinite regress.

Sorry, but in what way is it an infinite regress?  It looks extremely finite
to me.

>                                                    What you do not get
> is any justification for saying that the moral system of the terrorist
> is inferior to that of the man of peace.

Sorry, but that's not so.  I can provide a justification for asserting that
the moral system of the terrorist is inferior to that of the man of peace.  I
just can't provide a justification which works in all possible circumstances.

Similarly, I can provide a justification for asserting that bullets move
faster than snails.  That justification won't hold in all possible frames of
reference, but it will hold in almost all the frames of reference I am ever
likely to be in.

>                                      Your saying it does not
> make it so,  and that's according to your premise, not mine.

I don't think I agree with this.  My saying it *does* make it so *from my
point of view* and according to *my premises*, unless the argument is invalid.
It may indeed not make it so from your point of view, but I never claimed
that it did.  In fact, I don't even claim that you exist enough to have a
point of view.


mathew

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84268
From: cutter@gloster.via.mind.org (cutter)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
> >
> >One way or another -- so much for patience. Too bad you couldn't just 
> >wait. Was the prospect of God's Message just too much to take?
> 
> So you believe that David Koresh really is Jesus Christ?
> 

You know, everybody scoffed at that guy they hung up on a cross too.
He claimed also to be the son of God; and it took almost two thousand 
years to forget what he preached.

	Love thy neighbor as thyself.


Anybody else wonder if those two guys setting the fires were 'agent 
provacateurs.'


---------------------------------------------------------------------
cutter@gloster.via.mind.org (chris)     All jobs are easy 
                                     to the person who
                                     doesn't have to do them.
                                               Holt's law

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84269
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: [rw] Is Robert Weiss the only orthodox Christian?

In article <1993Apr23.170101.19708@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:
> No.  I also understand it. I have read the Bible from cover to cover, examining
> each book within, cross-comparing them, etc.  And I have come to same conclusions
> as Robert Weiss.
> 
> So Rick, why not read the Bible for yourself?  It is written in plain
> english.  Decide for yourself.   

I'm curious to know if Christians ever read books based on critique
on the religion, classical text such as "Age of Reason" by Paine,
or "The Myth Maker" by Jacobi. Sometimes it is good to know your
enemy, and if you want to do serious research you have to understand
both sides, and not solely the one and only right one.

Cheers,
Kent

---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84270
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: To Rob Lanphier

In article <1993Apr23.181843.20224@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:
> Kent, with regards to the information contained in the Bible (which
> is the original context of this thread), Brian Kendig is inside a huge
> wall.  Brian *IS* inside.  The Bible and the information contained therein
> are outside the wall.   Brian Kendig proves this very sad fact by the
> absurd things he says.  For example, "If I get through into the firey
> pit, I will cease to exist."  The Bible doesn't say that.  He hasn't
> a clue even to what Jesus said about hell.  That is but one example.

Looking at your discussion I would say that you both operate
from your own reference frame. There's no inside and no outside,
there are just two polarized views. As for statements inside the
Bible, things are still not that clear, we don't have any indications
for instance why Jobs was placed in the Old Testament, one of the 
few books that actually talks about Satan. Jobs is very much out
of line with the rest of the OT books, and there's a chance that
someone added this book later into the group of OT scriptures.

> Now in your sense, Kent, of sensing reality--that is a different
> matter.  And to you and to Brian, relativity does play a big role.
> What we perceive to be true, depends on our vantage point.  Since I
> have read the Bible, and Brian Kendig shows that he hasn't, he has 
> a narrower perspective than mine  (at least in the respect
> of knowledge of the Bible).   I am proposing to Brian, "Brian, come up here
> and take a look from this vantage point."   But Brian replies, "I rather
> not thank you.  I am content where I am.  Besides, the vista from up
> there stinks."   And in the meanwhile, Brian ignores the facts that
> he has never up there nor does he realize I had shared the same
> plateau where Brian now stands.

This operates the other way around as well. You have to understand
the mind of an atheist, agnostic, or as in my case, a radical
relativist. If you don't understand the underlying concepts, it is 
pretty hard to continue with a dialogue. I'm not a perfect Christian,
however about 20+ years of Christian teaching should have provided
me with a pretty good picture of the Christian mind frame.

Cheers,
Kent

---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84271
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion

In article <1e9e02bm40FM01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, agr00@ccc.amdahl.com
(Anthony G Rose) wrote:
> >I have a hard time just now understanding that Christianity
> >knows about the word compassion. Christians, do you think 
> >the actions today would produce a good picture of your 
> >religion?

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

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

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84272
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!

In article <1993Apr24.165727.8899@ra.royalroads.ca>,
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
> In article <sandvik-210493230542@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> |> It seems faith is the only tool available for emotional purposes
> |> due to the tragedy. As such it maybe fills a need, however I'm
> |> getting tired to see children dying in pain in Sudan due to lack
> |> of food, and assuming that God takes these sufferers to heaven
> |> after a painful death.
> |> 
> 
> If the children are not being fed, whose fault is that?  You and I
> have plenty of food on our tables while others starve.  Why is that?
> God gave us this earth to manage.  I don't think we're doing a very
> good job of it.  The only consolation I have for those suffering
> children is that they will be received into the kingdom of Heaven
> where they will never thirst and never hunger again.

I agree with your points, and I'm glad to hear that you subscribe
to the notion of secular humanism, humans helping humans instead
of hoping for a possible deux ex machina solution!

As for faith, you could always use such constructs to dampen
your anger or sorrow.

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84273
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <2855@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM>,
tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) wrote:
> In article <1993Apr20.220340.2585@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
> >armed to the teeth.  A Christian should not have to rely on physical weapons
> >to defend himself.  A Christian should rely on his faith and intelligence.
 
> Faith and intelligence tell me that when a druggie breaks into my house at
> night with a knife to kill me for the $2 in my wallet, a .357 is considerably
> more persuasive than having devotions with him.

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

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84274
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Christians above the Law? was Clarification of pe

In article <C62AIG.L62@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu
(Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> In article <C61Kow.E4z@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
> >>Jesus was a JEW, not a Christian.
 
> If a Christian means someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus, it is safe
> to say that Jesus was a Christian.

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

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84275
From: cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl)
Subject: Re: Burden of Proof

In article <1r4b59$7hg@aurora.engr.LaTech.edu>, ray@engr.LaTech.edu (Bill Ray) writes:
********NOTE: FOLLOWUPS go to alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins!

[deleted]
> If I make a statement, "That God exists, loves me, etc." but in no way
> insist that you believe it, does that place a burden of proof upon me.
> If you insist that God doesn't exist, does that place a burden of proof 
> upon you?  I give no proofs, I only give testimony to my beliefs.  I will
> respond to proofs that you attempt to disprove my beliefs.

If you say X statement and give it the authority of fact, I will respond
by asking you why. You aren't obligated to say anything, but if your
intent is to convince me that X statement is true, then yes, the burden
of proof is upon you. 

If you are merely giving testimony to your beliefs, then you are an egotist.
Why would I care?

To surmise, the burden of proof is upon you if you wish us to believe that
what you say is true.

Chris Faehl
cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84276
From: cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs)
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?




>Capser, before you deceive everone into thinking that the latter-day
>saints have undergone undue persecution through the years for just
>believing in their religion, perhaps you would like to tell us all what
>happened in the Mountain Meadow Massacres and all the killings that were
>done under the Blood Atonement Doctrine, at the command of Brigham Young?

Why don't you tell us, Tony?  I'm sure what you THINK you know adds up to a
lot more than what Casper has.

Doesn't it frustrate you to consider how many intelligent, thoughtful 
people you have prepared for the Mormon missionaries with your rant?  The
more you talk, the better we look.  Nothing makes the truth look better
than a background of falsehood.

Sic 'em, Tony!
-- 
------------ John W. Redelfs, cj195@cleveland.freenet.edu -------------
--------- All my opinions are tentative pending further data. ---------

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84277
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:

>Someone in the government actually believed Koresh knew the "seven
>seals of the apocalypse", and ordered the invasion so that they'd all
>be dead and unable to talk about them in public.

Everything we need to know about the seven seals is already
in the bible.  There is no "knowledge" of the seals that
Koresh could have.

Unless the FBI were to kill all publishers of the bible, it
would seem the story of the seven seals would be bound to
leak out.

Assuming for the moment that the FBI believed in the bible and 
were afraid of the seven seals, then they would also know
that God is the one who has to open the seals, not some
little prophet like Koresh.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84278
From: cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?



>...in other words faith in a .357 is far stronger than faith in a 
>God providing a miracle for his followers. Interesting. Now, if 
>David Korresh was God, why couldn't he use lightning instead of 
>semi-automatic rifles? It seems even he didn't trust in himself.
>
>Cheers,
>Kent
>---
>sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

In the hands of a defender, a .357 _is_ a miracle from God.  He helps those 
who help themselves.  Or haven't you ever heard that one before?
-- 
------------ John W. Redelfs, cj195@cleveland.freenet.edu -------------
--------- All my opinions are tentative pending further data. ---------

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84279
From: MORIARTY@NDSUVM1.BITNET
Subject: Re: New Religion Forming -- Sign Up

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

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84280
From: ins559n@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Andrew Bulhak)
Subject: Re: New Religion Forming -- Sign Up

Jim Kasprzak (kasprj@isaac.its.rpi.edu) wrote:
: In article <=4z5wqc@rpi.edu>, weinss@rs6101.ecs.rpi.edu (Stephen Andrew Weinstein) writes:
: |> Let me begin by saying I think this is the world's first religion to use
: |> the net as its major recruitment medium.  Therefore, even if this
: |> religion does not take off, its founding members will be very important
: |> historically as this method of soliciting membership will eventually become 
: |> common.
:  
:  So what is Kibology? Chopped liver?

Kibo Himself summed it up by saying "Kibology is not just a religion, it is
also a candy mint ... and a floor wax." I personally think that it is more
like Spam Clear.
:   
:  You really should check out alt.religion.kibology, as Kibo's religion is 
: slightly older than yours, makes more sense and has more slack.

Yes! Why send money to B0B when Kibo will pay you to worship him. (Funny, he
doesn't seem to have paid me...)

: ------------------------------------------------------------------
:      __  Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State...
:  ___/  | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
: /____ *|   "I understand the causes, and sympathize your motivations,
:      \_| But all the details of this war are just your self-infatuation." 
:       ====  e-mail: kasprj@rpi.edu or kasprzak@mts.rpi.edu 

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Andrew Bulhak	     |                                              |
|  acb@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | David Koresh fried for your sins.            | 
|  Monash Uni, Clayton,      |                                              |
|  Victoria, Australia       |                                              |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84281
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Ancient references to Christianity (was: Albert Sabin)

In article <C5ztJu.FKx@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
|>
|> Why is the NT tossed out as info on Jesus.  

It isn't.   It's usually treated as being about as reliable as
any other single, uncorroborated source of information about
a person for whom there is no other evidence.

|> I realize it is normally tossed out because it contains 
|> miracles, but what are the other reasons?

What do you mean when you say it contains mirables.    I just
opened mine and not a damned thing happened.   Is there some
special way to do this?

jon.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84282
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Ancient references to Christianity (was: Albert Sabin)

In article <C62B7n.6B4@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
|> In <1ren9a$94q@morrow.stanford.edu> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) 
|> writes:
|> 
|> >In article <C5ztJu.FKx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike 
|> Cobb) writes:
|> >>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?
|> 
|> > It is not tossed out as a source, but would it be regarded as
|> >unbiased and independant? 
|> 
|> This brings up another something I have never understood.  I asked this once
|> before and got a few interesting responses, but somehow didn't seem satisfied.
|> Why would the NT NOT be considered a good source.

Contradicting itself on facts, for example.

jon.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84283
From: rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy)
Subject: No-knock, was Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

 isaackuo@skippy.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo) states in reply to deleted
article about no-knock searches, arrests


>Hmm.  The police strategy of bursting in with weapons drawn, clearly
>marked as officers and yelling "Police" repeatedly.  This is used every
>day to bust drug houses.  The idea is to awe the suspects into
>submission with surprise and display of firepowere in order to avoid a
>gun fight.  As for not knocking, it's a sad necessity in many cases
>since the suspects will attempt to escape or even fight.  Usually this
>strategy works; if it didn't, then it wouldn't be used so commonly, now
>would it?

In general no-knock raids are to preserve evidence, like drugs,
which can be flushed down the toilet.  They are not the standard way
to arrest a violent felon like a bank robber.  If there is no need to
search or preserve evidence they will just surround the dwelling and
order the suspect to come out with her hands up.  If the suspect does
not come out tear gas will be used.


comment on the BD omitted


>I merely point out that it IS a valid strategy which is used every day.
>Furthermore, we don't know of any substitute strategy capable of
>apprehending potentially dangerous and armed suspects.  Do you suggest

It is not a method to apprehend criminals.

>that the police always knock with guns holstered and never arrest any
>suspects until they have been allowed to inspect the officers's badges?
>Just what should the police do when apprehending potentially dangerous
>and armed suspects? How far can they reasonably go to identity
>themselves? What do you suggest they can do which can't be faked by the
>"competition"?

It is a very dangerous method to obtain evidence that might be
destroyed if a warrant is served in the normal way.  It is the most
dangerous way to arrest anyone.  The cops are charging into a room
and they don't know what is in it.  It is much safer to surround the
place and announce yourself.


>Even if you've got deadly enemies who may pretend to be cops, that's
>not an excuse to murder police.  In the case of the BD's, there was
>almost definitely at most the paranoid delusion of deadly enimies who
>would pretend to be cops.

Cops are not cops _until_ they identify themselves as police officers.


Most drug dealers and professional criminals are aware of the
likelihood of arrest but they also know how the system works.  If they
are arrested they call their lawyer, post bail and hope for a plea
bargain.  If they pull a gun and shoot a cop during a raid they will
be charged with first degree murder if they survive the raid.  Drug
dealers have guns for protection from their customers and other
criminals, not to shoot cops.  Cops are shot on no-knock drug raids
because the criminals aren't aware that they are cops.

No-knock raids on homes occupied by non-criminals are more likely to
end in disaster.  Mom and Pop citizen _KNOW_ that they have not
committed any crime, they KNOW that anyone breaking into their house
cannot be a cop because they have done nothing wrong.  If they have
the means to defend themselves they may because they KNOW that the
housebreakers are criminals not cops.  Cops and homeowners may die.

The first reports from Waco stated that the ATF had a warrant to
search for illegal weapons and also an arrest warrant if the illegal
weapons were found.  In this case the no-knock warrant was not called
for.  It is difficult to flush a gun down the toilet.  The ATF could
have surrounded the compound.  A marked police car could have driven
up to the entrance and uniformed officers could have knocked and
served the warrant usual way.  It this had happened and and Koresh
refused the warrant or drove the cops off at gun point then most of
the t.p.g folks would have kept quiet.

--
Rod Anderson  N0NZO         | "I do not think the United States government
Boulder, CO                 | is responsible for the fact that a bunch of
rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu      | fanatics decided to kill themselves"
satellite  N0NZO on ao-16   |        Slick Willie the Compassionate

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84284
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: History & texts (was: Ancient references to Christianity)

In article <2944756297.1.p00261@psilink.com>, "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:
|> >DATE:   24 Apr 1993 11:53:48 -0500
|> >FROM:   Russell Turpin <turpin@cs.utexas.edu>
|> >
|> >
|> >The diaries of the followers of the Maharishi, formerly of
|> >Oregon, are historical evidence.  
|> 
|> Are you confusing Bhagwan Rajneesh (sp?) with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
|> here by any chance?  I think Bhagwan was in Oregon with all the Rolls
|> Royces.  Maharishi Mahesh Yogi founded Transcendental Meditation and
|> does the yogic flying stuff.  Bhagwan's group was a communal, free sex
|> kind of thing.  I think they both had beards, though.

I think we should just let Bhagwans be Bhagwans.

jon.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84285
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Koresh Doctrine -- 4 of 4

In article <1993Apr23.221525.4323@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>,
f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu wrote:
> Well, Stephen's annotated study of David Koresh's sermon
> doesn't bother me.  It's probable that a careful review of
> what Stephen has done with obvious expenditure of thoughtful
> effort would provide additional insight into David and his love
> for God [May his soul rest in peace.]   And whether or
> not we agree with various points of theology therein, a review
> would likely provide significant insight into our own love
> for God.  One thing that seems apparent from even a cursory
> reading of Koresh's message is that he was not the 'looney
> tunes' portrayed in the FBI filtered press reports on him
> but was quite possibly the friendly, likeable person his
> attorney reported him to be.

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

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84286
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: [rw] is Robert Weiss the only Orthodox Christian

In article <93111.074840LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET> LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET writes:
>
>  Robert, you keep making references to "orthodox" belief, and saying things
>like "it is held that..." (cf. "Kermit" thread).  On what exact body of
>theology are you drawing for what you call "orthodox?"  Who is that "holds
>that" Luke meant what you said he meant?  Whenever your personal interpretation
>of Biblical passages is challenged, your only response seems
>to be that one needs merely to "look at the Bible" in order to see the truth,
>but what of those who see Biblical things differently from you?  Are we to
>simply assume that you are the only one who really understands it?

Rick, I think we can safely say, 1) Robert is not the only person
who understands the Bible, and 2), the leadership of the LDS church
historicly never has.  Let's consider some "personal interpretations"
and see how much trust we should put in "Orthodox Mormonism", which
could never be confused with Orthodox Christianity.

        In one of his attacks on Christians, the Mormon Apostle Bruce R.
McConkie said they "thrash around in...darkness in trying to identify
Elohim and Jehovah and to show their relationship to the promised
Messiah." He also said Christians are wrong to believe "that Jehovah is
the Supreme Deity [God the Father]," and that Christ "came into
mortality" as His "Only Begotten" Son. McConkie then stated what Mormons
believe today to be the truth about the matter. He said that "Elohim is
the Father" and "Jehovah is the Son."

  "Being thus aware of how far astray the religious intellectualists
  have gone in defining their three-in-one God, it comes as no surprise
  to learn that they thrash around in the same darkness in trying to
  identify Elohim and Jehovah and to show their relationship to the
  promised Messiah. Some sectarians even believe that Jehovah is the
  Supreme Deity whose Son came into mortality as the Only Begotten. As
  with their concept that God is a Spirit, this misinformation about the
  Gods of Heaven is untrue. The fact is, and it too is attested by Holy
  Writ, that Elohim is the Father, and that Jehovah is the Son who was
  born into mortality as the Lord Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah.
  (Promised Messiah, p. 100)

        Notice that McConkie said the Christians are as wrong about
their "three-in-one God" and their belief that "God is a Spirit" as they
are in their understanding of who "Elohim" and "Jehovah" are. Before
examining McConkie's attack and its validity, we shall read a few more
statements by McConkie and other Mormon sources concerning the words
"Elohim" and "Jehovah." McConkie stated:

  "...the chief designation of Christ that has been preserved for us in
  the Old Testament, as that ancient work is now published, is the
  exalted name-title Jehovah. (Promised Messiah, p. 367)

  "_Elohim_, plural word though it is, is also used as the exalted
  name-title of God the Eternal Father, a usage that connotes his
  supremacy and omnipotence, he being God above all Gods. (Mormon
  Doctrine, p. 224)

        Agreeing with McConkie on the question of who "Elohim" and
"Jehovah" are, the Apostle James E. Talmage stated:

  "_Elohim_, as understood and used in the restored Church of Jesus
  Christ, is the name-title of God the Eternal Father, whose firstborn
  Son in the spirit is _Jehovah_ -- the Only Begotten in the flesh,
  Jesus Christ. (Jesus the Christ, p. 38)

        "A Doctrinal Exposition by The First Presidency and the Twelve"
apostles of the Mormon Church states that "God the Eternal Father...[is]
designate[d] by the exalted name-title 'Elohim'..." (Articles of Faith,
p. 466) "...Christ in His preexistent, antemortal, or unembodied
state...was known as Jehovah..." (Articles of Faith, p. 471)

        Today Mormon leaders teach that "Elohim" in the OT refers to God
the Father and "Jehovah" refers to Christ. McConkie attacked Christians
for saying "Jehovah" can refer to the Father. He stressed that these two
"name-titles" should not be changed around so that Christ is called
"Elohim" and the Father is called "Jehovah." "...the Father...is Elohim,
not Jehovah.... Jehovah is Christ, and Christ is Jehovah; they are one
and the same person." (Promised Messiah, p. 111)

        In the OT of the KJV of the Bible, the Hebrew word "Elohim" is
used to refer to the true God, false gods and goddesses, and the judges
of Israel. When referring to the true God, "Elohim" is translated with a
capital "G." When referring to false gods and goddesses and the judges
of Israel, it is translated with a small "g." It is translated four
times as "judges" (Exod. 21:6; 22:8-9), once as "judge" (1 Sam. 2:25),
twice as "mighty" (Gen. 23:6; Exod. 9:28), once as "angels" (Ps. 8:5),
once as "godly" (Mal. 2:15), once as "great" (Gen. 30:8), and once as
"very great." (1 Sam. 14:15)

        The word "Jehovah" is the traditional pronunciation of the
tetragrammation YHWH or YHVH with the vowel points taken from the word
"Adonai."  Many people believe the true pronunciation of the
tetragrammation was Yahweh or Yahveh. However, since "Jehovah" rather
than Yahweh is the word used by Mormonism, this section will also use
"Jehovah" instead of Yahweh to examine the validity of the claims of
Mormon leaders regarding that name. "Jehovah," unlike "Elohim," is never
used of false gods. It is the personal name of the triune God of the
Bible. In the KJV, "Jehovah" is rendered primarily "LORD," sometimes
"GOD," and rarely "Lord."

        Now that we understand something about the words "Elohim" and
"Jehovah" and their use by Mormon leaders, we shall consider the Apostle
McConkie's attack on Christians for believing the Father is "Jehovah."
In trying to prove that "Jehovah" refers exclusively to Christ, McConkie
cited several verses from the Bible. Some of these verses and McConkie's
interpretation of them will be examined to see whether he was right.
Remember, McConkie said the Father is not "Jehovah;" He is only
"Elohim." The first example we shall consider involves McConkie's
interpretation of Ps. 110:1. Of this verse he stated:

  "Of whom spake David when his tongue was touched by the Holy Spirit
  and he testified, "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right
  hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?" (Ps. 110:1.) Two
  Lords are here involved: one is speaking to the other; one is greater
  than the other; one is making provision for the triumph and glory of
  the other. Who are they and what message is contained in this
  Messianic prophecy?
  "What think ye of Christ?" our Lord asked certain of his detractors
  toward the end of his mortal ministry. "Whose son is he?" Is Christ
  the Son of God or of someone else? Is he to be born of a divine Parent
  or will he be as other men -- a mortal son of a mortal father? That he
  was to be a descendant of David was a matter of great pride to all the
  Jews. And so they answered, "The Son of David."
  David's son? Truly he was. But he was more, much more. And so our
  Lord, with irrefutable logic and to their complete discomfiture,
  asked, "How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord
  said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine
  enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his
  son?" That is, if he is only the Son of David, how is it that the
  great King, acting under inspiration, calls him Lord and worships him
  as such? And we might add: _Who is the other Lord, the one who spake
  unto David's Lord?_ Can there be any question as to how Jesus is
  interpreting the words of the Psalm? He is saying that it means: '_The
  Father said unto the Son, Elohim said unto Jehovah_, sit thou on my
  right hand, until after your mortal ministry; then I will raise you up
  to eternal glory and exaltation with me, where you will continue to
  sit on my right hand forever.' (Promised Messiah, pp. 101-102)
  (emphasis added)

        Agreeing with the above statement by McConkie, the following
remark in the Mormon pamphlet _What the Mormons Think of Christ, p. 6
reads: "The Lord [Elohim, the Father] said unto my Lord [Jehovah, the
Son]..." (brackets in original)

        McConkie clearly stated that it is "Elohim" the Father who is
speaking to "Jehovah" the Son in this Psalm. However, when one looks at
the Hebrew word translated "LORD," it becomes apparent that either the
first "LORD" is not the Father or else the Father is "Jehovah." Either
way McConkie is wrong. The Psalm reads:

  "The LORD [Jehovah] said unto my Lord [Adon], Sit thou at my right
  hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. (Ps. 110:1)

        The first "LORD" in this verse is "Jehovah" who Mormonism says
is Christ, not the Father. The second "Lord" is the Hebrew word "Adon"
(singular for "Adonai," meaning master or lord). If the first "LORD" is
the Father and the second "Lord" is the Son, then the Father is
"Jehovah" and the Son is "Adon." However, if the Father is not "Jehovah"
as McConkie claimed, then the first "LORD" is "Jehovah" the Son, but
who, then, is "Adon?" Obviously the Father is "Jehovah" in this Psalm,
and His Son is "Adon."

        Another example involves Isa. 42:6 about which McConkie stated
the following:

  "I the Lord have called thee in righteousness," _Isaiah quoted the
  Father as saying of Christ_, "and will hold thine hand, and will keep
  thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the
  Gentiles." (Isa. 42:6.) (Promised Messiah, p. 81) (emphasis added)

        McConkie said the Father was speaking of Christ in this passage
which reads:

  "I the LORD [Jehovah] have called thee in righteousness, and will hold
  thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the
  people, for a light of the Gentiles. (Isa. 42:6)

        According to McConkie, "I the LORD" refers to the Father, and
"thine" and "thee" refer to Christ. However, the "LORD" who is speaking
is "Jehovah" which means either McConkie was wrong about who is speaking
or else the Father is "Jehovah."

        Another example involves Ps. 22:7-8. Of these verses McConkie
stated:

  "The same Psalm says: "All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they
  shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the Lord
  that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in
  him." (Ps. 22:7-8.) _The fulfillment, as Jesus hung on the cross_, is
  found in these words: "The chief priests mocking him, with the scribes
  and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be
  the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will
  believe him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will
  have him: for he said, I am the Son of God. The thieves also, which
  were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth." (Matt.
  27:41-44.) (Promised Messiah, pp. 530-531) (emphasis added)

        Ps. 22:7-8 reads as follows:

  "All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they
  shake the head, saying, He trusted on the LORD [Jehovah] that he would
  deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.

        McConkie said these verses had their fulfillment "as Jesus hung
on the cross." That means the person who was scorned in these verses was
Christ. Who, then, was the "LORD" in whom he trusted? It was "Jehovah"
the Father.

        Another example involves Ps. 31:13 and Ps. 41:9. Regarding them,
McConkie stated the following:

  "With reference to the conniving and conspiring plots incident to our
  Lord's arrest and judicial trials the prophecy was: "They took counsel
  together against me, they devised to take away my life." (Ps. 31:13.)
  As to the role of Judas in those conspiracies, the Psalmist says:
  "Mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my
  bread, hath lifted up his heel against me." (Ps. 41:9.) (Promised
  Messiah, p. 532)

        Apostle McConkie said these Psalms refer to Christ's "arrest and
judicial trials." We shall first consider Ps. 31 and then Ps. 41. While
McConkie only quoted verse 13 of Ps. 31, verse 14 will also be included
to give a complete understanding of the matter.

  "For I have heard the slander of many: fear was on every side: while
  they took counsel together against me, they devised to take away my
  life. But I trusted in thee, O LORD [Jehovah]: I said, Thou art my God
  [Elohim]. (Ps. 31:13-14)

        McConkie said verse 13 referred to Jesus Christ. Verse 14 goes
on to tell that He (Christ) trusted in the "LORD" who is called His
"God" or "Elohim." Mormonism teaches that the God above Jesus is
"Elohim" the Father. Verse 14, however, reveals that the "Elohim" of the
man Jesus is "Jehovah" the Father.

        In Ps. 41, McConkie only quoted one verse; however, two verses
will be considered in this examination.

  "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my
  bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.
  But thou, O LORD [Jehovah], be merciful unto me, and raise me up, that
  I may requite them. (Ps. 41:9-10)

        McConkie stated above that verse 9 referred to Judas' role in
Christ's death. Since it was Judas who was the "familiar friend" who
"lifted up his heel," the pronouns "mine," "I," "my," and "me" in verse
9 must refer to Christ. Notice that at the beginning of verse 10 there
is a change of pronoun to "thou," which refers to the "LORD" (Jehovah).
Then the pronouns "me" and "I" which refer to Christ are used again.
That means Christ was speaking to "Jehovah" the Father in these verses.

        Another example involves McConkie's following remark about Ps.
        110:4.

  "One of the great Messianic prophecies, spoken by the mouth of David,
  says: "The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for
  ever after the order of Melchizedek." (Ps. 110:4.) (Promised Messiah,
  p. 450)

        McConkie admitted this is a Messianic prophecy involving Christ.
The question is, What in this verse refers to Christ?

  "The LORD [Jehovah] hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest
  for ever after the order of Melchizedek. (Ps. 110:4)

        Does the "LORD," which is "Jehovah," refer to Christ? If
McConkie is right and Jesus is "Jehovah," but the Father is not, then
the "LORD" would have to refer to Christ. But who, then, is the one
addressed as the "priest forever after the order of Melchizedek?" The
Bible reveals that the one referred to is Jesus Christ (Heb. 5:8-10;
6:20; 7); therefore, the "LORD" (Jehovah) in Ps. 110:4 is the Father.

        Another example involves Isa. 53:4-12. Of these verses McConkie
stated:

  "Of the atoning sacrifice of the future Messiah, Isaiah said...
     The _Lord_ has laid on him the iniquities of us all....
     It pleased the _Lord_ to bruise him... (Promised Messiah, p. 234)
     (emphasis added)

        McConkie rightly said these verses refer to "the atoning
sacrifice of the future Messiah." However, what he failed to mention is
that they also prove that the Father is "Jehovah." Verse 6 reads: "All
we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way;
and the LORD [Jehovah] hath laid on him [Christ] the iniquity of us
all," and verse 10 reads: "Yet it pleased the LORD [Jehovah] to bruise
him [Christ]..."

        Obviously the "LORD" who laid on Christ "the iniquity of us all"
and who bruised Him is God the Father who is called "Jehovah" in these
verses.

        Remember, McConkie stated that "some sectarians even believe
that Jehovah is the Supreme Deity," and that Christ "came into
mortality" as His "Only Begotten" Son. He called this concept
"misinformation" that is "untrue." To prove that it is McConkie who is
misinformed and believing untruth, two Scriptural references (2 Sam.
7:14; Ps. 2:7) will be examined. McConkie stated the following regarding
these Scriptures:

  "In the midst of a passage that is clearly Messianic, the Lord says of
  the Seed of David: "I will be his father, and he shall be my son." (2
  Sam. 7:14.) In the second Psalm, the whole of which is also clearly
  Messianic, occurs this statement: "Thou art my Son; this day have I
  begotten thee." (Ps. 2:7.) Paul quotes both of these statements in
  Hebrews 1:5 and says they are prophecies that Christ would come as the
  Son of God. (Promised Messiah, p. 143)

        McConkie cited Heb. 1:5 to show that 2 Sam. 7:14 and Ps. 2:7
refer to Christ who "would come as the Son of God." Since McConkie first
referenced 2 Sam. 7:14, this examination will, too. However, along with
verse 14, verses 11-13 will also be included.

  "And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people
  Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the
  LORD [Jehovah] telleth thee that he will make thee an house.
  And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers,
  I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy
  bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
  He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of
  his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. (2
  Sam. 7:11-14)

        These verses teach that the "LORD" (Jehovah) would have a Son,
the Messiah.
        In the second example McConkie cited Ps. 2:7. This examination
will include verse 8. Notice that it is the "LORD" (Jehovah) who says,
"Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

  "I will declare the decree: the LORD [Jehovah] hath said unto me, Thou
  art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
  Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance,
  and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

        McConkie said these verses of Scripture are "clearly Messianic,"
and he acknowledged they teach that "Christ would come as the Son of
God." What he is not willing to acknowledge, however, is that these
Scriptures also teach that the Father is "Jehovah" and that the
"sectarians" who believe "Jehovah is the Supreme Deity whose Son" is
Jesus Christ, "the Only Begotten," are right in their belief.

        Another example involves Mic. 5:4. Of this verse McConkie stated
the following:

  "And so, truly, did our Lord act _during his mortal ministry! Truly,
  this is he of whom it is written_: "He shall stand and feed in the
  strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his
  God... for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth." (Mic.
  5:4.) (Promised Messiah, p. 182) (emphasis added)

        According to McConkie, the pronoun "He" at the beginning of Mic.
5:4 refers to Christ "during his mortal ministry." Who, then, is the
"LORD his God?" Mic. 5:4 reads:

  "And he [Christ] shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD
  [Jehovah], in the majesty of the name of the LORD [Jehovah] his God
  [Elohim]... for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.

        Obviously the "LORD" of Jesus Christ is "Jehovah" the Father who
is referred to as "Jehovah his Elohim."

        Another example involves Ps. 2:2 and Isa. 61:1. Of these verses
McConkie stated the following:

  "A number of Messianic passages speak of "the Lord, and...his
  anointed" (Ps. 2:2), signifying that the Chosen One was consecrated
  and set apart for the ministry and mission that was his. _Jesus
  applied these passages to himself_ by quoting Isaiah's prophecy. "The
  Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek" (Isa.
  61:1), and then saying: "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your
  ears" (Luke 4:21). (Promised Messiah, pp. 182-183) (emphasis added)

        The first source McConkie quoted -- Ps. 2:2 -- reads as follows:

  "The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel
  together, against the LORD [Jehovah], and against his anointed.

        McConkie said the "anointed" one was Christ. If that is true,
who was "Jehovah?" If "Jehovah" is always Christ, who was the "anointed"
one? Obviously "Jehovah" is referring to God the Father and the
"anointed" is indeed referring to Christ. The second source McConkie
cited is Isa. 61:1 which states:

  "The Spirit of the Lord [Adonai] GOD [Jehovah] is upon me; because the
  LORD [Jehovah] hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek;
  he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to
  the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

        The one who was anointed to preach, bind up, proclaim, and open
was Jesus Christ. Who, then, was the one who anointed Him? This verse
says the "LORD" (Jehovah) did the anointing. Again, we face the same
problem. If "Jehovah" does not refer to the Father, but only to Christ,
then Jesus anointed someone, but who? As McConkie pointed out, "Jesus
applied these passages to himself." Therefore, the "Jehovah" who
anointed Christ is God the Father.

        Other examples could be cited to show that McConkie and other
Mormon leaders are wrong when they say God the Father is not "Jehovah."
However, these should be enough to expose their error.

        Now, what about Mormonism's claim that Jesus is "Jehovah," but
He is not "Elohim?" It is true that Jesus is "Jehovah." The following
Scriptures prove this fact:

  "Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah] the King of Israel, and his redeemer
  the LORD [Jehovah] of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and
  beside me there is no God. (Isa. 44:6)
  [Jesus said] ...I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and
  was dead... (Rev. 1:17-18)

  "...saith the LORD [Jehovah]...they shall look upon me whom they have
  pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only
  son... (Zech. 12:1,10)
  Behold, he [Christ] cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him,
  and they also which pierced him... (Rev. 1:7)

  "...I am the LORD [Jehovah] thy God, the Holy One of Israel... (Isa.
  43:3)
  ...Ye denied the Holy One [Christ] and the Just... (Acts 3:14)

  "And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the name of
  the LORD [Jehovah] shall be delivered... (Joel 2:32)
  "...the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth...there is none other name
  under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:10,12)

  "Behold, the Lord GOD [Jehovah] will come with strong hand...his
  reward is with him... (Isa. 40:10)
  ...Behold, I [Christ] come quickly; and my reward is with me... (Rev.
  22:12)

  "...the LORD [Jehovah] my God shall come, and all the saints with
  thee. (Zech. 14:5)
  "...at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints. (1
  Thess. 3:13)

  "The LORD [Jehovah] is my shepherd... (Ps. 23:1)
  [Jesus said] I am the good shepherd... (John 10:14)

  "...saith the Lord GOD [Jehovah]. I will seek that which was lost...
  (Ezek. 34:15-16)
  ...the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
  (Luke 19:10)

  "For I am the LORD [Jehovah] thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy
  Saviour... (Isa. 43:3)
  Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great
  God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. (Tit. 2:13. See also Jer. 42:5 and
  Rev. 1:5; Mal. 3:6 and Heb. 13:8; 1 Kin. 8:28,39 and John 2:24-25;
  Isa. 25:8 and 2 Tim. 1:10; Ps. 107:24,29 and Matt. 8:26; Prov.3:12 and
  Rev. 3:19)

        While Mormons are right when they say Jesus is "Jehovah," they
are wrong when they say He is not "Elohim." The Bible reveals that
"Jehovah" is the only true "Elohim" there is; all others are false.
Remember, "Jehovah" is the personal name of the triune God who has
revealed Himself in the Bible.

        Before we consider Biblical quotes which show that "Jehovah" and
"Elohim" are not two separate gods as Mormons claims let us first note
that not only are both God the Father and Christ addressed as "Jehovah"
and "Elohim" but so is the Holy Spirit.

  "Whereof the _Holy Ghost_..._said_...This _is_ the covenant that I
  will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my
  laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And
  their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. (Heb. 10:15-17)
  (emphasis on "Holy Ghost" and "said" added)
  Behold, the days come, _saith the LORD_ [Jehovah], that I will make a
  new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah...
  I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts;
  and will be their God [Elohim], and they shall be my people.... I will
  forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (Jer.
  31:31,33-34) (emphasis added)

  "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy
  men of God spake as they were moved by the _Holy Ghost_. (2 Pet. 1:21)
  (emphasis on "Holy Ghost" added)
  "The Spirit of the LORD [Jehovah] spake by me, and his word was in
  my tongue. (2 Sam. 23:2. See also Heb. 3:7-11 with Ps. 95:6-11)

        Let us now continue with the Biblical quotes which show that
"Jehovah" and "Elohim" are not two separate gods as Mormons claim.

  "And when the LORD [Jehovah] saw that he [Moses] turned aside to see,
  God [Elohim] called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said,
  Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.... [Bruce R. McConkie
  acknowledged that "it was" Christ's "voice that spoke to Moses in the
  burning bush..." Promised Messiah, p. 394]
  And the LORD [Jehovah] said...
  And Moses said unto God [Elohim], Behold, when I come unto the
  children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God [Elohim] of your
  fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his
  name? what shall I say unto them?
  And God [Elohim] said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus
  shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto
  you.
  And God [Elohim] said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto
  the children of Israel, the LORD [Jehovah] God [Elohim] of your
  fathers, the God [Elohim] of Abraham, the God [Elohim] of Isaac, and
  the God [Elohim] of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for
  ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. (Exod.
  3:4,7,13-15)

  "And God [Elohim] spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD
  [Jehovah]. (Exod. 6:2)

  "I am the LORD [Jehovah], and there is none else, there is no God
  [Elohim] beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
  (Isa. 45:5)

  "But the LORD [Jehovah] is the true God [Elohim], he is the living God
  [Elohim], and an everlasting king... (Jer. 10:10)

  "Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah] the King of Israel, and his redeemer
  the LORD [Jehovah] of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and
  beside me there is no God [Elohim]. (Isa. 44:6)

  "Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus,
  saith the LORD [Jehovah], whose name is The God [Elohim] of hosts.
  (Amos 5:27)

  "Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD's
  [Jehovah's] thy God [Elohim], the earth also, with all that therein
  is. (Deut. 10:14)

  "Wherefore thou art great, O LORD [Jehovah] God [Elohim]: for there is
  none like thee, neither is there any God [Elohim] beside thee,
  according to all that we have heard with our ears. (2 Sam. 7:22)

  "And he said unto them, I am an Hebrew; and I fear the LORD [Jehovah],
  the God [Elohim] of heaven, which hath made the sea and the dry land.
  (Jon. 1:9)

  "For who is God [Elohim] save the LORD [Jehovah]? or who is a rock
  save our God [Elohim]? (Ps. 18:31)

  "Blessed is the nation whose God [Elohim] is the LORD [Jehovah]...
  (Ps. 33:12. See also Ps. 144:15)

  "Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God
  [Elohim], the LORD [Jehovah], the Creator of the ends of the earth,
  fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his
  understanding. (Isa. 40:28)

  "The mighty God [Elohim], even the LORD [Jehovah], hath spoken, and
  called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down
  thereof. (Ps. 50:1)

  "Sing unto God [Elohim], sing praises to his name: estol him that
  rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him. (Ps.
  68:4) [Regarding the word "Jah," Bruce R. McConkie stated: "Jah
  (Hebrew Yah) is a contracted form of Jehovah, Jahveh, or Yahweh -- all
  of which names have reference to Christ, the God of Israel." Mormon
  Doctrine, p. 391]

  "And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from
  Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God [Elohim], whose
  name is called by the name of the LORD [Jehovah] of hosts that
  dwelleth between the cherubims. (2 Sam. 6:2)

  "...the Great the Mighty God [Elohim], the LORD [Jehovah] of hosts, is
  his name. (Jer. 32:18)

  "O my God [Elohim], make them like a wheel; as the stubble before the
  wind....
  Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD
  [Jehovah]....
  That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most
  high over all the earth. (Ps. 83:13,16,18)

        The Bible clearly teaches that "Jehovah" is "Elohim." In fact,
He is the only "Elohim" there is. He is the "true," the "living," the
"mighty," the "great," and the "everlasting Elohim." He is the "Elohim"
of Israel, of all the kingdoms of the earth, and of the heavens. He is
the Creator who made the heavens and all their host and the earth and
all that dwell thereon. "Jehovah's" name is "Elohim of hosts." (Amos
5:27)

        Not only is "Jehovah," "Elohim," but "Elohim" is "Jehovah." The
Bible reveals that "Elohim's" name is "Jah" (Ps. 68:4), "Jehovah" (Ps.
83:18), and "Jehovah of hosts." (2 Sam. 6:2; Jer. 32:18)   The nation
whose "Elohim" is "Jehovah" is blessed. (Ps. 33:12) Clearly, this is not
the "Jehovah" and "Elohim" of the Mormons.

        Another Mormon error regarding "Elohim" and "Jehovah" is the
belief that "Elohim," not "Jehovah," is the Father of all the spirits,
including Jesus. In the Articles of Faith by Apostle James E. Talmage,
"A Doctrinal Exposition by The First Presidency and The Twelve" apostles
states that "God the Eternal Father...'Elohim,' is the literal Parent
of...the spirits of the human race." (p. 466) This "Doctrinal
Exposition" also states explicitly that "Jesus Christ is not the Father
of the spirits who have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this earth,
for He is one of them. He is The Son, as they are sons and daughters of
Elohim." (p. 473)

        The Apostle Talmage stated that "_Elohim_...is the name-title of
God the Eternal Father, whose firstborn Son in the spirit is
_Jehovah_--" (Jesus the Christ, p. 38)

        The Apostle Bruce R. McConkie stated the following about this
matter: "...Jehovah-Christ...did in fact create the earth and all forms
of plant and animal life on the face thereof. _But when it came to
placing man on earth, there was a change in Creators_. That is, the
Father himself became personally involved. All things were created by
the Son, using the power delegated by the Father, except man. _In the
spirit and again in the flesh, man was created by the Father_. There was
no delegation of authority where the crowning creature of creation was
concerned." (Promised Messiah, p. 62) (emphasis added)

        Mormon leaders claim that "Jehovah-Christ" did not create either
man's spirit or his body. They maintain that the Mormon "Elohim," who is
the father, created man both in spirit and body. The Bible reveals the
truth about who created man.

  "And Moses spake unto the LORD [Jehovah], saying,
  Let the LORD [Jehovah], the God [Elohim] of the _spirits of all
  flesh_, set a man over the congregation. (Num. 27:15-16. See also
  16:20-23) (emphasis added)

  "...the LORD [Jehovah], which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth
  the foundation of the earth, and _formeth the spirit of man within
  him_. (Zech. 12:1) (emphasis added)

  "...the LORD [Jehovah]...made us this soul... (Jer. 38:16)

  "For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth: for
  the spirit should fail before me, and the _souls which I have
  made_....
  ...saith the LORD [Jehovah]... (Isa. 57:16,19) (emphasis on "souls...I
  have made" added)

  "Behold, I am the LORD [Jehovah], the God [Elohim] _of all flesh_...
  (Jer. 32:27) (emphasis added)

  "Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah], thy redeemer, and he that _formed thee
  from the womb_.
  I am the LORD [Jehovah] that maketh all things... (Isa. 44:24)
  (emphasis added)

  "Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah]...
  I have made the earth, and _created man_ upon it... (Isa. 45:11-12)
  (emphasis added)

  "...God [Elohim] created man upon the earth...
  Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD
  [Jehovah] he is God [Elohim]; there is none else beside him. (Deut.
  4:32,35)

  "Thus saith God [El] the LORD [Jehovah]...he that spread forth the
  earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the
  people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein. (Isa. 42:5)

  "...Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah] of hosts, the God [Elohim] of
  Israel... I have made the earth, _the man_ and the beast that are upon
  the ground... (Jer. 27:4-5) (most emphasis added)

        The Bible reveals that it is "Jehovah" who is the "Elohim of the
spirits of all flesh" and "of all flesh" itself, that it was He who
"formed the spirit of man within him," that He "made us this soul" and
"formed us from the womb." He did indeed "create man."

        If Mormon leaders are right when they say Jesus is "Jehovah,"
then they are wrong when they say he did not create man. If they are
right when they say the father is the one who created man, then they are
wrong when they say he is not "Jehovah."

        Although Mormon leaders teach that Jesus did not create man,
Mormon scriptures teach that he did. The BoM states the following:

  "Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son....
  And never have I showed myself unto _man whom I have created_, for
  never has man believed in me as thou hast....
  Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and
  _man have I created_ after the body of my spirit... (Eth. 3:14-16)
  (emphasis added)

  "For it is I that taketh upon me the sins of the world; for it is _I
  that hath created them_... (Mos. 26:23) (emphasis added)

  "...the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of
  Jacob...is that same God who created the heavens and the earth, and
  all things that in them are.
  Behold _he created Adam_... (Mor. 9:11-12) (emphasis added)

        D&C, 93:10 states that "the worlds were made by him [Christ];
_men were made by him_; all things were made by him, and through him,
and of him." (emphasis added)

        Another error by Bruce R. McConkie involving "Jehovah" and his
creation is the belief that "Jehovah" had "many" pre-mortal spirits
helping him create. Included in this alleged group was Joseph Smith, Jr.

  "That he [Christ] was aided in the creation of this earth by "many of
  the noble and great" spirit children of the Father is evident from
  Abraham's writings. Unto those superior spirits Christ said: "We will
  go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these
  materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell." (Abra.
  3:22-24.) Michael or Adam was one of these. Enoch, Noah, Abraham,
  Moses, Peter, James, and John, Joseph Smith, and many other "noble and
  great" ones played a part in the great creative enterprise. (Doctrines
  of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 74-75.) (Mormon Doctrine, p. 169)

        The Bible reveals the truth about this matter:

  "Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah], thy redeemer, and he that formed thee
  from the womb, I am the LORD [Jehovah] that maketh all things; that
  stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by
  myself. (Isa. 44:24)

  "Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of
  the sea. (Job 9:8)

        "Jehovah," by Himself, created all things. He had no alleged
preexistent spirit helpers assisting Him.

        Regarding the Mormon 'Elohim," the Apostle McConkie stated:
"Elohim. plural word though it is, is also used as the exalted
name-title of God the Eternal Father, a usage that connotes his
supremacy and omnipotence, he being God above all Gods." (Mormon
Doctrine, p. 224) He also stated that "Jesus...is above all save the
Father only." (Promised Messiah, p. 363)

        The Bible states that the One who is God above all so-called
gods is the triune God "Jehovah."

  "For the LORD [Jehovah] is a great God [El], and a great King above
  all gods [Elohim]. (Ps. 95:3)

  "For thou, LORD [Jehovah], art high above all the earth: thou art
  exalted far above all gods [Elohim]. (Ps. 97:9)

  "Now I know that the LORD [Jehovah] is greater than all gods
  [Elohim]... (Exod. 18:11. See also Ps. 135:5; Deut. 10:17)

        If Mormon leaders are right when they say "Jehovah" is god the
son and "Elohim" is god the father, these verses from the Bible would be
teaching that the Mormon son is above his father. However, as McConkie
clearly stated, Mormons believe "Elohim" the father, not "Jehovah" the
son, is the "God above all Gods" -- that Jesus is above all except the
father; yet the Bible teaches that "Jehovah" is above all "Elohim."

        At a BYU Dev. on March 2, 1982, Bruce R. McConkie made the
following remark about praying to Jesus:

  "Another peril is that those so involved often begin to pray directly
  to Christ because of some special friendship they feel has been
  developed....
  This is plain sectarian nonsense. Our prayers are addressed to the
  Father, and to him only....
  ...Perfect prayer is addressed to the Father, in the name of the Son;
  it is uttered by the power of the Holy Ghost... (Our Relationship With
  the Lord, pp. 19-20)

        McConkie states on p. 335 of his book Promised Messiah that the
Mormons "pray to the Father, not the Son..." On p. 306 of the same book
McConkie states that "Christ [the Son] is Jehovah." This is important to
remember, because although McConkie said prayer is not to be offered to
the Mormon Christ who is "Jehovah," the Bible states repeatedly in the
OT that people prayed to "Jehovah," and He not only heard those prayers,
but He accepted them as valid requests. The following is but a small
sample of the vast number of times people prayed to "Jehovah."

  "In my distress I called upon the LORD [Jehovah], and cried unto my
  God [Elohim]: he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came
  before him, even into his ears. (Ps. 18:6)

  "And the LORD [Jehovah] said unto him, I have heard thy prayer and thy
  supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this
  house, which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever; and mine
  eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually. (1 Kin. 9:3)

  "And said unto Jeremiah the prophet, Let, we beseech thee, our
  supplication be accepted before thee, and pray for us unto the LORD
  [Jehovah] thy God [Elohim], even for all this remnant... (Jer. 42:2)

  "O LORD [Jehovah], I beseech thee, let now thine ear be attentive to
  the prayer of thy servant, and to the prayer of thy servants, who
  desire to fear thy name... (Neh. 1:11)

  "And it was so, that when Solomon had made an end of praying all this
  prayer and supplication unto the LORD [Jehovah], he arose from before
  the altar of the LORD [Jehovah], from kneeling on his knees with his
  hands spread up to heaven. (1 Kin. 8:54)

  "He went in therefore, and shut the door upon them twain, and prayed
  unto the LORD [Jehovah]. (2 Kin. 4:33)

  "Go, and say to Hezekiah, Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah], the God
  [Elohim] of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy
  tears: behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years. (Isa. 38:5)

  "I acknowledge my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I
  said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD [Jehovah]; and
  thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.
  For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when
  thou mayest be found... (Ps. 32:5-6)

        Notice above in Ps. 32:6 that the "godly" pray to "Jehovah."
According to McConkie and other Mormon leaders, that is Christ the very
one to whom McConkie said people should not pray.

        The Bible reveals there is only one true "Elohim," and His name
is "Jehovah." All other "Elohim" are false. They are idols that cause
their followers to commit adultery against the true "Elohim" and
idolatry.

  "For the LORD [Jehovah] is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to
  be feared above all gods [Elohim].
  For all the gods [Elohim] of the nations are idols: but the LORD
  [Jehovah] made the heavens. (Ps. 96:4-5)

  "Thou shalt have no other gods [Elohim] before me. (Exod. 20:3)

  "Now I know that the LORD [Jehovah] is greater than all gods
  [Elohim]... (Exod. 18:11)

  "And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD [Jehovah] thy God
  [Elohim], and walk after other gods [Elohim], and serve them, and
  worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely
  perish. (Deut. 8:19)

  "Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods [Elohim].
  They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me:
  for if thou serve their gods [Elohim], it will surely be a snare unto
  thee. (Exod. 23:32- 33)

  "Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn
  aside, and serve other gods [Elohim], and worship them. (Deut. 11:16)

  "That ye come not among these nations, these that remain among you;
  neither make mention of the name of their gods [Elohim], nor cause to
  swear by them, neither serve them, nor bow yourselves unto them.
  (Josh. 23:7)

  "...neither walk after other gods [Elohim] to your hurt. (Jer. 7:6)

  "But the LORD [Jehovah] is the true God [Elohim], he is the living God
  [Elohim]... (Jer. 10:10)

  "And they forsook the LORD [Jehovah] God [Elohim] of their fathers,
  which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods
  [Elohim], of the gods [Elohim] of the people that were round about
  them, and bowed themselves unto them, and provoked the LORD [Jehovah]
  to anger. (Jud. 2:12)

  "Shall a man make gods [Elohim] unto himself, and they are no gods
  [Elohim]? Therefore, behold, I will this once cause them to know, I
  will cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know
  that my name is the LORD [Jehovah]. ( Jer. 16:20-21)

  "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD [Jehovah], choose you
  this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods [Elohim] which your
  fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods
  [Elohim] of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my
  house, we will serve the LORD [Jehovah].
  And the people answered and said, God [Elohim] forbid that we should
  forsake the LORD [Jehovah], to serve other gods [Elohim]. (Josh.
  24:15-16)

        These verses teach that the only true, living "Elohim" in heaven
and on earth is "Jehovah" -- the triune God who made heaven and earth
and all therein.

        "Jehovah" is greater than any "Elohim," because all other
"Elohim" are idols. The reality behind them is demonic. (Deut. 32:17)
"Jehovah Elohim" has given explicit warnings and guidelines regarding
these false "Elohim." He told His people not to have any "Elohim" but
Him. He told the people that if they left Him for the false "Elohim,"
those "Elohim" would be a snare to them, and they would be hurt and
would perish. He warned the people to "take heed" that their "heart be
not deceived" into worshiping, serving, swearing by, and making
covenants with false "Elohim." "Jehovah Elohim" told His people He would
eventually judge all false "Elohim" and their followers.

        Despite these warnings and guidelines, "Elohim's" covenant
people forsook Him and believed in and worshiped the false "Elohim's" of
the people they came in contact with. Ju. 10:6 states that "the children
of Israel did evil again in the sight of the LORD [Jehovah] and served
Baalim, and Ashtaroth, and the gods [Elohim] of Syria, and the gods
[Elohim] of Zidon, and the gods [Elohim] of Moab, and the gods [Elohim]
of the children of Ammon, and the gods [Elohim] of the Philistines, and
forsook the LORD [Jehovah], and served not him."

        This examination has shown that the "Elohim" of Mormonism, like
the "Elohim" in Ju. 10:6 is not the true "Jehovah Elohim." Therefore,
the people who leave the true "Elohim" for the Mormon "Elohim" will do
"evil...in the sight of the LORD [Jehovah]."

        Although McConkie attacked Christians for their belief in a
triune God who is Spirit and for their belief that God the Father
[Jehovah] sent His Son into the world, these beliefs are true. God is
triune; He is Spirit; He is "Jehovah;" and He did send His Son into the
world to redeem mankind.

        It is obvious from this examination that it is not the
Christians who "thrash around in...darkness" about who "Elohim" and
"Jehovah" are. One wonders what "Holy Writ" McConkie had in mind when he
stated that it attests to the fact that "Elohim is the Father, and that
Jehovah is the Son." He certainly did not mean the Bible which teaches
that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all the one "Jehovah Elohim."
He apparently did not mean the D&C either, because chapter 109, verses
1,4,9-10, 14,19,22,24,29,34,42,47,56,68,77 refer to the Father as
"Jehovah."

Summary

        Obviously Joseph Fielding Smith's statement that the Mormons
"have a clear and perfect understanding of the nature of God" (Doctrines
of Salvation, 1:279) is not accurate. The Mormon gods are not the true
God as Mormonism claims, but are idols which cause their followers to
commit adultery against God and idolatry.

        In answer to Jesus' question, "But whom say ye that I am,"
Mormons say Jesus is someone different from the Jesus who is revealed in
the Bible and whom the apostles preached. Therefore, anyone trusting in
the Mormon Jesus is believing in "another Jesus" whom Paul warned about.

        Bernard P. Brockbank, of the First Quorum of the Seventy,
admitted in the May 1977 issue of The Ensign, a Mormon publication, that
the Mormon Jesus is different from the Christian Jesus. He stated that
"it is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different
Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons or The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints." (p. 26)

        The people who believe in the Mormon Jesus are committing
adultery against God and idolatry. They do not have the Son; therefore,
they do not have the Father, and they do not have eternal life. As the
Apostle Bruce R. McConkie rightly stated: "Salvation comes only by
worshiping the true God." (Promised Messiah, p. 163) McConkie also
rightly stated that "the mere worship of a god who has the proper
scriptural names does not assure one that he is worshiping the true and
living God," because the "true names of Deity" can be applied to "false
concepts of God." (Mormon Doctrine, p. 270) Remember that the Apostle
Stephen L. Richards admitted that Joseph Smith, Jr., gave "a new
conception of God and the Godhead." (Contributions of Joseph Smith, p.
1)

        It is important for the people who have left the true triune God
revealed in the Bible to repent and return to Him. They must forsake the
sins of idolatry and adultery which they are committing in Mormonism.
The Bible says:

  "...all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from
  me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD
  [Jehovah], the fountain of living waters. (Jer. 17:13)

  "And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD [Jehovah] thy God
  [Elohim], and walk after other gods [Elohim], and serve them, and
  worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely
  perish. (Deut. 8:19)

  "Thou shalt make no covenant with...their gods [Elohim]. (Exod. 23:32)

  "...Put away the strange gods [Elohim] that are among you, and be
  clean, and change your garments. (Gen. 35:2)

  "...flee from idolatry. (1 Cor. 10:14)

        It is necessary that Christians heed the warnings of the Bible.
If they do, they will not fall into the sins of adultery against God and
idolatry. Remember, to know the "only true God" is eternal life. (John
17:3)

  "...their gods [Elohim] shall be a snare unto you." (Ju. 2:3. See also
  Exod. 23:32-33)




Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84288
From: keng@den.mmc.com (Ken Garrido)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree) writes:
>In article <keng.735334134@tunfaire> keng@den.mmc.com (Ken Garrido) writes:
>[lotsa stuff taken out]

>Bottom line: due process was not served.  No peaceful attempt to serve
>a warrant occurred.

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.

>royc

--
"Milk is for babies; when you're a man, you drink beer" - Arnold

Ken Garrido (that's guh-REED-oh) Miserable ASM8086 and C hack.
email: keng@tunfaire.den.mmc.com *or* KENNETH.GARRIDO@filebank.com

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84289
From: brom@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (David Bromage)
Subject: Re: New Religion Forming -- Sign Up

alt.religion.spam?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84290
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Waco information accuracy

In article <sandvik-250493170513@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <1r9mflINNak4@crcnis1.unl.edu>, e_p@unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
>wrote:
>>          An example is the FBI report that several of the bodies found 
>>        in the rubble had bullet wounds.  The local coroner, who is 
>>        independent of the FBI, has so far found no bullet wounds! 
>
>According to CNN last night (Saturday 4/24/93) he has now found bullets
>in two of the corpses, in the head (that would indicate that the bullets
>were aimed at killing the humans).
>
	This will not, of course, deter the several die-hard Koreshies on
this net, who will probably claim that the Tarrant County medical examiner
(Dr. Peerwani) was coerced by the FBI into faking this evidence.  Either that,
or they'll claim the FBI shot them.
	The rest of us might contemplate the difficulty of determining the
cause of death from a corpse that has been reduced to a Krispy Kritter.
	************************************************************
	*  	The_Doge of South St. Louis			   *
	*		Dobbs-Approved Media Conspirator(tm)	   *
	*	"One Step Beyond"  -- Sundays, 3 to 5 pm	   *
	*		88.1 FM		St. Louis Community Radio  *
	*  "You'll pay to know what you *really* think!"           *
	*			-- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs"		   *
	************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84291
From: dfranich@saturn.sdsu.edu (David Franich)
Subject: Re: New Religion Forming -- Sign Up

Andrew Bulhak (ins559n@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au) wrote:
: Jim Kasprzak (kasprj@isaac.its.rpi.edu) wrote:
: : In article <=4z5wqc@rpi.edu>, weinss@rs6101.ecs.rpi.edu (Stephen Andrew Weinstein) writes:
: :  So what is Kibology? Chopped liver?
: Kibo Himself summed it up by saying "Kibology is not just a religion, it is
: also a candy mint ... and a floor wax." I personally think that it is more
: like Spam Clear.
: :   

I'm presently searching for enlightenment, answers to the unanswerable,
a certain amount of direction without actually going anywhere.
Could Kibology be it?  I don't know enough about Kibology and wish that
someone can help me.
After I've spread my ninth tube of anchovy paste on my living room
wall to creat my own form of art I need some higher authority to 
turn towards to give my life some meaning.  Maybe Kibology is the
answer.  It's either that or I go out to the store and buy up another
case of anchovy paste.
 


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84292
From: markbr%radian@natinst.com (mark)
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.taoism

In article <1993Apr22.004331.22548@coe.montana.edu> uphrrmk@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Jack Coyote) writes:
>Sunlight shining off of the ocean.
>
The universe, mirrored in a puddle.
>
>Aleph null bottles of beer on the wall, Aleph null bottles of beer!
>Take one down, pass it around  ...  Aleph null bottles of beer on the wall!
>
Isn't it amazing how there *always* seems to be *another* bottle of bheer there?

Aleph *one* bottles of beer on the wall, Aleph *one* null bottles of beer!

	you, too, are a puddle.
	As above, so below.

	mark

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84293
From: cayley@plains.NoDak.edu (Michele Cayley)
Subject: Re: New Religion Forming -- Sign Up


refrettably you are mistaken.  alt.drugs was used to recruit people for the
worldwide pot religion.  I, however hve no problem being in both of them



Death to Dupont
Free Bobby Fischer
Michele Cayley is my mom, sue me not her
johan engevik (drunken naked genius at large)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84294
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
> 
>Even though a new-born is innocent as can be, his sinful nature
>will surely manifest itself more explicity as he gets older.  For
>as surely as he grows hair on his head and teeth within his mouth,
>he will show the signs of his innate sin by rebelling
>against mommy and daddy with that loud proclamation "No."

That's not "showing the signs of his innate sin", that's testing the
limits of his newfound independence.  A two-year-old will continually
test you to see just how much he can get away with, just as a pet dog
will.

If a child always submitted to your will in a docile fashion, would
you praise him and suspect that he's the Second Coming of Christ, or
would you seek professional help about his emotional development?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84295
From: hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com (Bill Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Burden of Proof

In article <1r69b7INN539@lynx.unm.edu> cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl) writes:
>In article <1r4b59$7hg@aurora.engr.LaTech.edu>, ray@engr.LaTech.edu (Bill Ray) writes:
>********NOTE: FOLLOWUPS go to alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins!
>
>[deleted]
>> If I make a statement, "That God exists, loves me, etc." but in no way
>> insist that you believe it, does that place a burden of proof upon me.
>> If you insist that God doesn't exist, does that place a burden of proof 
>> upon you?  I give no proofs, I only give testimony to my beliefs.  I will
>> respond to proofs that you attempt to disprove my beliefs.
>
>If you say X statement and give it the authority of fact, I will respond
>by asking you why. You aren't obligated to say anything, but if your
>intent is to convince me that X statement is true, then yes, the burden
>of proof is upon you. 

If what was being discussed could be established or disproven by 
experiment and observation, then I would agree with you, Chris.  
The burden of proof would belong to Bill. But the source
document for Christianity, the Bible, simply assumes God exists
and makes it clear (to us Calvinists, anyway :-)) that when a person
is in fellowship with God, it is because God has taken the initiative
in revealing Himself to that person. So from a Christian point of
view, the burden of proof belongs to God. Bill is being consistent
with what the Bible teaches in relating his own experience with God,
but it would be an error on his part to assume that there is a direct,
causal relationship between his testimony and someone else becoming
convinced that God exists and that he needs to be reconciled to God.

>
>If you are merely giving testimony to your beliefs, then you are an egotist.

Please excuse me if I missed an earlier part of this thread
in which Bill came across like an egotist. What I saw was simply
obedience to the scriptural command to "always be ready
to give a reason for the joy that is in you".  

Bill Hamilton


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84296
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1rfg06$8mm@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(John W. Redelfs) wrote:
> In the hands of a defender, a .357 _is_ a miracle from God.  He helps those 
> who help themselves.  Or haven't you ever heard that one before?

I didn't know God was a secular humanist...

Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84297
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>
>I've done all those things, and I've regretted it, and I learned 
>a lesson or two. So far an aspirin, a good talk with your wife,
>or a one week vacation has cured me -- no need for group therapy
>or strange religions!

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

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84298
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: To Rob Lanphier

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>
>Kent, with regards to the information contained in the Bible (which
>is the original context of this thread), Brian Kendig is inside a huge
>wall.  Brian *IS* inside.  The Bible and the information contained therein
>are outside the wall.

Um, I think you and the Bible are the ones inside the wall.  There's a
really wonderful world out here.  You really should peek out at it sometime.

The silly things you keep saying only reinforce the fact that we *are*
on opposite sides of a very high wall.  I see how incredibly beautiful
things are on my side, and I only keep telling you about it because
I'd like to you come join me here.

>Brian Kendig proves this very sad fact by the
>absurd things he says.  For example, "If I get through into the firey
>pit, I will cease to exist."

I never said that.  I said that I would PREFER to cease to exist than
to be tossed into any god's version of Hell.

>I am proposing to Brian, "Brian, come up here
>and take a look from this vantage point."   But Brian replies, "I rather
>not thank you.  I am content where I am.  Besides, the vista from up
>there stinks."   And in the meanwhile, Brian ignores the facts that
>he has never up there nor does he realize I had shared the same
>plateau where Brian now stands.

You say to me, "Brian, come up here and take a look from this vantage
point."  But you're in a valley, looking at a crayon drawing of a sun
and a tree, and I can't for the life of me figure out why you're so
immersed in it.  *I*'m the one trying to get you to come up HERE,
don't you see?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84299
From: king@ctron.com (John E. King)
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin


rfox@charlie.usd.edu writes:

[Discussion on Josephus inserts]

Thanks.  Am I correct, then, in assuming that that Josephus
did in fact write about Jesus, but Christian copists embellished it?

Jack

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84300
From: rss2d@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Randolph Stuart Sergent)
Subject: Re: Greek myth and the Bible

In article <765422d6347700t48@edmahood.infoserv.com> edmahood@infoserv.com (Ed Mahood, Jr.) writes:
>In <Pegasus-130393124328@fp1-dialin-7.uoregon.edu>, Pegasus@AAA.UOregon.EDU (Laurie EWBrandt)  wrote:
>> ...
>> A definiation from a text book used as part of an introductory course in
>> social anthorpology "The term myth designates traditionally based, dramatic
>> narratives on themes that emphasize the nature of humankind's relationship
>> to nature and to the supernatural. ...." from Peter B. Hammand's .An 
>> introduction to Cutural and Social Anthropology. second ed Macmillion 
>> page 387.
>

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

randy

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84301
From: jwmorris@netcom.com (John W. Morris)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion

: 
: > Surely you are not equating David Koresh with Christianity? The two are
: > not comparable.
: 
: This is always an option: when the sect is causing harm, re-label
: the cult to something else.
: 
: Cheers,
: Kent

Good point.

I would not doubt that DK could have spouted verse and debated with best.
According to reports his extensive Bible knowledge was one way he sucked
in the fools (followers?).

Quote bible all you want. I too judge what you say be what you do and
even more by if it makes sense.

Sense, common that is.  Doesn't seem so common after all!

-- 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| John Morris                                    jwmorris@netcom.com |
| San Diego, CA                    I have no opinion, but if I did...|
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84302
From: tbrent@ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?



|> >One more thought.  The government claimed that they believed he had automatic
|> >weapons on the premises. 
|> 
|> >        HE HAD A LICENSE FOR THE 50 CALIBER MACHINE GUN!
|> 
|> >THEY KNEW DAMN WELL HE HAD ONE. THEY ALSO KNEW HE HAD IT LEGALLY!
|> 
|> >Still, without the element of surprise they sent in agents to get him.
|> >For all of this my President takes full responsibility.  What a guy!
|> >I hope he gets it.
|> 
|> 	The .50cal gun was a semi-auto, and was thus legal. The BATF
|> 	claims that the Davidians also possessed illegally modified
|> 	AR-15's and illegal explosives.
|> 
|> 
|>                   _____  _____
|>                   \\\\\\/ ___/___________________
|>   Mitchell S Todd  \\\\/ /                 _____/__________________________
|> ________________    \\/ / mst4298@zeus._____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_'_/
|> \_____        \__    / / tamu.edu  _____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_/
|>     \__________\__  / /        _____/_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_/
|>                 \_ / /__________/
|>                  \/____/\\\\\\
|>  			 \\\\\\
|> 			  ------

If you check the news today, (AP) the "authorities also found a state-of-the-art
automatic machine gun that investigators did not know was in the cult's arsenal."
[Carl Stern, Justice Department]

I imagine the authorities know the difference between semi and fully automatic
and probably knew weather the guns were legal as they have access to any relative
documentation (i.e. permits).  In addition the .50 caliber guns (plural) were
semi-automatic rifles.

-Tim

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84303
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

keng@den.mmc.com (Ken Garrido) writes:
> royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree) writes:
> >In article <keng.735334134@tunfaire> keng@den.mmc.com (Ken Garrido) writes:
> >[lotsa stuff taken out]
> 
> >Bottom line: due process was not served.  No peaceful attempt to serve
> >a warrant occurred.
> 
> 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.
> 
Did you by any chance see the pictures of the agents in flak jackets climbing
up on the roof and breaking windows.  You call that peaceful?  If you
believed, as these people did, that they would be attacked by evil forces
from the outside, found the scores of agents breaking into your compound
what would you do?  Your beliefs always determine your actions.  The
beliefs may be wrong from my point of view but they are yours all the same.

To make it more practical.  If I attempted to stick you with a needle you
would try to stop me because you believe it would hurt, or that I do not
have that right.  If you did not you would ignore me.  You certainly would
it you saw me sticking the needle in a tree.

Koresh may have been misguided, only God knows.  But the Jews at Masada
died for what they believed, the three Hebrews preferred to die in the
furnace rather than bow down, Daniel preferred to die in a lion's den
rather than stop praying to his God, and as a Christian I am prepared to
die for my faith.

Koresh was not dying for now reason.  He had a cause.  Why should he give
up the children to forces he was convinced were evil.  The events are
bizarre but they match his beliefs.

Darius

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84304
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: What RIGHT ?

joakimr@ifi.uio.no (Joakim Ruud) writes:
> 
> Recently, I've asked myself a rather interesting question: What RIGHT does
> god have on our lives (always assuming there is a god, of course...!) ??
> 
> In his infinite wisdom, he made it perfectly clear that if we don't live
> according to his rules, we will burn in hell. Well, with what RIGHT can god
> make that desicion? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that god creates every
> one of us (directly or indirectly, it doesn't matter.). What then happens, is
> that he first creates us, and then turns us lose. Well, I didn't ask to be
> created. 
> 
> Let's make an analogue. If a scientist creates a unique living creature (which
> has happened, it was even patented...!!!), does he then have the right to
> expect it to behave in a certain matter, or die...?
> 
> Who is god to impose its rules on us ? Who can tell if god is REALLY so
> righteous as god likes us to believe? Are all christians a flock of sheep,
> unable to do otherwise that follow the rest? 
> 
> Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
> 
> I just want to point out that this is not sarcasm, I mean it.
> 
> 		 	How should one deal with a man who is convinced that
> 		 	he is acting according to God's will, and who there-
>      Jokke		fore believes that he is doing you a favour by
> 		 	stabbing you in the back?
>  
> 							-Voltaire
> 

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84305
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?
From: medkeffjs@hirama.hiram.edu (Jeff Medkeff)


> keng@den.mmc.com (Ken Garrido) writes:
>> royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree) writes:

>> >In article <keng.735334134@tunfaire> keng@den.mmc.com (Ken Garrido) writes:
>> >[lotsa stuff taken out]
>> 
>> >Bottom line: due process was not served.  No peaceful attempt to serve
>> >a warrant occurred.
>> 
>> 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.

I am not exactly known as a Flower Child Pacifist, but lets call
cowpoop cowpoop.

"The peaceful attempt to serve the warrant" consisted of the following
actions, in order:

1) BATF agents forcing their entry of the "compound" through second
story windows.

2) BATF agents loosing some grenades (allegedly "stun" or "flash"
grenades) which promptly detonated.

*After* which, according to the tapes I have seen, the B-D
started shooting back.

Now exactly how is it that someone breaking into private property
and tossing grenades around is considered "peaceful" by
*anyone*? You *think* on that.

(Which is not to say I do not still hold my previous and
entirely correct notions about what should be worn and
what arms should be used in assaulting a building.)

-- 
Jeffrey S. Medkeff      Bitnet-    medkeffjs@hiramb
PO Box 1098             Internet-  medkeffjs@hiramb.hiram.edu
Hiram, OH 44234         Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight. But
U.S.A.                  Roaring Bill (who killed him) thought it right.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84306
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: The Laws of God (was Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!)


In article <1r4e63INN2kb@owl.csrv.uidaho.edu>, lanphi872@moscow.uidaho.edu (Rob Lanphier) writes:
|>
|> These are two conflicting statements.  To say one is a clarification of the
|> other is a breach of logic.  I don't mind people shifting their position on
|> an issue.  It irritates me when it is said under the premise that no change
|> was made.  What about Deuteronomy 22:20-25?  Is it wrong now?  Did Jesus
|> change that?
|> 
|> : If anything, He clarified the Law such as in that quote you made.  In the
|> : following verses, Jesus takes several portions of the Law and expounds upon
|> : the Law giving clearer meaning to what God intended.
|> 
|> Sure he does this.  However, he doesn't address the notion of stoning
|> non-virgin brides, because this needs no clarification.  Are you going to
|> deny that Deuteronomy 22:20-25 is not patently clear in its intent?
|>

I see what you are getting at (or at least I think I do).  Correct me if
I am mistaken, but I *think* you are asking me if I still believe that we
should uphold all of the Laws pertaining to capital punishment for such
things as adultery, rape and other heinous crimes.  As you may recall,
Jesus was confronted by this same question in regards to the adultress
who was caught in the act and brought before Jesus.  And His reply, "Let
he who is without sin cast the first stone."  Jesus does not deny the
sentence that is to due for this violation of the Law.  What do you think
of this?

|> 
|> : I think you will agree with me that there are in today's world, a lot of
|> : modern-day Pharisees who know the bible from end to end but do not believe
|> : in it.  What good is head knowledge if there is nothing in the heart?
|> 
|> I'll agree that there is a lot of modern day Pharisees that know the Bible
|> from end to end and don't believe in it.  Depending on how they use this
|> knowledge, they can be scary.  They can argue any position they desire, and
|> back it up with selected parts of the Bible.  Such Pharisees include David
|> Koresh and Adolph Hitler.  I will qualify this by saying *I don't know* if
|> they actually believed what they were preaching, but the ends certainly
|> made the means look frightening.
|>

Agreed.  :)
 
|> However, just as scary are those that don't know much of the Bible, but
|> believe every word.  In fact, this is probably scarier, since there are far
|> more of these people, from what I've seen.  In addition, they are very easy
|> to manipulate by the aforementioned Pharisees, since they don't know enough
|> to debate with these people.
|> 

Agreed also.  If one is to use the Bible as a reference, one must always be
open to different interpretations.  As a Christian, I have the Spirit of God
to verify what I believe in the Word.  If what the Spirit tells me is not
backed up in scripture then the spirit I am communicating with is not of
God.  After all, Jesus tells us to "test the spirits" to know for sure that
it is from God.

|>
|> : Christianity is not just a set of rules; it's a lifestyle that changes one's
|> : perspectives and personal conduct.  And it demands obedience to God's will.
|> 
|> No, it demands obedience to a book.  If God came down and personally told
|> me how I should behave, then I would say that I would be doing God's will
|> by doing it.  However, if preachers, pastors, and evangelists tell me to
|> obey the will of a book written by people who have been dead for close to
|> two millenia (even longer for the OT), even if I follow everything in it
|> with my heart, I could scarcely be honest with myself by saying I'm doing
|> the will of God.
|>

I obey what the Spirit of God tells me to do.  The Spirit will not violate
anything that is written in the Bible because that is the Word of God.  I do
not worship pastors, preachers, my wife, my mother or my father.  What they
tell me does not carry the weight of what God tells me to do and His commands
are rienforced in the Bible.
 
|> : Some people can live by it, but many others cannot or will not.  That is
|> : their choice and I have to respect it because God respects it too.
|> 
|> Well, if God respects it so much, how come there is talk in the Bible about
|> eternal damnation for non-believers?  I see little respect eminating from
|> the god of the Bible.  I see a selfish and spiteful god.
|>

Eternal damnation is the consequence of the choice one makes in rejecting
God.  If you choose to jump off a cliff, you can hardly blame God for you 
going *splat* at the bottom.  He knows that if you choose to jump, that 
you will die but He will not prevent you from making that choice.  In fact,
He sent His Son to stand on the edge of the cliff and tell everyone of what
lies below.  To prove that point, Jesus took that plunge Himself but He being
God was able to rise up again.  I have seen the example of Christ and have 
chosen not to jump and I'm trying to tell you not to jump or else you'll 
go *splat*.
 
You don't have to listen to me and I won't stop you if you decide to jump.
I only ask that you check it out before taking the plunge.  You owe it to
yourself.  I don't like seeing anyone go *splat*.

God be with you,
 
Malcolm Lee  :)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84307
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  You can't play Electro-magnetic Golf
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  according to the rules of Centrifugal
This University is too Commie-	|  Bumblepuppy. -Huxley, Brave New World
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84308
From: markp@elvis.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In <30136@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:

>In article <1qjd3o$nlv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>Firstly, science has its basis in values, not the other way round.
>>So you better explain what objective atoms are, and how we get them
>>from subjective values, before we go any further.


>Atoms are not objective.  They aren't even real.  What scientists call
>an atom is nothing more than a mathematical model that describes 
>certain physical, observable properties of our surroundings.  All
>of which is subjective.  

Omigod, it's an operationalist! Sorry, Jim, but the idea that a theory
explaining a myriad of distinctly different observations is merely a
"model" is more than sensible people can accept -- your phobia about
objective reality notwithstanding.
--
Mark Pundurs

any resemblance between my opinions and those 
of Wolfram Research, Inc. is purely coincidental

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84309
From: markp@elvis.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In <930415.112243.8v6.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:

>There's no objective physics; Einstein and Bohr have told us that.

Speaking as one who knows relativity and quantum mechanics, I say: 
Bullshit.

>There's no objective reality.  LSD should be sufficient to prove that.

Speaking as one who has taken LSD, I say: 
Bullshit.

>> One wonders just what people who ask such questions understand by the term 
>> "objective", if anything.

>I consider it to be a useful fiction; an abstract ideal we can strive
>towards.  Like an ideal gas or a light inextensible string, it doesn't
>actually exist; but we can talk about things as if they were like it, and not
>be too far wrong.

How could striving toward an ideal be in any way useful, if the ideal 
had no objective existence?
--
Mark Pundurs

any resemblance between my opinions and those 
of Wolfram Research, Inc. is purely coincidental

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84310
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor, The Sounding Board)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <C5uvqo.GB7@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>In article <sandvik-190493200323@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>>I'm mostly angry why the Davidians didn't spare the children the
>>awful suffering. See my other posting, I'm in a bad temper.

>Well, dozens of children left the compound between the original BATF assualt
>and the FBI assault 7 weeks later. So if Koresh really wanted to kill
>children, why did he let so many go?

Word is that the ones he let go were not his.
---
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ---------Visit the SOUNDING BOARD BBS +1 214 596 2915, a Wildcat! BBS-------

    "Foot" the Bill:  let's get a new President.

    Patrick Taylor, Ericsson Network Systems  THX-1138
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                    "Don't let the .se fool you"

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84311
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Subject: Magick and parallel universes (was: The Universe and Black Holes)

In article <IfpMCx600VB986FZFR@andrew.cmu.edu> nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nanci Ann Miller) writes:
>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>> BTW, the parallel universe approach implys an element of mind in the
>> very physical reality of the universe. 

>This sounds interesting... but what exactly do you mean?  

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.

>Nanci

eric


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84312
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1r66su$dm7@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <sandvik-210493213823@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>#Frank, unless you didn't realize it, you are just now involved
>#in a debate where we have various opinions, and each entity
>#has its own frame where the opinion is expressed. I think I 
>#don't need to state the dreadful r-word.

>So, it's _sometimes_ correct to say that morality is objective, or what?

If you were able to prove that morality is objective, then it would
be correct to do so. The problem is, by the very meaning of the
words in question, to do so is oxymoronic. Of course you could
redefine the words, but that would still not lend support to the
underlying concept.

>After all, I could hardly be wrong, without dragging in the o-word.

This does not parse. How could you hardly be wrong without dragging
in the o-word?

>For your part, when you say that relativism is true, that's just
>your opinion.  Why do folk get so heated then, if a belief in relativism
>is merely a matter of taste?  (to be fair, _you_ have been very calm,
>I get the impression that's because you don't care about notions of
>objectivity in any flavour.  Right?)

I have no problem with objectivity at all. It is my objectivity that
has led me to conclude that morality is subjective.

>-- 
>Frank O'Dwyer                                  'I'm not hatching That'
>odwyer@sse.ie                                  from "Hens",  by Evelyn Conlon

eric

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84313
From: wvhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William VanHorne)
Subject: Re: Why did they behave as they did (Waco--reading suggestion)

In article <pgf.735710979@srl03.cacs.usl.edu> pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>How come noone mentions Eric Hoffer when talking about 
>fanatic behavior anymore?

Good point.  If you haven't read "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer, do
so at your first opportunity.  I don't know why Hoffer is out of style
now, but "The True Believer" is still the best explanation of nutball
behavior ever written.

---Bill VanHorne

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84314
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Daniel v. Zoroaster, was The Jewish Discomfort With Jesus

In article <1746.2BD37A66@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> 
Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson) writes:
> Since everywhere I look, Zoroaster is suggested as being a probable
> descendant of Daniel; suppose you prove he wasn't.

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.

ZARATHUSHTRA, founder of the religion know as Zoroastrianism or Mazdaism (from
Mazda or Ahura Mazda, the name of the god prophesied by Zarathushtra.) The
etymology and history of Zarathushtra, the Avestan and oldest form of the name,
as uncertain, both in various Iranian languages and in related forms else-
where. There may have been an Old Persian form, Zara-ushtra, from which the
Greek form, Zoroastres, may be derived, and there may have existed an Old
Iranian form, Zarat-ushtra, to which may be linked the Middle Iranian Zrdrwsht,
several Middle Persian forms (such as Zrtwsht), and the New Persian Zardusht.
We can state with certainty only that the second half of the name, ushtra,
means "camel." The form Zoroaster, derived from the Greek Zoroastres, was used
traditionally in European culture until the eighteenth century, when
Zarathustra, closer to the original (and as found in Nietzsche), came into
common use after the rediscovery of the Avesta, the collection of sacred books
of Zoroastrianism, and the resulting studies in Iranian philology. [See Avesta.]
  Notwithstanding the great and continued popularity of Zarathushtra, even in
Western culture, the sources available to us are few, extremely fragmented,
and heterogeneous. Our principle sources are the five Gathas ("songs"),
attributed to Zarathushtra himself and included in the Yasna section of the
Avesta: Gatha Ahunavaiti (Yasna 28-34), Gatha Ushtavaiti (Yasna 43-46), Gatha
Spentamainyu (Yasna 47-50), Gatha Vokukhshathra (Yasna 51), and Gatha
Vashishtoishti (Yasna 53), the last of which was probably written after the
prophet's death.
  Other sources of considerable, albeit varying, importance are the Younger
Avesta and the remaining Zoroastrian religious literature, in particular the
Pahlavi texts of the ninth and tenth centures CE. Although the Achaemenid
inscriptions (sixth to fourth centures BCE) never mention Zarathushtra, he is
mentioned by some Greek sources of the time (not, however, by Herodotus, who
seems unaware of him).
  The Avesta does not provide any direct or explicit data concerning the true
chronological history of Zarathushtra. But the text is useful in an indirect
way, as it clearly implies that the environment in which Zoroastrianism arose
was not that of Iran under the Medes or the Persians. The Greek sources, on the
other hand, do provide some information concerning the time of Zarathushtra,
although from a historical point of view they are unreliable. Some place him
six thousand years before the Trojan War (Xanthus of Lydia, Eudoxus of Cnidus,
Hermippus, Hermodorus, Aristotle, Plutarch, Diogenes Laertius, and Pliny). The
account by Xanthus of Lydia, however, has also been interpreted by some to mean
six hundred, rather than six thousand, years before the expedition of Xerxes
against Greece. This interpretation is favored by Diogenes Laertius, who makes
reference to Xanthus, but although a few scholars (A. S. Shabazi, Helmut
Humbach) have recently attempted to rehabilitate it under various pretexts, it
is generally rejected.
  Although the historical value of the Greek sources is negligible, they are
nonetheless important in that they show that the millenarian doctrine of history
of the cosmos had already been developed in Iran by the Achaemenid period, as
the above account would seem to demonstrate. They also show that by this time
Zarathushtra was already seen as an almost mythical figure, one from an
extremely distant past. All of this leads to the conclusion that the prophet
could not have belonged to a historical period contemporary with, or even close
to, that of the Achaemenids.
  Later Zoroastrian sources, the Pahlavi texts, do provide an absolute chrono-
logy for Zarathushtra, one that was also accepted by some Arab authors. Accord-
ing to these sources, Zarathushtra lived 300 or 258 years before Alexander.
Again, scholars are divided on the validity of the chronology; some view it as
historically reliable while others believe that it is devoid of historical
justification. The most convincing arguments, however, seem to support the
latter position. The figure of 258 years is accurate only on the surface
because it represents, in fact, the more general one of 300, which was employed
by Sasanid propagandists to locate Zarathushtra's lifetime roughly around the
beginning of Iranian domination. For a number of reasons connected with complex
problems inherent in the Iranian chronology, there was also a desire on the
part of the Sasanid propagandists to avoid any millenarian threat. In this
context, Zarathushtra, whom tradition places early in the ninth millennium after
the beginning of the cosmos, converted Vishtaspa at the age of forty-two, and
Vishtaspa's conversion was viewed by some as the beginning of the millennium
(thus explaining the double date of 300 and 258 years before Alexander).
  Given the unreliability of the few available sources, we are forced to
reconstruct an absolute chronology on the basis of other elements, principally
on the contention that Zarathushtra must have lived a few centuries before Cyrus
the Great, Cambyses, and Darius, as there is no mention in the Avesta of the
great political achievements that took place in western Iran in the middle of
the first millennium BCE. Nor is there any mention of the history of that
period, which was to lead Iran to a position of such predominance. At the same
time, for a number of reasons, going back much further in history would not be
justified. Consequently, the traditionally accepted theory of placing Zara-
thushtra around the beginning of the first millennium BCE appears to be the
most legitimate.
  As to Zarathushtra's land of origin, many scholars agree, on the basis of
valid arguments, that he must have come from eastern Iran. Some have held that
he was a Mede, largely because of a late Iranian tradition linking Zarathushtra
with Azerbaijan, but also because of linguistic reasons, based on the language
of the Avesta. This hypothesis, however, should be discarded, as we can suppose,
both on historical and linguistic grounds, that Zarathushtra came from the east,
even though we do not know precisely from which region. There is a considerable
variety of opinion on this particular matter, including the improbable view
that he came from Chorasmia, or present-day Khorezm, or from a wider Chorasmian
region, reaching as far as the oases of Merv and Herat. Most likely, however,
Zarathushtra's land of origin is somewhere in the vast area stretching from the
Hindu Kush mountain range to the more southern regions of Bactria and Arachosia
(modern Qandahar), as well as Drangiana (the area of lake Helmand). It would
thus be located in what is now Afghanistan or in the border regions of Iran.
  Zarathushtra himself tells us that he belonged to the priestly caste (Yasna
33.6). He was a zaotar (cf. Sanskrit hotr), that is, a priest belonging to a
specific group connected with a school that produced very elaborate and learned
religious poetry. Even in the so-called Younger Avesta he is described as an
athravan (Yashts 13.94), a more general term encompassing the entire priestly
caste. To enter it he had undergone a long and rigid training, which he used
to lend dignity (as in the Gathas) to the contents of his new message, the
product of a great and original ethical mind.
  Zarathushtra also belongs to that venerable priestly tradition, linking India
to Iran in another way, by centering his teachings on the praise of the ashavan,
or "possessor of asha," that is, the one who, as in the Vedic rtavan, seeks
truth and masters it, thus becoming ashavan in this life - almost an initiate -
and blessed after death. Any good follower of such teachings seeks the "vision
of asha," just as those chosing the right path in Vedic India aspired to the
"vision of the Sun," a manifestation of rta. Behind these concepts and this
language lies the great tradition of "Aryan mysticism," that is, of Indo-Iranian
mysticism.
  Zarathushtra's greatness, however, does not lie in his having belonged to a
particular religious tradition. Rather, it lies in the innovation and strength
of his message, which was in itself a break in the tradition, one that force-
fully and effectively introduced two great revolutionary ideas: dualistic
monotheism (the Wise Lord who fathers two twin spirits, the beneficent and the
evil); and the expectation of a transfiguration (Av., Frashokereti; Pahl.,
Frashgird) of life and existence. [See Frashokereti] 
  Both his monotheistic and dualistic ideas and his particular soteriological
doctrine deeply separate Zarathushtra's teachings from the Indo-Iranian tradi-
tions of his upbringing. They exemplify his rebellion against a formalistic
and ritualistic religion that did not provide adequate answers to the problem
of evil. Because of his basic tenets, Zarathushtra, who advocated an inward
religiosity and the right of the individual to resist the imperatives of tradi-
tion, can be numbered among the greatest of religious figures.
  Another original facet of Zarathushtra's message, one that is not easy to
understand but which, however, holds the key to a deeper understanding of the
complex intellectual and poetic structure of the Gathas, is the doctrine of the
Amesha Spentas, the "beneficent immortals." These are spiritualizations of the
abstract notions of good thought, best truth, desirable power, bounteous
devotion, wholeness, and immortality, all of which operate according to a
system of interrelations and correlations and can simultaneously be the
manifestations of a divinity and of human virtue. [See Amesha Spentas.]
  Other than the names of his father, Pourushaspa ("possessing gray horses"),
and of his mother, Dughdova ("one who has milked"), we know almost nothing of
Zarathushtra's life. A late Pahlavi text also give the names of four brothers.
According to tradition, Zarathushtra left home at the age of twenty, and at
thirty he was subject to a revelation, both through an intense and powerful
inspiration and through a vision. Only after ten years had passed, however, did
he succeed in converting a cousin of his, Maidhyoimah, to his beliefs. He was
strongly opposed in his native land by kavis, karapans, and usijs, priestly
groups associated with traditional teachings and practices. This hostility
caused him to leave his region (Yasna 46:1) and to seek refuge at the court of
Kavi Vishtaspa, a ruler who had been converted to the new religion together with
his wife, Hutaosa, when the prophet, according to tradition, was forty-two
years old. We also know the name of a son, Isat Vastra ("desiring pastures"),
and of three daughters born of his first wife, as well as the names of two more
sons, Urvatatnara ("commanding men") and Hvarecithra ("sun-faced"), born of
his second wife, Hvovi, a member of the influential Hvogva ("possessing good
cattle") family. Two other figures belonging to the Hvogva family are mentioned:
Frashaoshtra and Jamaspa, the former as Hvovi's father, and the latter as the
husband of the third daughter of the prophet, Pouruchista ("very thoughtful"),
whose wedding is celebrated in the fifth hymm in the Gathas (Yasna 53). Again,
according to tradition, Zarathushtra died at the age of seventy-seven. He was
assassinated by a karapan, a priest of the old religion, who belonged to the
Tuirya tribe and was called Tur i Bradres (his name is known only in the Pahlavi
form).
  The paucity of information on the prophet's life is compensated by a tradi-
tion, rich in legendary detail, that arose through the centuries in Zoroastrian
communities. The main texts documenting the tradition are the seventh book of
the Denkard, a Pahlavi work dating from the ninth century CE, as well as
passages from other Pahlavi texts and a New Persian work from the thirteenth
century, the Zarathusht-nama (Book of Zarathushtra), written by Zaratusht-i
Bahram-i Pazhdu. Mythical and ritual elements prevail in the later legends about
Zarathushtra, which idealize him into a symbol and make him the archetype of the
perfect man.
  Zarathushtra's great popularity in the ancient world continued throughout the
Renaissance until the Enlightenment. During the Classical and Hellenistic
periods he was viewed as a wise man, a typical representative of an "alien
wisdom," a master of the secrets of heaven and earth, a seer, astrologer,
psychologist, and wonder worker. Pythagorean thinkers went so far as to see the
influence of Zarathushtra on Pythagoras himself, and the Academicians always
openly admired the Persian thinker who founded the school of the Magi and
advocated a doctrine of dualism. Earliest Christianity viewed Zarathushtra as
a precursor of the Christian faith, one who not only prophesied, as had the
biblical prophets, the advent of the Messiah but also predicted the supernatural
sign of his coming, the star that was to appear in the East and guide the three
Magi to the manger in Bethlehem. [See Magi.] This Christian interpretation is
derived from the Zoroastrian doctrine of the Saoshyant, the Savior of the
Future. [See Saoshyant.] Later, however, religious struggles arose during the
Sasanid empire in Persia (third to seventh centuries CE), which linked the
spread of Christianity with the Roman empire. Zarathushtra's popularity in the
Christian world began to decline. The Iranian prophet, who had been praised
often by the gnostic schools and who had been seen by Mani as one of the three
great messengers from the past, was now seen, instead, as a leader of imposture
and heresy, a teacher of the diabolic arts of witchery. But during the Renaiss-
ance and the Enlightenment, European cultures reverted to the image of Zara-
thushtra that had come down through Classical and Hellenistic antiquity. He was
viewed, once again, as a great and wise man, as the author of the _Chaldean
Oracles_ and probably inventor of Qabbalah, as a teacher of astrology, as a
possible bridge between Christianity and Platonism, and, at times (as in
Voltaire), as a symbol of non-Christian wisdom.
  After Western philology rediscovered Zarathushtra during the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries, Friedrich Nietzsche, in an intentional paradox, gave
the name Zarathustra to the hero of his work _Also sprach Zarathustra_ (1883-
1892). Nietzsche saw the Iranian prophet as the first to have discovered the
true motive force underlying all things, that is, the eternal struggle between
good and evil. [See also Zoroastrianism]

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84315
From: "David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: ABORTION and private health coverage -- letters regarding

On 21-Apr-93 in Re: ABORTION and private he..
user Not a Boomer@desire.wrig writes:
>	And while courts have found it ok to charge women less for auto
>insurance, it's illegal to charge them more for health insurance (because they
>live longer) or make them pay more into retirement funds so the legal arena 
>isn't being 100% consistent on the gender issue.
Not so in PA.  Recently the gender inequity in auto insurance was
removed.  Just a point.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84316
From: cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl)
Subject: Re: Burden of Proof

>  hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com (Bill Hamilton) writes:
> >cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl) writes:
> >>ray@engr.LaTech.edu (Bill Ray) writes:

> >********NOTE: FOLLOWUPS go to alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins!
> >
> >[deleted]
> >[more deleted]
> >If you say X statement and give it the authority of fact, I will respond
> >by asking you why. You aren't obligated to say anything, but if your
> >intent is to convince me that X statement is true, then yes, the burden
> >of proof is upon you. 
> 
>[some interesting stuff, on the lines of the burden of proof belongs to God] 
> 
> >
> >If you are merely giving testimony to your beliefs, then you are an egotist.
> 
> Please excuse me if I missed an earlier part of this thread
> in which Bill came across like an egotist. What I saw was simply
> obedience to the scriptural command to "always be ready
> to give a reason for the joy that is in you". 

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

Jumping on your trailer, "always be ready etc.", then that goes right
back to the burden of proof question. Go ahead and give me a reason why
you think God exists, if you state such a thing. 
> 
> Bill Hamilton
> 
Chris Faehl
cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84319
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

In article <1r477q$1vk@sbctri.sbc.com>, tph@susie.sbc.com (Timothy P. Henrion) writes:
> In article <1993Apr21.093914.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>>I assume you have evidence that he was responsible for the deaths?
> 
> Only my common sense.  The fire was caused by either Koresh and his
> followers or by the FBI/ATF/CIA/KGB/and maybe the Harper Valley PTA.  Since
> you are throwing around the evidence arguement, I'll throw it back.  Can
> you prove any government agency did it?  (Please don't resort to "they 
> covered it up so that proves they did it" or any wild theories about how
> the government agencies intentionally started the fire.  The key words
> are proof and evidence.)
> proves they did it"

No, which is why I want an investigation.  
 
> Please explain how Koresh was defending himself from those children who
> burned.  

Who ever said he was? What is obvious is that he was defending himself, and his
followers, from the government.  Whether you think he was right or wrong in
this is another question.  If he was right, then he had the moral right to kill
those kgBATF agents.
--Ray Cote

There's no government like no government.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84320
From: Charlie Fulton <charlie@isis.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Abortion

In article <C5n2xM.vsD@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis, 
margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In <17858.459.uupcb@ozonehole.com> anthony.landreneau@ozonehole.com 
(Anthony 
>Landreneau)  writes:
>>
>>The rape has passed, there is nothing that will ever take that away.
>
>True.  But forcing her to remain pregnant continues the violation of
>her body for another 9 months.  I see this as being unbelievably cruel.

If she doesn't welcome the excruciating pain of labor, the
selfish bitch deserves to die in childbirth.  She was probably
lying about the rape anyway.

Charlie

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84321
From: jasons@atlastele.com (Jason Smith)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <sandvik-210493225220@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
= In article <1993Apr21.231552.24869@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
= brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:
= 
= Hmm, it seems that this is the core of Christianity then, you 
= have to feel guilty, and then there's this single personality
= that will save you from this universal guilt feeling.
= 
= Brian, I will tell you a secret, I don't feel guilty at all,
= I do mistakes, and I regret them, however I've never had this
= huge guilt feeling hanging over my shoulder.

I will tell you another secret.  I get this burning sensation in my
hand every time I hold it over a candle.  The pain does not fill my entire
body, and I'm told the longer I hold it here, the less it'll hurt (it'll
eventually burn up the nerves, or so I'm told).  So I suppose I should just
ignore the pain, because holding my hand over the candle is something I just
want to do. I've got the right, don't I?

Your body feels pain to let you know something is wrong.  It's your body's
alarm system informing you that something needs your attention.

A fever tells you that you are sick, and need some sort of care.

Guilt can be seen as that "emotional or spiritual" alarm, just informing you
that there is something that you've done that "requires your attention".

It doesn't require a "personality type" to become a believer.  It requires
someone who is willing to listen to themselves, their body & soul.  

= All I know is that I don't know everything. And frankly speaking
= I don't care, life is fun anyway. I recognize that I'm not 
= perfect, but that does not hinder me from have a healthy
= and inspiring life.

For several years all I knew is I really liked dropping 'cid (LSD).
Frankly speaking, I didn't really care.  It was fun anyway.

It didn't matter that every child my wife and I want to have are at a 
*tremendously* greater risk of serious birth defects.

For several years all I knew is I really liked having sex with as many women
as I could convice.  Frankly speaking, I didn't care.  

I didn't care that I was putting each one of them at risk (as well as their
future partners).

It didn't matter that for the first decade of my marriage, my wife and I
will have the worry that possibly that last sneeze meant something *much*
worse than a cold.

= 
= There are humans that subscribe to the same notion. The nice
= thing is that when you finally shake off this huge burden,
= the shoulders feel far more relaxed!

The nice thing about pain killers, if you take enough, you won't care about 
the fever, shortness of breath or pain.

-- 
Jason D. Smith  	|
jasons@atlastele.com	|    I'm not young enough to know everything.
     1x1        	| 

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84323
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Subject: Re: Rawlins debunks creationism

In article <1993Apr15.223844.16453@rambo.atlanta.dg.com> wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:

>    We are talking about origins, not merely science.   Science cannot
>    explain origins.  For a person to exclude anything but science from
>    the issue of origins is to say that there is no higher truth
>    than science.  This is a false premise.  By the way, I enjoy science.
>    It is truly a wonder observing God's creation.  Macroevolution is
>    a mixture of 15 percent science and 85 percent religion [guaranteed
>    within three percent error :) ]

Let us explore this interesting paragraph point by point, sentence by
sentence.


1) We are talking about origins, not merely science.

Origins of what?  Are we speaking of the origins of life, the human
species, the universe, physical law, biological diversity or what?

2) Science cannot explain origins.

This is a false statement unless it is carefully qualified.  It depends
on what origins we are talking about.

3) For a person to exclude anything but science from the issue of origins
is to say that there is no higher truth than science.

Again, this is a false statement.  To begin with, the notion of "higher
truth" is distinctly dubious.  Many people believe that there are ways
to ascertain truth that are not in the repetoire of science; they even
believe that there are ways that are more reliable and certain.  Many
believe that there are truths that cannot be expressed using the language
of science.  Let it be so.  These truths are neither "higher" or 
"lower"; they are simply true.

More to the point, restricting one's discussion of origins to science
does not reject other sources of knowledge; it simply restricts the
scope of discussion.

4) This is a false premise.

If this is intended as asserting that the previous sentence was false
then (4) is actually true.  However the context identifies it as another
false [or at least theologically unsound] statement.

5) By the way, I enjoy science.

On the evidence Mr. Rawlins lacks sufficient understanding of science
to enjoy science in any meaningful sense.  One might just as well say
that one enjoys literature written in a language that one cannot read.
However one cannot mark this sentence as false -- to follow the analogy,
perhaps he likes the pretty shapes of the letters.

6) It is truly a wonder observing God's creation.

Let us not quibble; count this one as true.

7) Macroevolution is a mixture of 15 percent science and 85 percent
religion [guaranteed within three percent error :) ]

Still another false statement.  However one can make it come out true
with the following contextual modification:

"Macroevolution, as misunderstood by Rawline, is a mixture of 15 percent
of what Rawlins erroneously thinks of as science, and 85 percent of
what Rawlins erroneously thinks of as religion."

-----

It is distinctly noticeable that Mr. Rawlins fails miserably to touch
on truth except when he reports personally on what he feels.  [I do
him the justice of assuming that he is not misinforming us as to his
personal reactions.]  One can account for this by the hypothesis that
he has an idiosyncratic and personal concept of truth.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84324
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin

In article <1993Apr15.225657.17804@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>
wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
 
(Deletion)
>
>       Since you have referred to the Messiah, I assume you are referring
>        to the New Testament.  Please detail your complaints or e-mail if
>        you don't want to post.  First-century Greek is well-known and
>        well-understood.  Have you considered Josephus, the Jewish Historian,
>        who also wrote of Jesus?  In addition, the four gospel accounts
>        are very much in harmony.
>
 
Since this drivel is also crossposted to alt.atheism, how about reading
the alt.atheism FAQ? The Josephus quote is concidered to be a fake even
by Christian historians, and the four gospels contradict each other in
important points.
 
Weren't you going to offer a scientific theory of Creationism?
   Benedikt

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84325
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1qie61$fkt@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:

>Objective morality is morality built from objective values.


And organized religion is a religion built from organized values.
And Ford Tempo is a Tempo built from Ford values.
And rational response is response built from rational values.
And unconditional surrender is surrender built from unconditional values.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
          uncle!

bye
-jim halat

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84326
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1993Apr15.071814.27960@wam.umd.edu>, judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- objectively subjective) writes:
>> = <1qhn7m$a95@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>[culled from a discussion on Christianity and objective morals]
>
>Question:  Is there any effective difference between:
>
>"Objective values exist, and there is disagreement over what they are"
>
>and
>
>"Values are subjective?"
>
>I don't see any.
>



Is there any difference in saying 

"Absolute Truth exists, but some people think its a lie"

and

"Truth is relative" ?

I think there is:  in both examples, the first statement is a
fundamental disagreement between at least two people; the 
second statement is agreed upon by all.

To put it another way, someone who says objective values exist
does not agree that values are subjective.

-jim halat

                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84327
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1qjbn0$na4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:


>Really?  You don't know what objective value is?  If I offered the people
>of the U.S., collectively, $1 for all of the land in America, would that 
>sound like a good deal?  

That happens to be a subjective example that the people of the
US would happen to agree on.  Continue to move the price up; 
at some point a few people would accept then more then more until 
probably all would accept at a high enough number.

Endpoints of a subjective scale are not the given homes of 
objective viewpoints.

-jim halat


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84328
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1qjd3o$nlv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>Firstly, science has its basis in values, not the other way round.
>So you better explain what objective atoms are, and how we get them
>from subjective values, before we go any further.


Atoms are not objective.  They aren't even real.  What scientists call
an atom is nothing more than a mathematical model that describes 
certain physical, observable properties of our surroundings.  All
of which is subjective.  

What is objective, though, is the approach a scientist 
takes in discussing his model and his observations.  There
is no objective science.  But there is an objective approach
which is subjectively selected by the scientist.  Objective
in this case means a specified, unchanging set of rules that
he and his colleagues use to discuss their science.

This is in contrast to your Objective Morality.  There may be an
objective approach to subjectively discuss your beliefs on
morality.  But there exists no objective morality.

Also, science deals with how we can discuss our observations of 
the physical world around us.  In that the method of discussion
is objective ( not the science; not the discussion itself ).

Science makes no claims to know the whys or even the hows sometimes
of what we can observe.  It simply gives us a way to discuss our
surroundings in a meaningful, consistent way.

I think it was Neils Bohr who said (to paraphrase) Science is what
we can _say_ about the physical world.

-jim halat

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84329
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <markp.735230393@elvis.wri.com>
markp@elvis.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
 
>>Atoms are not objective.  They aren't even real.  What scientists call
>>an atom is nothing more than a mathematical model that describes
>>certain physical, observable properties of our surroundings.  All
>>of which is subjective.
>
>Omigod, it's an operationalist! Sorry, Jim, but the idea that a theory
>explaining a myriad of distinctly different observations is merely a
>"model" is more than sensible people can accept -- your phobia about
>objective reality notwithstanding.
 
 
The point about its being real or not is that one does not waste time with
what reality might be when one wants predictions. The questions if the
atoms are there or if something else is there making measurements indicate
atoms is not necessary in such a system.
 
And one does not have to write a new theory of existence everytime new
models are used in Physics.
 
Don't forget to prove your last sentence, namely that sensible don't
accept that.
   Benedikt

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84331
From: joakimr@ifi.uio.no (Joakim Ruud)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?


 
> Tell me are you really this stupid, or are you just pretending.

Tell me are you really this stupid, or are you just pretending. 

> I have fire insurance that I hope I never have to use.

A fire insurance is not an offensive weapon.

> I have a spare tire in my trunk that I hope I never have to use.

A spare tire is not an offensive weapon.

		 	How should one deal with a man who is convinced that
		 	he is acting according to God's will, and who there-
     Jokke		fore believes that he is doing you a favour by
		 	stabbing you in the back?
 
							-Voltaire

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84332
From: wilkins@scubed.com (Darin Wilkins)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

>In article <C5w7CA.M3s@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tbrent@ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:
>>If you check the news today, (AP) the "authorities also found a state-of-the-art
>>automatic machine gun that investigators did not know was in the cult's arsenal."
>>[Carl Stern, Justice Department]

In article <1r7hmlINNc6@mojo.eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>Yeah.  In a fire that reportedly burned hotter than 1000 degrees-- hot
>enough to make the bodies still unidentifiable-- the authorities found
>a gun that was recognizably fully-automatic and state of the art.
>Isn't that CONVEEEENIENT?

Convenient?  It seems very appropriate that this is cross-posted to
alt.conspiracy.

Assuming the most favorable interpretation of your '1000 degree'
measurement (that the temperature is in Centigrade, rather than the
more common -in the US- Fahrenheit), you are still laboring under at
least 2 misconceptions:

1.  You seem to believe that steel melts somewhere around 1000 C.
    Actually, the melting point of most iron alloys (and steels are
    iron alloys) is in the neighborhood of 1400 C.  Even if the gun
    were found in area which achieved the 1000 C temperature, the steel
    parts of the gun would not be deformed, and it would still be
    trivial to identify the nature of the weapon.

2.  A fire is not an isothermal process.  There are 'hot' spots and
    'cold' spots, though 'cold' is purely a relative term.   So the
    weapon was not necessarily situated in a hot spot, as you seem to
    imply.  And, even if it was, so what?  It would not have melted
    anyway.

darin
wilkins@scubed.com
________________________________
|                              |
| I will be President for food |
|______________________________|

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84334
From: dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood)
Subject: Re: Laws of God (was Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!)



mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm.Lee) writes:

>dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood) writes:
>|> 
>|> mlee@ra.royalroads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>|> >These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had
>|> >expressly set apart from the rest of the world.  The Israelites were a
>|> >direct witness to God's existence.  To disobey God after KNOWing that God is
>|> >real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately punishable.
>|> >Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to 
>|> >God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We are living in the
>|> >age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death.  There is
>|> >repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just
>|> >for a few chosen people.  Salvation is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile
>|> >alike.
>|> 
>|> Sorry if this is late for the thread, but...
>|> 
>|> I thought God was supposed to be constant and never-changing.  How do
>|> you reconcile this common Christian view with the paragraph above?
>|>

>God never changes.  

Sorry, but yes he does, by your own description.

>He still loves us.  Sending Jesus was one of His attempts to
>reconcile with mankind.

Humorous, this notion of an all-knowing, all-powerful god who must
"attempt" to "reconcile" with his lowly creations.  I realize that it
is not possible to penetrate such logic, but is there any chance that
you might consider that an omnipotent god need not "attempt" anything,
and further that an attempt to "reconcile" implies a lack of
omniscience?

What you are doing here is projecting human weaknesses onto your god.

>|> 
>|> Also, while we're at it:
>|> 
>|> 1. How do you reconcile "A KIND and LOVING God!!" with the
>|> Judeo-Christian view that sin was at one time "immediately punishable
>|> by death"?  Was killing people for sinning God's way of showing
>|> KINDness and LOVE?
>|>

>Sinning in the face of God was punishable by immediate death.  There are
>several OT passages to back this up.  God is God.  

But all humans are sinners, thus all pre-Jesus humans should have been
punished with death.  We aren't punished with sin now, of course,
because God has changed.  He required a brutal, sadistic sacrifice of
his own blood in order to allow us to sin without immediate death.  

>He cannot tolerate the prescence of sin in His midst.  

Yet he does so now.  He has changed.  The sadistic murder of his own
son has made him more tolerant of our sins.

Besides, his "midst" is everywhere, so your statement is meaningless.
He tolerates sin in Hell, which surely is in his midst as well.  Also,
given that he is all-knowing, he must have eternal knowledge of who
will commit which sins, as well as when and where, so what does
tolerance have to do with anything.  All of this is absolute nonsense,
unless your god is not indeed all-knowing and all-powerful, or unless
he doesn't take the personal interest in everyday affairs that you
claim.

>And the Israelites knew this!  And
>still, some of them chose to disobey and were destroyed.  Were these
>people KIND and LOVing themselves?  

Not relevant.  The claim of kindness and lovingness was made by you in
reference to your god.  The nature of his creations/victims is not at
issue.

>God gave them every break He could but in the end, He really had no
>choice in the matter.  

I see: an all-knowing god who did not know what the ultimate outcome
would be, and an all-powerful god who had no choice in the matter.
Mindmush.

>Seeing as how we were failing to achieve salvation on our own, He sent
>His Son to die for us - to be the ultimate sin offering.  

Did I miss something?  Did you give some indication at to why a KIND
and LOVING god should require sadistic human sacrifice to allow his
own botched creations to "achieve salvation"?

>|> 
>|> 2. Is the fact the He no longer does this an admission on His part of
>|> having made a mistake?
>|>

>He sent His Son as a consolation to us, out of love.
 
I note that your answer physically follows my question, but I fail to
discern a connection between the two.

By the way, for what am I being consoled?

>|> 3. Now that we are "living in the age of grace", does this mean that
>|> for our sins, God now damns us to eternal hell after we die, rather
>|> than killing us immediately?  If so, is this eternal damnation an
>|> example of "A KIND and LOVING God!!"?
>|>

>Hey, let's be fair for a moment here.  KIND and LOVING does not mean
>a free ride. 

Why not?  By the way, I note for the record that you didn't answer the
questions. 

>There is an amount of give and take as in any relationship.
>Parents are supposed to be kind and loving but does that mean that 
>children can do whatever they want?  NOT!  Part of being a parent means
>administering punishment when the child is at fault.  

Death and/or eternal damnation is your idea of correctional
punishment?  I hope you aren't a parent.

>Part of being a parent means giving instruction.  God tests us through
>the trial of life such that we may grow stronger.  He teaches what is
>right and what is wrong.  

This is quite an elaborate fantasy that you've constructed, but sadly
it lacks a basis in reality.  It also does not address the questions
that I raised.

>The consequences of our actions are made clear to us, be it Heaven or
>be it Hell.  If God did not follow through with what He has warned us
>about, He would not be a very good parent.

The god that you describe is not a good parent, but a tyrant.

>In parenting, if a parent issues a warning but does not follow through
>with it, the children will not take that parent's words very seriously.
>God does the same by telling us who have ears to hear what to do and
>what not to do.  By life's trials, we see the folly of doing our own
>will rather than His.  He warns us about the consequences of rejecting
>Him when it comes time for Judgement.  

Sorry, was that the god of the Bible whose rules I am to follow, or
the god of the Koran?  The Vedas?  The Book of Koresh?  Oh, yes, it's
all so clear.

>Do we follow Him?
>
>I will.

Bully for you.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84336
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In <C5sqyA.F7v@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tbrent@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:

|Probably not.  But then, I don't pack heavy weaponry with intent to use it.

Please cite your evidence that he was intending to use it.

|You don't really think he should have been allowed to keep that stuff do 
|you?

Why not?

|If so, tell me where you live so I can be sure to steer well clear.

Check the sig.

|The public also has rights, and they should be placed above those of the
|individual.

Society does not have rights only individuals have rights.

|Go ahead, call me a commie,

OK, your a commie.

|but you'd be singing a different
|tune if I exercised my right to rape your daughter.

You think you have a right to rape anyone? No wonder you don't care about
the rightws of others.

|He broke the law,

Please indicate which law you feel Koresh broke, and when was he convicted of
said crime.

|he was a threat to society,

So you feel that owning guns makes him a threat to society. When are y ou
going to start going after knives and baseball bats as well.
Or do you feel that someone who spouts unpopular ideas is by definition a
threat to society.

|they did there job - simple.

It is simple if you think that there job is to assualt civilians.

|>	Support your First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth
|>Amendment rights, lest they be taken away from you just as the FBI did
|>to the Davidians. Think about it.

|I'll support them all (except no. 2)

In other words you don't support any of them.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84338
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Subject: Re: cults (who keeps them going ?)

In article <sbuckley.735337212@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:

>>Mr. Clinton said today that the horrible tragedy of the Waco fiasco
>>should remind those who join cults of the dangers of doing so.
>>Now, I began scratching my head thinking (a bad sign :-), "don't the 
>>mainstream religions (in this case Christianity...or the 7th day 
>>adventist in particular) just keep these guys going ? Isn't Mr. Clinton 
>>condemning his own religion ? After all, isn't it a cult too ?"

>>... bad thoughts these.

>  well it depends on whether you take the literal dictionary definition of
>cult and say all faiths are cults, or if you take a more social-context
>view of "cult which allows you to recognize mainstream religions as 
>socially-acceptable and cults as groups that involve techniques of brain-
>washing and all the other characteristics that define oppressive [probly not
>the *best* word] cult behaviour.

My understanding of the academic use of the word cult is that it is
a group of people oriented around a single authority figure. It need
not be religious. However, I have seen plenty of religious cults,
including some that mainstream.

eric


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84339
From: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick

In article <yag12B3w165w@anarky.tch.org>
melchar@anarky.tch.org (Melchar) writes:
 
>
>> [I've read many things like this in the past, yet not quite so
>> blatant a comparison of Christian and Pagan, Roman myth/practice.
>> Is it all historical?  How often has Merlin/Myrddin been associated
>> with Roman gods?  How often has he been associated with Mithras?
>> Does anyone know where Mithras originated?  In Asia?  What part?]
>>
>> Thyagi@HouseofKAos.Abyss.com
>
>      Mithraic worship predates Xianity but in many ways is similar.  It
>was a mystery cult, (worship in which not all the information was
>available to all members:  tests had to be passed & at each stage, new
>info was offered to the worshipper [similar to the Masons......in more
>than one way]) -- of Mithras, a sun deity.  He was cyclic (went down to
>darkness, was reborn), inspired hope; fought against the darkness; was
>popular and charismatic.......
>      The worship originated in Persia & was linked to the Ahura-Mazda
 
Wow, this is news to me---it started in Tarsus--you know, where Paul
of NT fame was from.  Not to be nasty, but get a clue, read
_The Orgins of the Mithraic Mysteries_ by DUlansey!
 
Hey hasn't anyone read Manly P Hall's works?  Perhaps it might be
worth a try....
 
>cults.  For a while it threatened to eclipse Xianity -- however it
>suffered from ONE fatal flaw:  it only accepted free men as members.
>       Xianity took women and slaves and......anyone it could get

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84340
From: tph@susie.sbc.com (Timothy P. Henrion)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

In article <1993Apr22.125956.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>In article <1r477q$1vk@sbctri.sbc.com>, tph@susie.sbc.com (Timothy P. Henrion) writes:
> 
>> Please explain how Koresh was defending himself from those children who
>> burned.  
>
>Who ever said he was? What is obvious is that he was defending himself, and his
>followers, from the government.  Whether you think he was right or wrong in
>this is another question.  If he was right, then he had the moral right to kill
>those kgBATF agents.
>--Ray Cote
>

The killing of the ATF agents is a separate issue.  My point is that many
children died because of Koresh defending himself.  Did he have what you
call the "moral right" to keep those children in a dangerous enviroment in
order to defend himself?  


-- 
  Tim Henrion              Southwestern Bell Technology Resources
  thenrion@sbctri.sbc.com       

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84341
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

markp@avignon (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>>markp@elvis.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>> In <930415.112243.8v6.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk
>>> (mathew) writes:
>>> > There's no objective physics; Einstein and Bohr have told us that.
>>> 
>>> Speaking as one who knows relativity and quantum mechanics, I say: 
>>> Bullshit.
> 
>>Speaking as someone who also knows relativity and quantum mechanics, I say:
>>Go ahead, punk, make my day.  My degree can beat up your degree.
> 
> OK, refer us to the place in Einstein's (or Bohr's) writings where
> he said 'there's no objective physics.'

Ah, you taking everything as literal quotation.  No wonder you're confused.

First, can I ask that we decide on a definition of "objective"?

>>>>There's no objective reality.  LSD should be sufficient to prove that.
>>> 
>>> Speaking as one who has taken LSD, I say: 
>>> Bullshit.
> 
>>Well, I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge on that one, but I think I
>>detect a pattern in your responses.  How about some actual support for your
>>dismissals?
> 
> You take LSD, and it skews your perception of reality. You come down,
> and your perceptions unskew.

And?

>>> How could striving toward an ideal be in any way useful, if the ideal 
>>> had no objective existence?
> 
>>A perfectly efficient power station would convert all of the energy in coal
>>into electricity.  There is absolutely no way we can build a perfect power
>>station; it's an ideal.  But striving towards that ideal is undeniably
>>useful and valuable, is it not?
> 
> OK, let me narrow the question. Is it useful to strive toward a
> (nonexistent) objective ethics?

I'd guess that it might be.

> In what way?

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...


mathew

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84342
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Moral relativism -- what if we all agree? (was Re: After 2000 etc)

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> In article <930422.113807.7Q9.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew 
> <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> #Got it in one.  Similarly, a moral relativist will not judge one moral syste
> #to be better than another in every possible circumstance.  This does not,
> #however, preclude him from judging one moral system to be better than anothe
> #in a specific set of circumstances.  Nor does it preclude a set of moral
> #relativists from collectively judging a moral system, from some set of
> #circumstances which they all agree they are in.
> 
> O.K., this makes sense to me.  (I'm serious, you've explained something
> to me which I never understood before).  But just for grins, suppose we
> almost all agree that we are in a set of circumstances called "reality".
> What then?

Then we all live happily ever after. :-)

Seriously, if we all agreed on the circumstances we're in, I suspect we'd all
agree on the best course of action.  Unfortunately, I have no confidence that
such a situation will ever arise. 

Some of us think there's a big God in the sky, some don't.  Some think
they've been chosen by God, others disagree.  Some think they are infallible,
others think otherwise.  Until those disagreements over circumstances can be
ironed out, there's little hope of everyone agreeing.

>     Or say, for all practical intents and purposes, there is no frame
> of reference in which thus and such is good, isn't that approximately
> objective, in the same way that we usually expect a speeding bullet to
> outrun a snail?

Yes.  I think that, for example, only a vanishingly small number of people
would hold that there's a frame of reference in which gassing six million
Jews is good.  So that's probably about as close to an objective moral value
as I've encountered in my life so far.

>                       For example, if we hear of a bomb in a crowded area,
> isn't it a rather sensible first guess that this is an immoral act, even
> though there conceivably might be some tail-end case that would justify it?

Well, I think your example's poor.  If the bomb's in Iraq, for example, and
was dropped by an American plane, many people would hold that it was a moral
act.

> #> #> And what weasel word do you use to describe that frame of reference, if
> #> #> it isn't an objective reality for values?
> #> #
> #> #I'm sorry, I can't parse "an objective reality for values".  Could you tr
> y
> #> #again?
> #> 
> #> s/an objective reality for values/some values are real even in the face
> #> of disagreement/
> #
> #I still don't quite see what you're trying to say.  I assume by "values" you
> #mean moral values, yes?  In which case, what do you mean by "real"?  What is
> #a "real" moral value, as opposed to an unreal one?
> 
> I mean to say that values are as real as horses, whatever you understand
> by a horse being real is pretty much what I mean about a value being real.

Hmm.  So these moral values have a perceptible physical presence?

> #> If you are saying that some moral systems are better than others, in
> #> your opinion, then all you get is infinite regress.
> #
> #Sorry, but in what way is it an infinite regress?  It looks extremely finite
> #to me.
> 
> I meant that it's never more than your opinion.

Right, and the chain ends right there.  The buck stops with me.  It's not an
infinite regress.

>                                                       You've clarified this
> for me above.  My understanding is now that if a supermajority of relativists
> agree that thus and such is wrong in almost any or all frames of reference,
> then they're saying something which is to all practical intents and purposes
> no different than what I'm saying.

Right.  The key point, however, is that there are vanishingly few of these
moral issues where we can get 99.9% of people to agree on the outcome for all
frames of reference (and agree on the frames of reference...)

> #>                                                    What you do not get
> #> is any justification for saying that the moral system of the terrorist
> #> is inferior to that of the man of peace.
> #
> #Sorry, but that's not so.  I can provide a justification for asserting that
> #the moral system of the terrorist is inferior to that of the man of peace.  
> #I just can't provide a justification which works in all possible
> #circumstances.
> 
> Logically possible, or actually possible?

I can't manage either.  Killing Hitler using a car bomb would have been a
terrorist act, but I have to admit that I couldn't exactly condemn it. 
Although there are tricky philosophical issues to do with hindsight...

>                                              By which I mean, are you
> stretching possible to include events such as the atoms in my terminal
> switching places so that the terminal turns upside down, or do you
> think it likely that circumstances will arise in which terrorism is
> superior to peace.

I think that circumstances have already arisen where terrorism would have
been better than peace.  Better in terms of numbers of innocent people
killed.  Assuming it was successful terrorism, of course.


mathew

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84343
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: What about when there's complete disagreement? (was Re: After stuff)

[ There are actually some talk.abortion related comments below, believe it or
  not... ]

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> In article <930422.113530.7w1.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk# mathew <mathew@mant
> is.co.uk> writes:
> #frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> #> Specifically, I'd like to know what relativism concludes when two
> #> people grotesquely disagree.  Is it:
> #> 
> #> (a) Both are right
> #> 
> #> (b) One of them is wrong, and sometimes (though perhaps rarely) we have a 
> #>     pretty good idea who it is
> #> 
> #> (c) One of them is wrong, but we never have any information as to who, so
> #>     we make our best guess if we really must make a decision.
> #> 
> #> (d) The idea of a "right" moral judgement is meaningless (implying that
> #>      whether peace is better than war, e.g., is a meaningless question,
> #>      and need not be discussed for it has no correct answer)
> #> 
> #> (e) Something else.  A short, positive assertion would be nice.
> #
> #From whose point of view would you like to know what relativism concludes? 
> #One of the people involved in the argument, or some third person observing
> #the arguers?
> 
> I've just come from responding another of your posts, where some pennies
> have dropped for me.  But it would clarify further if you would answer
> from the point of view of any disinterested observers - perhaps an
> observer as likely to be in position A as in position B (where A and B
> disagree) in the future, and have his or her conclusion now binding on
> them at that time.

Well, if our observer X is as likely to be in A's position as B's, and if he
agrees that both A and B are making appropriate observations and inferences
regarding the situation, then I would expect him to conclude that there is no
right answer.  Hopefully there would be some other factor which would allow
him to make some judgement regarding which answer to accept.

If, on the other hand, he disagrees with the principles of either A or B, I
suspect he would make a decision in favour of the other one.

It is unfortunately the case that not all moral arguments have answers from
all perspectives.  For instance, I am completely unable to come to any
conclusion regarding whether abortion should be allowed or not, from my
perspective.  In an ideal world, all living things would have a right to
life; but in an ideal world, women would have the absolute right to do what
they like with their own bodies.  Clearly there is no way to resolve in
favour of both these principles.  Therefore I agree with the compromise
solution of allowing abortion up to a certain time after conception, and
deciding on the time based on various (sometimes ill-defined) criteria.  This
is also a sensible move, I think, because it lets people make their own
decisions (within reason).  And for what it's worth, I am reasonably happy
with current UK abortion law.

Similarly, the situation in what's left of Yugoslavia is a horrible mess, and
I really can't see my way to any sort of conclusion.  There, I don't even
know enough to imagine what sort of compromise one might manage.


mathew

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84344
From: watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson)
Subject: Re: Koresh Doctrine -- 4 of 4

f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:

>In article <watson.735759766@mariner.sce.carleton.ca>, watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson) writes:
>> Question for those of you who seem to be fundamentalists (Stephen
>> Tice, the Cotera, Joe Gaut, et al)(apologies if I've mislabelled any
>> of you, I've only started reading t.r.m since the BD disaster.  But I
>> know the Cotera is a fundy) and are defending Koresh and his beliefs
>> as an example of True Christianity under persecution from the the Big
>> Bad Secular State: what is your opinion of his reported sexual habits?
>> If the reports are accurate, what IYO does this say about the quality of
>> his Christianity?  Or are the allegations just part of the Big
>> Cover-Up?

>Thank you, Steve.  It is refreshing to have someone accuse me of being
>a Christian.  I only hope enough evidence can be garnered to get a
>conviction.  I am not certain what you mean by the "fundy" part as the
>term fundamentalist has a wide variety of uses.  If you refer to

I use it to refer to those Christians who take a more
conservative-literalist approach to the Bible, as distinct from
"liberals".

>those who actually believe Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God and
>wish to follow in his way, then I plead guilty.  But what does it

I would use the word "Christian" (unqualified) to describe someone to
whom the above definition applied.  BTW, it applies to me.

[deletia: Joe Gaut indicates his interest in the BD disaster is from a
civil liberties issue, not an attempt to justify Koresh's beliefs
and/or practices.]

I agree with Joe about this: if some group wants to believe in
whatever god or Invisible Pink Unicorns and go off and live together
and have group sex, or no sex, or sex only for the leaders (but NOT
with children), then, as much as I might believe them to be misguided,
I think they should have the legal right.  And I hope the
investigation will start by determining whether the feds had any
*legitimate* reason for going after Koresh in the first place (before
moving on to consider the wisdom of various tactics used).

[Joe goes on to dispute the child-abuse allegations.  I'll
(provisionally) accept this, unless someone has evidence to support
the allegations?]

Actually I wasn't thinking about the (alleged) child abuse, but about
the reports that he had sex with, and fathered children by, several
women in the cult.  I agree this is not a legal matter - consenting
adults and all that - but Stephen Tice seems to be defending Koresh's
beliefs and practices from specifically *Christian* perspective, not a
civil liberties perspective.  

I think my question is not really aimed at Joe (and possibly not at
Ray Cote either, who seems to also be taking the political angle), but
at Stephen Tice.


--
| Steve Watson a.k.a. watson@sce.carleton.ca === Carleton University, Ontario |
|  this->opinion = My.opinion;  assert (this->opinion != CarletonU.opinion);  |
"Somebody touched me / Making everything new / Burned through my life / Like a
 bolt from the blue / Somebody touched me / I know it was you" - Bruce Cockburn

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84345
From: markp@elvis.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In <30185@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:

>In article <markp.735230393@elvis.wri.com>, markp@elvis.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>>Omigod, it's an operationalist! Sorry, Jim, but the idea that a theory
>>explaining a myriad of distinctly different observations is merely a
>>"model" is more than sensible people can accept -- your phobia about
>>objective reality notwithstanding.

>First of all, I have no phobia of objective reality.  I'm simply
>saying that the scientific model of the atom is probably not 
>what is really out there.  I'm not saying that there's no object
>that sources these properties we measure from atomic theory.

You hadn't made that clear; I'm glad to have it clarified! So you're
a (physical) objectivist, after all, right?

>Take light as another example.  There are two theories: particle and
>wave.  Each one fails to predict the behavior of light as some point.
>So which is it: particle or wave?  You tell me.  You're the sensible
>one.

Wavicle! Next question? ;-)
--
Mark Pundurs

any resemblance between my opinions and those 
of Wolfram Research, Inc. is purely coincidental

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84346
Subject: Re: Rawlins debunks creationism
From: rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota)

In article <1r9fuj$bdi@lll-winken.llnl.gov>, dk@imager (Dave Knapp) writes:
>In article <C5wo5C.EBv@sunfish.usd.edu> rfox@charlie.usd.edu writes:
>>
>>Simply put, evolution/creation when each is looked at properly - theory/fact
>>vs. assertion/fiction - is a specific example of exactly what separates reason
>>and science from nonsense.
>
>   Although I agree that creation is nonsense, I submit that you are making
>the same mistake that creationists commonly do.  In this and previous posts,
>I think you have been engaging in the fallacy of false dichotomy; you have
>consistently characterized science/religion as rationalism/nonsense, when
>in fact the latter do not form a complete set of options.  Neither do the
>former, for that matter.
>
>   I wish that the semi-explicit linking of evolution to so-called "rational"
>atheism could be avoided; it just gives the creationists fuel for their
>often-repeated incantation that "evolution leads to atheism."
>
>  -- Dave

No, Dave, and as an anthropologist I take great umbrage with this 
misrepresentation.  I sense that it is you that has made the jump from creation
(science) to religion (see above).  I have characterized science/*creation 
science* as rationalism/nonsense, and that it is.  When people promote their 
religious beliefs as science they become nonsense.  Kept where they belong 
they are meaningful and useful, as virtually any anthropologists will tell you,
and as I have said several times in this group.  And it works the other way, 
too, and I have repeatedly said so.  Never have I said or meant anything 
different, here or elsewhere, and I don't think my communication skills betray
me.  Nor do I presume to offend people's spiritual sensibilities, as
I would hope others would not disparage mine.

Rich Fox, Anthro, Usouthdakota

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84347
From: bittrolff@evans.enet.dec.com ()
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!


In article <1993Apr20.143754.643@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:

|>BTW, David Koresh was NOT
|>Jesus Christ as he claimed.

How can you tell for sure? Three days haven't passed yet. 

--
Steve Bittrolff

The previous is my opinion, and is shared by any reasonably intelligent person.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84348
From: jmeritt@mental.mitre.org
Subject: Rawlins has been listening to the Devil

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

Now, how we tell which divine inspiration comes from the One True God and which
comes from a satanic trickster?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84349
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Subject: Re: Burden of Proof

In article <C5t5sF.8oz@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> frittsbc@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Brian Fritts) writes:
>  I saw one theist on this net talking about the absurdity of one saying he
>doesn't believe in god, and how can we be sure.  The problem with this and
>other arguments assumes that the burden of proof lies with the atheist. Wrong!
>In philosophy the one who is making a positive argument must give reasons for
>his believing so, not the negative.  If I were to make the statement elves 
>exist, then it would be up to me to prove my positive assertion, not the 
>person saying that elves don't exist.  If the negative in this case had to 
>prove elves don't exist he would have to omniscient and know every inch of the
>universe.  The same applies with god.  Give me your reasons, and you (the theist) make the case.

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


-- 
  ________  Lionel Tun, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk  ________
 / /_  __/\       Computer Vision Group      /\ \__  _\
/___/_/_/\/ City University, London EC1V 0HB \ \___\_\_\
\___\_\_\/        071-477 8000 ext 3889       \/___/_/_/

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84350
From: markp@elvis.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In <30192@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:

>In article <C5y93B.708@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>In article <930423.103637.3O4.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>>>> > There's no objective physics; Einstein and Bohr have told us that.
>>>> Speaking as one who knows relativity and quantum mechanics, I say: 
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>Speaking as someone who also knows relativity and quantum mechanics, I say:
>>>Go ahead, punk, make my day.  My degree can beat up your degree.
>>
>>Simple.  Take out some physics books, and start looking for statements which
>>say that there is no objective physics.  I doubt you will find any.  You might
>>find statements that there is no objective length, or no objective location,
>>but no objective _physics_?  (Consider, for instance, that speed-of-light-in-
>>vacuum is invariant.  This sounds an awful lot like an objective
>>speed-of-light-in-vacuum.)

>Or, you can try not confuse a construct with the constructor.  If you take
>a look at Quantum Mechanics, many objective observations can be made
>as well.  However, Physics is not objective.  Bohr said the randomness
>of atomic motion is inherent in the motion itself.  Einstein said that 
>nature is deterministic; it is our method of observation that inserts the
>randomness.  They were talking about the exact same results.

But neither of them claimed to have experimental evidence that proved 
them right. In a similar vein, there is as yet no experimental evidence
for supersymmetric particles; so some physicists believe in them, and
some don't -- but all agree that either there is an objectively true
answer to the question.

>Depends on how you look at it, I guess.
--
Mark Pundurs

any resemblance between my opinions and those 
of Wolfram Research, Inc. is purely coincidental

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84351
From: markp@elvis.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In <hfk5iji@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:

>markp@elvis.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>|In <930415.112243.8v6.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:

>|>There's no objective reality.  LSD should be sufficient to prove that.
>|Speaking as one who has taken LSD, I say: 
>|Bullshit.

>Oh, lawdy.  If that experience didn't teach you that your
>perceptions are always going to get between you & "reality",

It sure did!

>I don't know what will.  Have you read anything about how
>your brain works?  About various sensory illusions you can
>be tricked by?  

I have; and all the above teach me that accurately perceiving reality 
is a tricky business -- _not_ that there's no reality.

>---
>C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
>"Last Friday, April 16, 1943, I was forced to interrupt my work in the
>laboratory in the middle of the afternoon and proceed home, being affected
>by a remarkable restlessness, combined with a slight dizziness."
>--Albert Hofmann
--
Mark Pundurs

any resemblance between my opinions and those 
of Wolfram Research, Inc. is purely coincidental

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84352
Subject: Re: What RIGHT ?
From: "Casper C. Knies" <ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET>


Joakim Ruud (joakimr@ifi.uio.no) writes:

#Recently, I've asked myself a rather interesting question: What RIGHT does
#god have on our lives (always assuming there is a god, of course...!) ??
#
#In his infinite wisdom, he made it perfectly clear that if we don't live
#according to his rules, we will burn in hell. Well, with what RIGHT can god
#make that desicion? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that god creates
#every one of us (directly or indirectly, it doesn't matter.). What then
#happens, is that he first creates us, and then turns us lose. Well, I didn't
#ask to be created.
#
#Let's make an analogue. If a scientist creates a unique living creature
#(which has happened, it was even patented...!!!), does he then have the
#right to expect it to behave in a certain matter, or die...?

Dear Joakim, let me begin by saying that these are excellent questions,
but that by asking, you will find as many different explanations as there
are respondents.  As a Latter-day Saint, I believe that all of us (you,
me, etc.) lived once as spirit-children of God the Father (Hebrews 12:9)
in the pre-mortal existance. In order to continue our eternal progression,
an earthly probationary time was required.  (To live by faith, not by
sight, to choose good over evil, and to prepare ourselves in all things
to become worthy of a higher order of existance.)  We believe that all of
God's spirit-offspring were once assembled to discuss the specifics of
this earthly sojourn.  One-third chose for Lucifer's plan, most followed
the Firstborn (the pre-mortal Jesus Christ).  Lucifer's aspirations ("I
will exalt my throne above the stars of God . . ." Isaiah 14:12-17, etc.)
resulted into the rebellion of his followers against the Firstborn and
those who followed Him, resulting in the casting out of Lucifer (who
became Satan, the father of lies) and one-third of the hosts of heaven
("And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast
them to the earth . . ." Revelation 12:4) as demons (evil spirits).

To get back on OUR choice to be born on this earth, and to be subject to
God and His plan (for good or bad, based upon our obedience and choices),
we made that choice individually.  (God speaking to Job: "Where wast thou
when I laid the foundations of the earth, . . . when the morning stars
sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38:4-7).  We
lost the knowledge of our pre-mortal existance (the "Veil of Forgetful-
ness," somewhere in Psalms), in order to live by faith, not by sight.

You may not accept this scenario, neither do quite a few who rely on the
Bible alone, which offers only fragmentary insights into this particular
aspect of our existence as individuals, as sons and daughters of God.

#Who is god to impose its rules on us ? Who can tell if god is REALLY so
#righteous as god likes us to believe? Are all christians a flock of sheep,
#unable to do otherwise that follow the rest?
#
#Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

(All Christians, by definition, ARE a flock of sheep, following the Shepherd
as they understand Him  ;-)  --But in any event, not all Christians believe
in the same theology, such as the one Latter-day Saints believe in.  (They
will cry "heresy" and other accusations of "perverting" the doctrines of
the Bible, while they themselves believe in a myriad of interpretations, as
found in their catechisms and various do-it-yourself Bible-study manuals...)

As for me, I have a personal conviction that the pre-existance scenario as
explained above, is most in harmony with Biblical doctrine, some Dead Sea
Scroll books, the pseudographion, other (Jewish) sources, and last but not
least, modern-day revelation on the subject.

#I just want to point out that this is not sarcasm, I mean it.
#
#                        How should one deal with a man who is convinced that
#                        he is acting according to God's will, and who there-
#     Jokke              fore believes that he is doing you a favour by
#                        stabbing you in the back?
#
#                                                        -Voltaire


Casper C. Knies              isscck@byuvm.bitnet
Brigham Young University     isscck@vm.byu.edu
UCS Computer Facilities

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84353
From: uphrrmk@Msu.oscs.montana.edu (La Morte)
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.taoism

In article <1993Apr22.152720.24846@radian.uucp>, markbr%radian@natinst.com (mark) writes:
>In article <1993Apr22.004331.22548@coe.montana.edu> uphrrmk@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Jack Coyote) writes:
>>Sunlight shining off of the ocean.
>>
>The universe, mirrored in a puddle.
>>
>>Aleph null bottles of beer on the wall, Aleph null bottles of beer!
>>Take one down, pass it around  ...  Aleph null bottles of beer on the wall!
>>
>Isn't it amazing how there *always* seems to be *another* bottle of bheer there?
>
>Aleph *one* bottles of beer on the wall, Aleph *one* null bottles of beer!
>
>	you, too, are a puddle.
>	As above, so below.
>
>	mark

   Wow, look at alllthe pretty puddles!!!!

  Jimmy crack koan, and I don't care, Jimmy crack koan and i don't care, Jimmy
crack Koan and i don't care, Zen Master's gone away.....


                                               La Morte,
                              Who wants to take one down and pass it around.
                                 (the beer, not the koans.)


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84354
From: merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

jasons@atlastele.com (Jason Smith) writes:
...
>For several years all I knew is I really liked dropping 'cid (LSD).
>Frankly speaking, I didn't really care.  It was fun anyway.

>It didn't matter that every child my wife and I want to have are at a 
>*tremendously* greater risk of serious birth defects.

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?

---
Merlyn LeRoy

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84357
From: alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

starowl@rahul.net (Michael D. Adams) writes:
> : If anyone in .netland is in the process of devising a new religion,
> : do not use the lamb or the bull, because they have already been
> : reserved.  Please choose another animal, preferably one not
> : on the Endangered Species List.  
> 
> How about "washed in the blood of Barney the Dinosaur"?  :)

Judging from postings I've read all over Usenet and on non-Usenet
BBs conferences, Barney is DEFINITELY an endangered species. Especially
if he runs into me in a dark alley.
                                   
                                            A.Lizard

-------------------------------------------------------------------
A.Lizard Internet Addresses:
alizard%tweekco%boo@PacBell.COM        (preferred)
PacBell.COM!boo!tweekco!alizard (bang path for above)
alizard@gentoo.com (backup)
PGP2.2 public key available on request

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84358
From: alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard)
Subject: Re: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars

Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:

> "This organization is known at the present time as the Ancient
> Order of Oriental Templars.  Ordo Templi Orientis.  Otherwise:
> The Hermetic Brotherhood of Light.
> 
Does this organization have an official e-mail address these
days? (an address for any of the SF Bay Area Lodges, e.g. Thelema
would do.)
                                      93...
                                       A.Lizard

-------------------------------------------------------------------
A.Lizard Internet Addresses:
alizard%tweekco%boo@PacBell.COM        (preferred)
PacBell.COM!boo!tweekco!alizard (bang path for above)
alizard@gentoo.com (backup)
PGP2.2 public key available on request

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84360
From: weinss@rs6101.ecs.rpi.edu (Stephen Andrew Weinstein)
Subject: New Religion Forming -- Sign Up

Let me begin by saying I think this is the world's first religion to use
the net as its major recruitment medium.  Therefore, even if this
religion does not take off, its founding members will be very important
historically as this method of soliciting membership will eventually become 
common.

The basis of this religion is to apply various aspects of current conventional
morality to the characters in Genesis and Exodus but assume that the Bible's
accounts of the facts and historical events is correct.

For example,

Story of Adam and Eve:
Adam and Eve are in Garden of Eden naked and ignorant.  Have unlimited
supply of food provided, but no clothing, jobs, or knowledge.  God says
not to eat fruit of tree of knowledge.  They do anyway, then try to hide 
in bushes.  God finds them and forces them out of Garden.
(There are several different stories on what they were doing while naked in
the bushes that might have angered God.)

Traditional Philosophy:
1. The only reason you need knowledge or a job is to eat.  If someone else will
provide you with food, then you can be stupid and unemployed and it's OK. This
is why married women usually didn't work until recent decades.
2. Authority figures, such as God, whoever was behind the Vietnam War, Hitler 
and slaveowners, are always right and should be blindly followed without 
question by ordinary people, who can't make decisions for themselves.

Interpretation of events based on Traditional Philosophy:
They were not supposed to eat the fruit.  They should have done whatever God
told them to.  Like small children, they had their needs provided for and were
obligated to do whatever their "Father" said to.  Being forced to leave the 
Garden and work in order to obtain food was a punishment.

Lessons from Traditional Interpretation:
1.  Ignorance is good.  Knowledge is bad, but tempting.
2.  Having food provided for you for nothing (read "welfare") is ideal.  Get-
ting a job and feeding yourself with what you earn is punishment.
3.  Public nudity is good.  Covering up is bad.
4.  Authority figures are intrinsically right.  Normal people are dumb and 
should do whatever they are told without question.  They should not think for 
themselves.
5.  People in subordinate positions are especially obligated to refrain from
learning.  For example, it should be illegal for slaves to learn to read.

1990's philosophy:
1.  People should seek education and employment outside the home, unless
named "Hillary Clinton" or "Murphy Brown".
2.  People should use common sense.  They should not kill other people 
(binding of Issac, wars, Holocaust, etc.) just because they are told to.

Interpretation of events based on current philosophy:
They were supposed to eat the fruit.  God gave wanted them to seek knowledge
rather than be handed it on a silver platter.  Once they had gained knowledge
and (by seeking it) showed their ability to make mature decisions for them-
selves, they no longer needed to be treated like little children and were 
REWARDED by being allowed into the "real world."

Lessons from new interpretation:
1.  Ignorance is bad.  Knowledge is good, but must be sought.
2.  Having food provided for you for nothing (read "welfare") is at best
a temporary measure.  Getting a job and feeding yourself with what you earn
is ideal.
3.  Public nudity is bad.  Covering up is good.
4.  Authority figures are often wrong.  Normal people are intelligent and
should consider whether the instructions are really a good idea and "alter
or abolish" bad governments.  They should think for themselves.
5.  People in subordinate decisions are often discouraged from knowledge
but should seek it anyway, and all the harder.  For example, poor children 
without good schools should work especially hard in order to make a better
life for their children (and themselves).

I have tentatively named this new philosophy "The Church of Eveism" because
Eve's decision to eat the apple is man[sic]kind's first good decision, instead
of its first bad one, as traditionally believed.  She is therefore clearly
a protagonist.  God at first appears evil, for telling people not to seek 
knowledge but on deeper analysis is also a protagonist.  As God rewarded the
decision to defy him, and provided the tree in the first place, the intention
and desire were clearly to have the knowledge be obtained, but to delay it 
until it was actively sought.

---End serious discussion.  Begin humor.--

Save this post to disk (or file server).  Someday it will be considered the
most important writing since the 10 Commandments.  You want an original copy.

Stay tuned for the RFD on soc.religion.eveism...
Can I get a tax deduction for money I donate to this organization?

--Return to serious discussion when posting follow-ups.--

Stephen Weinstein
weinss@rpi.edu










Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84380
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

Brian Kendig first states:

> I am my own master.

I ask:

> Are you truly the master of yourself?

Brian Kendig states:

> Not yet . . .

Make up your mind. 

> . . .  but my life is the ground I use to practice on.  The fun is
> in the getting there! We don't start out perfect . . . .

And we do not end perfect either.  We are never perfect.  Can you name
one person, young or old, past or present, that you deem perfect? 
Good luck.

> I know my shortcomings, and I know my strengths, and I live
> my life according to the decisions I make, and I am content to abide
> with the consequences of my decisions as easily as I'll accept the
> +praise for them.  There have been times in my life when I've made
> mistakes, yes; I try to never make the same mistake twice.

Then you lie to yourself.  You do not know your shortcomings.  I have clearly
shown one of your shortcomings, if not two.  That is, ignorance of the Bible
and the arrogance you demonstrate butchering it without even knowing its 
contents.

> I regard Christ as a myth. 

Because you have been too prideful to examine the record of him for yourself.
And to demonstate your lack of support for your conclusion, I bet you do not
even know what the word "Christ" means.  Or which prophet used "Christ" to 
describe the "Son of Man". 

> I feel that there are far too many people
> offering far too many interpretations of what he supposedly said and
> did.  The only person who can really judge me is *me*.

Yes.  I agree with that.  So we must learn first.  Read the Bible.  Come
up with our own interpretation.   Evaluate what is being said
and by whom.  Check the history books as well.  Compare someone else's
interpretation with your own.  Then make a judgment.  But I tell you the
truth, 99% of what is being said in the Bible needs interpretation as 
much as a coffee cup needs interpretation.

And remember, the Bible isn't a Guru's Esoteric Guide to Metaphysics.  
It doesn't take a theologian to understand what is being said.    The 
Bible is a bunch of testimonies from people like you and I addressed 
to people like you and I.  These guys wrote down what they saw and heard.  Is it 
their open diary--and they want to tell you something.  And because they
want you to know something, they make it very clear what they want you to
know.   They didn't encouch their ideas in esoteric rhetoric, but in simple
straight-forward language.

> I choose the
> roads I travel, and I decide whether or not I want to reach the end of
> any given road or turn back -- and as long as I don't *always* turn
> back, there's no shame in it.  When I need help, I seek out my friends.

You have chosen the road that avoids the Bible.  You have chosen the
road that avoids a confrontation with the living God because that
road doesn't look appealing to you.  You rather build your own road.  One
that goes far away from that confrontation.   But be assured of this,
you will have to confront him one day willingly or unwillingly. 

>And you don't have a clue about what I'm saying, either.  Open your
>eyes and SEE; open your ears and LISTEN.  I'm not just spouting off
>empty words.  This is my LIFE, this is what gives me MEANING.

I see what you mean.  I hear what your saying.  I am not degrading your
life.  But I have heard the same irrational excuses for years.  There is nothing 
new in what you are saying.  And by your own words, you are "spouting off" 
contradictions.   If contradictions give you meaning, then your life must
be sad.

> I say my mother loves me.  How do I know, you ask?  I can point to
> definite things she's done for me, and I can even just bring her to
> you so you can ask her, face-to-face.
> You say your deity loves you.  How do you know, I ask? 

Bingo.  For God so loved the world, he GAVE his only begotton to son
so that whososever belives in him will have ever lasting life.   I look
what God *did*.  He has given his Son, even to his death, so that I can have 
hope in his resurrection and know that life isn't for nothing, but has
glorious purpose.

> You can't even convince me that it exists! 

Because you turn your eyes away from testimony and history.  You choose to
lie to yourself that he doesn't exist, for you ignore what has been said for 
thousands of years.  You sound exactly, almost verbatim, like the Lazarus of 
Jesus's story starting in Luke 16:19.  And the conclusion of that story is a 
bleak one.  Lazarus wound up in hell.  The story ends like this:

      "For if Lazarus doesn't even listen to Moses and the Prophets,
       he won't even believe if a man rose from the dead."

> If any god dangles 'heaven' before me like a carrot, promising untold
> pleasures to me if I'll only suspend my disbelief and ignore my
> rationality for just this once, then I would choose 'hell'.  I can
> *not* lie to myself to placate another being, no matter how powerful
> it is.

Arrogance at its best.   The fact is, you are not rational.  Several specific
cases  have already been cited.   And again with this new statement, you show more irrationality with regards to heaven.  Jesus does tell you something of what to expect
in heaven.  Jesus expects you to use your brain to believe in him.  Jesus does
not expect you to placate either.  Jesus wants you to willingly come to him, but not
as his grovelling slave, but rather as his brother who will share in his
glorious riches.  Why do you not pick up the Bible and read it for yourself.  
You maintain you have an open mind.  See whether you are lying to yourself for
yourself.

>>Why would you want to live a good life?
>>To you, you die and that's it.  Don't contradict yourself.  You have
>>no reason to live a good life.  It doesn't do you any good in the
>>end.  Your life doesn't do anybody else any good  either because
>>everyone dies anyway.  So you have no reason to lead a good life. Leading
>>a good life is meaningless.   Why do you do such a meaningless thing?

>That paragraph demonstrates that you haven't listened to a single word
>I've said.

I do understand what you said.   But that's is not what I feel went amiss here.

You missed the point.  Living a "good life" has no eternal consequences.
Once they close the amusement park of life, to you that is the end.  To you, it 
is over.  To you, therefore, your time spent in the amusement park is meaningless. 
It has no eternal consequences to you nor to anyone left on earth. 

But then you contradict yourself.  From a previous post, you said doing evil things 
is bad.  To you, it shouldn't matter if you do evil things or good things.  It is
all meaningless in the end anyway.  So go rob a bank.  Go tell someone
you dislike that he is a dirty rotten slime bag.  What's restraining you?
Life after all, has no eternal consequences and accountability is irrelevant.

> In the same way, I think life is fun.  And I don't intend to leave the
> amusement park of life until they close down for the night!  :-D

At which time, you are truly not the master of yourself.

>>I'm sorry, I don't feel that sacrificing Jesus was something any god
>>I'd worship would do, unless the sacrifice was only temporary, in
>>which case it's not really all that important.
>
>Has the resurrection sunk in?  Jesus is alive.  Jesus is NOT dead.

So you (and your holy book) say.  By the same token, therefore, Santa
Claus delivers toys every xmas.  Don't you see?  I have NO REASON to
believe that what you say is true.  Please give me some reason that I
can't similarly apply to Santa Claus.

You have EVERY reason to believe that what Jesus says and the witnesses
of Jesus say are true.  But you choose to be unreasonable and "ignore" the
reasons.  By definition, "ignorance". 

Santa Claus is said to live at the North Pole and have a squad of elves
and flying reindeer.   Ever see a flying reindeer?  Has anyone in human
history seen a flying reindeer?  Has anyone seen a reindeer whose nose 
blinks red?    

On the other hand, are people born in Bethlehem?  Was Nebuchandezzar really
a king?  Was Daniel really one of his court officials?  Were David and Solomon
really kings of Israel and Judah?  Was their really a king called Jehoachin?
Did Sennecherib really attack Jerusalem 600 years before Christ?  Did
Sennacherib really lose his battle--and badly?   Was there really a 
Caiaphas who interrogated Jesus?   Yes, yes, yes . . . history verifies
it.  It is NONFICTION.

Do you have a problem discerning truth from fiction?  Perhaps you
can't evaluate the context of Grimm's Fairy Tales apart from
that of the Scientific American.  I suppose you treat both with equal
truthfulness or equal falsity.  Is this what you are telling me?  Or
is it that just do want to read the Scientific American and find out
that it's not a fairy tale?

>Are you thereby inferring that your deity is nothing more than a
>collection of verses in a book, and cannot be supported without
>invoking them?

Get real.  Have you ever been to Zaire?  Do you have to go there
to be  assured that there really is such a place?  Given your 
irrationality, I take it you have never used a map in your life.

> Why do you believe what you believe?

Given the overwhelming evidence as well as my personal experience with the living
God, I'd be an irrational unreasoning ignorant fool if I didn't follow Jesus.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84395
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Subject: The LAW of RETRIBUTION

          
          
                            The LAW of RETRIBUTION
          
               Violent crime, racism, bigotry, domestic abuse, rape, 
          police brutality and oppression, human rights violations, 
          etc., ETC., continue to get worse and worse in spite of more 
          and more man-made laws on all levels from local ordinances to 
          international law. 
          
               The man-made laws are NOT working. 

               "WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE!"  
          Perpetrators remain IGNORANT of The LAW--a universal, cosmic, 
          and Spiritual Law--The "LAW of RETRIBUTION" or "KARMA": 
          
               "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a 
          man soweth, that shall he also reap."  Galatians 6:7, KJV. 
    
               "He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity; 
          he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword.  
          Here is the patience and faith of the saints."  Revelation 
          13:10, KJV. 
    
               "What goes around comes around."

               This LAW of the Universe is just as real as the physical 
          law that for every action there is an equal and opposite 
          REaction. 
    
               It is the ENFORCEMENT, the TEETH, behind The "GOLDEN 
          RULE": "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." 

               ALL perpetrators in the present will become VICTIMS in 
          the future, most likely in a FUTURE INCARNATION.  Most 
          victims in the present were PERPETRATORS in the past, usually 
          during a PREVIOUS LIFE. 
          
               What is needed is a MASSIVE WORLDWIDE PROGRAM of 
          EDUCATION to teach ALL present and potential perpetrators, in 
          a convincing manner (with sufficient supporting evidence), 
          that what they do to others WILL BE DONE TO THEM, in this 
          life or the next. 
          
               Anyone who doubts the FACT of REINCARNATION, and the 
          related "LAW of Retribution", should read books such as "HERE 
          AND HEREAFTER", by Ruth Montgomery, which describes several 
          kinds of evidence supporting REincarnation, including 
          HYPNOTIC REGRESSION to past lives [about 50% accurate; the 
          subconscious mind can sometimes make things up, especially 
          with a bad hypnotist], SPONTANEOUS RECALL (especially by 
          young children, some of whom can identify their most recent 
          previous relatives, homes, possessions, etc.), DREAM RECALL 
          of past life experiences, DEJA VU (familiarity with a far off 
          land while traveling there for the first time on vacation), 
          the psychic readings of the late EDGAR CAYCE, and EVEN 
          SUPPORTING STATEMENTS FROM THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE including 
          Matthew 17:11-13 (John the Baptist was the REINCARNATION of 
          Elias.) and John 9:1-2 (How can a person POSSIBLY sin before 
          he is born, unless he LIVED BEFORE?!). 
          
               Strong INTERESTS, innate TALENTS, strong PHOBIAS, etc., 
          typically originate from a person's PAST LIVES.  For example, 
          a strong fear of swimming in or traveling over water usually 
          results from having DROWNED at the end of a PREVIOUS LIFE.  
          And sometimes a person will take AN IMMEDIATE DISLIKE to 
          another person being met for the first time in their PRESENT 
          life, because of a bad encounter with him during a PREVIOUS 
          INCARNATION. 

               People would behave much better toward each other if 
          they knew that their actions in the present will SURELY be 
          reaped by them in the future, or in a FUTURE INCARNATION! 

 
               For more information, answers to your questions, etc., 
          please consult my CITED SOURCES (books like "HERE AND 
          HEREAFTER", by Ruth Montgomery). 


               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. 


                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   2nd Initiate in Eckankar,
                                      (but not an agent thereof)

          

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84396
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: O.T.O clarification

Sorry, the San Jose based Rosicrucian order is called A.M.O.R.C, 
I don't remember for the time being what the A.M. stand for
but O.R.C is Ordo Rosae Crucis, in other words latin for
Order of the Rose Cross. Sigh, seems l'm loosing more and more
of my long term memory.

Otherwise their headquarters in San Jose has a pretty decent
metaphysical bookstore, if any of you are interested in such books.
And my son loves to run around in their Egyptian museum.

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84397
Subject: Re: Catholic Lit-Crit of a.s.s.
From: NUNNALLY@acs.harding.edu (John Nunnally)

In <dlphknob.734986640@camelot> dlphknob@camelot.bradley.edu writes:

> In <1993Apr14.101241.476@mtechca.maintech.com> foster@mtechca.maintech.com writes:
> 
> >I am surprised and saddened. I would expect this kind of behavior
> >from the Evangelical Born-Again Gospel-Thumping In-Your-Face We're-
> >The-Only-True-Christian Protestants, but I have always thought 
> >that Catholics behaved better than this.
> >                                   Please do not stoop to the
> >level of the E B-A G-T I-Y-F W-T-O-T-C Protestants, who think
> >that the best way to witness is to be strident, intrusive, loud,
> >insulting and overbearingly self-righteous.
> 
> (Pleading mode on)
> 
> Please!  I'm begging you!  Quit confusing religious groups, and stop
> making generalizations!  I'm a Protestant!  I'm an evangelical!  I don't
> believe that my way is the only way!  I'm not a "creation scientist"!  I
> don't think that homosexuals should be hung by their toenails!  
> 
> If you want to discuss bible thumpers, you would be better off singling
> out (and making obtuse generalizations about) Fundamentalists.  If you
> compared the actions of Presbyterians or Methodists with those of Southern 
> Baptists, you would think that they were different religions!
> 
[Sarcasm on]
Be sure we pick on the "correct groups" here.  "Bible thumpers",
"fundamentalists", and Southern Baptists *deserve* our hasty generalizations
and prejudicial statements.  Just don't pick on the Presbyterians
and the Methodists!
[Sarcasm off] 
> Please, prejudice is about thinking that all people of a group are the
> same, so please don't write off all Protestants or all evangelicals!
> 
> (Pleading mode off.)
> 
> God.......I wish I could get ahold of all the Thomas Stories......
> --
> 	"Fbzr enval jvagre Fhaqnlf jura gurer'f n yvggyr oberqbz, lbh fubhyq
> nyjnlf pneel n tha.  Abg gb fubbg lbhefrys, ohg gb xabj rknpgyl gung lbh'er 
> nyjnlf znxvat n pubvpr."
> 			--Yvan Jregzhyyre
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>         Jemaleddin Sasha David Cole IV - Chief of Knobbery Research
>                         dlphknob@camelot.bradley.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84398
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: ALT.SEX.STORIES under Literary Critical Analysis :-)

In article <1qevbh$h7v@agate.berkeley.edu>, dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis
Kriz) wrote:
> I'm going to try to do something here, that perhaps many would
> not have thought even possible.  I want to begin the process of
> initiating a literary critical study of the pornography posted on
> alt.sex.stories, to identify the major themes and motifs present
> in the stories posted there -- opening up then the possibility of
> an objective moral evaluation of the material present there.  

Dennis, I'm astounded. I didn't know you were interested to even
study such filth as alt.sex.stories provide...

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84399
From: anthony.landreneau@ozonehole.com (Anthony Landreneau) 
Subject: Re: Abortion

To: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
From: anthony.landreneau@ozonehole.com

LM>>The rape has passed, there is nothing that will ever take that away.

LM>True.  But forcing her to remain pregnant continues the violation of
LM>her body for another 9 months.  I see this as being unbelievably cruel.

Life is not a "violation". As for cruel, killing a living being solely
because it exsist. That my friend is down right cold.

                                   Anthony


 * SLMR 2.1 * What's the difference between an Orange?
                      
----
The Ozone Hole BBS * A Private Bulletin Board Service * (504)891-3142
3 Full Service Nodes * USRobotics 16.8K bps * 10 Gigs * 100,000 Files
SKYDIVE New Orleans! * RIME Network Mail HUB * 500+ Usenet Newsgroups
Please route all questions or inquiries to:  postmaster@ozonehole.com

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84401
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: What part of "No" don't you understand?

> = eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>> = Steve Novak writes:

>>Because, of course, that possibility existed.  Meaning any student who
>>really gave a shit could have a moment of silence on his/her own, which
>>makes more sense than forcing those who DON'T want to participate to
>>have to take part.  What other reason is there for an organized "moment
>>of silence"?

>A "moment of silence" doesn't mean much unless *everyone*
>participates.  Otherwise it's not silent, now is it?

The whole point is, maybe everyone _doesn't want_ to participate.

[...]
>Blindly opposing everything with a flavor of religion in it is
>utterly idiotic.

Blindly opposing everything with a flavor of religion in it that is
supported by taxpayer money is the only way to keep christianity from
becoming the official U.S. religion.

Not noticing that danger is utterly idiotic.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Ban the Bomb!"  "Ban the POPE!!"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84414
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <C5w7CA.M3s@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tbrent@ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:
>
>If you check the news today, (AP) the "authorities also found a state-of-the-art
>automatic machine gun that investigators did not know was in the cult's arsenal."
>[Carl Stern, Justice Department]


Yeah.  In a fire that reportedly burned hotter than 1000 degrees-- hot
enough to make the bodies still unidentifiable-- the authorities found
a gun that was recognizably fully-automatic and state of the art.
Isn't that CONVEEEENIENT?
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84422
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <pww-180493195323@spac-at1-59.rice.edu> pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker) writes:
>In article <1993Apr18.210407.10208@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
>Darcy) wrote:
>> The phenomenologist Husserl, for one, considered Intentionality to be the
>> primary ontological "stuff" from which all other ontology was built --
>> perceptions, consciousness, thoughts, etc. Frank is by no means alone in
>> seeing intentionality (or "values", as he puts it) underlying all human
>> experience, even the so-called "objective" experiences, such as 
>> measurements of the natural world, or the output of your DES chip.
>
>And others of us see it as intellectual masturbation.

I'll defer to your greater firsthand knowledge in such matters.

								- Kevin

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84423
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)

In article <1r67ruINNmle@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes...
> 
>rfox@charlie.usd.edu writes:
> 
>[Discussion on Josephus inserts]
> 
>Thanks.  Am I correct, then, in assuming that that Josephus
>did in fact write about Jesus, but Christian copists embellished it?
> 
>Jack

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.)

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84428
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: 23 Apr 93   God's Promise in Matthew 3:11



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

	Matthew 3:11 (NIV)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84429
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?

In <1rdlsf$vi@agate.berkeley.edu> isaackuo@skippy.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo) writes:

|I merely point out that it IS a valid strategy which is used every day.
|Furthermore, we don't know of any substitute strategy capable of apprehending
|potentially dangerous and armed suspects.  Do you suggest that the police
|always knock with guns holstered and never arrest any suspects until they have
|been allowed to inspect the officers's badges?  Just what should the police do
|when apprehending potentially dangerous and armed suspects?  How far can they
|reasonably go to identiy themselves?  What do you suggest they can do which
|can't be faked by the "competition"?

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.

|Even if you've got deadly enemies who may pretend to be cops, that's not an
|excuse to murder police.

It wouldn't be murder, it would be self defense.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84430
From: jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <bskendigC5qyJ2.GEw@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:

>>One way or another -- so much for patience. Too bad you couldn't just
>>wait. Was the prospect of God's Message just too much to take?

>So you believe that David Koresh really is Jesus Christ?

Well lets see - a long haired nut case with sexual hangups surrounded
by a lot of gulible losers without a brain between them with a miserable
and meaningless death to boot

Sounds like he fits the bill to me!

Joseph 'Remember David Koresh fried for you' Askew

-- 
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  In the autumn stillness, see the Pleiades,
jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu  Remote in thorny deserts, fell the grief.
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  North of our tents, the sky must end somwhere,
Actually, I rather like Brenda  Beyond the pale, the River murmurs on.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84431
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is


: In my mind, to say that science has its basis in values is a bit of a
: reach. Science has its basis in observable fact. 

I'd say that what one chooses to observe and how the observation is
interpreted and what significance it's given depends a great deal on
the values of the observer. Science is a human activity and as such,
is subject to the same potential for distortion as any other human
activity. The myth that scientists are above moral influence or
ethical concern, that their knowledge can be abstacted whole and pure
from nature untainted by the biases of the scientist, is nonsense.

Bill

: If one is to argue for objective values (in a moral sense) then one must
: first start by demonstrating that morality itself is objective. Considering
: the meaning of the word "objective" I doubt that this will ever happen.

: So, back to the original question:

: And objective morality is.....?

This may be an unfortunate choice of words, almost self-contradictory.
Objective in the sense used here means something immutable and
absolute while morality describes the behavior of some group of
people. The first term is all inclusive, the second is specific. The
concept supposedly described may have meaning however. 
If there is a God as described by the Christians (for instance), then
He has existence apart from and independent of humankind; His
existence is outside of our frame of reference (reality). If this
being declares a thing to be so, it is -necessarily- so since He has
defined Himself as omnipotent and, if His claims are to be believed,
He is at least omnipotent relative to us. God is intrinsically
self-defined and all reality is whatever He says it is - in an
objective sense.
If God determines a standard of conduct, that standard is objective.
If human beings are held accountable for their conformance to that
standard while permitted to ignore it, they substitute a relative
morality or mode of conduct, giving the term morality a nebulous,
meaningless sense that can be argued about by those pretending to
misunderstand. The standard is objective and the conduct required to
meet that standard is therefore objectively determined.
Just because it is convenient to pretend that the term morality is
infinitely malleable, doesn't mean that the objective standard itself
doesn't exist. Morality has come to mean little more than a cultural
norm, or the preferred conduct of "decent" people, making it seem
subjective, but it is derived from an absolute, objective, standard.
Ironically, this objective standard is in perfect accord with our true
nature (according to Christianity at least), yet is condemned as being
contrary to human nre, oppressive and severe. This may be due as

Bill
much to our amoral inclinations as to the standard itself, but like it
or not, it's there.x

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84433
From: mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: Burden of Proof

In article <1993Apr26.142158.11620@ousrvr.oulu.fi> ktikkane@phoenix.oulu.fi (Kari Tikkanen) writes:
>In Math exam I have burden of proof when it says:
>  "Prove that no elements in set A=( n divided by 30 leaves 5 as a remainder,
>   n prime, n integer) does exist."
>
>Well, Mathematics is formal science.  Real world may be different thing.
>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.

>----------------------- ktikkane@phoenix.oulu.fi -------------------
>  Kari Tikkanen      !   .  . -#- !      b        !   begin  
>  SF-90550 OULU      !         !  !  I = / f(x)dx !     s:=s+Eq(i);
>  FINLAND            ! .  .  Vega !      a        !   end
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
Please, not Pascal!  NOOOOO!! ;)

-- 
***************************************************************************
* mccullou@whipple.cs.wisc.edu * Never program and drink beer at the same *
* M^2                          *  time.  It doesn't work.                 *
***************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84434
From: phaedrus@IASTATE.EDU (James R. Goodfriend)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <visser.735260518@convex.convex.com>, visser@convex.com (Lance
Visser) writes:
> In <bskendigC5qyJ2.GEw@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
> 
> +>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
> +>>
> +>>One way or another -- so much for patience. Too bad you couldn't just 
> +>>wait. Was the prospect of God's Message just too much to take?
> 
> +>So you believe that David Koresh really is Jesus Christ?
> 
> 	They cut off the water, there were no fire trucks present and
> the FBI/ATF go blasting holes into the builing and firing gas munitions.
> The building burns, almost everyone dies.  It probably doesn't bother
> you much, but it bothers many other people.....most of whom dont believe
> particularly in Koresh or his message.
> 
> 	Four ATF agents and 90 branch Davidians are now dead because of
> crazy tactics on the part of the ATF and FBI.
> 
> 	Attorney General Vampira tells us that todays events were suppose
> to "save" those in the compound.  Blowing holes in a building and
> gassing those inside was supposed to "save" them?
> 
> 
> 
	Personally, I think it was Mrs. O'Leary's cow that knocked over that
lantern...

:*)

phaedrus - The CyberPyrate

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84435
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <1993Apr22.155850.28992@atlastele.com>, jasons@atlastele.com
(Jason Smith) wrote:
> For several years all I knew is I really liked dropping 'cid (LSD).
> Frankly speaking, I didn't really care.  It was fun anyway.
> 
> It didn't matter that every child my wife and I want to have are at a 
> *tremendously* greater risk of serious birth defects.
> 
> For several years all I knew is I really liked having sex with as many women
> as I could convice.  Frankly speaking, I didn't care.  
> 
> I didn't care that I was putting each one of them at risk (as well as their
> future partners).

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

This is just one possible explanation why you feel this burden,
while I haven't felt it so far.

Regards,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84436
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: 26 Apr 93   God's Promise in Matthew 5:6


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

	Matthew 5:6 (NIV)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84437
From: tph@drake_mallard.sbc.com (Timothy P. Henrion)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

In article <24APR199300033703@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>In article <1r17j9$5ie@sbctri.sbc.com>, netd@susie.sbc.com () writes...
>                                                           ^^-- name?
>>(stephen) writes:
>>>For those who think David Koresh didn't have a solid structure,
>>>or sound Biblical backing for his hour long tape broadcast,
>> 
>>I don't think anyone really cares about the solid structure of his
>>sermon.  
>
>Other than it tells quite a lot about the Man himself. 
                                             
I'm curious.  Are you referring to Koresh as "the Man"?  Why the 
upper case M?                           
                                                         
>
>>It's the deaths he's responsible for that concern most people.
>
>Are you the spokesman for "most people?"
                                                          
I never claimed to be a spokesman for "most people".  It is an assumption
on my part that people with normal values and morality would be more 
concerned with human life than sermon structure.  
                                      
>
>You missed the point -- which is that the Prophets, the Psalms, and 
>Revelation, all together, provide a very rich view of a very special
>event -- a wedding.                        
>                        
                     
Are burning children part of this very special event?      
                                          

>	                        
>My comment stems from the realization that we who love the Lord, are
>human and imperfect. Whatever we "preach," no matter how eloquent, or
>how corrupted -- is of little difference. Those who know the Master's
>voice will recognize Him -- a gem-stone amidst rock. Such is also the 
>lesson of the "stumblingblock." For those who have an ear to hear. 	
                                                
What about those who do not know the Master's voice?  Does the Master
not care about them?  Eloquent, but corrupt, preaching may be of little
difference to you.  But I suspect it made a big difference to all of
those who died in the compound.

-- 
  Tim Henrion              Southwestern Bell Technology Resources
  thenrion@sbctri.sbc.com       

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84438
From: nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1r59na$e81@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1993Apr21.141259.12012@st-andrews.ac.uk>, nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson) writes:
>|> In article <1r2m21$8mo@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
...
>> Ok, so you don't claim to have an absolute moral system.  Do you claim
>> to have an objective one?  I'll assume your answer is "yes," apologies
>> if not.
>
>I've just spent two solid months arguing that no such thing as an
>objective moral system exists.
>
>jon.

Apologies, I've not been paying attention.

-Norman

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84439
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1993Apr21.180216.7431@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>,
mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas) wrote:
>    Either way, I have evidence to support the theory that the BD's burned
> themselves.  You made a serious implication that the FBI was responsible
> for the fire and the "destruction of the people".  All you have done is
> put doubt on who started the fire without providing any evidence to back
> up your claim that the FBI was responsible.

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
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84440
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1993Apr21.211312.7767@ra.royalroads.ca>,
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
> In article <9601@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, rjl+@pitt.edu (Richard J. Loether) writes:
> |> Yes, of course, as in Matthew 10:34-35 "Do not suppose that I have come to 
> |> bring peace to the earth; it is not peace I have come to bring but a sword..."

 
> Remember the armor of God?  The sword that Christians wield is the
> Word of God, the Bible.

Sorry Malcolm, but I rather believe Jesus than you.

Cheers,
Kent

---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84441
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: The Laws of God (was Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!)

In article <1993Apr22.153528.10877@ra.royalroads.ca>,
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
> Eternal damnation is the consequence of the choice one makes in rejecting
> God.  If you choose to jump off a cliff, you can hardly blame God for you 
> going *splat* at the bottom.  He knows that if you choose to jump, that 
> you will die but He will not prevent you from making that choice.  In fact,
> He sent His Son to stand on the edge of the cliff and tell everyone of what
> lies below.  To prove that point, Jesus took that plunge Himself but He being
> God was able to rise up again.  I have seen the example of Christ and have 
> chosen not to jump and I'm trying to tell you not to jump or else you'll 
> go *splat*.
>  
> You don't have to listen to me and I won't stop you if you decide to jump.
> I only ask that you check it out before taking the plunge.  You owe it to
> yourself.  I don't like seeing anyone go *splat*.

I'm for the moment interested in this notion of the 'leap of faith'
established by Kierkegaard. It clearly points out a possible solution
to transcendental values. What I don't understand is that it also
clearly shows the existentialism system where any leap to any
transcendental direction is equal. 

In other words I might not jump off the cliff mentioned above,
but at the same time I will decide to what direction I will go.
Actually I will do it just now.

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84442
From: markk@cypress.West.Sun.COM (Mark Kampe)
Subject: Re: Cybele and Transgender/sexualism

In article 260493115730@raven.aims.unc.edu, fhunt@med.unc.edu (Freb Hunt) writes:
> > Is there some relation between the name 'Cybele' and the phenemenon of the
> > 'sibyl'?  Your paragraph above seems to indicate there might be.

The OED gives the etymology of "sibyl" as coming from the ancient Greek 

	sigma iota beta upsilon lambda lambda alpha 
	( S i b ih l l a )

which is claimed to come from the Doric 

	sigma iota omicron beta upsilon lambda lambda alpha 
	( s i o b ih l l a )

which (if I read it properly) in turn came from the Attican (Athenian)

	theta epsilon omicron beta omicron upsilon lambda eta 
	( th eh o b o ih l ae )

I don't know much about Attis, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that
this God was tied to the Athenian capital

	Alpha tau tau iota kappa upsilon sigma
	(a t t i k u s)

The OED does not list any etymology for "Cybele" since that is a propper noun,
but I suggest that the Greek spelling of that word would be much closer to
the anticedants of Sibyl than the two words are now. Perhaps "Cybele" is a
French or Latin spelling?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84443
From: deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane)
Subject: Re: Flaming Nazis

Okay, I'll bite. I should probably leave this alone, but what the heck...

In article <1993Apr14.124301.422@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>, 
gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <TT3R2B5w165w@brewich.hou.tx.us> popec@brewich.hou.tx.us
>(Pope Charles) writes:
>
>>Rhoemer was the name of the guy responsible for much of the uniforms, 
>>and props used by the early Nazis in their rallies and such.
>
>The name is Roehm, not Rhoemer.  And Hitler does claim that he came up
>with the Swastika business.

But didn't he credit the actual flag design to a party member - some dentist or
other? I believe he gives such credit in Mein Kampf.

>>He was killed in an early Nazi purge. He and many of his associates
>>were flaming homosexuals well know also for their flamboyant orgies.
>
>I have been trying to find if there is any actual evidence for this
>common assertion recently.  Postings to such groups as soc.history and
>soc.culture.german has not uncovered any net.experts who could provide
>any. 

Well, I'm no expert, but all of the histories of Nazi Germany assert this. They
make reference to several scandals that occurred long before "the night of the
long knives". The impression that I got was that homosexuality in portions of
the SA was common knowledge. Also, a book (by a homosexual author whose name
escapes me at the moment) called "Homosexuals in History" asserts that Roehm
and Heines were homosexuals, as well as others in Roehm's SA circle.

>All the books say that Roehm and his associate, Edmund Heines,
>were homosexual.  I have been able to find nothing beyond that, and
>suspect this to be a sort of historical urban legend. 

Well, you're the one who is in Germany. If you don't believe the history books,
look up the primary sources yourself. Those of us outside of Germany do not
have access to these. You do. It seems to me that there were plenty of
documented instances - several scandals, the fact that on the "knight of the
long knives" several SA members (including Heines) were found sleeping
together, etc. Also I believe some people were complaining about the SA's
homosexual activities (seducing young boys, etc). The histories that I've 
read make a very convincing case. None of this sounds like urban legend to me. 

>(Irving, a
>notoriously unreliable historian, says that Funk, the Nazi finance
>minister, was homosexual.  He gives no sources.)

I know next to nothing about Irving and nothing about Funk. What precisely do
you know, that would contradict all of the other history books that I have
read concerning the existence of homosexual Nazis? Are you trying to say that 
all historians are taking part in an anti-homosexual smear? What about 
homosexual writers who agree with the official history? Don't you think they 
would have found out the truth by now if Roehm and Heines were not homosexuals?
I would think they would want to disassociate homosexuality from Nazism. No one 
should use any connection between the two to bash homosexuals in any case. 

>I challenge anyone to document this claim.

If you are going to challenge *all* historians on this point (not just Irving),
then the burden of proof is on you. Track down the references. Find out where
the stories originate from. Again, you are the one in Germany, close to
archival material - most people on the net are not.

>I *have* found a great
>deal of evidence that there were many flaming heterosexuals among the
>Nazis.  This seems to include all of the worst ones--Hitler, Himmler,
>Goebbels, Goering, Heydrich, Eichmann, and many more.

Eh? What is your agenda here? To prove that the Nazis were heterosexuals, so
that you can bash heterosexuals? Does it bother you that some of the Nazis
might have been homosexuals? Does this make all homosexuals bad if this is
true? Of course not. And what about bisexuals? Are they half-Nazis?

I don't know why it would be so difficult to believe that some Nazis were
homosexuals. The German officer corps before WW1, for instance, was notorious
for its homosexuality. There were numerous scandals which rocked the German
govt. during the late 19th and early 20th century. Many of the Kaiser's friends
were prosecuted - the Kaiser was no homosexual, but the Germany army had a long
tradition of tolerating homosexuality, going far back into Prussian history -
back to Frederick the Great at least, who was himself a homosexual. Roehm was a 
product of this Prussian officer tradition, and the old German army (like the
English public school system), being a well known center of homosexuality,
would have been quite willing to overlook Roehm's homosexuality.

In addition, some Nazis complained of homosexuality in the Hitler Youth. The
Hitler Youth swallowed up all pre-Nazi youth groups, and some of the various 
pre-war Vandervogel, Bund, and Volkish youth groups were known to promote 
homoerotic ideals and friendship, and in many cases, homosexuality itself. So 
it seems to me not unlikely that there were plenty of homosexual Nazis, 
regardless of the official Nazi dogmas concerning the "evils" of homosexuality.
Why should this suprise anyone? Homosexuality has always existed, in all 
societies - it would be most unusual if the Nazis were an exception.

No, I don't have any sources for you, as I think the only kind of proof you
will accept would be citations from archival material, and I do not have access 
to these. Nor do I intend to reread every book on the Nazis and on modern
homosexuality that I have ever read - I don't have the time. Nothing is
stopping you, however, from chasing down those sources. Until you prove
otherwise, though, I will stick with the established histories.
                                                                           
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
David Matthew Deane (deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu)
"...Be in me as the eternal moods of the bleak wind...Let the Gods speak softly
of us in days hereafter..." (Ezra Pound)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84444
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: 18 Apr 93   God's Promise in Philippians 4:9


	Those things,
	which ye have both learned, and received,
	and heard, and seen in me,
	do:
	and the God of peace shall be with you.

	Philippians 4:9

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84445
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

In article <RN652B5w165w@tweekco.uucp>, alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard)
wrote:
> Judging from postings I've read all over Usenet and on non-Usenet
> BBs conferences, Barney is DEFINITELY an endangered species. Especially
> if he runs into me in a dark alley.

Please, please don't make Barney to a modern martyr/saviour mythical
figure. I detest this being, and if humans will create a religion in his
name, then life will be unbearable :-).

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84446
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Disillusioned Protestant Finds Christ

In article <C5KxDD.K4J@boi.hp.com>, jburrill@boi.hp.com (Jim Burrill)
wrote:
> If Jesus never taught the concept of the Trinity, how do you deal with the 
> following:   
> 
>    Mat 28 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven
>    and on earth has been given to me.
> 
>    Mat 28 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing
>    them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
> 
>    Mat 28 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
>    And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." 

Jim, please, that's a lame explanation of the trinity that Jesus provides
above. Baptizing people in the name of three things != trinity. If
this is the case, then I'm wrong, I assumed that trinity implies that
God is three entities, and yet the same.

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84447
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

Brian Ceccarelli presents us with the fallacy of False Dichotomy in stating
that we must accept every thing in the books attributed to Peter, or we must
discount every other book of antiquity:

>>(1) Peter died two millenia ago.  The original letters he wrote have
>>long since decayed into dust.  If he were alive today and I could
> 
> Do you question the existence of Alexander the Great, Tilgrath Pilisar III,
> Nero, Caligula, Josephus, Cyrus the Great, Artexerxes?   Their documents
> have decayed to dust too.  Brian, why another excuse? 

Mr Ceccarelli, you seem to be stating that we must accept accept everything
written in every "historical" document.  Somehow I doubt do that yourself
that.  Thus since I doubt you accept everything written in every historical
document, I would ask how you can thereby objectively justify complete faith
in the words of the books attributed to Peter. 

I shall now give an example of a document from antiquity, which I am sure you
reject; it dates from the time of Ramses II (This was first presented here by
Matthew Wiener).  These inscriptions were carved soon after a battle, and were
carved with the Pharoah's specific approval so we have true originals, rather
than mere copies.  This account records the the battle of Kadesh (circa 1285
BC), which occurred on the river Orontes, (about 100 miles south of Aleppo). 
The Egyptians won this battle with the Hittites, and Ramses had his victory
inscribed all over the place.  A few of of these inscriptions have survived in
near perfect form.  It is a record of how the Pharoah pretty much
single-handedly defeated the Hittites, after being separated from his troops. 

Note that the Egyptian wavers back and forth between first and third person. 
The following is from Miriam Lichtheim`s _Ancient Egyptian Literature_ volume
II.

	My majesty caused the forces of the foes from Hitti to fall
	on their faces, one upon the other, as crocodiles fall, into
	the water of the Orontes.  I was after them like a griffin;
	I attacked all the countries, I alone.  For my infantry and
	my chariotry had deserted me; not one of them stood looking
	back.  As I live, as Ra loves me, as my father Atum favors
	me, everything that my majesty has told I did it in truth,
	in the presence of my infantry and my chariotry.

(Note: This paragraph records not only Ramses "divine word," but also that
there were thousands of witnesses to the event.  Now from the heart of 
battle.)

	Then his majesty drove at a gallop and charged the forces
	of the Foe from Hitti, being alone by himself, none other
	with him.  His majesty proceeded to look about him and
	found 2500 chariots ringing him on his way out ...

	No officer was with me, no charioteer,
	No soldier of the army, no shield-bearer;
	My infantry, my chariotry yielded before them,
	Not one of them stood firm to fight with them.
	His majesty spoke: "What is this, father Amun?
	Is it right for a father to ignore his son?
	Are my deeds a matter for you to ignore?
	Do I not walk and stand at your word?
	I have not neglected an order you gave.
	Too great is he, the great lord of Egypt,
	To allow aliens to step on his path!
	What are these Asiatics to you, O Amun,
	The wretches ignorant of god?
	Have I not made for you many great monuments,
	...
	I call to you, my father Amun,
	I am among a host of strangers;
	All countries are arrayed against me,
	I am alone, there's none with me!
	...
	The labors of many people are nothing,
	Amun is more helpful than they;
	I came here by the command of your mouth,
	O Amun, I have not transgressed your command!"

	Now though I prayed in a distant land,
	My voice resounded in Southern Thebes.
	I found Amun came when I called to him,
	He gave me his hand and I rejoiced.
	He called from behind as if near by:
	"Forward, I am with you,
	I your father, my hand is with you,
	I prevail over a hundred thousand men,
	I am lord of victory, lover of valor!"
	I found my heart stout, my breast in joy,
	All I did succeeded, I was like Mont.
	...
	I slaughtered among them at my will,
	Not one looked behind him,
	Not one turned around,
	Whoever fell down did not rise.
	...
	One called out to the other saying:
	"No man is he who is among us,
	It is Seth great-of-strength, Baal in person;
	Not deeds of man are these his doings,
	They are of one who is unique,
	Who fights a hundred thousand without soldiers and chariots,
	Come quick, flee before him,
	To seek life and breathe air;
	For he who attempts to get close to him,
	His hands, all his limbs grow limp.
	One cannot hold either bow or spears,
	When one sees him come racing along!"
	My majesty hunted them like a griffin,
	I slaughtered among them unceasingly.

So you see Brian, we have a few original manuscripts recording the miraculous 
battle between the Ramses and the Hittites.  Do you reject them as being
*completely* true? I suspect you do, and if so, then do you also, in your own
words: 

    "question the existence of Alexander the Great, Tilgrath Pilisar III,
     Nero, Caligula, Josephus, Cyrus the Great, Artexerxes?"

Do you also thereby question all their documents? That`s the problem with your
"all or nothing" approach.  Many ancient people used to mix a bit of fancy
with their facts.  So for you to say that we must either accept all of Peter
(and the rest of the New Testament) or accept no records of antiquity at all,
forces you thereby, to accept the verity of documents you probably do not find
completely credible. 

As to your other argument that so many people have testified to Jesus, that he
must be true:

> Are you going to just pass off all this testimony as fictiousness? 
> Are you going to call three thousand years worth of testimony from
> shepherds to IRS agents to royal officials to kings to computer
> programmers, fiction?  With a scoff of your keyboard, with near
> complete ignorance of the testimonies, are you going to say that
> that is all complete hooey?   Would that not be the most audacious
> display of arrogance?  Do you actually think you know better than
> King Solomon, King David, or even Abraham Lincoln?
 
I have three points.  

First, this is "argumentum ad populum" (ie: appeal to popular opinion); you
cannot vote on truth.  For instance, do the millions of Hindu's past and
present who testify to the reality of Brahma, constitute actual evidence for
the existence of Brahma? How would you answer your own question in regards to
the testimony of Hindus:

	"With a scoff of your keyboard, with near complete ignorance of 
	 the testimonies, are you going to say that that is all complete 
	 hooey?"

If you do so "scoff," then how do you objectively justify your own special
pleading?

Second, it is not at all clear that King Solomon or King David testified to
Jesus.  You can claim it to be clear, but that does not make it true. 

Third, it is quite arguable that Abraham Lincoln was not Christian, and that
he had both a public and a private view of Christianity.  In fact there was
much discussion about it in his day (yes, he was publically accused of being a
deist.  Oh my).  I am presently collecting a FAQ for Lincoln as I've
previously done for Tyre, Jefferson and etc. 
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

    "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of 
     salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become 
     clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for 
     thinking I shall ever change them."
					Abraham Lincoln
					To Judge J S Wakefield 
					after the death of Willie Lincoln.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84448
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (E. Elizabeth Bartley)
Subject: Re: What part of "No" don't you understand?

In article <1993Apr26.150845.28537@advtech.uswest.com>
> = steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>> = Steve Novak writes:

>>>Because, of course, that possibility existed.  Meaning any student who
>>>really gave a shit could have a moment of silence on his/her own, which
>>>makes more sense than forcing those who DON'T want to participate to
>>>have to take part.  What other reason is there for an organized "moment
>>>of silence"?

>>A "moment of silence" doesn't mean much unless *everyone*
>>participates.  Otherwise it's not silent, now is it?

>The whole point is, maybe everyone _doesn't want_ to participate.

And maybe they do.  But without somebody to set the time that doesn't
do them any good.

>[...]

Humph.  Deleted there was my list of non-religious reasons one might
want a moment of silence for a dead classmate.

Maybe everyone doesn't want to be silent for teachers to give their
pompous non-religious speeches in assembly.  I know I didn't.  So?

>>Blindly opposing everything with a flavor of religion in it is
>>utterly idiotic.

>Blindly opposing everything with a flavor of religion in it that is
>supported by taxpayer money is the only way to keep christianity from
>becoming the official U.S. religion.

Please provide documentation that opposing only things that are
actively religious (e.g. actual prayer, "Amen" after a moment of
silence, mandatory classes in religion) and not things that have
possible but uncertain religious implications (e.g. moments of
silence, having the Bible on the shelves during reading period) is not
a way to prevent a state religion.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84449
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Subject: LARSONIAN Astronomy, Physics, CREATION



     The following partial summary of a Theory of the Universe includes a
little-known description of the CREATION of our Solar System:


                      LARSONIAN Astronomy and Physics

               Orthodox physicists, astronomers, and astrophysicists 
          CLAIM to be looking for a "Unified Field Theory" in which all 
          of the forces of the universe can be explained with a single 
          set of laws or equations.  But they have been systematically 
          IGNORING or SUPPRESSING an excellent one for 30 years! 

               The late Physicist Dewey B. Larson's comprehensive 
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, which he 
          calls the "Reciprocal System", is built on two fundamental 
          postulates about the physical and mathematical natures of 
          space and time: 
    
               (1) "The physical universe is composed ENTIRELY of ONE 
          component, MOTION, existing in THREE dimensions, in DISCRETE 
          UNITS, and in two RECIPROCAL forms, SPACE and TIME." 
    
               (2) "The physical universe conforms to the relations of 
          ORDINARY COMMUTATIVE mathematics, its magnitudes are 
          ABSOLUTE, and its geometry is EUCLIDEAN." 
    
               From these two postulates, Larson developed a COMPLETE 
          Theoretical Universe, using various combinations of 
          translational, vibrational, rotational, and vibrational-
          rotational MOTIONS, the concepts of IN-ward and OUT-ward 
          SCALAR MOTIONS, and speeds in relation to the Speed of Light 
          (which Larson called "UNIT VELOCITY" and "THE NATURAL 
          DATUM"). 
      
               At each step in the development, Larson was able to 
          MATCH objects in his Theoretical Universe with objects in the 
          REAL physical universe, (photons, sub-atomic particles 
          [INCOMPLETE ATOMS], charges, atoms, molecules, globular star 
          clusters, galaxies, binary star systems, solar systems, white 
          dwarf stars, pulsars, quasars, ETC.), even objects NOT YET 
          DISCOVERED THEN (such as EXPLODING GALAXIES, and GAMMA-RAY 
          BURSTS). 
          
               And applying his Theory to his NEW model of the atom, 
          Larson was able to precisely and accurately CALCULATE inter-
          atomic distances in crystals and molecules, compressibility 
          and thermal expansion of solids, and other properties of 
          matter. 

               All of this is described in good detail, with-OUT fancy 
          complex mathematics, in his books. 
    


          BOOKS of Dewey B. Larson
          
               The following is a complete list of the late Physicist 
          Dewey B. Larson's books about his comprehensive GENERAL 
          UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe.  Some of the early 
          books are out of print now, but still available through 
          inter-library loan. 
    
               "The Structure of the Physical Universe" (1959) 
    
               "The Case AGAINST the Nuclear Atom" (1963)
    
               "Beyond Newton" (1964) 
    
               "New Light on Space and Time" (1965) 
    
               "Quasars and Pulsars" (1971) 
    
               "NOTHING BUT MOTION" (1979) 
                    [A $9.50 SUBSTITUTE for the $8.3 BILLION "Super 
                                                            Collider".] 
                    [The last four chapters EXPLAIN chemical bonding.]

               "The Neglected Facts of Science" (1982) 
     
               "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" (1984)
                    [FINAL SOLUTIONS to most ALL astrophysical
                                                            mysteries.] 
      
               "BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER" (1988)

               All but the last of these books were published by North 
          Pacific Publishers, P.O. Box 13255, Portland, OR  97213, and 
          should be available via inter-library loan if your local 
          university or public library doesn't have each of them. 

               Several of them, INCLUDING the last one, are available 
          from: The International Society of Unified Science (ISUS), 
          1680 E. Atkin Ave., Salt Lake City, Utah  84106.  This is the 
          organization that was started to promote Larson's Theory.  
          They have other related publications, including the quarterly 
          journal "RECIPROCITY". 

          

          Physicist Dewey B. Larson's Background
    
               Physicist Dewey B. Larson was a retired Engineer 
          (Chemical or Electrical).  He was about 91 years old when he 
          died in May 1989.  He had a Bachelor of Science Degree in 
          Engineering Science from Oregon State University.  He 
          developed his comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the 
          physical universe while trying to develop a way to COMPUTE 
          chemical properties based only on the elements used. 
    
               Larson's lack of a fancy "PH.D." degree might be one 
          reason that orthodox physicists are ignoring him, but it is 
          NOT A VALID REASON.  Sometimes it takes a relative outsider 
          to CLEARLY SEE THE FOREST THROUGH THE TREES.  At the same 
          time, it is clear from his books that he also knew ORTHODOX 
          physics and astronomy as well as ANY physicist or astronomer, 
          well enough to point out all their CONTRADICTIONS, AD HOC 
          ASSUMPTIONS, PRINCIPLES OF IMPOTENCE, IN-CONSISTENCIES, ETC.. 
     
               Larson did NOT have the funds, etc. to experimentally 
          test his Theory.  And it was NOT necessary for him to do so.  
          He simply compared the various parts of his Theory with OTHER 
          researchers' experimental and observational data.  And in 
          many cases, HIS explanation FIT BETTER. 
    
               A SELF-CONSISTENT Theory is MUCH MORE than the ORTHODOX 
          physicists and astronomers have!  They CLAIM to be looking 
          for a "unified field theory" that works, but have been 
          IGNORING one for over 30 years now! 
    
               "Modern physics" does NOT explain the physical universe 
          so well.  Some parts of some of Larson's books are FULL of 
          quotations of leading orthodox physicists and astronomers who 
          agree.  And remember that "epicycles", "crystal spheres", 
          "geocentricity", "flat earth theory", etc., ALSO once SEEMED 
          to explain it well, but were later proved CONCEPTUALLY WRONG. 
    
    
               Prof. Frank H. Meyer, Professor Emeritus of UW-Superior, 
          was/is a STRONG PROPONENT of Larson's Theory, and was (or 
          still is) President of Larson's organization, "THE 
          INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF UNIFIED SCIENCE", and Editor of 
          their quarterly Journal "RECIPROCITY".  He moved to 
          Minneapolis after retiring. 
    


          "Super Collider" BOONDOGGLE!
          
               I am AGAINST contruction of the "Superconducting Super 
          Collider", in Texas or anywhere else.  It would be a GROSS 
          WASTE of money, and contribute almost NOTHING of "scientific" 
          value. 
    
               Most physicists don't realize it, but, according to the 
          comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the late Physicist 
          Dewey B. Larson, as described in his books, the strange GOOFY 
          particles ("mesons", "hyperons", ALLEGED "quarks", etc.) 
          which they are finding in EXISTING colliders (Fermi Lab, 
          Cern, etc.) are really just ATOMS of ANTI-MATTER, which are 
          CREATED by the high-energy colliding beams, and which quickly 
          disintegrate like cosmic rays because they are incompatible 
          with their environment. 
    
               A larger and more expensive collider will ONLY create a 
          few more elements of anti-matter that the physicists have not 
          seen there before, and the physicists will be EVEN MORE 
          CONFUSED THAN THEY ARE NOW! 
    
               Are a few more types of anti-matter atoms worth the $8.3 
          BILLION cost?!!  Don't we have much more important uses for 
          this WASTED money?! 
    
     
               Another thing to consider is that the primary proposed 
          location in Texas has a serious and growing problem with some 
          kind of "fire ants" eating the insulation off underground 
          cables.  How much POISONING of the ground and ground water 
          with insecticides will be required to keep the ants out of 
          the "Supercollider"?! 
    
          
               Naming the "Super Collider" after Ronald Reagon, as 
          proposed, is TOTALLY ABSURD!  If it is built, it should be 
          named after a leading particle PHYSICIST. 
      


          LARSONIAN Anti-Matter
          
               In Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the 
          physical universe, anti-matter is NOT a simple case of 
          opposite charges of the same types of particles.  It has more 
          to do with the rates of vibrations and rotations of the 
          photons of which they are made, in relation to the 
          vibrational and rotational equivalents of the speed of light, 
          which Larson calls "Unit Velocity" and the "Natural Datum". 
     
               In Larson's Theory, a positron is actually a particle of 
          MATTER, NOT anti-matter.  When a positron and electron meet, 
          the rotational vibrations (charges) and rotations of their 
          respective photons (of which they are made) neutralize each 
          other. 
      
               In Larson's Theory, the ANTI-MATTER half of the physical 
          universe has THREE dimensions of TIME, and ONLY ONE dimension 
          of space, and exists in a RECIPROCAL RELATIONSHIP to our 
          MATERIAL half. 
       


          LARSONIAN Relativity
          
               The perihelion point in the orbit of the planet Mercury 
          has been observed and precisely measured to ADVANCE at the 
          rate of 574 seconds of arc per century.  531 seconds of this 
          advance are attributed via calculations to gravitational 
          perturbations from the other planets (Venus, Earth, Jupiter, 
          etc.).  The remaining 43 seconds of arc are being used to 
          help "prove" Einstein's "General Theory of Relativity". 
    
               But the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson achieved results 
          CLOSER to the 43 seconds than "General Relativity" can, by 
          INSTEAD using "SPECIAL Relativity".  In one or more of his 
          books, he applied the LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION on the HIGH 
          ORBITAL SPEED of Mercury. 
    
               Larson TOTALLY REJECTED "General Relativity" as another 
          MATHEMATICAL FANTASY.  He also REJECTED most of "Special 
          Relativity", including the parts about "mass increases" near 
          the speed of light, and the use of the Lorentz Transform on 
          doppler shifts, (Those quasars with red-shifts greater than 
          1.000 REALLY ARE MOVING FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT, 
          although most of that motion is away from us IN TIME.). 
     
               In Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the 
          physical universe, there are THREE dimensions of time instead 
          of only one.  But two of those dimensions can NOT be measured 
          from our material half of the physical universe.  The one 
          dimension that we CAN measure is the CLOCK time.  At low 
          relative speeds, the values of the other two dimensions are 
          NEGLIGIBLE; but at high speeds, they become significant, and 
          the Lorentz Transformation must be used as a FUDGE FACTOR. 
          [Larson often used the term "COORDINATE TIME" when writing 
          about this.] 
    
     
               In regard to "mass increases", it has been PROVEN in 
          atomic accelerators that acceleration drops toward zero near 
          the speed of light.  But the formula for acceleration is 
          ACCELERATION = FORCE / MASS, (a = F/m).  Orthodox physicists 
          are IGNORING the THIRD FACTOR: FORCE.  In Larson's Theory, 
          mass STAYS CONSTANT and FORCE drops toward zero.  FORCE is 
          actually a MOTION, or COMBINATIONS of MOTIONS, or RELATIONS 
          BETWEEN MOTIONS, including INward and OUTward SCALAR MOTIONS.  
          The expansion of the universe, for example, is an OUTward 
          SCALAR motion inherent in the universe and NOT a result of 
          the so-called "Big Bang" (which is yet another MATHEMATICAL 
          FANTASY). 
    
                                    
          
          THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION

               I wish to recommend to EVERYONE the book "THE UNIVERSE 
          OF MOTION", by Dewey B. Larson, 1984, North Pacific 
          Publishers, (P.O. Box 13255, Portland, Oregon  97213), 456 
          pages, indexed, hardcover. 
    
               It contains the Astrophysical portions of a GENERAL 
          UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe developed by that 
          author, an UNrecognized GENIUS, more than thirty years ago. 
    
               It contains FINAL SOLUTIONS to most ALL Astrophysical 
          mysteries, including the FORMATION of galaxies, binary and 
          multiple star systems, and solar systems, the TRUE ORIGIN of 
          the "3-degree" background radiation, cosmic rays, and gamma-
          ray bursts, and the TRUE NATURE of quasars, pulsars, white 
          dwarfs, exploding galaxies, etc.. 
    
               It contains what astronomers and astrophysicists are ALL 
          looking for, if they are ready to seriously consider it with 
          OPEN MINDS! 
    
               The following is an example of his Theory's success: 
          In his first book in 1959, "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL 
          UNIVERSE", Larson predicted the existence of EXPLODING 
          GALAXIES, several years BEFORE astronomers started finding 
          them.  They are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of Larson's 
          comprehensive Theory.  And when QUASARS were discovered, he 
          had an immediate related explanation for them also. 
    

 
          GAMMA-RAY BURSTS

               Astro-physicists and astronomers are still scratching 
          their heads about the mysterious GAMMA-RAY BURSTS.  They were 
          originally thought to originate from "neutron stars" in the 
          disc of our galaxy.  But the new Gamma Ray Telescope now in 
          Earth orbit has been detecting them in all directions 
          uniformly, and their source locations in space do NOT 
          correspond to any known objects, (except for a few cases of 
          directional coincidence). 
    
               Gamma-ray bursts are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of the 
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe developed by 
          the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson.  According to page 386 of 
          his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", published in 1984, the 
          gamma-ray bursts are coming from SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS in the 
          ANTI-MATTER HALF of the physical universe, which Larson calls 
          the "Cosmic Sector".  Because of the relationship between the 
          anti-matter and material halves of the physical universe, and 
          the way they are connected together, the gamma-ray bursts can 
          pop into our material half anywhere in space, seemingly at 
          random.  (This is WHY the source locations of the bursts do 
          not correspond with known objects, and come from all 
          directions uniformly.) 
    
               I wonder how close to us in space a source location 
          would have to be for a gamma-ray burst to kill all or most 
          life on Earth!  There would be NO WAY to predict one, NOR to 
          stop it! 
    
               Perhaps some of the MASS EXTINCTIONS of the past, which 
          are now being blamed on impacts of comets and asteroids, were 
          actually caused by nearby GAMMA-RAY BURSTS! 
    


          LARSONIAN Binary Star Formation
          
               About half of all the stars in the galaxy in the 
          vicinity of the sun are binary or double.  But orthodox 
          astronomers and astrophysicists still have no satisfactory 
          theory about how they form or why there are so many of them. 
    
               But binary star systems are actually a LIKELY 
          CONSEQUENCE of the comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of 
          the physical universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey 
          B. Larson. 
    
               I will try to summarize Larsons explanation, which is 
          detailed in Chapter 7 of his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" 
          and in some of his other books. 
    
               First of all, according to Larson, stars do NOT generate 
          energy by "fusion".  A small fraction comes from slow 
          gravitational collapse.  The rest results from the COMPLETE 
          ANNIHILATION of HEAVY elements (heavier than IRON).  Each 
          element has a DESTRUCTIVE TEMPERATURE LIMIT.  The heavier the 
          element is, the lower is this limit.  A star's internal 
          temperature increases as it grows in mass via accretion and 
          absorption of the decay products of cosmic rays, gradually 
          reaching the destructive temperature limit of lighter and 
          lighter elements. 
    
               When the internal temperature of the star reaches the 
          destructive temperature limit of IRON, there is a Type I 
          SUPERNOVA EXPLOSION!  This is because there is SO MUCH iron 
          present; and that is related to the structure of iron atoms 
          and the atom building process, which Larson explains in some 
          of his books [better than I can]. 
    
               When the star explodes, the lighter material on the 
          outer portion of the star is blown outward in space at less 
          than the speed of light.  The heavier material in the center 
          portion of the star was already bouncing around at close to 
          the speed of light, because of the high temperature.  The 
          explosion pushes that material OVER the speed of light, and 
          it expands OUTWARD IN TIME, which is equivalent to INWARD IN 
          SPACE, and it often actually DISAPPEARS for a while. 
    
               Over long periods of time, both masses start to fall 
          back gravitationally.  The material that had been blown 
          outward in space now starts to form a RED GIANT star.  The 
          material that had been blown OUTWARD IN TIME starts to form a 
          WHITE DWARF star.  BOTH stars then start moving back toward 
          the "MAIN SEQUENCE" from opposite directions on the H-R 
          Diagram. 
    
               The chances of the two masses falling back into the 
          exact same location in space, making a single lone star 
          again, are near zero.  They will instead form a BINARY 
          system, orbiting each other. 
     
               According to Larson, a white dwarf star has an INVERSE 
          DENSITY GRADIENT (is densest at its SURFACE), because the 
          material at its center is most widely dispersed (blown 
          outward) in time.   This ELIMINATES the need to resort to 
          MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES about "degenerate matter", "neutron 
          stars", "black holes", etc.. 
    


          LARSONIAN Solar System Formation

               If the mass of the heavy material at the center of the 
          exploding star is relatively SMALL, then, instead of a single 
          white dwarf star, there will be SEVERAL "mini" white dwarf 
          stars (revolving around the red giant star, but probably 
          still too far away in three-dimensional TIME to be affected 
          by its heat, etc.).  These will become PLANETS! 
      
               In Chapter 7 of THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION, Larson used all 
          this information, and other principles of his comprehensive 
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, to derive 
          his own version of Bode's Law. 
          


          "Black Hole" FANTASY!

               I heard that physicist Stephen W. Hawking recently 
          completed a theoretical mathematical analysis of TWO "black 
          holes" merging together into a SINGLE "black hole", and 
          concluded that the new "black hole" would have MORE MASS than 
          the sum of the two original "black holes". 
    
               Such a result should be recognized by EVERYone as a RED 
          FLAG, causing widespread DOUBT about the whole IDEA of "black 
          holes", etc.! 
    
               After reading Physicist Dewey B. Larson's books about 
          his comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical 
          universe, especially his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", it is 
          clear to me that "black holes" are NOTHING more than 
          MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES!  The strange object at Cygnus X-1 is 
          just an unusually massive WHITE DWARF STAR, NOT the "black 
          hole" that orthodox astronomers and physicists so badly want 
          to "prove" their theory. 
    
    
               By the way, I do NOT understand why so much publicity is 
          being given to physicist Stephen Hawking.  The physicists and 
          astronomers seem to be acting as if Hawking's severe physical 
          problem somehow makes him "wiser".  It does NOT! 
    
               I wish the same attention had been given to Physicist 
          Dewey B. Larson while he was still alive.  Widespread 
          publicity and attention should NOW be given to Larson's 
          Theory, books, and organization (The International Society of 
          Unified Science). 
          
          
          
          ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PROPULSION

               I heard of that concept many years ago, in connection 
          with UFO's and unorthodox inventors, but I never was able to 
          find out how or why they work, or how they are constructed. 
    
               I found a possible clue about why they might work on 
          pages 112-113 of the book "BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER", by 
          the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson, which describes part of 
          Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical 
          universe.  I quote one paragraph: 
    
               "As indicated in the preceding chapter, the development 
          of the theory of the universe of motion arrives at a totally 
          different concept of the nature of electrical resistance.  
          The electrons, we find, are derived from the environment.  It 
          was brought out in Volume I [Larson's book "NOTHING BUT 
          MOTION"] that there are physical processes in operation which 
          produce electrons in substantial quantities, and that, 
          although the motions that constitute these electrons are, in 
          many cases, absorbed by atomic structures, the opportunities 
          for utilizing this type of motion in such structures are 
          limited.  It follows that there is always a large excess of 
          free electrons in the material sector [material half] of the 
          universe, most of which are uncharged.  In this uncharged 
          state the electrons cannot move with respect to extension 
          space, because they are inherently rotating units of space, 
          and the relation of space to space is not motion.  In open 
          space, therefore, each uncharged electron remains permanently 
          in the same location with respect to the natural reference 
          system, in the manner of a photon.  In the context of the 
          stationary spatial reference system the uncharged electron, 
          like the photon, is carried outward at the speed of light by 
          the progression of the natural reference system.  All 
          material aggregates are thus exposed to a flux of electrons 
          similar to the continual bombardment by photons of radiation.  
          Meanwhile there are other processes, to be discussed later, 
          whereby electrons are returned to the environment.  The 
          electron population of a material aggregate such as the earth 
          therefore stabilizes at an equilibrium level." 
          
               Note that in Larson's Theory, UNcharged electrons are 
          also massLESS, and are basically photons of light of a 
          particular frequency (above the "unit" frequency) spinning 
          around one axis at a particular rate (below the "unit" rate).  
          ("Unit velocity" is the speed of light, and there are 
          vibrational and rotational equivalents to the speed of light, 
          according to Larson's Theory.)  [I might have the "above" and 
          "below" labels mixed up.] 
    
               Larson is saying that outer space is filled with mass-
          LESS UN-charged electrons flying around at the speed of 
          light! 
    
               If this is true, then the ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PROPULSION 
          fields of spacecraft might be able to interact with these 
          electrons, or other particles in space, perhaps GIVING them a 
          charge (and mass) and shooting them toward the rear to 
          achieve propulsion. (In Larson's Theory, an electrical charge 
          is a one-dimensional rotational vibration of a particular 
          frequency (above the "unit" frequency) superimposed on the 
          rotation of the particle.) 
      
               The paragraph quoted above might also give a clue to 
          confused meteorologists about how and why lightning is 
          generated in clouds. 



          SUPPRESSION of LARSONIAN Physics

               The comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical 
          universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson has 
          been available for more than 30 YEARS, published in 1959 in 
          his first book "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE". 
    
               It is TOTALLY UN-SCIENTIFIC for Hawking, Wheeler, Sagan, 
          and the other SACRED PRIESTS of the RELIGION they call 
          "science" (or "physics", or "astronomy", etc.), as well as 
          the "scientific" literature and the "education" systems, to 
          TOTALLY IGNORE Larson's Theory has they have. 
    
               Larson's Theory has excellent explanations for many 
          things now puzzling orthodox physicists and astronomers, such 
          as gamma-ray bursts and the nature of quasars. 
    
               Larson's Theory deserves to be HONESTLY and OPENLY 
          discussed in the physics, chemistry, and astronomy journals, 
          in the U.S. and elsewhere.  And at least the basic principles 
          of Larson's Theory should be included in all related courses 
          at UW-EC, UW-Madison, Cambridge, Cornell University, and 
          elsewhere, so that students are not kept in the dark about a 
          worthy alternative to the DOGMA they are being fed. 
    
          

               For more information, answers to your questions, etc., 
          please consult my CITED SOURCES (especially Larson's BOOKS). 



               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          IMPORTANT partial summary is ENCOURAGED. 


                                       Robert E. McElwaine
                                       B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
          


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84450
From: lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe)
Subject: Re: On-line copy of Book of Mormon

In article <1993Apr23.163823.24226@ads.com> wmoore@ADS.COM (William Moore) writes:
>Can anyone provide me a ftp site where I can obtain a online version
>of the Book of Mormon. Please email the internet address if possible.

I have a copy.  Why are you interested?

Lance
 
-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Lance W. Bledsoe        lwb@im4u.cs.utexas.edu        (512) 258-0112  |
|  "Ye shall know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall make you free."         |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84451
From: jmeritt@mental.MITRE.ORG (Jim Meritt - System Admin)
Subject: Booze it up, thus sayth the Lord!

Jeremiah:
25:27 Therefore thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of
hosts, the God of Israel; Drink ye, and be drunken, and spue, and
fall, and rise no more, because of the sword which I will send among
you.
25:28 And it shall be, if they refuse to take the cup at thine hand to
drink, then shalt thou say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ye
shall certainly drink.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84452
From: lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe)
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?

In article <1f2P02UA40zB01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>Capser, before you deceive everone into thinking that the latter-day
>saints have undergone undue persecution through the years for just
>believing in their religion, perhaps you would like to tell us all what
>happened in the Mountain Meadow Massacres and all the killings that were
>done under the Blood Atonement Doctrine, at the command of Brigham Young?

I recently watched a an episode of "The Old West" a TV show on the 
Discovery Channel (or perhaps the A&E Network), the one hosted by Kenny
Rogers.  This episode was all about the Mormons and how they settled Utah,
etc.

A large portion of the broadcast was about the "Mountain Meadows Massacre".
The program very specifically pointed out that Brigham Young knew nothing
about the incident until long after it had happened (before telegraph), and
it occured as a result of several men inciting a bunch of paronoid Moromn
settlers into what amounted to a mob.  All participants in the incident were
prosecuted and eccomunicated from the LDS Church.

I suggest you watch a rerun of that episode (they play them over and over) 
and see what they (non-Mormons) have to say about it.


Lance



-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Lance W. Bledsoe        lwb@im4u.cs.utexas.edu        (512) 258-0112  |
|  "Ye shall know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall make you free."         |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84506
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <lefty-260493134641@lefty.apple.com>, lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>
> These particular Tibetans are advocating increased violence against 
> the Chinese occupiers.  Are they wrong?

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.

> Clearly the occupation of Tibet _has_ been largely ignored.

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.

> Are Tibetans currently "people of peace"?  Do they serve themselves 
> well or badly by being so?

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?

> Would an increased level of violence make them "terrorists"?

The Chinese would certainly refer to them as terrorists, just as
the Hitler regime used to refer to European resistance movements
as terrorists.

> Assuming that the group advocating this course is correct, and 
> greater attention is focussed on the occupation of Tibet by the 
> Chinese, are the Tibetans better off as "people of peace" or
> 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?

jon.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84507
From: cutter@gloster.via.mind.org (cutter)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

netd@susie.sbc.com () writes:

> In article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen
> >For those who think David Koresh didn't have a solid structure,
> >or sound Biblical backing for his hour long tape broadcast,
> 
> I don't think anyone really cares about the solid structure of his
> sermon.  It's the deaths he's responsible for that concern most people.
> 

And I think we ought to hold Christ accoountable for all of his followers 
who died at the hand of the Romans also. It was their own fault for believing.

God, this society reminds me more of the Roman Empire every day; I guess
I'll just log off and go watch American Gladiators.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
cutter@gloster.via.mind.org (chris)     All jobs are easy 
                                     to the person who
                                     doesn't have to do them.
                                               Holt's law

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84508
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <1993Apr26.215627.24917@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>A baby's innocence has nothing to do with whether the baby
>is a sinner.  Innocence and the sin nature are two different attributes. 
>The baby is innocent, yet the baby is a sinner.   
>You have two arms and two legs?  Why?  Because your parents did.
>Why? Because their parents did.  Etc.  Did you do anything to get them?

The thing is, I know what arms and legs are.  It's therefore generally easy to
tell whether or not someone has arms and legs.  This "sinful nature", since it
does not require that the baby actually perform any sins, seems to be totally
invisible.  As far as I know, maybe half the babies have a sinful nature and
half don't--it'd look exactly the same, since there is no way to tell the
difference.

>We are born sinners.  We are born sinners because our parents
>were born with it.  We got it from them.  We did nothing to earn
>the title "sinner".  We get it because our parents had it, their
>parents had it, their grandparents had it, etc, infinitum.

So what's so bad about a sinful nature, then?  I could understand it being
bad if it always results in people committing sins, but babies can have it,
never commit sins, die, and they still have it.  So the bad part about can't
merely be that it results in people committing sins--so what _is_ bad about it?
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84509
From: pboxrud@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul D Boxrud)
Subject: Religion and marriage

     I wasn't sure if this was the right newsgroup to post this to, but I guess
the misc is there for a reason.  Here goes...  I am getting married in June to 
a devout (Wisconsin Synod) Lutheran.  I would classify myself as a strong 
agnostic/weak athiest.  This has been a a subject of many discussions between
us and is really our only real obstacle.  We don't have any real difficulties 
with the religious differences yet, but I expect they will pop up when we have 
children.  I have agreed to raise the
children "nominally" Lutheran.  That is, Lutheran traditions, but trying to
keep an open mind.  I am not sure if this is even possible though.  I feel that
that the worst quality of being devoutly religous is the lack of an open mind.

     Anyway, I guess I'll get on with my question.  Is anyone in the same 
situation and can give some suggestions as to how to deal with this?  We've 
taken the attitude so far of just talking about it a lot and not letting 
anything get bottled up inside.  Sometimes I get the feeling we're making this 
much bigger than it actually is.  Any comments would be greatly appreciated.  
Also, please e-mail responses since I don't get a chance to read this group
often.  :-(

Paul

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84510
Subject: Re: [rw] Is Robert Weiss the only orthodox Christian?
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)

>I'm curious to know if Christians ever read books based on critique
>on the religion, classical text such as "Age of Reason" by Paine,
>or "The Myth Maker" by Jacobi. Sometimes it is good to know your
>enemy, and if you want to do serious research you have to understand
>both sides, and not solely the one and only right one.

Yes, one does.  I examined a critique of the Book of Romans by
I think, Benjamin Franklin once, a Deist.  I found it amazing that
Benjamin Franklin missed the whole boat.   I also have the writings
on Thomas Jefferson sitting on my shelf, and it is amazing how
much he missed.  I have studied Plato's Theory of Forms and 
Aristotelian Hylomorphesism.  What a pile of junk.  Jesus
makes Plato and Aristotle look like kindergardeners.  Psychology,
the id, ego, superego by Freud?  Elements of truth, but Jesus
explained it far better and gave reasons.

Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson are mere men.  They
can screw up the Bible just as well as any man.  I do not put these
men on a pedestal.  And if I remember T.J.'s autobiography correctly,
he thought Thomas Paine was the most unread man he ever met.

Here's some more circular reasoning to you.  Paul says to the Corinthians
that "that the gospel will be foolishness to the world, because it is 
spiritually discerned."  And so, people without the spirit of God haven't a
clue to what the Bible is saying.   From your point of view, that's
incredibly circular and convenient.   To me, it is mysteriously and supernaturally
bizarre.   I can see it, but you can't.  This is not arrogance on
my part.  Trust me.  It is as bizarre to you as it is to me.  But nonetheless,
it is a truth, explainable or not.

Are any of you color blind to red and green?  I am.  Remember those
dot tests they do at the optomologist's?  They put pictures in front
of you and you are supposed to identify the pattern in the dots?  If
your eyes are perfectly normal, you can see letters or numerals
embedded in the dots.  They are a slightly different color and stand
out from the background.  But if you are color blind to red and green,
you will not see anything but gray-shaded dots.  That is how a dot
test appears to me.  I do not see a pattern at all.

A normal seeing person will see the patterns.  And to him, I seem like a
total anomaly.  To him, I appear as if I am missing the universe or something.
It is hard for him to understand why I can't see anything
that to him is as plain as day.

That it what it is like with the Bible, the Word of God, to the believer.
The believer can see the meaning in the words.  I can see how the patterns
fit together.  There is such depth.  Such consistency.   But then, on the
other hand, I notice the non-believer.   He doesn't see it.  He thinks
I am weird because he thinks I am seeing things.   I look at him, and
say, "No, you are weird.  You do not see."   Then it is time for a sanity
check.  I go to another Christian and say, "Do you see this."  And
they go, "Yes.  It is an "X"".  And I say, "Thank God, I see the "X"
too."

It is truly the strangest thing.   It adds a little extra dimension to
the phrase, 

         "He will make the blind see, and the deaf hear."


I am glad that Jesus has enabled me to see.  I wish every non-believer
could see what they are missing.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84511
From: tbrent@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <26APR199315363120@rigel.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>In article <1993Apr26.022246.18294@scubed.com>, wilkins@scubed.com (Darin Wilkins) writes...
>>>In article <C5w7CA.M3s@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tbrent@ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:
>>>>If you check the news today, (AP) the "authorities also found a state-of-the-art
>>>>automatic machine gun that investigators did not know was in the cult's arsenal."
>>>>[Carl Stern, Justice Department]
>
>>In article <1r7hmlINNc6@mojo.eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>>>Yeah.  In a fire that reportedly burned hotter than 1000 degrees-- hot
>>>enough to make the bodies still unidentifiable-- the authorities found
>>>a gun that was recognizably fully-automatic and state of the art.
>>>Isn't that CONVEEEENIENT?
>
>
>>Assuming the most favorable interpretation of your '1000 degree'
>>measurement (that the temperature is in Centigrade, rather than the
>>more common -in the US- Fahrenheit), you are still laboring under at
>>least 2 misconceptions:
>
>>1.  You seem to believe that steel melts somewhere around 1000 C.
>>    Actually, the melting point of most iron alloys (and steels are
>>    iron alloys) is in the neighborhood of 1400 C.  Even if the gun
>>    were found in area which achieved the 1000 C temperature, the steel
>>    parts of the gun would not be deformed, and it would still be
>>    trivial to identify the nature of the weapon.
>
>	Steel may not melt at 1000C, but it will weaken, expand and deform.
>	If there is enough of a load on the steel, like the load on a steel
>	roof truss, or the pressure exerted by steel parts in a machine
>	trying to expand against each other, the steel can and will
>	deform extensively. For the record, any weapon found in
>	the cult compound should be indentifiable, but it may be
>	impossible to do normal ballistics tests because of the 
>	damage done to the weapon.
 	
If, if, if....  Anyway, the question was if the gun was identifiable, which
it is.

-Tim
>  Mitchell S Todd  \\\\/ /                 _____/__________________________

 _________________________________________________________________________
|				|				       	  |
|       Timothy J. Brent        | A man will come to know true happiness, |
|   BRENT@bank.ecn.purdue.edu   | only when he accepts that he is but a   |
|=========$$$$==================| small part of an infinite universe.	  |
|       PURDUE UNIVERSITY       |			      -Spinoza    |
| MATERIALS SCIENCE ENGINEERING |			    [paraphrased] |
|_______________________________|_________________________________________|

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84538
From: prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb)
Subject: Re: Branch Athiests Cult (was Rawlins debunks creationism)

king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:


>scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle) writes:

>>   For your information, I checked the Library of Congress catalog,
>>and they list the following books by Francis Hitching:

[...]

>Ahha...Now with the Branch Athiests zealots we have the following:

I think you are mistaken in thinking Tom Scharle to be a atheist.
You will find both atheists and Christians among your opponents on t.o.
Calling your opponents them "Branch Athiests zealots" does nothing for
your credibility.

>Let me try again.

Oh yes, do.

>"The doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude
>of evolutionary biology has inflamed passions.  There is lack of agreement
>even within warring camps.  Sometimes it seems as if there are as many 
>variations on each evolutionary theme as there are individual biologists."

>Niles Eldridge (yes he's a paleontologist); Natural History; "Evolutionary
>Housecleaning"; Feb 1982; pg. 78.

Dear me. This is taken _so_ out of context that it's hard to know where
to start... The quote starts with material from p 78, and ends with material
from page 81!

On page 78, there's the bit that says (the parts left out in John King's
"quote" are marked by <>):
"<...> the doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude
of evolutionary biology<'s last twenty years> has inflamed passions <and
provoked some very interesting thought and research>."

Eldridge goes on immediately following the butchered quote:
"In short, evolutionary biology has entered a phase of creativity that is
the hallmark of good, active science."

The material that is on page 81 that is "quoted" by John King has been
butchered even more severely:

"<I mention this only to illustrate the> **There is**[these words not
in the original text-prl] lack of agreement even within warring camps
<: things are really in uproar these days, and each of the "basic" ways
of looking at evolutionary biology has its minor variants.> Sometimes
it seems as if there are as many variations on each evolutionary theme
as there are individual biologists."

Eldridge goes on:
"But that's the way it should be; this is how science is supposed to operate."

>Jack

And just a few sentences down:

"When they [creationists] misrepresent the exuberant, creative doubt and
controversy permeating evolutionary biology these days, they are actively
promoting scientific illiteracy."

And that, John E. King, is precisely what you have done with Eldridge's
article. Are you personally responsible for the butchery of the text or
have you pulled it out of some creationist propaganda? You owe the people
reading t.o an apology for posting such misrepresentation.

-- 
Peter Lamb (prl@csis.dit.csiro.au)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84552
From: Lynn Anderson <dba+lynn@cs.cmu.edu>
Subject: Revised Easy-to-Read BoM available!

I am pleased to announce that a *revised version* of _The Easy-to-Read Book
of Mormon_ (former title: _Mormon's Book_) by Lynn Matthews Anderson is now
available through anonymous ftp (see information below). In addition to the
change in title, the revised ETR BOM has been shortened by several pages
(eliminating many extraneous "that's" and "of's"), and many (minor) errors
have been corrected. This release includes a simplified Joseph Smith Story,
testimonies of the three and eight witnesses, and a "Words-to-Know"
glossary.

As with the previous announcement, readers are reminded that this is a
not-for-profit endeavor. This is a copyrighted work, but people are welcome
to make *verbatim* copies for personal use. People can recuperate the
actual costs of printing (paper, copy center charges), but may not charge
anything for their time in making copies, or in any way realize a profit
from the use of this book. See the permissions notice in the book itself
for the precise terms.

Negotiations are currently underway with a Mormon publisher vis-a-vis the
printing and distribution of bound books. (Sorry, I'm out of the wire-bound
"first editions.") I will make another announcement about the availability
of printed copies once everything has been worked out.

FTP information: connect via anonymous ftp to carnot.itc.cmu.edu, then "cd
pub" (you won't see anything at all until you do).

"The Easy-to-Read Book of Mormon" is currently available in postscript and
RTF (rich text format). (ASCII, LaTeX, and other versions can be made
available; contact dba@andrew.cmu.edu for details.) You should be able to
print the postscript file on any postscript printer (such as an Apple
Laserwriter); let dba know if you have any difficulties. (The postscript in
the last release had problems on some printers; this time it should work
better.) RTF is a standard document interchange format that can be read in
by a number of word processors, including Microsoft Word for both the
Macintosh and Windows. If you don't have a postscript printer, you may be
able to use the RTF file to print out a copy of the book.

-r--r--r--  1 dba                   1984742 Apr 27 13:12 etrbom.ps
-r--r--r--  1 dba                   1209071 Apr 27 13:13 etrbom.rtf

For more information about how this project came about, please refer to my
article in the current issue of _Sunstone_, entitled "Delighting in
Plainness: Issues Surrounding a Simple Modern English Book of Mormon."

Send all inquiries and comments to:

    Lynn Matthews Anderson
    5806 Hampton Street
    Pittsburgh, PA 15206

    dba+lynn@cs.cmu.edu


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84553
From: kltensme@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: [rw] Is Robert Weiss the only orthodox Christian?

In article <C5vGyD.H7s@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>In article <93111.074840LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET>, LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET writes...
>
>Rick Anderson writes:
>
>ra>   Robert, you keep making references to "orthodox" belief, and saying
>ra> things like "it is held that..." (cf. "Kermit" thread).  On what
>ra> exact body of theology are you drawing for what you call "orthodox?"
>
>     "Orthodox" is a compound word. It comes from 'orthos' (straight, true, 
>     right) and from 'doxa' (opinion, doctrine, teaching). I use orthodox to 
>     refer to 'right teaching.'

   As opposed to Universal or Catholic or "FourSquare Gosple". I think that
   the Greek Orthodox Church would take high offense at your misuse of the
   word. Your version of Christianity is neither mainstream nor bible derived
   you make claims of bible-centricity that are not derivable soley from the
   Bible.  About six-seven months ago, you claimed that your primary objection
   to the LDS was that "our" doctrine was not bible-derived, And now this
   (and other) claims can be shown, are also not bible interpeting bible.


 
>                                Right teaching is derived from letting God 
>     speak to us through the Bible. This can be from reading simple truths 
>     in the Scriptures and by using the Bible to interpret the Bible.
>
	Simple truths... oh for example?   

>ra> Who is that "holds that" Luke meant what you said he meant?
>
>     I think that it is apparent from reading the Scriptures that are
>     pertinent.
>
>     Luke 23:43 records Christ's promise to the repentant thief who hung on
>     an adjacent cross: "Truly I say to you, today you will be with Me in
>     paradise." But was it not until later that Christ rose from the dead
>     and ascended to heaven? If Christ Himself was not in heaven until
>     Sunday, how could the repentant thief have been there with Him? The
>     answer lies in the location of "paradise" when Jesus died.
>
>     Apparently paradise was not exalted to heaven until Easter Day.


       "paradise exalted to heaven"

	paradise wasn't equal to heaven and _now_ it is? Yet you claim that
 	peeple can not be exalted to heaven, nicht wahr?

>
>     Jesus refers to it in the middle of the story of the rich man and 
>     Lazarus as "Abraham's Bosom," to which the godly beggar Lazarus was
>     carried by the angels after his decease (Luke 16:19-31).  Thus
>     "Abraham's Bosom" referred to the place where the souls of the redeemed
>     waited till the day of Christ's Resurrection.

	When I read the story, I found that  "Abraham's Bosom" wasn't so much
	a place, but somewhere the rich man could see and talk to Abraham?
>
>     It was not yet lifted to heaven but it may well have been a section of 
>     hades (Hebrew: Sheol), reserved for believers who had died in the faith
>     but would not be admitted into the glorious presence of God in heaven
>     until the price of redemption had actually been paid on Calvary; or
>     even that none would precede the presence of Jesus back to glory with
>     the Father.

	Gee this is fairly close to what the LDS call spirit prison, and what
        you have called false doctrine...
>
>     Doubtless it was the infernal paradise that the souls of Jesus and the
>     repentant thief repaired after they each died on Friday afternoon. But
>     on Sunday, after the risen Christ had first appeared to Mary Magdalene
>     (John 20:17) and her two companions (Matthew 28:9), presumably He then
>     took up with Him to glory all the inhabitants of infernal paradise
>     (including Abraham, Lazarus, and the repentant thief). We read in
>     Ephesians 4:8 concerning Christ: "Ascending on high, He led captivity
>     captive; He gave gifts unto men." 

    [ vers deleted reproduced below quoted from the SunSpot Gopher Archive ]

 
>                                             Presumably He led the whole
>     band of liberated captives from hades (i.e., the whole population of
>     preresurrection paradise) up to the glory of heaven.

   This part is _not_ supported from scripture, nor does it support your
   claim that the "paradise" where Christ descended was exalted.

   Making such claims on this little "evidence" ignores the witness of the
   scripture
>
||Sun||Ephas:
||Sun|| 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity
||Sun|| captive, and gave gifts unto men.
||Sun|| 
||Sun|| (X-REF Psalms 68:18)
||Sun||  Thou has ascended on hight, thout hast led captivity captive; thou has
||Sun||  recieved gifts for men; yea for the rebellious aslo, that the LORD God
||Sun||  might dwell amoung them
||Sun||
||Sun||Ephas:
||Sun|| 4:9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first
||Sun|| into the lower parts of the earth?  4:10 He that descended is the same
||Sun|| also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all
||Sun|| things.)  4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and
||Sun|| some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 4:12 For the
||Sun|| perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the
||Sun|| edifying of the body of Christ: 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of
||Sun|| the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man,
||Sun|| unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 4:14 That we
||Sun|| henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about
||Sun|| with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning
||Sun|| craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 4:15 But speaking the
||Sun|| truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head,

   Using this to argue that paradise or spirit prison, is now changed from
   a Pre-Easter postion to post-easter by God postion is not supportable.
 
   Makeing such a claim requires more evidence than you have given here...



>ra> Whenever your personal interpretation of Biblical passages is
>ra> challenged, your only response seems to be that one needs merely to
>ra> "look at the Bible" in order to see the truth, but what of those who
>ra> see Biblical things differently from you?
>
>     I think that this characterization is faulty. Whenever my 'personal 
>     interpretation' is questioned, I usually give a reason.

  Yes, and your reasons are in general not supported by any direct reading
  of the scriptures. You have demonstrated that you claims to scriptural 
  "proof" need to be cross-checked. The referencs that you supply often do
  not support your postion, if they are read in the context of the scripture.


>
>     As for those that see things differently, please, put forward where
>     there is a valid difference, and we can discuss it. 
>
>     I seem to be seeing from you the notion that any difference in how one 
>     views the Bible is somehow legitimate, except, or course, for the stuff 
>     that I glean from it. Put forward a contrary view and perhaps we can 
>     have a discussion on that topic. But to decry something that I put 
>     forward, without putting forward something else to discuss, and to 
>     dismiss what I put forward while giving credence to other alleged views
>     that have yet to be put forward is simply being contentious.

	How about that those who have been in paradise, and have accepted
	the gosple will be judged of Jesus Christ, and then return to the
	presence of God. Is that somehow different from your expressed view
	that the paradise spoken of (or "Abraham's Bosom")
>
>ra> Are we to simply assume that you are the only one who really
>ra> understands it?
>
>     If you believe that something that I have drawn from Scripture is 
>     wrong, then please, show me from Scripture where it is wrong.  Simply 
>     stating that there are other views is not a proof. Show it to me from 
>     Scripture and then we can go on.
>
	Should we go back and discuss your view on why the Angle of the Lord
	is the Lord again... ;-)
>
>=============================
>Robert Weiss
>psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu



-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   kltensme@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84554
From: ktikkane@phoenix.oulu.fi (Kari Tikkanen)
Subject: Re: Burden of Proof

Mark McCullough (mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu) wrote:
: >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 !
----------------------- ktikkane@phoenix.oulu.fi -------------------
  Kari Tikkanen      !   .  . -#- !      b        !   begin  
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84555
From: kltensme@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1r7os6$hil@agate.berkeley.edu> isaackuo@spam.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo) writes:
>In article <C5wIA1.4Hr@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:
>
>>    BD's were not contemplating suecide, and there is no reason 
>>    to believe they committed one.
>
>No reason?  How about these two:
>
>1.  Some of the survivors claimed that BD members poured fuel along the
>	corridors and set fire to it.  The speed at which the fire spread
>	is not inconsistent with this claim.

	This morning on CNN (tues April 27), Texas Cops say Arson is suspected
	because of two falsh points. CNN also stated that  _all_ surviors
	claim the fires are FBI set.  Your argument are made-up, untrue
	and unverified at best.
>
>2.  There was certainly a fire which killed most of the people in the compound.
>	There is a very very good possibility that the FBI did not start this
>	fire.  This is a good reason to believe that the BD's did.

    The day of the attack the FBI claimed to have seen two BD'ers setting
    the fire outside of the compound. Yesterday, the arson squad said two 
    flash points at the or near the tank entry points

    Not good evidence for the FBI hit squad.
>
>3.  Even if the BD's were not contemplating suicide, it is very possible that
>	David Koresh was convinced (and thus convinced the others) that this
>	was not suicide.  It was the fulfilment of a profecy of some sort.

  is there a difference between thinking that you won't survive a confrontation
  with the FBI (parnoia?) and committing suicide?

>
>There are three possibilities other than the BD's self destruction:
>
>
>B.  The fire was started by an FBI accident.  This is possible, but it would be
>	foolish of us to declare this outright until more evidence can back it.
>	Sure, it's possible that the armored vehicle knocked down a lantern
>	which started the fire (why was there a lit lantern in the middle of
>	the day near the edge of the complex?).  It's anecdotal evidence that
>	has been contradicted by other escapees.

	No, claimed by the escapees  not contradicted

	What I'm finding interesting is the conflicting reports. FBI says
	that bodies have been found with bullet wounds and the Texas Cornuers
	(sp) says that they haven't yet found any bullet holes..
>
>-- 
>*Isaac Kuo (isaackuo@math.berkeley.edu)	*       ___


-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   kltensme@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84557
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Subject: Re: Tieing Abortion to Health Reform -- Is Clinton Nuts?

In article <1993Apr26.163627.11364@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
#I find myself unable to put these two statements together in a
#sensible way:
#
#>Abortion is done because the mother can not afford the *pregnancy*.
#
#[...]
#
#>If we refused to pay for the more expensive choice of birth, *then*
#>your statement would make sense.  But that is not the case, so it doesn't.
#
#Are we paying for the birth or not, Mr. Parker?  If so, why can't the
#mother afford the pregnancy?  If not, what is the meaning of the
#latter objection?  You can't have it both ways.

Birth != pregnancy.  If they were the same, the topic of abortion would 
hardly arise, would it, Mr. Skinner?

-- 
Frank O'Dwyer                                  'I'm not hatching That'
odwyer@sse.ie                                  from "Hens",  by Evelyn Conlon

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84558
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin
From: rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota)

In article <1993Apr15.012537.26867@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com>, sharpe@nmesis.enet.dec.com (System PRIVILEGED Account) writes:
>
>In article <C5FtJt.885@sunfish.usd.edu>, rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota) writes:
>|>
>|>In article <1993Apr10.213547.17644@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
>|>
>|>[earlier dialogue deleted]
>|>
>|>>|> Perhaps you should read it and stop advancing the Bible as evidence relating 
>|>>|> to questions of science.  
>|>
>|>[it = _Did Jesus exist?_ by G. A. Wells]
>|>
>|>>     There is a great fallacy in your statement. The question of origins is
>|>>     based on more than science alone.  
>|>
>|>Nope, no fallacy.  Yep, science is best in determining how; religions handle
>|>why and who.
>|>
>
>Rich, I am curious as to why you and others award custody of the baby to
>theists and religion?

I hope I didn't award custody, Rich.  I purposely used "handle" in order to 
avoid doing so - i.e., that happens to be what religions do (of course there are
aberrations like "scientific" creationism).  I used "best" in part to indicate 
that science currently has a time of it with why and who, so these domains are
mostly ignored.  I also attempted to be brief, which no doubt confused the
matter.  As an aside, for science I should have written "how and when".  Nobody
seems to argue over what.

>Are they [theists, theologians] any better equiped to investigate the "who and 
>why" than magicians, astrologers, housewives [not being sexists], athiests or 
>agnostics.

Seems to me that the answer would vary from individual to individual.  I'm not
trying to be evasive on this, but from a societal perspective, religion works.
On the other hand, sometimes it is abused and misused, and many suffer, which
you know.  But the net result seems positive, this from the anthropological
perspective on human affairs.  You might call me a neo-Fruedian insofar as I 
think the masses can't get along without religion.  Not that generally they are 
incapable; they just don't, and for myriad reasons, but the main one seems to 
be the promise of immortality.  Very seductive, that immortality.  Therefore 
it seems that theologians are better equipped than the others you mention for 
dispensing answers to "who and why".  I suggest that this holds regardless of 
the "truth" in their answers to who and why simply because people believe.  
In the end, spiritual beliefs are just as "real" as scientific facts and 
explanation (CAUTION TO SOME: DO NOT TAKE THIS OUT OF CONTEXT).  

>Do you suggest that the "who and why" will forever be closed to scientific 
>investigation?

No.  In fact, I don't think it is closed now, at least for some individuals. 
Isn't there a group of theoretical physicists who argue that matter was 
created from nothing in a Big Bang singularity?  This approach might 
presuppose an absence of who and why, except that it seems it could be argued 
that something had to be responsible for nothing?  Maybe that something doesn't
have to be supernatural, maybe just mechanistic.  But that's a tough one for
people today to grasp.  In any case, theory without empirical data is not 
explanation, but then your question does not require data.  In other words, 
I agree that theorizing (within scientific parameters) is just as scientific 
as explaining.  So the answer is, who and why are not closed to scientists, but 
I sense that science in these realms is currently very inadequate.  Data will 
be necessary for improvement, and that seems a long way off, if ever.  Pretty 
convoluted here; I hope I've made sense.  

>It seems to me that 200 or so years ago, the question of the origin of life on
>earth was not considered open to scientific enquiry.

I agree generally.  But I prefer to put it this way - the *questions* of how, 
when, who and why were not open to inquiry.  During the Enlightenment, 
reason was reponsible for questioning the theological answers to how and when, 
and not, for the most part, who and why.  Science was thus born out of the 
naturalists' curiosity, eventually carting away the how and when while largely 
leaving behind the who and why.  The ignorant, the selfish, the intolerant, and
the arrogant, of course, still claim authority in all four domains.

>|>Rich Fox, Anthro, Usouthdakota

>Did like your discussion around AMHs, and I did figure out what AMH was from
>your original post :-)

Much obliged.  Funny how facts tend to muddle things, isn't it?  Well, I am
sure there are plenty of "scientific" creationist "rebuttals" out there 
somewhere, even if they have to be created from nothing.

[just for the record, again, AMH = anatomically modern humans] 

Best regards :-),

Rich Fox, Anthro, Usouthdakota

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84559
From: "David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: What part of "No" don't you understand?

On 26-Apr-93 in Re: What part of "No" don't..
user Steve Novak@advtech.uswe writes:
>> = eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>> = Steve Novak writes:
> 
>>>Because, of course, that possibility existed.  Meaning any student who
>>>really gave a shit could have a moment of silence on his/her own, which
>>>makes more sense than forcing those who DON'T want to participate to
>>>have to take part.  What other reason is there for an organized "moment
>>>of silence"?
> 
>>A "moment of silence" doesn't mean much unless *everyone*
>>participates.  Otherwise it's not silent, now is it?
> 
>The whole point is, maybe everyone _doesn't want_ to participate.
> 
>[...]
>>Blindly opposing everything with a flavor of religion in it is
>>utterly idiotic.
> 
>Blindly opposing everything with a flavor of religion in it that is
>supported by taxpayer money is the only way to keep christianity from
>becoming the official U.S. religion.
> 
>Not noticing that danger is utterly idiotic.
Please provide evidence that having a moment of silence for a student
who died tragically costs taxpayers money.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84560
From: neese@cerritos.edu
Subject: Hell

    In the King James Version of the Bible there are three differents words 
translated into the word "hell".  These Greek words have totally different 
meanings.  The words are Hades, Tartaros, and Gehenna.

    In bibical usage, the Greek word Hades is used only 11 times in the 
New Testament, and is roughly the equivalent to the Old Testament word Sheol...
meaning the grave or pit (compare Acts 2:27 with Psalms 16:10).  Hades may be 
likened to a hole in the ground. (In the Bible it has nothing to do with fire!)

    Most modern bibical translators admit that the use in the English word hell
to translate Hades and Sheol are an unfortunate and misleading practice.  

    Why?  Because when seeing the word "hell" many readers impute to it the 
traditional connotation of an ever-burning inferno, when this was never 
remotely intended in the Greek language or in Old English!

    In its true bibical usage Hades does indeed refer to the state or abode of 
the dead, but not in the sense of spirits walking around in some sort of 
"shadowy realm."  Hades is simply the abode we call the grave.  All dead go to 
this hell.

    The second "hell" of the Bible, Tartaros, is mentioned only once in 
scripture, 2 Pet.2:4; "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast 
them down to hell (TARTAROS), and delivered them into chains of darkness to be 
reserved unto judgment..."

    Following their rebellion to unseat God from His throne (Isa.14:12-14; 
Rev.12:4), the archangel Lucifer (now Satan) and a third of the created angels 
(now demons) were ejected from heaven (Luke 10:18).  They were cast down to 
Tartaros, a place or condition of restraint that God has imposed on the 
mutinous angels as they await ultimate judgment (Jude 6; 1 Cor.6:3).

    Tartaros, then, is a "hell" that applies only to evil, rebellious angels or
demons (It is interesting that the ancient Greeks used this word to describe 
the place in which Zeus confined the rebellious Titans).  Nowhere in the Bible 
is there any mention of men being put into this particular "hell".

    The the third word that is translated as "hell" in the Bible is Gehenna. It
comes from the Hebrew GAI HINNOM, meaning "valley of Hinniom."  Hinnom is a 
deep, narrow ravine located to the south and southwest of Jerusalem.

    In Old Testament times it was a place of abominable pagan rites, including 
infant sacrifice (It was there that the apostate kings Ahaz and Manasseh made 
their children "pass through the fire" to the god Molech.  The rites were 
specifically celebrated in Tophet, the "place of abhorrence," one of the chief 
groves in the valley).

    King Josiah of ancient Judah finally put an end to these abominations.  He 
defiled the valley, rendering it ceremonially unclean (2 Kings 23:10).  Later 
the valley became the cesspool and city dump of Jerusalem; a repository for 
sewage, refuse and animal carcasses.  The bodies of dispised criminals were 
also burned there along with the rubbish.  Fires burned continuously, feeding 
by a constant supply of garbage and refuse.

    Aceldama, the "field of blood", purchased with the money Judas received for
the betrayal of Christ (Matt.27:8) was also in part of the valley of Hinnom.

    So what does this valley called Gehenna have to do with hell?  

    In Rev.19:20: the Satan inspired political dictator and a miracle-working 
religious figure, the False Prophet, working with him will resist the 
re-establishment of the government of God by Jesus Christ at His Second Coming.
Their fate is revealed by the apostle John: "And the beast was taken, and with 
him the false prophet...  These both were cast alive into a lake of fire 
burning with brimstone."
    
    Where will this temporary lake of fire (this "hell") be?

    The prophet Isaiah wrote of this lake of fire prepared for the Beast: "For 
Tophet (in the valley of Hinnom) is ordained of old, yea for the king it is 
prepared, he hath made it deep and large, the pile thereof is fire and wood, 
the breath of the Lord, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it" (Isa.30:33).

    One thousand years later, Satan himself will be cast into this rekindled 
fiery lake where the Beast and False Prophet were cast! (Rev.20:10).

    But what of the wicked who have died over the millennia?  Does the Bible 
say that they are now suffering fiery punishment for their sins in a lake of 
fire?

    In the sequence of Rev.20 the incorrigibly wicked are resurrected to be 
thrown into the lake of fire after Satan is cast there! (Rev.20:15). What will 
become of these wicked?  Will they writhe in flames for eternity? 
 
    The wicked will be burned up from the intense heat of the coming Gehenna 
fire on the earth.  They wil be consumed, annihilated, destroyed!  This 
punishment will be everlasting (permanent and final).  The Bible calls it the 
"second death" (Rev.20:14; 21:8), from which there is no possibility of a 
further resurrection.

    The Bible does teach eternal punishment, but not eternal punishing.
                           
    The prophet Malachi provides a graphic description. "For, behold, the day 
cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do 
wickedly, shall be stubble, and the day that cometh shall burn them up..."
(4:1).  To the righteous, God says that the wicked shall be "ashes under the 
soles of your feet..."(Mal.4:3).

    Gehenna was a place of destruction and death, not a place of living 
torture!  Jesus was talking to Jews who understood all about this Gehenna or 
valley of Hinnom.  Utter destruction by fire was complete.  Nothing was left, 
but ashes!
 
    Every text in the Bible translated from this Greek word Gehenna means 
complete destruction, not living torture (not eternal life in torment)!  The 
Bible says, in Romans 6:23, "The wages of sin is death", not eternal life in 
torture.  The punishment revealed in the Bible is Death... the cessation of 
life. 
    
    Eternal life is the GIFT OF GOD!

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84562
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: cults (who keeps them going ?)

muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:

>In article <sbuckley.735337212@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>>>... bad thoughts these.
>>
>>  well it depends on whether you take the literal dictionary definition of
>>cult and say all faiths are cults, or if you take a more social-context
>>view of "cult which allows you to recognize mainstream religions as 
>>socially-acceptable and cults as groups that involve techniques of brain-
>>washing and all the other characteristics that define oppressive [probly not
>>the *best* word] cult behaviour.

>Yeah, but implicitly the social-context view provides a justification
>for the dictionary definition of a cult; those who follow the mainstream
>pretend while those in cults act based on the very same impulses.  Now
>who is to be taken seriously ? ;-).

  i'm confused.  could you restate what yer saying in "those who follow
the mainstream pretend" and "act based on the very same impulses"?



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84563
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: What RIGHT ?

joakimr@ifi.uio.no (Joakim Ruud) writes:


>Recently, I've asked myself a rather interesting question: What RIGHT does
>god have on our lives (always assuming there is a god, of course...!) ??

>In his infinite wisdom, he made it perfectly clear that if we don't live
>according to his rules, we will burn in hell. Well, with what RIGHT can god
>make that desicion? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that god creates every
>one of us (directly or indirectly, it doesn't matter.). What then happens, is
>that he first creates us, and then turns us lose. Well, I didn't ask to be
>created. 

  i guess i ought not conclude from this, then, that since you didn't ask to
be created, you don't care if you go to hell.  :)

>Let's make an analogue. If a scientist creates a unique living creature (which
>has happened, it was even patented...!!!), does he then have the right to
>expect it to behave in a certain matter, or die...?

>Who is god to impose its rules on us ? Who can tell if god is REALLY so
>righteous as god likes us to believe? Are all christians a flock of sheep,
>unable to do otherwise that follow the rest? 

  i don't consider myself an unthinking sheep.  the bible says god created
us to be in communion and obedience to him.  the first and only rule was
to not eat of a certain tree, or else the punishment is distance from him
and physical death.  god's intention in creating us is to have a relationship
with us.  the bible documents god's attempts to have that relationship
culminating in the person of jesus to bear the consequences of all sin so
that all who accept him can have a relationship with god again: the purpose
of creation.

  who is god to impose rules on us?  he's god and he created us.  i suppose
he has a right based on who he is.  above you mention "In his infinite
wisdom", and that's what i'd say god exemplifies.  but if you were being
sarcastic up there, then this whole discussion is irrelevant, eh?  and if
we believe god is infinitely wise, that belief should inform our relationship
with him.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84564
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Religion and marriage

pboxrud@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul D Boxrud) writes:

>     I wasn't sure if this was the right newsgroup to post this to, but I guess
>the misc is there for a reason.  Here goes...  I am getting married in June to 
>a devout (Wisconsin Synod) Lutheran.  I would classify myself as a strong 
>agnostic/weak athiest.  This has been a a subject of many discussions between
>us and is really our only real obstacle.  We don't have any real difficulties 
>with the religious differences yet, but I expect they will pop up when we have 
>children.  I have agreed to raise the
>children "nominally" Lutheran.  That is, Lutheran traditions, but trying to
>keep an open mind.  I am not sure if this is even possible though.  I feel that
>that the worst quality of being devoutly religous is the lack of an open mind.

  just a point, i suppose, if open mind means believing anything can be true
or we can't for sure know what is definitely true, i'm happy to not be open
minded.  if, however, open mindedness means being respectful and tolerant
towards other beliefs, respecting the rights and intelligence and wisdom
of people of other beliefs and giving equal time to alternative ideas, i
try my very best to be open minded.  just a thot in passing.... :)

>     Anyway, I guess I'll get on with my question.  Is anyone in the same 
>situation and can give some suggestions as to how to deal with this?  We've 
>taken the attitude so far of just talking about it a lot and not letting 
>anything get bottled up inside.  Sometimes I get the feeling we're making this 
>much bigger than it actually is.  Any comments would be greatly appreciated.  
>Also, please e-mail responses since I don't get a chance to read this group
>often.  :-(

  not being married, i cannot say too much to you, but from my perspective
having mutually exclusive faiths would be a big enough roadblock for me in
considering marrying someone.  making it much bigger than it is?  i suppose
that depends on how serious each of you is in your beliefs.  lukewarm atheists
and christians for whom religion is of nominal importance probly would feel
the issue isn't very big.  i suppose the more important your beliefs are to
each of you, the more important the issue is.

>Paul

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84565
From: bakerj@gtephx.UUCP (Jon Baker)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <1993Apr23.111105.7703@ifi.uio.no>, joakimr@ifi.uio.no (Joakim Ruud) writes:
> In article <C5u5nv.JGs@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> > In <C5sqyA.F7v@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tbrent@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:
> > |Probably not.  But then, I don't pack heavy weaponry with intent to use it.
> > Please cite your evidence that he was intending to use it.
> Well, he would be pretty stupid not to, I mean what's the use of spending
> thousands of $$ on something you won't use? (sorry if I'm stepping on the toes
> of any members of some "rifle-association" here...). Rifles bought for
> hunting, I can understand, rifles bought for killing people, or for "just
> keeping" I cannot.
> Just for the record, I am myself a collector of medieval armour & weaponry,
> and I don't just have it hanging around, I use it... (obviously, only in
> fencing practice with friends...)

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?

J.Baker.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84568
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Why did they behave as they did (Waco--reading suggestion)

In article <1rc1f3INN7rl@emx.cc.utexas.edu> 
bill@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Bill Jefferys) writes:
>If you would like to understand better the sort of behavior
>that we saw in connection with the Waco tragedy, I'd strongly
>recommend reading _When Prophecy Fails_, by Leon Festinger,
>Henry Riecken, and Stanley Schachter (available as a Harper
>Torchbook). It goes a long way towards explaining how a 
>belief system can be so strong as to withstand even overwhelming
>disconfirmatory evidence. At least, read the first chapter.
>Interestingly, just as the Branch Davidians had roots in the
>Seventh-Day Adventist movement, the SDAs themselves had their
>roots in the Millerite movement of the first half of the 19th
>century--a movement that expected the end of the world in 1843,
>was disappointed when it did not take place, and wound up as
>a church.

That's also how Christianity came to be. The immediate return of Jesus
was expected; when it didn't happen, they formed their own church.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84569
From: <KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Info about New Age!


In article <1993Apr26.231845.13843@digi.lonestar.org>
qpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)

>The danger of anti-cult groups is that while they can expose a lot of
>deception, they can also become inquisitors.  As one who agrees with
>much of what they say, I am also on the receiving end, and it makes me
>realize the importance of respecting the freedom of belief of every
>individual and also of not jumping to conclusions and making accusations
>based on a priori assumptions about an individual or group.

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.

>On the other hand, the Watchman Fellowship does a good service in
>exposing deceptive practices that are far too common among the
>groups they monitor.

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

Jack Carroll

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
document_id: 84570
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: I'll see your demand and raise you... (was Re: After 2000 years etc)

In article <C64H4w.BFH@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> 
bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>Keith M. Ryan (kmr4@po.CWRU.edu) wrote:
>: [34mAnd now . . . [35mDeep Thoughts[0m
>: 	[32mby Jack Handey.[0m
>: [36mIf you go parachuting, and your parachute doesn't open, and your
>: friends are all watching you fall, I think a funny gag would be
>: to pretend you were swimming.[0m
>Keith, 
>As you must know by now there are no Escape Sequences here (ANSI or
>otherwise). Once you enter here, your terminal beomes dumb. There's
>something significant about all this ...

You are in the village. Many happy returns! Be seeing you!

[your ways and means get reign of the tek!]

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82757
From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Religion and homosexuality

> magarret@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (COMPUTER DUDETTE) writes:

>I just recently realized that I am bisexual, and also just recently returned to
>religion, and have a good friend who has pointed out to me that homosexuality
>is a sin in the bible.  Well, I don't see how it could be considered a sin,

First of all as far as I know, only male homosexuality is explicitly
mentioned in the bibles, so you're off the hook there, I think. In
any event, there are *plenty* of people in many denominations who
do not consider a person's sexual identification of gay/lesbian/bisexual
as an "immoral lifestyle choice"

>Also, I have always been a somewhat liberal feminist, and am pro-choice, and it
>seems that being pro-choice and being religious don't mix either.  I am told

This is another misconception. You are not being told the whole story.

My former minister is a lesbian, and I know personally and
professionally several openly gay and lesbian ministers. I am
a Unitarian-Universalist and like most others in my denomination,
am pro-choice. You needn't go looking to the Unitarian Universalists
(which is a liberal religion) for acceptance of your sexual
identification and pro-choice views, however; there are many of us
who believe in spirituality AND freedom of conscience.

Good Luck on your journey!

-- 
Daniel O'Connell
Meadville/Lombard Theological School
University of Chicago Divinity School
<dsoconne@uchicago.edu>

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82758
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: 5 Apr 93   God's Promise in Psalm 85: 8

In article <C50KDr.Duz@acsu.buffalo.edu> 
psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>	I will hear what God the LORD will speak:
>	for he will speak peace
>	unto his people, and to his saints:
>	but let them not turn again to folly.

Psalm85(JPS): For the leader. Of the Korahites. A psalm. O LORD, You
will favor Your land, restore Jacob's fortune; You will forgive Your
people's iniquity, pardon all their sins; Selah; You will withdraw all Your
anger, turn away from Your rage. Turn again, O God, our helper, revoke
Your displeasure with us. Will you be angry with us forever, prolong
Your wrath for all generations? Surely You will revive us again, so that
Your people may rejoice in You. Show us, O LORD, Your faithfulness;
grant us Your deliverance. Let me hear what God, the LORD, will speak;
He will promise well-being to His people, His faithful ones; may they
not turn to folly. His help is very near those who fear Him, to make His
glory dwell in our land. Faithfulness and truth meet; justice and
well-being kiss. Truth springs up from the earth; justice looks down
from heaven. The LORD also bestows His bounty; our land yields its
produce. Justice goes before Him as He sets out on His way.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82759
From: "David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Spreading Christianity (Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor)

   Not to be too snide about it, but I think this Christianity must
   be a very convenient religion, very maliable and suitable for
   any occassion since it seems one can take it any way one wants
   to go with it and follow whichever bits one pleases and
   reinterpret the bits that don't match with one's desires.  It
   is, in fact, so convenient that, were I capable of believing
   in a god, I might consider going for some brand of Christianity.
   The only difficulty left then, of course, is picking which sect
   to join.  There are just so many.
    
   Dean Kaflowitz

Yes, Christianity is convenient.  Following the teachings of Jesus
Christ and the Ten Commandments is convenient.  Trying to love in a
hateful world is convenient.  Turning the other cheek is convenient.  So
convenient that it is burdensome at times.

Dave.
 

=============================================================
--There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke. (Bob Dylan)
--Never let school interfere with your education.  (Mark Twain)
--Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated.  (Mark Twain)
--TACT is getting your point across without stabbing someone with it.
--Subtlety is saying what you mean, then getting out of the way before
it is understood.
--"If you were happy every day of your life you wouldn't be a human
being, you'd be a game show host." (taken from the movie "Heathers.")

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82760
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Subject: Re: Food For Thought On Tyre

af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes:
>PPS...Am I giving you too many clues?

Too many clues, not enough substance.  You ask a lot of
good questions, though, but they are questions *you* should
be worried about, not me.  I'm not the inerrantist here.

Let me know when you are ready to get serious.

dj

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82763
From: boylan@sltg04.ljo.dec.com (Steve Boylan)
Subject: Re: Christian Daemons? [Biblical Demons, the update]


In article <1993Apr1.024850.20111@sradzy.uucp>, radzy@sradzy.uucp
(T.O. Radzykewycz) writes:

> >>swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim) writes:
> >>>  666, the file permission of the beast.
> 
> >radzy@sradzy.uucp (T.O. Radzykewycz) writes:
> >> Sorry, but the file permission of the beast is 600.
> >> 
> >> And the file permission of the home directory of the
> >> beast is 700.
> 
> boylan@sltg04.ljo.dec.com (Steve Boylan) writes:
> >Hey, radzy, it must depend on your system's access policy.
> >I get:
> >	$ ls -lg /usr/users
> >	total 3
> >	drwxrwxrwx 22 beast    system       1536 Jan 01  1970 beast
> >	drwxr-x--x 32 boylan   users        2048 Mar 31 09:08 boylan
> >	drwxr-xr-x  2 guest    users         512 Sep 18  1992 guest
> >	$ su
> >	Password:
> >	root $ su beast
> >	beast $ umask
> >	111
> >	beast $ ^D
> >	root $ ^D
> >	$ 
> 
> Just a minute....
> 
> 	$ grep beast /etc/passwd
> 	beast:k5tUk76RAUogQ:497:0:Not Walt Disney!:/usr/users/beast:
> 	$ mv /usr/users/beast/.profile /usr/users/beast/.profile,
> 	$ echo umask 077 >> /usr/users/beast/.profile
> 	$ cat > /usr/users/beast/.profile
> 	chmod 700 /usr/users/beast
> 	mv .mailrc .mailrc,
> 	echo beast logged in | mail radzy%sradzy@jack.sns.com
> 	mv .mailrc, .mailrc
> 	mv /usr/users/beast/.profile, /usr/users/beast/.profile
> 	^D
> 	$ chmod 777 /usr/users/beast/.profile
> 	$ cat /usr/users/beast/.profile, >> /usr/users/beast/.profile
> 
> <waits a while, finally gets mail.>
> 
> I think you made a mistake.  Check it again.
> 

I see . . . you're not running Ultrix!

	:-)

				- - Steve


--
Don't miss the 49th New England Folk Festival,
April 23-25, 1993 in Natick, Massachusetts!

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82766
Subject: CHRISTIAN DEVIL REVEALED!
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)

>For a while I was puzzled by the the concept of Adam and Eve coming to
>know good and evil.  This is how I resolved it.  Within God's universe
>each action evokes an equal and opposite reaction.  There can be no good
>without evil as an opposite.  So the issue is not what you do but to whom
>you give your allegiance.  That is why, even in this sinful state, when we
>perform an evil act while we are submitted to God He does not place that
>sinful act to our account (Rom 4:8) In the same vein you can perform all 
>the good deeds in the book, if your life is not under God's control you are 
>still sinning (see Rom 14:23).

Now, take a good look at at, an tell me man, there is no Christian
Devil? There is, is real, is a virus, a meme, infecting and possessing
the good people and keep 'em from becoming human beings with emphasis on
the being! Is not a matter of good people an evil people, is all good
people see, but some good people vexed of the Christian Devil. An it
can't be burn out or lynch out or rape out. Only wise up let I rise up.
Christian Devil is real man, how else can you explain five hundred years
of history, even more? Can only be explained by Christians invoke
Christian Devil.

you keep on knocking but you can't come in, i got to understand you've
been living in sin, but walk right in and sit right down, i'll keep
on loving you, i'll play the clown, but bend down low, let i tell you
what i know yah

i've been 'buked brothers and i've been stoned, woe, woe, woe, now i'm
hung by a tree in the the ganging on a few, woe, woe, woe, it doesn't
matter who the man is who lives the life he loves, it doesn't matter
what the man does or the honest life he loves, i want somewhere, i want
somewhere, hallelujah, hallelujah, somewhere to lay my head, woe is me

only ska beat in 'eaven man

stiff necked fools, you think you're cool, to deny me for simplicity, yes
you have gone, for so long with your love for vanity now, yes you have
got the wrong interpretation mixed up with vain imagination, so take jah
sun and jah moon and jah rain and jah stars, and forever yes erase your
fantasy, yeah, the lips of the righteous teach many, but fools die for
want of wisdom, the rich man's wealth is in his city, the righteous
wealth is in his holy place, so take jah sun and jah moon and jah rain
and jah stars, and forever yes erase your fantasy, destruction of the
poor is in their poverty, destruction of the soul is vanity, yeah, but i
don't want to rule ya, i don't want to fool ya, i don't want to school
ya, things you, you might never know about, yes you have got the wrong
interpretation mixed up with vain, vain imagination, stiff necked fools,
you think you're cool, to deny me for, oh simplicity

love to see, when yah move in the rhythm, love to see when you're
dancing from within, it gives great joy to feel such sweet togetherness,
everyone's doing and they're doing their best, it remind i of the days
in jericho, when we trodden down jericho wall, these are the days when
we'll trod true babylon, gonna trod until babylon fall

then I saw the angel with the seven seals saying, babylon throne going down

we weeping and we wailing tonight

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82767
Subject: Re: "Imaginary" Friends - Dragons & Mice
From: martini@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Sheilagh M.B.E. O'Hare)

He sounds really cute, Morte!  Kinds like _pete's dragon_, maybe smaller,
maybe a different species.. winge'd?  (shakespear wing-ED)

I've always hat a horde of mice to turn to for fun & sort of that kind of
mouse in Cinderella (walt disney).  I grew up sort of as an only child,
part time.. my siblings were 10-8-6 years older than me, so i was pretty
commonly a different sort of charater in their games (read: non speaking
hot cocoa-goffer, stand in (still silent) bad guy/good guy/etc), so my
mice were playmates, more than advisors.

Could curt, or whomever has a good list of books please post such list,
in all sorts of fields, like jungian, condensed buddist/etc philosophies,
multiple personailty disorders, or good fiction that has well worked
imaginary friends?

thanks,
sheilagh, wanting a bunch of library catalouge topics to search thru

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82771
From: mayne@pipe.cs.fsu.edu (William Mayne)
Subject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions

In article <7912@blue.cis.pitt.edu> joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
>[Many good points deleted. Anyone who missed it should see the original.]
>Lists like this that just toss a bunch of quotes together to
>make a bible verse salad just don't cut it.  Those of us who
>want to argue against inerrancy should find this sort of thing
>as embarassing as the fundies should find Josh McDowell.

True, except that I've known few fundies who had enough sense to
be embarrassed by Josh McDowell.

(Okay, maybe a cheap shot. But I'm in that kind of mood.)

Bill Mayne


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82772
From: af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.)
Subject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions


Someone posted a list of x number of alleged Bible contradictions.  As Joslin
said, most people do value quantity over quality.  Dave Butler posted some good
quality alleged contradictions that are taking a long time to properly exegete.

If you want a good list (quantity) - _When Critics Ask, A Popular Handbook On
Bible Difficulties_ by Dr. Norman Geisler deals with over 800 alleged contradictions.

Frank
-- 
"If one wished to contend with Him, he could not answer Him one time out
 of a thousand."  JOB 9:3

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82774
From: Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Subject: David Koresh - Messianic Cult???

Hello.


I just read my first newspaper in a while and noticed an article on a
'messianic cult' leader named 'David Koresh'.

I'd like to know more about this and what is going on with them.

Please email me as I don't normally read this newsgroup.  Thanks.


Thyagi@HouseofKaos.Abyss.com

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82775
From: lovall@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Daniel L. Lovall)
Subject: Re: Cannibalism was Albert Sabin

In article <zxmkr08.733955549@studserv> zxmkr08@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (C
ornelius Krasel) writes:
>In <f1q4yUc@quack.kfu.com> pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>
>>In article <1pk2d0$7q1@access.digex.net>
>>huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston) writes:
>>>In article <f1n#0EP@quack.kfu.com> pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes
:
>>>}Do you have any examples of ritual cannibalism, particulary amongst the
>>>}primates?
>>>Why the "ritual" qualifier?
>
>>I was thinking of instances were a particular food or foods or drinks
>>are used to symbolize or ritualize cannibalism. Do you know of any human
>>cultures that have this type of mythology? For example, where one might
>>eat a food as representative of the body of a god, thus ritualized
>>cannibalism in the absence of the original.
>
>I know of ritual cannibalism among tribes in Papua-Neuguinea (?).
>They used to eat the brain of killed opponents. Sometimes these brains
>contained infectious agents which lead to a disease called "Kuru".
>Since cannibalism was banished by the government, the number of Kuru
>cases has dropped sharply.
>
Oh, yeah?  Well---*I* know of ....

Anyways, cannibalism is much more commmon than those who feel that it is wrong
(and then point out that the fact that western civilisation doesn't do it is
PROOF positive that we are more advanced) would have us believe.  Cannibalism
is often used in funeral ceremonies as a way of keeping the deceased loved one
alive.  Many other cultures (including many American Indian cultures) eat/ate
the flesh of slain enemies, often as a way of showing respect for the valor of
the departed.  Hearts are often favored for this, as it contains the spirit.

Have you ever read or seen "Alive", which is the story of the Argentinian boys
soccer team that crashed in the Andes and then ate the bodies of those who died
in order to survive?  Finger lickin good.  How about the Twighlight Zone
episode "To Serve Man"?

If you want more info on this, a good place to start is on sci.anthropology

Now send me $20 and eat my flesh,

Dan
lovall@physics.purdue.edu





Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82776
From: ST002649@brownvm.brown.edu (Alex Gottschalk)
Subject: Re: 666, THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST, VIEWER DISCR

In article <C4J571.K3D@rice.edu>, swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
said:
>Posted on 27 Mar 1993 at 00:16:13 by Michael Parks Swaim
>In article <C4HIM1.BrF@cs.psu.edu> jdh@math.psu.edu (Jeremy D Hall) writes:
>>Well, I *WILL* do the math, and I get:  (6^6)^6=2,189,739,336
>>
>>This mean anything to anyone?  :^)

5*1=5 thus fitting in neatly with something else.
_________________________________________________________________________
...and everything under the sun is in tune...     "What was Jabba the 
nd the sun is eclipsed by the moon."               Hut smoking?"      
                           --Pink Floyd                   --Alex      
                             "Eclipse"                      curious   
______________________________________________________________________

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82777
From: Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Subject: ZOROASTRIANISM - SAN JOSE - (Merc News Article)

ZOROASTRIANISM
SAN JOSE, CA, USA
Monday April 5, 1993
San Jose Mercury News, Page 1
     [Reproduced without permission]

_3,700-year tradition still glows - 
           'Assimilation in U.S. threatens ancient Zoroastrian religion'_

By Jeanne Huber, Mercury News Staff Writer

   HIGH ON A HILLSIDE above San Jose, flames leap up 24 hours a day from a
gleaming brass urn in a temple - one of only four in the United States -
dedicated to one of the world's most ancient religions.

   With the flames go the prayers of about 1,200 Bay Area Zoroastrians that
their faith will survive this land.

   "There is a fear - a real fear, too," said Silloo Tarapore of Lafayette.
"We have one generation to do it or to die."

   Many immigrant groups struggle to maintain an identity in a strange land.
But for Zoroastrians, it is an especially poignant concern.

   Their religion has been around for perhaps 3,700 years, a heritage so deep
it scarcely seems comprehensible in a state where "historical sites" are
sometimes less than 100 years old.  It was the religion of the great Persian
Empire under kings Cyrus and Darius.  And tradition says that when Christ
was born about 500 years later, he was honored by a visit from three
Zoroastrian priests, the Magi.  Scholars say many key beliefs of Christians,
Jews and Muslims can be traced to the teachings of Zoroaster, the
Zoroastrian prophet.

   Yet, with only about 150,000 Zoroastrians in the entire world, they are 
a miniscule minority in every country in which they live.  Survival as a
people is very much on their minds.

   Ironically, local Zoroastrians fear that the almost unlimited tolerance
of the United States may do what hundreds of years of persecution followed
by nearly 1,000 years of benign religious segregation could not do: cause
their young people to stop thinking of themselves as Zoroastrians.

   Zoroastrians do not believe theirs is the only right religion, and they
actually shun the notion of trying to win converts.  So if their children
become totally assimilated, they say, it's their children - rather than
the world at large - who will be the losers.

   "It's important to have an identity," said Maneck Bhujwaia of San Jose,
a leader among Zoroastrians who came here from India.  "It's important
for everybody - Irish, Scottish, Americans.  It gives meaning to life.
You don't have to depend on the majority community to give you respect.
You can fall back on your own identity."

   For Zoroastrians, there's much to be proud of.

   Their prophet, Zoroaster, seeking to make sense of a culture in which
animal sacrifice to multiple gods was common, preached that there was
only one god, a good one.  Zoroastrians call their god Ahura Mazda, which
translates as Lord of Wisdom and Light.

_Good vs. evil_

   Zoroaster saw life as a constant struggle between good and evil, with
the good eventually winning.  Men and women could join in the battle for
good, he said, and he warned that they would inevitably suffer consequences
such as shame and sorrow if they did wrong.  He preached honesty, charity,
kindness to animals, respect for the environment, hard work, equality of
men and women - basic virtues preached by prophets of many religions.

   But Zoroaster was perhaps unusual in that he told his followers not to
follow him blindly.  He demanded they think for themselves.  In fact,
Joseph Campbell, the famous scholar of the history and meaning of myths,
traced the Western emphasis on individual thought to the Zoroastrians.

   Zoroastrians have many words for thought.  Their motto, leaded into a
stained glass window over the sacred fire at the temple on the slopes of
Mount Hamilton, is "Good thoughts, good words, good deeds."

   So it's not surprising that Zoroastrians value education highly.  In India,
where a contingent of Zoroastrians arrived in the ninth century to escape
persecution by Muslims in Iran, Zoroastrians claim 100 percent literacy;
the overall statistic in India is just 60 percent.

   About half of the Bay Area Zoroastrian community came here from India
and Pakistan, mostly to study at universities.  The other half fled from
Iran after the 1979 revolution made that a fundamentalist Islamic state
where others had no rights.

   Local Zoroastrians point with pride to ways their emphasis on "good
deeds" has improved life in every country they inhabit.  In San Jose,
the recent restoration of the Hotel Sainte Clarie came about because
Manou Mobedshahi, a San Francisco-based hotelier, passed the boarded-up
downtown landmark on his way to and from the temple.  At the temple's
dedication, the chief guest of honor was the mother of Zubin Mehta, the
Zoroastrian conductor of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra.

   The temple exists because of another good deed: the decision by an
Iranian emigre, the late Arbab Rustom Guiv, to buy land for six temples
in North America.  Besides the 10-acre site off Crothers Road on Mount
Hamilton, he paid for land in Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Toronto,
and Vancouver.  Until his gifts, there were no Zoroastrian temples on
this continent.

   Local Zoroastrians raised money to build the actual temple, and the
property already had a large house that they have converted to a
community center.

   The temple, dedicated a year ago on the birthday of the prophet 
Zoroaster, is a simple structure with gleaming white walls, vaulted 
ceilings and oak floors, partially covered with huge Oriental carpets.

   Its central feature is the fire, set in the middle of a partly-glassed-
in area at the center of the building.  Although Zoroastrians are 
sometimes called "fire worshippers," they actually consider fire just 
a symbol of God.  "It helps us concentrate, just like Christians use the 
cross and Muslims use the Holy Book," Bhujwala said.

   The biggest celebration of the years occurs in early spring.  For all
Iranians, including Zoroastrians, the New Year begins on the first day of
the season because of its symbolism as the start of new life.  With
Zoroaster's birthday just six days later, the combination of religious
and secular holidays creates something on par with what most of the
United States celebrates between Christmas and Jan. 1.

  For this year's celebration of the prophet's birthday, about 500 people
came to worship and revel.

   "The good things in life are not forbidden," Esfandiar Anoushiravani,
a leader of the Iranian members, had said beforehand, and what followed
proved him right.

   Inside the temple, worshipers filled every chair and sat or stood
around the edges of the room as about a half-dozen priests chanted
thanksgiving prayers around a table laden with braziers of smoking
sandalwood, glasses of milk and water, and a tray heaped with dried fruit
and nuts.

   Kids crowded around, grabbing handfuls of the treats.  "People eat the
fruit," Tarapore said.  "It's a way to participate in the ceremony."

_Santa Claus, sort of_

   The gathering even had a Santa Claus, Iranian style.  With flowing white
hair and a bag of gifts for the children, this Amownaroz wore green
symbolic of spring) and red.

   He was ushed in by a sort of spring clown, Hajefyrouz, who danced and
played a tambourine.

   The Zoroastrians from India were charmed.  "This is all new for us, too,"
one told a visitor who asked what was going on.

   A visitor, John A. Sabanovich of Folsom, said he became intrigued with
the religion years ago while on business trips to Iran.  Zoroastrians have
no procedure for accepting converts - a result, some say, of their
centuries of persecution in Iran followed by their promise to the Hindu
king who allowed them into India that they would not interfere with his
people's religion.

   But that does not stop Sabavich from joining in the celebrations at the
San Jose temple whenever he can.

   "When I first heard about this religion," he said, "I thought, my God,
this is what a religion should be.  They think for themselves and do good.

   "People who don't have a tradition, something to lean on, what's the
difference with the lower animals?"

------------------------------------------------ end of article ---- 

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82778
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions

joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
>
>I'm curious to know what purpose people think these lists serve.
>Lists like this seem to value quantity over quality, an "argument
>from article length."  And the list you have here is of poorer
>quality than most.

I agree, which is why I've asked for help with it.

The reason I'm working on this list is because I've recently had one
too many Christians tell me "the Bible contains no contradictions
whatsoever."  They believe that it's true, and that it describes
reality perfectly, and even predicts history before it happens.

Before I can carry on any sort of meaningful conversation with these
people, I've got to SHOW them, with concrete evidence, that the Bible
is not nearly as airtight as they thought.  I hope to do that with
this list.

Specifically: when I bring up the fact that Genesis contains two
contradictory creation stories, I usually get blank stares or flat
denials.  I've never had a fundamentalist acknowledge that there are
indeed two different accounts of creation.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82779
From: moskowit@panix.com (Len Moskowitz)
Subject: Re: Bhagavad-Gita 2.32

Kalki Dasa writes:

>These topics are all discussed in the Vedas. In fact, the original
>knowledge of all these topics comes from the Vedas. Therefore, they are
>not "newage" at all. They are rather old by any standards. Nor is the
>popularity they are currently experiencing something new. One would
>think that the Vedas would be very popular among "newagers," since all
>the things you mention above are thoroughly described in them.

Isn't that interesting?!  In the Jewish tradition you are incredibly
wrong!  They originate in the Torah and with Jewish ancestors,
specifically the Patriarch Abraham (z"l).  That knowledge was sent East
to India and China when Abraham gave "gifts" (the commentators to Jewish
scripture say this was the knowledge of the occult arts) to all the rest
of his children when he sent them away to the East.  This assured that
Isaac only, who remained with Abraham, would inherit his most important
spiritual gifts, what eventually became Judaism.

So you see, other religions can have very parochial views too.  By the
Jewish view, you are very mistaken, your scripture are not scripture,
your gods are not gods, your practices a jumble of errors that lead
people to idol worship and away from God.  That doesn't stop us from
respecting you to the extent of not trying to convert you or proselytize
you and being willing to dialog in a respectful manner.  We're content
to let you live the way you care to live as long as you leave us be.  We
are happy to co-exist as long as you give us the same right.

But your incredible rudeness and violent nature seems to preclude that.
Too bad.  Is this typical of your religion?

>However, there is one difference between the "newage" practitioner and
>the actual follower of the Vedic teachings: the typical "newager"
>desires to acquire all the material powers and opulences mentioned in
>the Vedas, without referring to their source, the Lord. He wants the
>kingdom of God without God. He wants personal power without the
>responsibility of acknowledging its source, without the Person from Whom
>that power comes. In other words, he is just plain selfish. 

You are a most presumptuous fellow!  How dare you presume that the
"typical" New Ager doesn't acknowledge God and is selfish.  What trite,
self-righteous, ego-ful garbage!  There are Buddhists, Christians, Jews,
and those of many other religions here on this newsgroups for whom your
words are simple slander.

> ...The Vedic
>follower, on the other hand, knows that no matter what one desires, one
>must worship God. And the Vedas give a complete description of exactly
>who is God, so that there can be no mistake in His identification. For
>this reason the parts of the Vedas that deal directly with the
>Personality of Godhead are not very popular among "newagers," and anyone
>who presents the complete Vedas as they are is branded as an
>"evangelist" (as if there is something wrong with that) even though he
>is simply presenting the unadulterated Vedic teachings.

Of course, from the Jewish perspective you are incredibly wrong.  We'd
say that there is no "godhead" -- just created beings who may be
enjoying a good laugh at your expense.

>A thief takes from others and says "this is mine." A "newager" takes
>from God and says "this is mine." Such a false mystic must be careful to
>avoid coming in contact with the real owner of the things he has stolen.
>Consequently, he invents an explanation for these things that
>conveniently omits the identity of their owner, the Lord. In other
>words, he lies about where he got them.

So not only are we selfish, we are also thieves and liars!  And you
expect any of us to pay attention to you and your "religion?"  Why not
call us more name?   Maybe then we'll all convert in gratefullness!

>However, the Lord is very merciful, and He sends His servants to remind
>the "newager" of his own identity as spirit soul, the eternal servant of
>God. Hence, although unwanted, the "evangelist" continues to broadcast
>the complete truth.

You delude yourself.

-- 
Len Moskowitz
moskowit@panix.com

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82781
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality

In article <1993Apr03.044958.15500@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
>understand what the words mean.  Someone who inflicts pain on themselves
>because they enjoy it is a masochist.
>
>And, no:  there is nothing wrong with it.  You may think it's gross or
>bizarre (and I might agree with you here), but my/your disgust is not equal 
>to it being morally wrong.

/(hudson)
/If someone inflicts pain on themselves, whether they enjoy it or not, they
/are hurting themselves.  They may be permanently damaging their body.

That is true.  It is also none of your business.  

Some people may also reason that by reading the bible and being a Xtian
you are permanently damaging your brain.  By your logic, it would be OK
for them to come into your home, take away your bible, and send you off
to "re-education camps" to save your mind from ruin.  Are you ready for
that?  





/(hudson)
/And why is there nothing wrong with it?  Because you say so?  Who gave you
/the authority to say that, and set the standard for morality?

Why?

Because: 
I am a living, thinking person able to make choices for myself.
I do not "need" you to show me what you think is the way; I have observed
too many errors in your thinking already to trust you to make up the
rules for me.

Because:
I set the standard for my *own* morality, and I permit you to do 
the same for yourself.  I also do not try to force you to accept my rules.

Because:
Simply because you don't like what other people are doing doesn't give you
the right to stop it, Hudson.  We are all aware that you would like for 
everyone to be like you.  However, it is obnoxious, arrogant thinking like 
yours, the "I-know-I'm-morally-right-so-I-can-force-it-on-you" bullshit 
that has brought us religious wars, pogroms against Jews, gay-bashing,
and other atrocities by other people who, like you, "knew" they were
morally right.





(me)
>What is it with you, Hudson?  You think you know better than other people,
>so you want to be able to tell them what they can and cannot do to 
>themselves?  Who died and made you God?  How come I can't do the same
>thing?  

/(hudson)
/Aren't you?  Aren't you indicating that I should not tell other people what
to do?  Aren't you telling me it is wrong for me to do that? 

It is not a moral standard that I am presenting you with, Hudson.  It is
a key to getting along in life with other people.  It is also a point of
respect:  I trust other people to be intelligent enough to make their
own choices, and I expect the same to be returned.  You, on the other
hand, do not trust them, and want to make the choice for them--whether
they like it or not.

It is also a way to avoid an inconsistency:  if you believe that you have 
the right to set moral standards for others and interfere in their lives, 
then you must, by logic, admit that other people have the same right of 
interference in your life.  
(Yes, I know; you will say that your religion is correct and tells you that
only agents acting in behalf of your religion have the right of interference.
However, other people will say that you have misinterpreted the Word of
God and that *they* are the actual true believers, and that you are
acting on your own authority.  And so it goes).





(hudson)
/Who gave
/you the authority to set such a moral standard for me to tell me that I 
/cannot set a moral standard for others?


You can set all the standards that you want, actually.  But don't be surprised
if people don't follow you like rats after the Pied Piper.  

At the most basic form, I am not going to LET you tell me what to do;
and if necessary, I will beat you to a bloody pulp before I let you actually
interfere in my life.

Now, at a more humane level than that, I recognize that all people are
sentient beings possessed of intelligence and capable of reason.  I also
recognize that they, like I, appreciate being treated with respect and
allowed to make their own decisions.  


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82782
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality


(hudson)
>/These people hurt their own bodies.  Why can't they hurt other peoples bodies
>/too?  
>
(me)
>Because other people might not *want* to be hurt, Hudson.  And hurting
>them against their will is a violation of choice.

/(hudson)
/So. Why is someone elses will such a big deal if morality is all relative.


I don't believe I ever said that morality was all relative.

What I said was that I can make my mind up on my own, thank you, and that 
you don't have the right to tell others what to think.

I think that you will find that in most moral systems, there is 
a respect for human life and the dignity of the person.  It is all the
stuff besides these points that forms the core of the disagreement between 
primitive moral absolutists like yourself and the rest of us.



/(hudson)
/Maybe (the insane lover of pain might reason) if other people experienced
/enough pain, they might learn to enjoy it, too.  

Fine.  There is still the clinical definition of crazy.  And this also
involves a violation of free will, because the insane lover of your
little example would be inflicting pain on a non-willing subject.

Try again.




(hudson)
>/You have to have other premises to derive this.  
>
(me)
>No, you don't.  That is a patently false statement.

/(hudson)
/You have to have some sort of premise about choice or self-awareness.


No, you do not.  I demonstrated to you the example of the football
team which doesn't require premises about freedom of choice or 
sentience/self-awareness.  

As I said, you are wrong, and you don't seem to know much about moral 
systems.  If I were you, I would take David Bold's suggestion and do some 
reading on the subject before you try preaching about it.



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82783
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality


/(hudson)
/Yes you do.  Who is to say that it is immoral for onesself to experience
/pain or to be hurt in some other way.  Maybe unpleasant, but that doesn't
/say anything about morality.

It violates free will, Hudson.



(me)
>You can derive the immorality of hurting someone else entirely from selfish
>motives.  I can say, for example, that it is wrong to hurt other people
>because that makes them less productive members of society.

/(hudson)
/Why is making someone a less productive member of society immoral?

Hudson, you are screwing up again.  Morality does not (I say again, DOES
NOT) define only "right and wrong".  It also defines "acceptable social
behavior", without any overtones of good and evil.  Picking up your trash
is not really a right/wrong moral issue in the eternal sense of Good
and Evil.  Yet it is moral in the sense that it is acceptable social
behavior".  

Your definition of the word "morality" is what is causing you to trip over 
yourself here.




/(me)
/And since
/>I, selfish being that I am, want to maximize my gains from society, I will
/>not do anything to another member of society if that action might cut down
/>on how much benefit I can derive from society.

/(hudson)
/Why is your benefit somehow related to morality.

Again, your definition is causing you to shoot yourself in the foot.





/(hudson)
/What about if someone feels that their own personal benefit is enhanced
/more than it would be damaged by depleting the overall resources of society?
/Maybe something might hurt society, but it would help him immensly?

That is irrational thinking.  

There may also be people out there who think that death by atomic 
destruction is  a sublime and wonderful thing. I am not going to let them
execute that idea just because they want to do it. 

Simply because I let people make up their minds about what morals they
have doesn't prevent me from spotting and stopping a madman when I see
one, Hudson.  And even then, I will only stop him when he interferes 
with me and my life.  That is the difference between me and you:  you
want to interfere in people's lives even when they aren't affecting
you.  





/(hudson)
/The central character in Dostoevsky's novel, Crime and Punishment, 
/(R something or other) reasoned that if killed this old Jewish woman and
/stole her money to educate and establish himself financially, he could
/make a great contribution to society.  He reasoned that she was not of 
/much profit to society.  She just collected rents, and hoarded money.


One of the central points of any (that's ANY) moral system is that is
has to be internally consistent.  

By killing her, the character had to accept the premise that the ends
justify the means.  If he accepted that premise, then (in order to be
consistent), he must accept the idea that some day another person may
apply the same standard to HIS life.  Now, if he is unwilling to accept
this premise (which he will not be willing to accept), then he has
behaved inconsistently with his own moral standard.





/(me)
/[football example deleted]

/(hudson)
/Now suppose a freshman on the bench will only get to play if one of the
/players in the field/on the court is injured (or killed.)  This freshman
/wants to play in the big game so a talent scout can see him.  If he hurts
/a player on the team, it might slightly lessen the chances of the team to
/win, but he might gain great personal benefit.  So, operating on purely
/selfish (immorally selfish) motives, he arranges for a sniper to shoot a
/team player in the leg.  He gets to play in front of the talent scout.

/Did that freshman behave morally?

/Selfish intentions may sometimes generate (apparently) moral actions, but
/not always.



Two problems right off the bat:

1.  The problem with your analogy is that it doesn't address the goal
that I started with:  winning the game.  Playing in front of the talent
scout != winning the game.  Try creating the same analogy and keep the
ultimate goal the same, will you?

2.  The internal consistency question is also not addressed:  if the freshman
wants to do this to other people, then he has to accept the fact that
it may happen to him one day.  If he is unwilling, then he has violated
his own moral standard.




Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82784
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality


>/(hudson)
>/And from a materialistic point of view, it could be said that the nervous
>/system is just matter.  What is wrong with producing chemical reactions in
>/matter?  
>
>Because this matter is different.  It is alive, and self-aware.  And it
>feels pain.  

/(hudson)
/If all morality were relative- big hairy deal.

As I said, you appear to be the only person saying that all morality
is relative.  Most people I know do hold some absolutes in their
moral system.

I >>personally<< believe that the dignity of the individual and the right
of free will are absolutes.  I recognize that there are some moral
systems around which don't accept this; I reject them as dangerous
and anti-social (nazism, some forms of communism, fundamentalist
xtianity--no, that's not a slam).  But for the most part, almost
every moral system agrees on these two points.




(me)
>and the sky, and everything in it; everything that was created came out
>of God.  Everything, including this matter, is part of God.  Therefore, is 
>it wrong to put parts of God in a test tube and make It go through 
>reactions?  Isn't that a form of blasphemy?


/(hudson)
/Generally, Christians believe in a Creator-Creation distinction.  Other
/religions believe in one big whole.   I don't accept yor premises.

Too bad.  I know I'm right, so I get to enforce my view upon you whether
you like my premise or not.  And since you can't prove otherwise, there
isn't even an intellectual basis for your resistance to accepting my
viewpoint.





>/(hudson)
>/How long will it be before the "as long as it doesn't hurt someone else" 
>/becomes more and more relative until the only rule that is left is 
>/"I will do what I want to do, no matter who it hurts."
>
>There's a big jump between those two positions, and you know it very 
>well.  Don't play stupid.  I realize that you're trying to dispute
>what you call "popular morality" by using what you think is logic,
>but you're stretching this a bit too thin.

/(hudson)
/I don't think so.  once morality becomes relative, it degenerates.  I am
/saying that reasoning that it is generally evil to hurt other people is bad.
/(though I don't think it is sufficient.)  


Well, then answer me this:   you seem to be opposed to moral relativism
(as you call it) because it has the capacity to degenerate.  Obviously,
then, you would advocate a nonrelative (absolute) moral system.

Whose absolutist moral system do we choose?  

How do we come to this decision?

What about people who disagree with the chosen moral system?





/(hudson)
/But if morality is considered to
/be relative, and this rule isn't based on anything, but is just an arbitrary
/rule, people might abandon it.

Fine.  I can agree with most of what you typed here.  However, just because
morality gets based on something nonrelative does NOT mean that we have to
pick your xtianity as its base.

We can start a morality based on dignity of humans, freedom of choice,
tolerance, etc. and NEVER EVER rely on xtianity for anything.  Just because
someone has a consistent moral system based on true principles does not
mean that they have to involve xtianity in it.  Xtianity certainly does not
have a monopoly on principles of behavior; indeed, fewer religions are
guiltier of violating their own principles






Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82785
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality 


In article <1993Apr02.025636.23256@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
>/Why would it be immoral to hurt someone else?  
>
/(me)
>Because you wouldn't want it to happen to you.

/(hudson)
/Why does that make something immoral?



Because you are not being consistent.  Moral systems must be consistent.

A person who thinks they can inflict pain on others, but doesn't want it 
inflicted upon themselves, has a double standard.  And double standards are
a violation of *any* moral system.





(me)
>Morality defines how we interact with other people; the rules that we
>use to guide our daily affairs.  Our conduct towards our fellow man.  By
>realizing that we don't like pain, we can also realize that other people
>don't like it, either.  

/(hudson)
/Of course we don't like pain.  I don't like brussel sprouts.  Are brussel
/sprouts immoral?

Pain isn't immoral, stupid.  Pain itself is just a physiological
reaction.  

What >>is<< immoral is subjecting unwilling individuals to pain.

Or brussel sprouts, for that matter.






(hudson)
>/Is it immoral to produce these same chemical reactions in a test tube?
>
(me)
>It isn't the chemical reaction that is wrong, bozo.  It's making the human
>being UNDERGO THE EFFECTS of the chemical reaction.  Sorry; your cute
>little analogy didn't survive for very long under scrutiny.

/(hudson)
/Why would it be wrong to make humans undergo the effects of the reactions
/if humans are composed only of matter?  

What humans are composed of isn't the qualifying criteria of whether or
not something would be wrong.  




/(hudson)
/Is it wrong to make matter undergo chemical reactions?

Yes, if it is sentient matter.



/(me)
/>Nature is not a sentient force; there is no choice involved.  Therefore,
/>no question of morality.


/(hudson)
/I actually heard a geologist entertain the notion that matter had a will.
/There is some sentient force out there.  

Fine.  I have also heard that the government is encoding the DNA for 
a new race of superhumans in ordinary drinking water.  

What's your point?



/(hudson)
/If humans are made only of matter, then choices are also chemical reactions,
/so why is choice an important issue.

And if that is the case, then god is only an idea contained in the minds
of people (formed of matter) and on printed pages (also formed of matter)
and does not really exist.  

I can do the argumentem ad absurdium just as well as you can, but it 
won't prove any points for you or me.  Got anything relevant you want to 
talk about, or are you just playing cute little games?








Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82786
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions

In article <bskendigC51CqB.K0r@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>Specifically: when I bring up the fact that Genesis contains two
>contradictory creation stories, I usually get blank stares or flat
>denials.  I've never had a fundamentalist acknowledge that there are
>indeed two different accounts of creation.

That is because two creation stories is one of the worst examples of 
a difficulty with the Bible.  "were formed" can also be translated "had been
formed" in chapter two without any problems.  So the text does not demand
that there are two creation stories.  

Link Hudson.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82787
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality

In article <1993Apr5.165709.4347@midway.uchicago.edu> dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>But there is a base of true absolute morality that we can stand on.
>
>Note that if the majority of people remain unconvinced, this idea
>probably isn't worth very much in a pragmatic sense.

Maybe not to you.  But to those who stand on this base, He is 
precious.

Link


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82788
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Religion and homosexuality

In article <1993Apr5.182411.7621@midway.uchicago.edu> dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>First of all as far as I know, only male homosexuality is explicitly
>mentioned in the bibles, so you're off the hook there,

Actually, there is one condemnation of lesbian acts in the Bible, Romans
1:26.

I think. In
>any event, there are *plenty* of people in many denominations who
>do not consider a person's sexual identification of gay/lesbian/bisexual
>as an "immoral lifestyle choice"

There are plenty who don't read the Bible.
Or pray for that matter.

Link Hudson.



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82792
From: rps@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (raj.sharma)
Subject: Re: Bhagavad-Gita 2.32

A poster writes:

> In the Kingdom of God (Vaikuntha) the tigers do not eat other living
> beings. In the material world, everyone is trying to consume everyone
> else. Therefore we all (even tigers, who are by no means invincible)
> should try to get out of the miserable material situation and return to
> the Kingdom of God.

	Is the so-called material world "outside" the Kingdom of God?
	
> Right. But, unfortunately, acting like animals is the number one pastime
> of modern human beings.

	Aha, animals are inferior, and humans are superior.
	Huh?

	[Isn't the desire to be superior so "overwhelming?"]
	[that humans constantly "put down" even innocent animals.]
	

---raj

	[P.S. - Request: please e-mail a copy of any response to
	        raj, as he does not read trm regularly.]
	

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82793
From: lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: 666 - MARK OF THE BEAST - NEED INFO

On a slightly different note:

There are two buildings in NY state with big 666 numbers on the
roof :)

One in Manhattan and one near Garden City. The Garden City one
is a nice black unmarked building...


-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82794
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>
>>Specifically: when I bring up the fact that Genesis contains two
>>contradictory creation stories, I usually get blank stares or flat
>>denials.  I've never had a fundamentalist acknowledge that there are
>>indeed two different accounts of creation.
>
>That is because two creation stories is one of the worst examples of 
>a difficulty with the Bible.  "were formed" can also be translated "had been
>formed" in chapter two without any problems.  So the text does not demand
>that there are two creation stories.  

Really?  I don't get it... Genesis first says that God created the
earth, then the animals, then humans; then it turns around and says
that humans were created before animals!  How can you escape this
contradiction?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82795
From: hall@boi.hp.com (Hal Leifson)
Subject: Re: [lds] kermit's reply [was: Re: Tony Rose was : FREE BOOK OF MORMON

Robert Weiss (psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu) wrote:
:
 (lots of stuff about the Nicene Creed deleted which can be read in the
  original basenote.  I will also leave it up to other LDS netters to
  take Mr. Weiss to task on using Mormon Doctrine to declare the difinitive
  word on what the LDS Church teaches as doctrine.  Hopefully the LDS 
  netters will be amiable in their explanation.)

Since it would do no good to rebut what Mr. Weiss has stated on the origin
of the Nicene Creed and its status as devine and inspired (I say "no good"
because it cannot be proved through discussion or debate as to whether or not 
the authors of the Creed were inspired), I leave you (it will be some time 
before I post again) with the following thought authored by Eugene England, 
Professor of English at Brigham Young University.  Mr. England wrote the 
following as part of a book review section in This People's magazine (Spring 
1993 edition):

  "I conclude with a little sermon because I believe we will not be a Mormon--
  or human--family until we can get over labeling and rejecting each other 
  with terms like feminist or patriarchal, liberal or conservative (Christian 
  or non-Christian -- Hal 8^).  When we are tempted to draw a circle around
  a set of beliefs and traditions and styles and call it American, then exclude
  those who don't fit, it may be well to consider that perhaps the most central
  defining characteristic of a good American might be "one who doesn't draw
  exclusive circles" -- that the surest way of excluding ourselves from the 
  central American ideal is by excluding others.  And when we are tempted to
  draw a circle around "Mormon" or "Christian," to decide who is "orthodox"
  and who isn't by how much they agree with us, it might be well to consider
  that the central pillar of Christ's "orthodoxy" is our ability to love
  unconditionally those who are different and include them in our family.

  "I recently spent some time in a "Christian" bookstore in California. The
  service was excellent, the clerks and customers all smiling, neat, and
  well-scrubbed, and there were the expected wholesome offerings of scriptural
  commentaries, sentimental fiction, and collections of evangelistic sermons.
  But I was dismayed to find how much shelf space was given to attacking 
  others, often viciously---whether the political left, our modern American
  culture, or other religions.  A whole section was devoted to "Cults and the
  Occult," and as you might expect, Mormonism was right there under the same
  rubric and indictment (often by the same authors) as Satanism.  And I found
  I could either rent or buy (in English or Spanish) copies of The God Makers
  (that absurdly inaccurate, even libelous, but very popular and dangerous
  anti-Mormon film that uses exaclty the same techniques and even accusations
  of the Nazi films that scapegoated Jews in the 1930s).

  "It seems to me one major indication that a person is a genuine convert to
  Christ and his redemptive love is his lack of paranoia and anxiety ("Perfect
  love casteth out fear," I John 4:18).  I have always been pleased that the
  LDS Church has not engaged in attacks on other faiths, though I find a 
  disheartening increase in willingness of individual Mormons to engage in the
  same kinds of stereotyping and scapegoating---and even threats of coercive
  action---as the "religious right wing" has launched this year against the
  political left and American cultural and religious styles they don't like.
  It is a fearful irony that in so doing Mormons take common cause with the
  very people who have most slanderously attacked Mormons---people who would,
  if they had power, forcefully restrict Mormons' rights along with those of
  others they believe to be evil."


The above "sermon" was addressed to the LDS audience who usually subscribe
to This People's magazine, but would certainly apply to all of us who
rely on the mercies and grace of Jesus Christ to bring us back into His
arms.  

Even though the LDS Church claims devine authority to exercise the principles 
of the restored gospel---as in the days of Christ, the Church does not claim 
perfection and infallibility in how those with authoritative status have or do 
now lead the Church.  I, for one, do not wish to be labelled "Christian", if 
those who profess themselves as Christians attack my beliefs because they are 
intollerent (for example) of the way my religion may interpret Biblical 
scriptures of the same source to have a different meaning and implication 
than mainstream Christianity would give it.  Once again, being in the 
majority does NOT in and of itself PROVE anything except that your collective 
voice is louder.  That's really all the critics of the LDS Church have to stand
on in terms of the kind of Biblical interpretation used as proof to counter 
the LDS Church' interpretation!  Using someone elses biased research of truths 
and non-truths (whose to say what the mixture is?) as an authoritative tool to 
disprove or discredit is not being fair to anyone, least of all themselves. 
Let us simply agree to disagree, and share beliefs through adult discussion 
and conversation, thereby uplifting everyone.  

 
Hal Leifson -- signing off!

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82796
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: Spreading Christianity (Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor)

"David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>    Not to be too snide about it, but I think this Christianity must
>    be a very convenient religion, very maliable and suitable for
>    any occassion since it seems one can take it any way one wants
>    to go with it and follow whichever bits one pleases and
>    reinterpret the bits that don't match with one's desires.  It
>    is, in fact, so convenient that, were I capable of believing
>    in a god, I might consider going for some brand of Christianity.
>    The only difficulty left then, of course, is picking which sect
>    to join.  There are just so many.
>     
>    Dean Kaflowitz
> 
> Yes, Christianity is convenient.  Following the teachings of Jesus
> Christ and the Ten Commandments is convenient.  Trying to love in a
> hateful world is convenient.  Turning the other cheek is convenient.  So
> convenient that it is burdensome at times.
> 
> Dave.

Some Christians take a 10% discount off the Ten Commandments.  Sunday
cannot be substituted for the Sabbath.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82797
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: 6 Apr 93   God's Promise in John 16:24



	Hitherto have ye asked nothing
	in my name:
	ask, and ye shall receive,
	that your joy may be full.

	John 16:24

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82798
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: [lds] Hal's reply

In article <C51nLs.7As@boi.hp.com>, hall@boi.hp.com (Hal Leifson) writes...

[...Dr. England's story deleted, it was a nice read the first time 
through...]]

>now lead the Church.  I, for one, do not wish to be labelled "Christian", if 
>those who profess themselves as Christians attack my beliefs because they are 
>intollerent (for example) of the way my religion may interpret Biblical 
>scriptures of the same source to have a different meaning and implication 
>than mainstream Christianity would give it. 

	It isn't so much a matter of 'interpretation' of Bible texts 
that sets Mormonism apart from orthodoxy as it is a matter of 
*fabrication*.

	About 20 years ago, _National Lampoon_ had some comic strips 
in them that were drawn by Neal Adams. They were called "Son o' God" comics. 
It was a parody of the Jesus in the Bible. In the comic, there were a 
group of thirteen Jewish kids from Brooklyn, and when one of them said 
the magic word, he turned into "Son o' God." He went from a myopic, 
curly headed, yarmulke wearing boy to a replica of the stylizied 
portraits of Jesus --- with long flowing brown hair and gentile 
features.	

	Now, if someone were to profess faith in this NatLamp Jesus, 
and claim that they were a Christian because they believed in this 
NatLamp Jesus, we would have to say that this was fallacious since 
this Jesus was a fabrication, and did not really exist.

	This is the exact same thing that the LDS do when they claim 
that they are Christian. They profess faith in Jesus, but the Jesus 
that they profess to have faith in is as much a fabrication as the 
NatLamp Jesus was.


=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82799
From: blowfish@leo.unm.edu (rON.)
Subject: Re: 666, THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST, VIEWER DISCR

In article <1pr3d3$doh@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> ST002649@brownvm.brown.edu (Alex Gottschalk) writes:
>>>Well, I *WILL* do the math, and I get:  (6^6)^6=2,189,739,336
>>>This mean anything to anyone?  :^)
>5*1=5 thus fitting in neatly with something else.

Of course, 2+1+8+9+7+3+9+3+3+6 = 51, which, quite obviously is 23+23+5...
r.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82800
From: david@terminus.ericsson.se (David Bold)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality

Paul Hudson Jr (hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu) writes:

>I was not directly going to come up with a moral argument for the  existence
>of God.  Rather, I was trying to show the absurdity of atheistic materialist
>relatavists trying to embrace some common moral system as though it were
>absolute.  Man knows in his heart that there is right and wrong.  We have
>all inherited this knowledge.  

No matter how "absurd" it is to suggest that a common moral system created by
mankind is absolute, it is not contrary to reason to suggest that a common
moral system created by mankind is sensible. In fact, for the Bible to be of
any use to mankind as a moral code, it must be interpreted by mankind and a
workable moral system created for everyday use.

The Jewish Talmud is the result of centuries of Biblical scholars analysing
every word of the Torah to understand the morality behind it. The Children of
Israel were given a very strict set of Moral, Civil, Judicial and Ceremonial
Laws to follow and yet this was clearly not enough to cover every instance
of moral dilemma in their Society. For a Christian, the situation is no better.

It seems to me that the only code of morality that we have from the Judeo-
Christian God is that which is contained in the Bible (which we can see from
the diverse opinions in the Christian newsgroups is not clear). There may well
be an absolute morality defined by the Judeo-Christian God for mankind to
follow but it seems that we only have a subset simply because the concept was
written down by man.

This leads to the problem of defining morality for our society. If we take the
divine Morality then we have a code of practice which may be interpreted in many
different ways (as an example, consider the immolation of heretics in the
fifteenth century and the interpretation of the Bible which allows a man to do
that to another man under the precept to administer Justice). If we take an
agnostic Morality then we have a code of practice that can be modified to suit
society (with all the danger that this implies). Alternatively, we could take
the basis of the Judeo-Christian morality and interpret/extend this to create
and justify a code of morality which suits the society we live in and enables
the people to live Righteously (as many Christian and Non-Christian philosophers
have done).

Whatever the driving force behind the definition of morality for our society, I
think the important aspect is the result.

David.

---
On religion:

"Oh, where is the sea?", the fishes cried,
As they swam its clearness through.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82801
From: dotsonm@dmapub.dma.org (Mark Dotson)
Subject: Fragmentation


The primary problem in human nature is a "fragmentation of being."
Humans are in a state of tension, a tension of opposites. Good and
evil are the most thought provoking polarities that come to mind.

The Bible provides us with many examples of the fragmentation of
being. The warring opposites within us are a product of man's
rebellion against God, which is described so vividly in the pages of
the Scriptures.

Man was created with the order to become a god. Those were the words
of St.  Basil in the fourth century. What he was trying to say was
that God created man to be a partaker of the divine nature. In the
Eastern Orthodox Church, this is called "theosis," or "deification."

One can also say that man was created to be whole, i.e. spirit, soul,
and body operating in unison. The story of Adam and Eve is a picture
of the archetypal humans before obtaining moral consciousness. Theirs
was a harmonious relationship with each other, the world, and the
Creator. That innocent harmony was shattered when they disobeyed God,
their natural wholeness falling apart into two seemingly
irreconcilable halves. Immediately, guilt and fear was manifested in
their lives. They become bound to hardship, toil, and suffering.  This
is symbolized in their exile from the paradisiac state.

The beast in the jungle does not possess moral consciousness. If it
were to receive this self-awareness, the knowledge of good and evil,
its paradisiac state would also be destroyed.

Was it the intention of the Creator to leave man in this state of
innocence all the days of his existence on earth? Or was the gaining
of self-awareness carefully staged by God, who did not desire that His
masterpiece, mankind, be a blissful idiot?

God must have known that, for mankind to achieve any kind of moral
value, he must pass through a confrontation with the opposites. There
is no other way to achieve union with God.

Jesus Christ is the answer to the problem of the warring polarities.
He was the perfectly integrated individual, reconciling the opposites,
and making it possible for us to be integrated, i.e. to become God,
not in His essence, but in His energies.

The opposites is THE Christian problem. The Apostle Paul describes it
with the utmost precision in Romans 7:15-24. And he follows with the
answer to his dilemma in vs 25.

                                 Mark


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82802
From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com>
Subject: Re: Is THOU SHALT NOT KILL ever applied in the Bible?

In <1pdj4bINNrtr@crcnis1.unl.edu>, e_p@unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)  wrote:
#     Are there any places in the Bible where the commandment "Thou 
#     shalt not kill" is specifically applied?  That is, where someone 
#     refrained from killing because he remembered the commandment.

  No, for the excellent reason that there IS no such commandment.

  Aside from that, please note that the Abrahamic literary tradition
  is strong on narrative, light on dialog, and virtually nonexistent
  w/r/t introspection.

--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---
--- Note new network address:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---
--- Author (and everything else!) of TMail  (DOS mail/news shell) ---

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82804
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Spreading Christianity (Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor)

In article <Yfk8p=q00WBM47T0sJ@andrew.cmu.edu>, "David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>    Not to be too snide about it, but I think this Christianity must
>    be a very convenient religion, very maliable and suitable for
>    any occassion since it seems one can take it any way one wants
>    to go with it and follow whichever bits one pleases and
>    reinterpret the bits that don't match with one's desires.  It
>    is, in fact, so convenient that, were I capable of believing
>    in a god, I might consider going for some brand of Christianity.
>    The only difficulty left then, of course, is picking which sect
>    to join.  There are just so many.
> 
> Yes, Christianity is convenient.  Following the teachings of Jesus
> Christ and the Ten Commandments is convenient.  Trying to love in a
> hateful world is convenient.  Turning the other cheek is convenient.  So
> convenient that it is burdensome at times.

Your last remark is a contradiction, but I'll let that pass.

I was addressing the notion of the Great Commission, which
you deleted in order to provide us with dull little homilies.
Thank you, Bing Crosby.  Now you go right on back to sleep
and mommy and daddy will tuck you in later.

Oh, and how convenient his bible must have been to Michael
Griffin, how convenient his Christianity.  "Well, I'll just
skip the bit about not murdering people and loving the sinner
and hating the sin and all that other stuff for now and
concentrate on the part where it says that if someone is doing
something wrong, you should shoot him in the back several times
as he tries to hobble away on his crutches."

I'll leave the "convert or die" program of the missionaries and
their military escorts in the Americas for Nadja to explain as
she knows much more about it than I.

Must be awfully convenient, by the way, to offer platitudes
as you have done, David, rather than addressing the arguments.

Dean Kaflowitz


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82806
From: caldwell@facman.ohsu.edu (Larry Caldwell)
Subject: Re: SUNDAY! THE DAY OF OUR LORD!

pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
	>dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
>>Exactly.  Sunday worship is in honor or the *SUN*, not the *SON* of God.
>
>Same thing, isn't it? It's pronounced the same? What other heavenly
>beings are resurrected? The moon? That would by lunacy, at least to a
>sunday worshiper.

I have heard that the sabbath was originally determined by the phases of
the moon, and had elements of moon worship.  Early stuff, Egyptian in nature.

-- 
-- Larry Caldwell  caldwell@ohsu.edu  CompuServe 72210,2273
Oregon Health Sciences University.  (503) 494-2232

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82807
From: ad354@Freenet.carleton.ca (James Owens)
Subject: Re: 666, THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST, VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED!


UN Resolution 666 guarantees humanitarian aid will get into Irag during
the Gulf War.  Is this war over? Is aid getting in, or are they still
trying to smoke out Saddam?  Is this the Middle East?  Are we talking
religious war here?  Am I ranting?
-- 
                                     James Owens  ad354@Freenet.carleton.ca
                                     Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82808
From: lance@wolves.Durham.NC.US (Lance A. Brown)
Subject: Re: Religion and homosexuality

In article <C4uzus.FKp@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
>lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>> Unlike kleptomaniacs and adulterers homosexuals hurt no one by having sex
>> with the same sex. 
>
>What about the homosexual whose family does not accept that decision and
>is hurt (emotionally) by it?

Good question.  I don't have a nice concise answer, though.  What about the
child whose parents are crushed emotionally because he/she starts a carerr
doing something they greatly dislike.  It is the same kind of harm, and
is probably "caused" by the same thing:  The desire of the child to be 
true to his or her self.

What is more important, being true to yourself or burying that truth within
you in order to maintain peace in the family?

hard question, no good answer.

Lance

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82810
From: af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.)
Subject: BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS ANSWERED (Judas)


I posted this several days ago for Dave Butler.  He may have missed it - my
Usenet board has changed a little.  Just in case he missed it, here it is again.


Dave Butler writes...
 
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
>Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: NEW BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS [Fallaciously] ANSWERED (Judas)
Date: Thu Apr  1 20:52:11 1993
 
"I can basically restrict this post to showing the type of evidence Mr DeCenso
has presented, and answering his two questions (and a couple of his spurious
insults and false claims)."
 
MY REPLY...
O.K.
 
DB...
[By the way Mr DeCenso, you really should have looked in the index of your
Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich Greek lexicon.  You would have found that the word in
Acts for "lot" is "kleros," not "CHORION" as stated by Mr Archer, and nowhere
in the very large discussion of kleros in done the to "Theological Dictionary
of the New Testament" by Bromley, is the meaning "burial plot" discussed.  It
discusses the forms of "kleros" (eg: kleros, kleroo, etc), and the various
meanings of "kleros" (eg: "plot of land," and "inheritance"), but mentions
nothing about CHORION or "burial plot." (Why does this not surprise me?) Thus
it would seem to be a very good thing you dumped Archer as a reference.]
 
DB later corrected himself...
_____________________________________________________________________
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
>Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: NEW BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS [Fallaciously] ANSWERED (Judas)
Date: Fri Apr  2 02:32:11 1993
 
I owe the group an apology.  It is my habit to check my articles before and
after their submission for errors.  In my last article I stated:
 
> (By the way Mr DeCenso, you really should have looked in the index of your
> Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich Greek lexicon.  You would have found that the word in
> Acts for "lot" is "kleros," not "CHORION" as stated by Mr Archer, and nowhere
> in the very large discussion of kleros in done the to "Theological Dictionary
> of the New Testament" by Bromley, is the meaning "burial plot" discussed.  It
> discusses the forms of "kleros" (eg: kleros, kleroo, etc), and the various
> meanings of "kleros" (eg: "plot of land," and "inheritance"), but mentions
> nothing about CHORION or "burial plot." (Why does this not surprise me?) Thus
> it would seem to be a very good thing you dumped Archer as a reference).
 
I was wrong. I admit that I do not have a handle on Greek grammar, and thus
confused "kleros", the second to last word in Acts 1:17 as being the plot of
land discussed.  In actuality it is "chorion", which is the last word Acts
1:18.  Unfortunately my Greek dictionary does not discuss "chorion" so I
cannot report as to the nuances of the word.
 
I don't know if someone else would have caught this, though I am sure that
someone would be able to do so, but I have an aversion to disseminating
mistakes, especially when someone else might use that mistake to prove a point"
 
_____________________________________________________________________
 
MY REPLY...
Vary noble of you Dave.  I didn't want to have to go to x number of sources to
show you wrong.  (Although I am researching CHORION a little).
 
DB...
"Of course the only other reference Mr DeCenso has given is Bullinger.  And
Bullinger uses such ridiculous exegisis that when I accused Mr DeCenso of
actually believing Bullinger, he replied that I misquoted him:
 
>> "And you maintain that you find such exegesis convincing?  Oh dear."
>
> My Reply...
> Your misquotes of me are astounding, Dave.  Read the beginning of this part
of > my response to see what I REALLY said in my posting of this article.
 
 [Actually Mr DeCenso, you said that there was "benefit" to our argument, in
  that it caused to to rediscover Bullinger's exegisis.  I did not realize
  that you would find such garbage beneficial, unless you were convinced by
  it]."
 
MY REPLY...
Thank you for correcting your restating of my points.
 
DB...
"and Mr DeCenso also replied:
 
> Dave, these are not necessarily my views; they are Bullinger's.  WE will
> discuss the land issue in later posts, I'm sure.  I'm only responding to
>this one you have directed re: Bullinger's views because it's enjoyable.
 
Thus I apologize for thinking that even Mr DeCenso could find such "drek"
convincing....he should specify which parts of Bullinger he finds convincing
and quit hiding behind a disingenuous mask of "This is what Bullinger
believed, not necessarily what I believe." So which is it Mr DeCenso? Do you
find the exegisis convincing or not?)"
 
MY REPLY...
One of my purposes in debating these alleged contradictions with you and
others is to diseminate many different views of possible reconciliations
raised by various Bible scholars and students alike.  When I present MY VIEWS,
I will clearly distinguish them from now on.
 
DB...
"Of course without Archer and Bullinger we find that Mr DeCenso has presented
no Greek exegisis at all, and Mr DeCenso has made a big thing about my not
referring back to the actual Greek.  Thus we find this demand on his part for
quality Greek exegisis to be a hypocritical requirement."
 
MY REPLY...
Good point.  But in your declaring that these passages are contradictory, you
have produced only superficial reasonings and observations. Nor have you dug
deeper.  I'm glad you have begun in this post.  I will begin Greek studies on
these passages in more depth than I thought necessary, as well.
 
DB...
"It would be appropriate to look at what Mr DeCenso has actually USED as
evidence.  Now we know what he claims for a standard, as he has stated it
often enough:
 
> (a) the text itself
> (b) parallel passages
> (c) other pertinent Scriptures
> (d) historical context
> (e) historical content
> (f) other pertinent historical info
> (g) cultural context
> (h) cultural content
> (i) other pertinent cultural info
> (j) grammatical construction
> (k) Hebrew and Greek word studies
> (l) etc.
 
But are these actual standards he has used, or simply empty hyperbole.  Let's
see, he has used (a), and since he is trying to reconcile it to other
passages, we see that he has also used (b).  On the other hand he has
presented no use of:
 
(d) historical context                or
(e) historical content                or
(f) other pertinent historical info   or
(g) cultural context                  or
(h) cultural content                  or
(i) other pertinent cultural info     or
(j) grammatical construction          or even
(k) Hebrew and Greek word studies [remember, Archer and Bullinger don't count]
 
Thus we find his vaunted criteria for exegisis is just empty mouthings."
 
MY REPLY...
Question:  Do you find such criteria important?  If so, do you plan on starting
to use them to the best of your ability, or will you continue to present
shallow observations (I don't mean this in a bad way).
At this point in our _debates_, I have not found it necessary to present a
total exegetical analysis of these passages, since we seem to keep beating
around the bush and not getting into the core of the verses.  I do not believe
it necessary to use many of the above criteria to refute your arguments re:
Judas in Acts and Matthew, but I will do my best from this point on to use
several of the above criteria, since you desire me to.  I hope you will also.
It will greatly enhance our study of these passages.
 
DB...
"The only thing he has actually used, beyond the passage itself, is any other
passage.  Thus Mr DeCenso should be honest and note that most of his list is
red herring and his only real criteria seems to be:
 
> (a) the text itself
> (b) parallel passages
 
MY REPLY...
The reason is simple...you are mistating the passages.  You claim that the
PASSAGES contradict one another; I do not see the PASSAGES contradicting one
another.
(1) They may very well be complimentary, as many scholarly sources mention;
(2) Matthew may not be presenting Judas' death, as you claim.  But we'll look
at your defense of this later.
 
Also, the "reward of iniquity" in the Acts PASSAGE may not be the 30 pieces of
silver in Matthew's PASSAGES.  (Although you have a valiant attempt later at
stating why you believe it is).
 
At this beginning stages in our debates, we are laying some Scriptural
groundwork, which will be expanded upon through deeper exegesis.
 
DB...
"Of course the only reason I can see to so drastically reinterpret a passage
as he has done with Judas' death, is to make it agree with another passage so
that both could be considered correct."
 
MY REPLY...
One of the reasons I have given a different exegetical view of the passages is
that you seem to think the majority of scholarship is wrong in concluding these
passages are complimentary.  However, I see no problem in Tony Rose's
explanation of Judas' death...
 
_____________________________________________________________________
 
HOW WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THE INACCURACY BETWEEN JUDAS HANGING
HIMSELF IN MATTHEW 27:5 AND "FALLING HEADLONG HE BURST OPEN"
=============================================================
 
This question of the manner in which Judas died is one with which we are
constantly confronted in our travels. Many people point to the apparent
discrepancy in the two accounts as an obvious, irreconcilable error.
Some have gone so far as to say that the idea of an inerrant Bible is
destroyed by these contradictory accounts. However, this is not the case at
all.
Matthew relates that Judas hanged himself, while Peter tells us he fell and
was crushed by the impact. The two statements are indeed different, but do
they necessarily contradict each other?
Matthew does not say that Judas did not fall; neither does Peter say that
Judas did not hang himself. This is not a matter of one person calling
something black and the other person calling it white. Both accounts can be
true and supplementary.
A possible reconstruction would be this: Judas hanged himself on a tree on the
edge of a precipice that overlooked the valley of Hinnom. After he hung there
for some time, the limb of the tree snapped or the rope gave way and Judas
fell down the ledge, mangling his body in the process.
The fall could have been before *or* after death as either would fit this
explanation. This possibility is entirely natural when the terrain of the
valley of Hinnom is examined.  From the bottom of the valley, you can see
rocky terraces 25 to 40 feet in height and almost perpendicular.
There are still trees around the ledges and a rocky pavement at the bottom.
Therefore, it is easy to conclude that Judas struck one of the jagged rocks on
this way down, tearing his body open. It is important to remember that we are
not told how long Judas remained hanging from the tree or how advanced
was the decomposition of his body before his fall.
Louis Gaussen relates a story of a man who was determined to kill himself.
This individual placed himself on the sill of a high window and pointed a
pistol at his head. He then pulled the trigger and leaped from the window at
the same time.
On the other hand, a person could say that this man took his life by shooting
himself, while another could rightly contend he committed suicide by jumping
form the tall building. In this case, both are true, as both are true in the
case of Matthew's and Peter's accounts of the death of Judas. It is merely a
situation of different perspectives of the same event.
 
_____________________________________________________________________
 
Your only reason for rejecting this is, I believe, your attempt to discredit
inerrancy.  You haven't related how this is IMPOSSIBLE or highly unlikely.
Here's what you said in an earlier post...
 
_____________________________________________________________________
DB [quoting Tony Rose]...
> There are still trees around the ledges and a rocky pavement at the bottom.
> Therefore, it is easy to conclude that Judas struck one of the jagged rocks
> on this way down, tearing his body open. It is important to remember that we
>                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> are not told how long Judas remained hanging from the tree or how advanced
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> was the decomposition of his body before his fall.
 
"The added text in this version is so heavy that, assuming you are truly so
opposed to such tactics, you should find it not credible.  But you seem to
find Tony Rose's eisegesis satisfactory, while clearly rejecting David
Joslin's."
 
_____________________________________________________________________
 
Here, you discredit Tony's explanation based on what you deem too "heavy" for
the passages.  But you haven't addressed why you feel that way.  You can say
it's a vain attempt to reconcile the contradiction, but that doesn't tell me it
didn't happen, nor have you shown why you reject that possibility.
 
Questions:  Is Matthew lying or is Luke lying?  Or are they both lying?  Or
are either or both of them misinformed?  Why do you think there is such an
alleged contradiction?  I do not think you have ever told us what you believe
in this respect.
 
DB...
"At present though, Mr DeCenso only asks two questions of me:
 
> (1) You claim Acts and Matthew contradict one another in representing Judas'
>     death.  I ask you again to provide evidence that Matthew stated Judas
>     died in the hanging.
> (2) You claim that the 30 pieces of silver in Matthew that Judas threw down
>     in the temple and the chief priests used, is the "reward of iniquity"
>     in Acts that pictures Judas in some way purchasing a field with;
>     therefore there is a contradiction.  Prove that the 30 pieces of silver
>     and the "reward of iniquity" are one and the same.
 
Actually I find question (1) to be a rather stupid request, but I will answer
it because he now restricts himself to two points.  First I would point out
that hanging is a very efficient manner for ending a life.  In fact it is a
bit of a fluke when someone survives hanging (except in fantasy cowboy
movies), and even then it usually referred to as an attempted hanging."
 
MY REPLY...
I work at an agency that investigates child abuse and neglect.  Today, I got a
call re: a child that attempted suicide by hanging himself because his mother
is on crack.  He failed in his attempt and is in a child's psych ward at a
local hospital.  Hanging attempts are not always successful.
 
To assume that because most hangings are successful, this one was also is
"begging the question", if I may quote you.
 
[Last night, listening to _The Bible Answer Man_ broadcast, The Christian
Research Institute's show, one of the scholars on there used several of these
terms that you use.  I am not all that familiar with them.  The man on the BAM
show teaches Comparative Religion and Logic.  It was interesting]
 
DB...
"This is so prevalent that, so that to say a man hung himself with no other
qualifiers is synonymous with stating that he killed himself."
 
MY REPLY...
Qualifiers are important at times, as we'll see in an OT passage I'll mention
below.
Does hanging ALWAYS have this outcome?  Did Matthew, who is the only source we
have re: Judas hanging himself, state that Judas died as a result?  To say it's
synonymous means it has the same meaning as.  A boy (age 14) hung himself.  But
he lived.  This is only one of probably thousands of documented cases we can
discover.
 
DB...
"Now I am not alone in this thought; in fact, since Mr DeCenso so respects
Christian scholarly (including Greek scholars) opinion, I did some research."
 
MY REPLY...
Thank you, Dave.
 
DB...
"Interestingly, not one of the Christian references I read, interpreted the
hanging as being anything but a fatal suicide.              ^^^^^^^^^^^
 
MY REPLY...
[^^^ above, mine]
So it's OK to use Christian sources to back your points?  What about Tony's
position.  Do you value it or even consider it as a valid possibility?
 
Also, is it possible that the sources you read may be wrong, or lying, or
deceived in other parts of their books?  If so, should we do, as we have done
with Archer, toss them to the side and not value anything they say, including
their "interpretation" of the hanging of Judas?  I am sure _you_ would find
some errors and maybe even some deception in those sources.
 
You also noted they "interpreted" the hanging as meaning he died.  Although
that is very possibly true, do you find that in the text itself?  Remember,
that's the first criteria we must examine.
 
DB...
"This included:
 
    "The Biblical Knowledge Commentary" by Woodward and Zuck"
 
MY REPLY...
Which I own.  It's a good source of commentary info.  But not inerrant.
 
DB...
    "The Interpreters on Volume Commentary on the Bible" by Laydon
    "The one volume Bible Commentary" by J R Dunelow
    "Word meanings of the Testament" Ralph Earl
    "The Abingdon Bible Commentary" published by Abingdon
    "Harpers Bible Commentary" by William Neal
     (Actually I could have presented many more as well)
 
MY REPLY...
I appreciate your doing this research, Dave.  Maybe we are getting somewhere
in how we both should approach these alleged contradictions - more in depth
study.
 
DB...
"In each case, these references specifically describe that the interpretation
of Matt 27:5 as successful, suicide and thus I can only conclude that the
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Greek word "apagchw"(ie: hang oneself) is translated as a successful hanging."
 
MY REPLY...
[^^^ above, mine]
No you can't only conclude this, although, as Tony says, this was a highly
probable outcome.  But Matthew does not state death as being a result.
 
The Greek word is APAGCHO.  Matthew 27:5 is it's only occurrence in the New
Testament.
 
In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT used at the time of Jesus),
it's only used in 2 Samuel 17:23 : "Now when Ahithophel saw that his advice was
not followed, he saddled a donkey, and arose and went home to his house, to his
city. Then he put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died; and he
was buried in his father's tomb."             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
Notice that not only is it stated that Ahithophel "hanged himself" [Gr. Sept.,
APAGCHO], but it explicitly adds, "and died".  Here we have no doubt of the
result.
In Matthew, we are not explicitly told Judas died.
 
Also, there is nothing in the Greek to suggest success or failure.  It simply
means "hang oneself".
 
DB...
"But Mr DeCenso, you are more than welcome to disagree and show more reputable
                                                                     ^^^^^^^^^
Christian scholars that insist that the hanging was not successful."
 
MY REPLY...
[^^^above, mine]
"Reputable"?  You mean ones that have never erred?
As far as   insisting that the hanging was unsuccessful, that can't be done,
even by me. ^^^^^^^^^
 
As I said in an earlier post...
 
_____________________________________________________________________
Although I still agree with Tony's exegesis as being the most probable
explanation regarding Judas' death (taking into account several criteria),
I've recently noticed some new things in Matthew.
 
MAT 27:5-8 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed,
and went and hanged himself. But the chief priests took the silver pieces and
said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because they are the
price of blood." And they consulted together and bought with them the potter's
field, to bury strangers in. Therefore that field has been called the Field of
Blood to this day.
 
First of all, notice that the text does not say that Judas died as a result of
hanging. All it says is that he "went and hanged himself." Luke however, in
Acts, tells us that "and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all
his entrails gushed out." This is a pretty clear indication (along with the
other details given in Acts - Peter's speech, the need to pick a new apostle,
etc.) that at least after Judas' fall, he was dead. So the whole concept that
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Matthew and Luke both recount Judas' death is highly probable, but not clear
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
cut.
^^^
_____________________________________________________________________
 
I also wrote...
 
_____________________________________________________________________
MY REPLY...
 
Here we have a stickler, Dave, that I have to say I just recently noticed.
Let's look at the passage in Matthew:
 
MAT 27:4 saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." And they said,
"What is that to us? You see to it!"
 
MAT 27:5 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed,
and went and hanged himself.
 
MAT 27:6 But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said, "It is not
lawful to put them into the treasury, because they are the price of blood."
 
MAT 27:7 And they consulted together and bought with them the potter's field,
to bury strangers in.
 
MAT 27:8 Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.
 
Notice verse 5..."Then he...went and hanged himself."
Matthew does not say Judas died, does it?  Should we assume he died as a
result of the hanging?                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What does Acts say?
ACT 1:18 (Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and
falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.
 
ACT 1:20 "For it is written in the book of Psalms: 'Let his dwelling place be
desolate, And let no one live in it'; and, 'Let another take his office.'
 
Here we may have a graphic explanation of Judas' death....So, my line of
reasoning to dispel your contradiction myth re:the "two" accounts of Judas'
death is this...Matthew doesn't necessarily explain how Judas died; he does
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
say Judas "hanged himself", but he didn't specifically say Judas died in the
hanging incident.               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
However, Acts seems to show us his graphic demise.  Therefore, there is no
contradiction between Matthew and Acts re: Judas' `death'.
 
.......
 
MY REPLY...
...we do know from Matthew that he did hang himself and Acts probably records
his death.  Although it's possible and plausible that he fell from the hanging
and hit some rocks, thereby bursting open, I can no longer assume that to be
the case.  Therefore, no contradiction.  Matthew did not say Judas died as a
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
result of the hanging, did he?  Most scholars believe he probably did, but...?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
______________________________________________________________________
 
I quoted all that to show that I highly regard the scholars' explanations, but
in looking at the texts initially, we can't assume Judas died.  It is, however,
highly probable.                            ^^^^^^
 
DB...
"By the way, while all agree that Judas died from the hanging, the books had
different ways of dealing with the contradiction we are discussing.  One
simply ignored it entirely and simply referred back to Matthew's version as
the correct version in both Matt and Acts.  "The Biblical Knowledge Commentary"
suggested the hypotheses that Judas hung and then when he rotted, his belly
exploded (which doesn't explain his headlong fall), or that his branch or rope
broke, and he fell to his death and his gut gushed out (which doesn't explain
how a hanging man, would fall headlong rather than feet first)."
 
MY REPLY...
The outcome of any fall is dependent upon many factors...how high the person
was suspended before the fall, any obstructions such as tree branches that may
have deviated the fall, how steep an incline of rocky surfaces the victim fell
upon, thus possibly rolling or bouncing of several rocks, etc.  In a
superficial examination of the Acts passage and the Matthew passage, we are not
given a lot of info on the geographical specifics, but Tony in the above quoted
post gave us some...
 
_____________________________________________________________________
A possible reconstruction would be this: Judas hanged himself on a tree on the
edge of a precipice that overlooked the valley of Hinnom. After he hung there
for some time, the limb of the tree snapped or the rope gave way and Judas
fell down the ledge, mangling his body in the process.
The fall could have been before *or* after death as either would fit this
explanation. This possibility is entirely natural when the terrain of the
valley of Hinnom is examined.  From the bottom of the valley, you can see
rocky terraces 25 to 40 feet in height and almost perpendicular.
There are still trees around the ledges and a rocky pavement at the bottom.
Therefore, it is easy to conclude that Judas struck one of the jagged rocks on
this way down, tearing his body open.
_____________________________________________________________________
 
DB...
Now truthfully, I do not see what is comforting about Matthew confusing the
source of the Potter's field prophesy, but on the other hand the author is
correct: Matthew does make that confusion.  Of course a Biblical inerrantist
who claim that every word of the Bible is guaranteed true by God, will have to
thereby add one more contradiction to the death of Judas (ie: where the
prophesy of the Potter's field came from)."
 
MY REPLY...
Please, when we are done with this study on his death, remind me to discuss
this with you.
 
DB...
As to your second question Mr DeCenso, you ask how we could be sure that the
money with which Judas purchased the land, was indeed for the betrayal, rather
than some other source.  I would point out that in Acts, where it specifically
mention "the reward of iniquity" [Acts 1:18], it also specifically mentions
what act of iniquity they were talking about (ie: Acts 1:16 "...concerning
Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus.").  Now I would point out
that when the Bible describes an act of "iniquity," and then immediately
discusses "*the* reward of iniquity," it would be rather inane to suggest that
it was an action of iniquity other than the one discussed."
 
MY REPLY...
Dave, we are getting somewhere, aren't we!
 
ACT 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples
(altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said,
ACT 1:16 "Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy
Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide
to those who arrested Jesus;
ACT 1:17 "for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry."
ACT 1:18 (Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and
falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.
ACT 1:19 And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem; so that field
is called in their own language, Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood.)
ACT 1:20 "For it is written in the book of Psalms: 'Let his dwelling place be
desolate, And let no one live in it'; and, 'Let another take his office.'
 
Notice that in verse 16, the word "iniquity" is not used.  Rather, it states
that Judas "became a guide to those who arrested Jesus".
But the writer DID NOT stop there...vs. 17, "for he was numbered with us and
obtained a part in this ministry."  What part did Judas play in their ministry?
         ^^^^^^
JOH 12:6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a
thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it.
JOH 13:29 For some thought, because Judas had the money box, that Jesus had
said to him, "Buy those things we need for the feast," or that he should give
something to the poor.
 
So, now we know what part Judas played - he was a treasurer, per se.
Right after Peter stated that Judas played a part in this ministry (treasurer,
according to John), THEN Luke adds the parenthetical explanation of "wages of
iniquity" - money that should have been put into the ministry, but was stolen
by Judas to purchase a field.  I believe this is a better exegetical
explanation of what the "wages of iniquity" are.  What do you think, Dave?
 
DB...
"Now since I have given you clear answers (and even references), perhaps you
could unequivocally state what type of inerrantist you are (instead of asking
me what type I think you are, as you did to Mr Joslin)."
 
MY REPLY...
I will gladly admit that I am a Complete Inerrantist, although I do not have
that big a problem with the Limited Inerrancy view.

Frank
-- 
"If one wished to contend with Him, he could not answer Him one time out
 of a thousand."  JOB 9:3

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82812
From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Spreading Christianity (Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor)

In article <C51puA.K2u@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
> "David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> >    Not to be too snide about it, but I think this Christianity must
> >    be a very convenient religion, very maliable and suitable for
> >    any occassion since it seems one can take it any way one wants
> >    to go with it and follow whichever bits one pleases and
> >    reinterpret the bits that don't match with one's desires.  It
> >    is, in fact, so convenient that, were I capable of believing
> >    in a god, I might consider going for some brand of Christianity.
> >    The only difficulty left then, of course, is picking which sect
> >    to join.  There are just so many.
> >     
> >    Dean Kaflowitz
> > 
> > Yes, Christianity is convenient.  Following the teachings of Jesus
> > Christ and the Ten Commandments is convenient.  Trying to love in a
> > hateful world is convenient.  Turning the other cheek is convenient.  So
> > convenient that it is burdensome at times.
> 
> Some Christians take a 10% discount off the Ten Commandments.  Sunday
> cannot be substituted for the Sabbath.


Make that 20%.  Where did I see that poll recently about the
very religious and adultery?  Was it this newsgroup or alt.atheism
or some other place?

Dean Kaflowitz


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82813
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Subject: Re: NEW BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS [Fallaciously] ANSWERED (Judas)

I produced an error last week about CHORION:

>> (By the way Mr DeCenso, you really should have looked in the index of your
>> Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich Greek lexicon.  You would have found that the word in
>> Acts for "lot" is "kleros," not "CHORION" as stated by Mr Archer, and nowhere
>> in the very large discussion of kleros in done the to "Theological Dictionary
>> of the New Testament" by Bromley, is the meaning "burial plot" discussed.  It
>> discusses the forms of "kleros" (eg: kleros, kleroo, etc), and the various
>> meanings of "kleros" (eg: "plot of land," and "inheritance"), but mentions
>> nothing about CHORION or "burial plot." (Why does this not surprise me?) Thus
>> it would seem to be a very good thing you dumped Archer as a reference).
> 
> I was wrong. I admit that I do not have a handle on Greek grammar, and thus
> confused "kleros", the second to last word in Acts 1:17 as being the plot of
> land discussed.  In actuality it is "chorion", which is the last word Acts
> 1:18.  Unfortunately my Greek dictionary does not discuss "chorion" so I
> cannot report as to the nuances of the word.

I abhor publishing trash (I abhor it of myself even more than I do from
others, but since I do not present myself as an authority on the subject, I do
not feel dishonest, though I do openly admit ignorance and incompetence in
this example).  Thus I felt honor bound to do a better set of research
specifically on the word.  First it should be noted that Greek grammar is not
as tough as I first assumed (it is not nontrivial by any means, and I still am
not competent with it, but it is not as opaque as I had thought).  It turns
out that while the Index for the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich "Greek Lexicon" renders
each verse in order, each word within a verse is put in greek alphabetical
order.  Thus while the the meaning of the verse is decipherable, the syntax is
far from clear.  On the other hand, a Greek-English Intralinear Bible makes
things a lot more comprehendable.  And yes, the word for field in Acts 1:18 is
indeed "chorion." 

Now I've checked several Greek-English lexicons:

	"Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament," Louw and Nida
	"Robinson's Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament"
	"Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament," Grimm
	"Word study Concordance," Tynsdale
	"A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and other 
	 early Christian Writings," Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich
	"The New Analytical Greek Lexicon," Perschbacher

In each case the meaning of the word Chorion was given variously as:

	A space, place, region, district, field, area, "country place," 
	land, farm, estate, "a bit of tillage", and similar meanings.

Nowhere do any of these books mention anything about "grave." As some of these 
books go into great detail, I would be very surprised to find that these books 
are all inadequate and Mr Archer is the only competent scholar in Greek.  I 
think it more likely that Mr Archer's investigations into "contradictions" to 
be once again, as your friend said it, "lacking in substance," and thus Archer 
is again shown worthless as an expert witness (By the way Mr DeCenso, I would 
have honorably presented my results on this matter, even if I had found them
to support Mr Archer's contentions). 

By the way, among these lexicons, (eg: Robinson's) is the definition of
"agros," the word used in Matthew 27 to describe the field bought.  The word
"agros" is defined as "a field in the country." Chorion is specifically noted
as a synonym to agros.  This is significant, as it is evidence of how silly
Bullinger's exegisis was, which stated that the word for "field" in Matthew
(ie: agros) is different from the word for "field" in Acts (ie: chorion), and
thus we must be talking about two different fields (Of course you already
admit how stupid Bullinger's exegisis is, but this was a small serendipity
which drives the point home). 

So as of now, unless Mr DeCenso show compelling reasons to believe otherwise
(eg: a reputable scholar with reputable references), I consider this 
particular issue closed.  See Mr DeCenso, now you can go on to answer
questions about the denials of Peter, the day of the Crucifixion, Tyre, and 
the fact that the author of Matthew quoted from the wrong prophet in
discussing the "Potter's Field."
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

    Precise knowledge is the only true knowledge, and he who does not teach
    exactly, does not teach at all.
				Henry Ward Beecher
				American Clergyman
				as recorded by George Seldes

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82814
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Subject: Re: NEW BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS [still not] ANSWERED (Judas)

Mr DeCenso, in spite of requiring Scholarly opinion on the hanging of Judas,
rejects that the scholarly opinion of the those scholars and then rephrases
those scholars opinion on the subject:

> ...we do know from Matthew that he did hang himself and Acts probably records
> his death.  Although it's possible and plausible that he fell from the hanging
> and hit some rocks, thereby bursting open, I can no longer assume that to be
> the case.  Therefore, no contradiction.  Matthew did not say Judas died as a
>                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> result of the hanging, did he?  Most scholars believe he iprobably did, but..?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I quoted all that to show that I highly regard the scholars' explanations, but
> in looking at the texts initially, we can't assume Judas died.  It is, 
> however, highly probable.                   ^^^^^^

and 

> Also, there is nothing in the Greek to suggest success or failure.  It simply
> means "hang oneself".

Actually, if you do further research as to the Greek word "apacgw," you will
find that it does denote success.  Those scholars did indeed have an excellent
reason to assume that the suicide was successful.  As I pointed out, I
recently checked several Lexicons:

	"Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament," Louw and Nida
	"Robinson's Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament"
	"Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament," Grimm
	"Word study Concordance," Tynsdale
	"A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and other 
	 early Christian Writings," Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich
	"The New Analytical Greek Lexicon," Perschbacher

A couple simply stated "hanged oneself", and a couple were more explicit 
and stated that "apacgw" means specifically "kill yourself by hanging." A
couple also noted that the meaning of one the root words for "apacgw" is
"strangle, throttle or choke" (which pretty much invalidates the guy who
suggested to David Joslin that Judas was hung upside down).  One of the best
references though, "Robinson's Greek and English Lexicon of the New
Testament," not only stated the translation, it gave both the root words, the
literal translation, related greek words which use the same roots, and also
other presented specific examples of the word in greek literature (to give
further context).  

The word "apagchw" has two root words: "gchw" is the "to strangle" root, and
the root word "apo" means literally "away." This root words is included in
words which denote a transition.  It can mean a transition in place (eg: the
greek word "apagello" means to send a message).  "Apo" can also denote a
change in state and specifically the change from life to death.  Robinson
specifically makes comparison to the word "apokteiuo," which means "to kill."
In literal meaning the word "apacgw" means "to throttle, strangle to put out
of the way," and implicitly denotes a change in life state (ie: away from
life, to death).  So while the word "apacgw" does mean "to hang," it
specifically denotes a death as well.  Thus Robinson is quite specific when he
state that it means "to hang oneself, to end one's life by hanging." He then
notes the the use of "apacgw" in Homers Odessy 19:230 to denote context.  He
presents that example of "apacgw" as being used to explicitly mean "suicide by
hanging." Now since there is a perfectly good word for strangling, without the
added denotation of "death," and as you insist that the Bible was written by
God, and every word is precicely correct, you are stuck with the complete
meaning of "apacgw" (ie: Since the word "apacgw" was used, then death is
denoted as the result). 

By the way, I note that Mr DeCenso also presents an example of "apacgw":

> In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT used at the time of Jesus),
> it's only used in 2 Samuel 17:23 : "Now when Ahithophel saw that his advice 
> was not followed, he saddled a donkey, and arose and went home to his house,
> to his city. Then he put his household in order, and hanged himself, and 
> died; and he was buried in his father's tomb."   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^ 
> Notice that not only is it stated that Ahithophel "hanged himself" [Gr. Sept.,
> APAGCHO], but it explicitly adds, "and died".  Here we have no doubt of the
> result.
> In Matthew, we are not explicitly told Judas died.

Note Mr DeCenso, as you say, the Septuagint was a translation from Hebrew to
Greek, and you have not shown the original meaning of the Hebrew (ie" the the
Hebrew say "and died"), and thus whether it was simply echoed in the Greek. 
It should also be pointed out that, regardless of the added "and died", the
correct translation would still be "apacgw," as the man did indeed die from
strangulation (redundant, but correct).  Further, we have evidence that the
Septuagint was repeatedly rewritten and reedited (which included versions
which contradicted each other), and such editing was not even necessarily
executed by Greeks.  Thus I am not sure that you can use the Septuagint as it
now stands, as a paragon of ancient greek.  So, what you really need to prove
your point Mr DeCenso, is an example, in ancient greek, of someone committing
"apacgw" and surviving.  Otherwise I would see you as simply making worthless
assertions without corresponding evidence. 

Now I would note Mr DeCenso, that everytime I go out of my way to research it
one of your apparently contrived exegisis, I pretty much find it false.  Thus,
I think that if you are going to add to the text, something over and above
what the source clearly says, then you had better have an explicit Greek or
historical source to justify it. 

By the way, as to Mr Rose's statement about trees around the Potter's Field:

> There are still trees around the ledges and a rocky pavement at the bottom.

Unless Mr Rose can show that these trees are two thousand years old, or that
there are 2000 year old stumps there, or has a 2 thousand year old description
of the area which mentions such trees, then it is inappropriate for him to
assert that the present placement of trees prove the location of the trees two
thousand years ago (after all, things change). 

Now as to your other argument, ie: that the money Judas used is not the same
as the 30 silvers:

> As to your second question Mr DeCenso, you ask how we could be sure that the
> money with which Judas purchased the land, was indeed for the betrayal, rather
> than some other source.  I would point out that in Acts, where it specifically
> mention "the reward of iniquity" [Acts 1:18], it also specifically mentions
> what act of iniquity they were talking about (ie: Acts 1:16 "...concerning
> Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus.").  Now I would point out
> that when the Bible describes an act of "iniquity," and then immediately
> discusses "*the* reward of iniquity," it would be rather inane to suggest that
> it was an action of iniquity other than the one discussed."
> 
>  
> Notice that in verse 16, the word "iniquity" is not used.  Rather, it states
> that Judas "became a guide to those who arrested Jesus".
> But the writer DID NOT stop there...vs. 17, "for he was numbered with us and
> obtained a part in this ministry."  What part did Judas play in their ministry?
>          ^^^^^^

True, Peter (or the author of Acts) does not specifically call Judas' betrayal
"an iniquity," but for that matter, neither does John specifically call Judas'
actions "an iniquity" either.  Further John 13:29 did not say that Judas took
the money box, but rather said:

    "Some thought that because, Judas had the money box, Jesus was telling
     him "Buy what we need for the feast"; or that he should give something
     to the poor, So after receiving the morsel he immediately went out, and
     it was night."

Note that it is said that Judas left, it does not say that he took the money
box.  Thus when I see your explanation it still seems to me you would choose
the a an unproven iniquity, mentioned by another author, in a different
book, written at a different time, over the iniquity explicitly mentioned by
the author of acts.  I find this forced and contrived. 

Of course this particular argument becomes moot, since we have have seen
evidence that "apacgw" means suicide.  You see, since Judas' hanging was
successful, he could not have spent the money mentioned in John 13:29, because
Matthew and Mark explicitly say the betrayal was on the high holy day (ie:
Passover), and thus he could not have spent the money before killing himself
the next day.  Thus the money which bought the "Field of Blood" would have to
have been the 30 pieces of silver (Of course he got the 30 pieces of silver
that night as well, and thus couldn't have spent that either.  Oh dear, I
believe that the house of cards is comming down). 

Maybe we should at this point, discuss now whether Jesus was crucified on
Friday or Saturday as that is now part of the argument about Judas.

By the way, as to where the prophesy of the Potter's field came from (ie: the
mention of it in Matthew), you say:

> Please, when we are done with this study on his death, remind me to discuss
> this with you.

I am reminding you now to discuss it now. It's all part of the same verse we
are discussing, and I wish you would quit procrastinating and sidestepping 
these issues.
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

	A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.
				David Hume, Philosopher
				An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding

    PS. I would note again, that you are not stating that that Bible
    is not possibly inerrant; you are stating that it *IS* inerrant.
    Since you have been, by your own admission, presenting merely "possible"
    reconciliations (I of course don't rate them that highly), then the 
    best you can do is say that the Bible is "possibly" inerrant, not that 
    it *is* inerrant.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82815
Subject: Re: "Imaginary" Friends - Info and Experiences
From: patb@bnr.co.uk (Patrick Brosnan)

In article <1993Apr2.041929.24320@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kditto@nyx.cs.du.edu (Kimborly Ditto) writes:
>
>Concerniong this thread...
>
>Has anyone ever seen "Drop Dead Fred" ??  THis movie seems to tipify the
>"imaginary friend" theme rather well.  I LOVED the movie, as i had an
>imaginary friend when i was a kid and it borught back great memories.  
>
>Seriously, if you have a chance, see "Drop Dead Fred".  It'll make ya
>think.  especially the end.
>
>Blessings!
>--Kim
>


-- 
Patrick Brosnan.  <patb@bnr.co.uk> || ...!mcsun!ukc!stc!patb
Northern Telecomm, Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB. 
Phone : +44 81 945 2135 or +44 81 945 4000 x2135
"Oh, Flash, I love you - but we've only got 14 hours to save the universe."

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82816
From: jmeritt@mental.mitre.org
Subject: God's promise of Peace

PSA 145:9  The LORD is good to all: and his  tender  mercies  are
over all his works.

JER 13:14  And I will dash them one against another, even the fa-
thers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor
spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82818
From: jmeritt@mental.mitre.org
Subject: God's promise to the righteous

Ps.92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."

Isa.57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 82819
From: dan@Ingres.COM (a Rose arose)
Subject: Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor

regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
: In article <1993Mar30.001428.7648@pony.Ingres.COM> dan@Ingres.COM (a Rose arose) writes:
: 
: Seriously, though, Griffen didn't save the lives of children, and he did
: destroy the life of a man, so on the most superficial of levels, he's scum.
: 

I almost agree, but Griffen is not scum.  Scum has no guilt or freedom to
choose anything.  Griffen does.  God did not make scum when he made Griffen.
He made a precious person and this person chose to do wrong.  The same goes
for Dr. Gunn.

: But if you are to examine it more closely, Griffen would have preferred that
: these children were born -- yet AFTER their birth, did Griffen have any 
: assistance to offer them?  Did Griffen intend to support them, educate them,
: raise them up to be useful citizens?  Did he have any intent whatsoever
: to help these children after birth?
: 

Here's the real problem.  Americans have become so insensitive to the needs
of others and so completely wrapped up in themselves that they cannot see
straight or think clearly enough to make even the slightest and most obvious
moral decisions based on reality.

If a man abandons a woman to care for their child on her own, he is not
considered to be a very respectable or decent man by anyone.  This man has
fled his responsibility, has behaved like a lazy coward, and has turned
away from his responsibility to his wife and child.

However, if a woman decides to kill her unborn child to release her burden,
she is not thought of in the same way.  When the man abandons, the woman
suffers but the child is free to grow up and live a happy and normal life.
When the woman abandons, the child is diced or killed with saline or vacuumed
out, and the man has no choice, and the man sometimes suffers so badly that
he wishes he could trade places with his child.

Ths root of this whole problem is selfishness--the arrogance that says, "My
feelings and desires are supreme and your well being is not worth dung."
And when you come down to it, this is the substance of what hell is made of.
It's the reason a loving God can throw selfish people to the devil and his
demons for all of eternity.  Let any one of us unrepentant into heaven, and
we'll ruin it the first chance we get.

: Now, I don't really know the answer to these questions, but I've got a real
: good guess.
: 

And, it's probably right.

: And I wouldn't call *that* 'benevolent', either.
: 

It is a move in the right direction.  As it is now, we don't see our
responsibility because we kill it and get it out of sight.  The media
backs us completely.  Real responsibility does not sell.  The only
"responsibility" that sells in the marketplace is that which is just
enough to make us "feel responsible" without showing anything that
might show us our own true irresponsibility.  We want to "feel" like
good people, but we want nothing with *being* good people.  Just give
me the freedom to say "I'm good", and the rest of the world can burn.
Rape and kill my children and throw my parents to the places where
poor old folks rot until they're dead.  I'll hate my brother and sister
if I wish and I'll cheat on my wife or husband.  Screw the government,
because it screws me, and don't talk to me about giving to the church
because church people are all a bunch of money grubbing hypocrites.
But, I'm a good person.  At least I admit what I do.  At least I love
myself and we all know that is the greatest love in the world--not that
a man lay down his life for his brother...That sounds too "christian".

At the root, this is the substance of what hell is made of.

We've become a self indulgant, backslidden society no longer responsible
to our children, to our parents, to our families, to our government, or
to our God.  This is the root behind justification of every evil, of every
corruption in government, of every slanderous remark, of every lie, and
of every murder.  Society cannot continue to live like this long.  it will
have to destroy itsself soon, and perhaps in the end, that will be the
biggest blessing this world can hope to see.

Why do people see so much evil in trying to turn this situation around?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
	"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."

		- Susan B. Anthony,
		  The Revolution July 8, 1869


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83437
From: peavler@fingal.plk.af.mil (Ninja Gourmet)
Subject: Scarlet Horse of Babylon (was Daemons)

In article <1qilgnINNrko@lynx.unm.edu>, blowfish@leo.unm.edu (rON.) writes:
|> Its easy...
|> 667 >is< the neighbor of the beast (at 666)-
|> the beast lives at the end of a cul-de-sac.
|> r.

I noticed this dead horse in your Keywords line. Is this the famous scarlet horse
of Babylon that the Beast (that's 666 for you illuminatti) rides on in those
wonderful mediaeval manuscripts. If so, I fear your announcement that the old
girl is dead may be premature. I bet $20 on her to place in the 6th race at The
Downs last Sunday, and she slid in a bad fifth. So she is not dead. She is just
comatose. (like god that way, I suppose).

Ninja Gourmet
Will fight for food. 

-- 
Jim Peavler			My opinions do not exist.
peavler@plk.af.mil		That is why they are called
Albuquerque, NM				MY opinions.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83438
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Language and agreement

m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:

Mr. Meritt, please state explicitly the inductive argument which leads
you to conclude Mr. Tice thinks it "OK" to take biblical quotes out of
context in some other t.r.m. articles.

Also, please explain why you rely on inductive reasoning (with its
implicit uncertainty) in determining Mr. Tice's opinions when the man
is himself clearly available for questioning.

Finally, please indicate whether you agree (yes or no) with the
following statement:

   The word "agree" and the phrase "not disagree" are identical in
   meaning.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83439
From: king@ctron.com (John E. King)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is oxymoronic?



Andrew A. Houghton"  writes:  

>I'm still waiting to hear a good response from a christian type..  how
>is christ's word (as quoted by Paul) reconciled with current christian
>beliefs?

Almost one third of the world's population claim to be Christian.  But
any similarity between their beliefs and lifestyle to the first century
model is purely coincidental.  At Luke 18:8 it states, "...nevertheless,
when the son of man returns, will he really find the faith on the earth?"


Jack


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83440
From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Subject: Objective Values 'v' Scientific Accuracy (was Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is)

Frank, I tried to mail this but it bounced.  It is fast moving out
of t.a scope, but I didn't know if t.a was the only group of the three
that you subscribed to.
Apologies to regular t.a folks.

In article <1qjahh$mrs@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:

>Science ("the real world") has its basis in values, not the other way round, 
>as you would wish it.  

You must be using 'values' to mean something different from the way I
see it used normally.

And you are certainly using 'Science' like that if you equate it to
"the real world".

Science is the recognition of patterns in our perceptions of the Universe
and the making of qualitative and quantitative predictions concerning
those perceptions.

It has nothing to do with values as far as I can see.
Values are ... well they are what I value.
They are what I would have rather than not have - what I would experience
rather than not, and so on.

Objective values are a set of values which the proposer believes are
applicable to everyone.

>If there is no such thing as objective value, then science can not 
>objectively be said to be more useful than a kick in the head.

I don't agree.
Science is useful insofar as it the predictions mentioned above are
accurate.  That is insofar as what I think *will be* the effect on
my perceptions of a time lapse (with or without my input to the Universe)
versus what my perceptions actually turn out to be.

But values are about whether I like (in the loosest sense of the word) the 
perceptions :-)

>Simple theories with accurate predictions could not objectively be said
>to be more useful than a set of tarot cards.  

I don't see why.
'Usefulness' in science is synonomous with 'accuracy' - period.
Tarot predictions are not useful because they are not accurate - or
can't be shown to be accurate.
Science is useful because it is apparently accurate.

Values - objective or otherwise - are beside the point.

No?

tommy

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83441
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Subject: Re: Food For Thought On Tyre

king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
>Not exactly.  The prophesy clearly implies that people would
>still be living in the area, but by the same token it would
>never be "rebuilt".  Obviously , if people are still there they
>would live in houses, correct?  Their "nets" implies a fishing
>village.  This is exactly what it has become -- a far cry from
>its original position of stature .

Looking at [1] we find that during Roman times "Tyre vied with Sidon
for first place in the intellectual life of the period"; that Tyre was
the seat of a Christian bishop, eventually with 14 dioceses under it;
that "the most magnificent church of its kind in all Phoenecia" was the
basilica built in Tyre ca. 314; that Tyre was well known for its
exports of glassware, wine, white marble, and dyed cloth; that Tyre,
along with other seaports, "provided outlets for South Arabian, Indian
and even Chinese trade"; that Tyre had to accomodate its growing
population by "following a perpendicular, rather than horizontal, line
of growth" (because it was running out of land to build on); that Tyre
established colonies of its own.  None of this sounds like a "small
fishing village" by any stretch of the imagination.

Centuries later, under the Abbasids, Tyre had "opulent and flourishing
bazaars" and buildings of 5-6 stories.  During this period, Tyre was
"noted for its export of sugar, beads, and, as of old, glassware."
During the Crusades, Tyre was the second-most flourishing city held
by Franks.  (There is a lot more, but I got tired of writing.)

In [2] we read the following description of modern Lebanon: "other
*major cities* in Lebanon include Tripoli, Sidon, Tyre, Baalbek and
Zahlah."  [my emphasis]  This source also discusses the impact of
the Lebanese Civil War, and the Israeli military actions (1978, 1982)
on the trading ports of Tyre and Sidon.  It notes that after Israel's
withdrawel in 1984, "Tyre appeared to enjoy a revival of its local
economy."

If Tyre is such an insignificant little fishing village at present,
why is it always called a city (or, above, a "major city")?  Why
does it show up on all the maps?   When population figures for cities
in Lebanon are given, why is Tyre always one of the cities on the
list (even if the list is only a dozen cities long)?

[1] Philip K. Hitti, _Lebanon in History: From the earliest times to
the present_, NY, St. Martins, 1967.  

[2] Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, _Lebanon: a
country study_, edited by Thomas Collelo, 1989.

>>In the early 1980's Tyre had over 22,000 people.
>
>So far I've seen stated figurers ranging from 15,000 to 22,000.
>Let's assume the latter one is correct.  By modern standards
>we are talking about a one-horse town.

A one-horse town?  Sounds like a lot of work for one horse.
(Anyway, Tyre is connected by roads to the mainland.  They
may even use cars these days. :-) 

The 1991 Encyclopedia Britannica says "Pop. (1982 est.) 23,000."  
Most other references give figures in the 14-17 thousand range.
(One atlas gives the population of Tyre as 60,000; the same
source give comparatively high figures for Sidon and Beirut, also,
so I doubt that it is a typo.  Perhaps these were figures for
the cities and their surrounding areas.)  I don't doubt that the
population of Tyre has fluctuated over the last few decades.  In
particular, the 1982 Israeli military action hurt Tyre quite a bit.   

>> After Alex the G it fell once more in the 1200's, I believe.  What
>>other times did it fall that you were thinking of? 
>
>To Egypt (250 bce); to the Seleucids (198 bce); Rome (63 bce); after
>Rome it fell to various Arab contingents until 1124 ce when it was
>captured in the Crusades;  it was then recaptured again by the Muslims
>in 1291 ce and subsequently pillaged; then the French, Turks, British,
>and today, Lebanon.

I thought you were talking about times that Tyre was destroyed.
Don't most, if not all, of these apply not just to Tyre but to 
the other cities in the area?  Sidon, for example?  Can you make
a case for Tyre having been singled out?

>>Well, it recovered enough to have a thriving commerce in the dye
>>"Tyrian purple" in Roman times. 
>
>This is correct, but they were under Roman domination, and the 
>majority of the created wealth was siphoned off.  The prophesy
>hold true.

They had a good deal of autonomy under the Seleucids. From [2]:
Tyre "receiv[ed] the rights [of autonomy] from Antiochus Ephiphanes
and from 125 BC onward enjoy[ed] complete autonomy. She started a
large series of coins, occasionally in gold ..."

The descriptions of Tyre under the Romans don't seem to fit
your characterization, either.  And under the Abbasids it seems
to have been allowed to flourish.  I still think you are stretching
when you try to describe Tyre as having been nothing but a small
fishing village.

>Who is Josh McDowell.

A Christian apologist whose standards of scholarship are quite low.
He happens to quote the same source you quote (Nina Jidejian,
_Tyre through the Ages_, Beirut, Dar El-Mashreq Publishers, 1969).
The same sentence, in fact.  He defends the fulfillment of the
prophecy using the same argument you are using, an argument that
I haven't seen in print anywhere else, which is why I jumped to
the conclusion that you were quoting Josh.

(I tried to find the Jidejian book, but it isn't listed in Books
in Print.  Can you tell me more about it? Her descriptions are so
much at odds with everything else I've read; I'm curious to know why.)

dj

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83442
From: rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com
Subject: "Ex-Gay"? (was: HOMOSEXUALITY Fact & Fiction)

Tony-

While I honestly believe you believe you are doing a "good thing" by posting
that piece of propaganda, I believe the more people believe that the more they
will feel justified in their blatant persecution of gay oriented people.  I
have seen the film called "The Gay Agenda" and along with my church we found
it to be horrifying.  Not because of what was actually shown (cleaver use of
editting can create any image one wants to portray), rather becaseu we are familia
familiar with how widely it was actively distributed and how many naive people
are actually believing the garbage found within it.  The truth is that neither
you nor I can fully speak for anyone who calls themself gay, but knowing as
many as I do and knowing their testimonies and witnessing thier faith and life
I have to say that the report you posted is a very biased report, something
obviously claimed against gays as well.  The truth is that unless YOU are
innately gay you cannot know what harm you are causing.  I speak as an
abolitionist who supports affirming gay rights in our society.  I do not
support wild sex or any other misrepresentations perpetrated by Christian
Fundamentalist extremists, but I know people who are not the sexual deviants
your report paints them to be.  It is no mistake that the APA removed
homosexuality from it's list of mental illnesses, it is also no mistake that
there are many Christians and homophobes who long to bring it back to the list.
I do not feel threatened by gays, I don't understand why others are.

The following is an article concerning two of the more popular ex-gay min-
istries:  Exodus International & Homosexuals Anonymous.

THE FOUNDER OF AN "EX-GAY" SUPPORT GROUP CHOOSES HOMO OVER HETERO

by Robert Pela (from Gay oriented magazine ADVOCATE)

In December 1985, David Caligiuri received one of The Advocate's homophobia rewaa
awards: the A Prayer A Day Keeps the Lust Away citation.  As director of FREE
INDEED, a national ex-gay ministry, Caligiuri was singled out for offering
discontented gays and lesbians "a way out of the homosexual death-style"
through prayer.  "I'd like to give the award back," Caligiuri now laughs, "I'm
no longer deserve it."
  Caligiuri's eight year involvement with the national "ex-gay" movement peaked
with his founding of the Phoenix chapter of Homosexuals Anonymous (HA) as well
as Free Indeed.  He has since abandoned his pulpit and now says that the ex-
gay movement is a fruitless effort based on deception.  "There's no reality
in it," he says, "I was selling a product, and my product was a lie."
  Headed up by national ministries like Exodus International and Courage, the
organizations of the ex-gay movement rely on the tenents of born-again
Christianity to convince disatisfied homosexuals -- usually young gay men who
are just coming out -- that they can shed their sexuality by suppressing their
sexual urges and embracing Christianity.  "We offer support to people who are
seeking to leave the sin of homosexuality," explains Bob Davies, director of
Exodus.  He ventures that "about 80% of those seeking to abandon their homo-
sexuality are men."
  "Anybody who is involved in the ex-gay ministry is misguided and is wasting
their time," says Lisa Seeley, a former "redeemed lesbian" who worked with
Caligiuri as HA and appeared with him on the Sally Jessy Raphael show.  "These
organizations are for people who are spiritually and emotionally wounded."
  "It's possible to change your identity or your behavior," says sex educator
Brian McNaught, author of _On Being Gay_. "But it's really impossible to
change your orientation.  These people are no longer calling themselves gay,
but they continue to have same-sex erotic feelings."
  Caligiuri says he founded Free Indeed after an ominous week in 1981 when all
hell broke loose in his personal life.  A few days after his lover ended both
their romance and their business partnership, Caligiuri was sexually assaulted
by a man he picked up in a bar.  "I was really drunk," he recalls, "and I
went home with this guy.  He tied me up and raped me.  He left me tied up all
night, and the next morning he raped me again."
  When Caligiuri was eventually freed by the attacker, he returned home to the
home he shared with his ex-lover.  "He had another man there with him,"
Caligiuri recalls.  "I thought at this time, 'If this is what being gay is
about, I don't want to be this way anymore."
  Caligiuri vowed that if he could find a way out, he would share his discovery
with others.  He organized an antigay contingent to demonstrate at Phoenix's
gay pride parade in June 1985, and a few months later Free Indeed held its
first public protest.  At a meeting to promote a gay civil rights ordinance,
Free Indeed members loudly blasted gays, telling them ther were sinners headed
for hell.
  Free Indeed began receiving about a hundred telephone calls a week, thanks
in part to a deceptive listing in the local yellow pages.  "We were listed
under Lesbian and Gay Alternative Services," Caligiuri says, "so people
thought we were a gay information switchboard.  People would call to find out
where the local bars were, and we'd preach to them about the sins of homo-
sexuality."  Ruses like this are typical of the movement, Caligiuri says,
adding, "They'll do anything to reach these people."
  "David used to go on radio and say really stupid things," recalls Peter
Kelly, a counselor at Phoenix's Catholic diocese AIDS program, "like that
he knew he was gay when he started wearing pastel colors."
  Caligiuri's family first found out about his ministry when they saw him on
Raphael's syndicated talk show in 1985.  "They were relieved," he recalls.
"They figured that if they had to have a gay person in the family, better
that I should be a 'reformed' gay person."
  But Caligiuri was hardly reformed.  "By the time I appeared on Sally's
show," "I'd started having sex with men again.  Men would call our hotline
and tell me about thier latest sin: sex with their pastor, sex with their
father.  I was horny all the time."
  Unable to risk going to gay bars, where he might be recognized from his
numerous television appearances, Caligiuri says he "used to go to bookstores
and get blowjobs."  When he wasn't working the bookstores, he was sleeping
with other "reformed" homosexuals.
  "I didn't realize it at first, but a lot of the HA leaders were having sex
with one another," Caligiuri says.  "We'd go to conferences in other cities,
and we'd be paired up in hotel rooms.  Everybody was sleeping with everybody
else."
  By the time he appeared on 'AM Philadelphia' television show in May 1988,
Caligiuri was having anonymous sex a couple times a week.  When the show's
host asked him if he ever "acted on temptation," his answer was a lie.
  Caligiuri's duplicity began to take it's toll on him, however.  He was
suffering from chrinic fatigue syndrome and candidiasis, a dibilitating
yeast infection, and this led to his escape from the sect.  "I was too sick
to go to church," he explains.  "The more time I spent away from those people
the more I began to feel like myself.  I began to remember who I used to be."
  Late in 1991, Caligiuri turned Free Indeed phone lines over to a local
church and closed the ministry's doors.  "I'd convinced myself that there
is no need in the world for ex-gay people," he says.
  Today, Caligiuri, 31, is studying alternative spiritualities ("I'm interest-
ed in belief systems that aren't judgemental."), considering romance ("But
not with a CHristian!"), and searching for a new project to devote himself to.
"I feel compelled to commit myself to gay causes," he says.  "I want to
eventually stop feeling guilty about what I did and make up for the damage I
may have brought to our community."

---end article---

Caligiuri's tory is by no means unique and I have read several other articles
of former leaders and founders of 'ex-gay' ministries who have said very similar th
similar things.  Fortuantely not all of them have left Christianity, but have
come to realize that God loves them despite the attitudes of others.  Some,
like Chris Glaser, director of the Presbyterian "Lazarus Project" of West
Hollywood Presbyterian Church have actually been working with the gay community
to bring them into the sheepfold of Christ and encouraging real ethical values
of sexuality within the sphere of being gay.  I have also, as I said talked and become
and become close friends with many who once attended such groups as "Love In
Action" and others, who either once claimed to have been "reformed" or who
were too honest with themselves to live a lie, no matter who was disappointed
in them.  Some were even encouraged to marry as a way of "sealing" their
new heterosexuality, only to eventually start hitting the bars, bathhouses
and bookstores, since these were usually activities under the concealment of
night and one-night-stands of promiscuous behavior meant no continuous "sin"
through a committed relationship.  This is a horrible trap which the CHurch
has dumped on the backs of the truly gay oriented people, and the very inno-
cent victims in these cases are the wives and children of such marriages.  Yet
the church insists that there are only two options they are willing to allow
gay people: 1) heterosexuality or 2) celebacy.  This is sad.  What is also
mrtifying, is in the cases of those who cannot suppress their desires and
fear for thier sanity in such a mixed up confusion that the church forces on
them, they may even opt for 'suicide' or surgical dampering of the brain
functions.  In the past lobotomies and heavey drug suppressants were common-
place.  There are now becoming available more and more literature on the
threat of coercive Christianity toward gays, such as Sylvia Pennington's
_"Ex-Gays?  There Are None_. and others.  There are also a great many fact
based books being written to help people trapped in this confusion such as
Maury Johnston's _Gays Under Grace_, and Chris Glaser's _Come Hom!_.  I
seriously recommend those for people seeking help for this persecution and
self-acceptance.

Thank you.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83444
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Food For Thought On Tyre

In article <1qh4m5INN2pu@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E.
King) wrote:
> Not exactly.  The prophesy clearly implies that people would
> still be living in the area, but by the same token it would
> never be "rebuilt".  Obviously , if people are still there they
> would live in houses, correct?  Their "nets" implies a fishing
> village.  This is exactly what it has become -- a far cry from
> its original position of stature .

Let's see, if Alexander destroyed Tyre, and people move back, and
they construct houses, and after a while 14000 people live there
and still call it Tyre, it is not considered to be rebuilt. Instead
it's considered to be 'just-some-people-that-got-together-for-fishing-
and-they-needed-houses' place.

> So far I've seen stated figurers ranging from 15,000 to 22,000.
> Let's assume the latter one is correct.  By modern standards
> we are talking about a one-horse town.

Sigh, I was never born in a city then (my home town has 10.000
people). I have to consult my city and inform them that it's from
now a fishing village. When this city (Kristinestad) was founded
in the 17:th century about 1000 people lived there, so the norms
were even more bizarre for dumb Swedish queens who founded cities
along the coast of Finland.

I would like to know why Paul thought is was worth mentioning the 
small fishing place of Tyre in Acts. Again, maybe he was a keen
fisherman and wanted to visit the shores of Tyre? :-)

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83445
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>
>Brian Kendig contorts . . .
>
>>	It can not be a light which cleanses
>>	if it is tainted with the blood
>>	of an innocent man.
>
>. . . now showing how Brian Kendig is in the dark of the 
>most fundamental basic of the Old Testament.  Concepts like
>santification and Lev. 17:11 must be foreign to you.  Too bad
>you are not interested in understanding.  Too bad you prefer
>blurting folly even to your own shame.

  Lev 17:11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given
  it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is
  the blood that makes atonement for the soul.

The Old Testament was very big on the "eye for an eye" business.  It
makes sense that Leviticus would support physical injury to "repay"
moral wrongdoing.

I know about sanctification.  I've been taught all about it in Sunday
school, catechism class, and theology classes.  But even after all
that, I still can't accept it.  Maybe I'm still not understanding it,
or maybe I'm just understanding it all too well.

From the bottom of my heart I know that the punishment of an innocent
man is wrong.  I've tried repeatedly over the course of several years
to accept it, but I just can't.  If this means that I can't accept the
premise that a god who would allow this is 'perfectly good', then so
be it.

>     What ignorance you can show us next?  I guess I'll wait
>till tomorrow.

If you can explain to me why the death of Jesus was a *good* thing,
then I would be very glad to hear it, and you might even convert me.
Be warned, however, that I've heard all the most common arguments
before, and they just don't convince me.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83447
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes ...
>Plus questions for you:  why do subjectivists/relativists/nihilists get so 
>het up about the idea that relativism is *better* than objectivism? 

To the degree that relativism is a more accurate decription of the
truth than is objectivism, it provides more power and ability to
control events.

Assuming, for the moment, that morals _are_ relative, then two
relativists can recognize that neither has a lock on the absolute
truth and they can proceed to negotiate a workable compromise that
produces the desired results.

Assuming that there is an absolute morality, two disagreeing 
objectivists can either be both wrong or just one of them right; there
is no room for compromise.  Once you beleive in absolute morals,
you must accept that you are amoral or that everyone who disagrees
with you is amoral.

Given a choice between a peaceful compromise or endless contention,
I'd say that compromise seems to be "better".

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Friedrich Nietzsche

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83449
From: rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com
Subject: "Ex-Gays?" (follow-up)

I would like to apologize for the typos in the previous post.

In retrospect I would also like to quote another source: Douglas C.
Haldeman from his 1991 book _Homosexuality_

THERAPY INEFFECTIVE

Recently the founders of yet another prominent "ex-gay" ministry, Exodus
International, denounced their conversion therapy procedures as ineffective.
Michael Busse and Gary Cooper, cofounders of Exodus International and lovers
for 13 years, were involved with the organization from 1976 to 1979.  The
program was described by these men as "ineffective . . . not one person was
healed."  They stated that the program often exacerbated already prominent
feelings of guilt and personal failure among the counselees; many were
driven to suicidal thoughts as a result of the failed "reparative therapy."

The previous article quoted in the last posting is from THE ADVOCATE, June
30, 1992 called "The Ex-Ex-Gay" by Robert Pela.

Some personal thoughts:

It is of no great astonishment that there is a concerted effort by a major
portion of the Church to control and mandate change of a minority among
its ranks.  This was the momentum behind the Spanish Inquisition, only all
they required was a confession of faith (after much torture) and then, to
save their souls they would dispatch them to heaven through death.  Even
later, the Bible was used vigorously to defend slavery, oppression and
segragation of African-Americans, even to the justification of lynchings.
Today's scholars are just a bit more slick in their approach.  The tool is
still coersion, but now it is mostly by means of brainwashing and mind
control, convincing people that they should see themselves as less than
God sees them, then maintaining a cultic hold on them until it is felt
thier mind-conditioning is complete.  Sure, no one is "physically" forced
to stay in this "reparative therapy" but sheer social pressure is enough for
many to keep themselves in this new found bondage of self-hate.

As an abolitionist I advocate the abolishment of oppression and persecution
against gays in all facets of civil life.  A person should be judged by
the contibution, or non-contribution to the society in which they live,
not by some high-brow standard of conformity imposed by those who haven';t
a clue what is in their heart.

For those who seek more information about Gays and groups that accept them
please contact your nearest chapter of PFLAG (Parents & Friends of Lesbians
And Gays) who will be more than happy to assist you.  This is a group of
people comprised of Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals, their parents and friends
who have formed a support group for help and understanding.  Try talking to
a parent of a gay son or daughter and learn some "first-hand" real life and
loving understanding.  God's love and understanding for Gay people is no
less abundant.

Thank you.
PAX

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83450
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: 15 Apr 93   God's Promise in John 1:12



	But as many as received him,
	to them gave he power
	to become the sons of God,
	even to them that believe on his name:

	John 1:12

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83451
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Food For Thought On Tyre

I was curious to check out how many San Jose Mercury News mentioned
Tyre (1990-92). Here's the outcome from the research (condenced versions,
copyright San Jose Mercury news):

---
  Bombings in the two largest cities in southern Lebanon killed 11 people
and 
wounded 80 others. A car bomb blew up in Tyre, killing 10 people and
wounding 
75. A man was killed and five others seriously wounded in an explosion in 
Nabatiye.
---
  An Israeli navy patrol boat attacked and sank a rubber guerrilla boat off

southern Lebanon early today, killing the two men aboard, the army command 
said.
  
     It said in a communique that a Dvora patrol boat opened fire on the 
motorized rubber dinghy north of Tyre after identifying it as hostile. The
army 
said no one on the Israeli boat was injured. The affiliation of the slain 
guerrillas was not immediately known.
---
  Rival factions of the guerrilla group led by terrorist mastermind Abu
Nidal 
battled Sunday in Tyre, Lebanon, with machine guns and rocket-propelled 
grenades, killing at least four people and wounding 15, police said.
---
 Lebanon's mainstream Shiite Muslim militia said Thursday that it had 
uncovered a network of tunnels in a southern Lebanese village where it said
pro-
Iranian kidnappers had held Western hostages.
  
     Officials of the militia, Amal, led local journalists through the
catacomb-
like alleys and showed them two cells with iron doors at the village, 
Kawthariyet al Siyad, near Tyre, the ancient port city, about 40 miles
south of 
Beirut.
  
     The officials said they were certain that U.S. Marine Lt. Col. William
R. 
Higgins was detained there shortly after he was seized by gunmen on a road 
outside Tyre in February 1988.
--------------
...anyway, I counted 20 articles during these 3 years of reporting. I also
found out the possible reason why the numbers for the inhabitants of the
city is defined between 14000 and 24000. It seems that Tyre is one of the
places
where people from Libanon flee to during more extensive bombings, so
there's
a constant flow of refugees entering and leaving Tyre (articles mentioned
thousands of people entering and leaving this place).

I counted 0 articles for my home town, Kristinestad, so from now I will
consider this place to be a fishing village :-).

Cheers,
Kent

---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83453
From: irfan@davinci.ece.wisc.edu (Irfan Alan)
Subject: A TREATISE ON THE MIRACLES OF MUHAMMAD SAW, PART-1

DROPLET VOL 1, No 11, Part 1

A  D R O P L E T
From The Vast Ocean Of The Miraculous Qur'an

Translations from the Arabic and Turkish Writings of 
Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, The Risale-i Noor

VOL 1, No 11, Part 1
------------------------------------------------------------------


   		 NINETEENTH LETTER  

		 MU'JIZAT-I AHMEDIYE RISALESI 
(A TREATISE ON THE MIRACLES OF MUHAMMAD SAW)       
(SAW: PEACE AND BLESSINGS BE UPON HIM)

In His Name (ALLAH) , Be He (ALLAH) Glorified!
There is Nothing But Glorifies His (ALLAH's) Praise.

In The Name Of  Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful

   "He is who has sent His Messenger with
guidance and the religion of truth  to make it
supreme over all religion:  and sufficient is Allah
as a Witness.  Muhammad is the Messenger of
Allah, and those who are with him are firm
against the unbelievers and merciful among
each other.  You will see them bowing and
prostrating  themselves, seeking Allah's grace
and His pleasure.  Their mark is on their face
the sing of prostrafion; this is their similitude in
the Torah and Indgil." [the Our'an 48:28-29]

   Since the Nineteenth and Thirhy-first Words
concerning the mission of Muhammad (SAW) prove his
prophethood with decisive evidences, we assign the
verification of that subject to those Words.
   As a supplement to them, we will merely show here
in Nineteen Signs, some  of the flashes of that great
truth.

   FIRST SIGN:  The Owner and Master of this universe
does everything with knowledge, disposes every affair
with wisdom, directs everything all-seeingly, treats
everything all-knowingly, and arranges in everything with
His will and wisdom such causes, purposes and uses that
are apparent to us.  Since the One who creates knows,
surely the One who knows will speak, since He will
speak, surely He will speak to those who have
consciousness, thought, and speech.  Since He will speak
to those who have thought, surely He will speak to
humankind, whose make-up and awareness are more
comprehensive of all conscious beings.  Since He will
speak to humankind, surely He will speak to the most
perfect of mankind and those most worthy of address and
highest in morality, and who are qualified to guide
humanity; then He will certainly speak to Muhammad (SAW), 
who, as friend and foe alike testify, is of the highest 
character and morality, and who is obeyed by one fifth
of humanity, to whose spiritual rule half of the globe has
submitted, with the radiance of whose light has been
illumined the future of mankind for thirteen centuries, to
whom the believers, the luminous segment of humanity,
renew their oath of allegiance five times a day, for
whose happiness and peace they pray, for whom they call
down Allah's blessings and bear admiration and love in
their hearts.

   Certainly, He will speak to Muhammad (SAW),
and Indeed He has done so;  He will make him the
Messenger, and Indeed He has done so; He will make
him the guide for the rest of humanity, and Indeed He
has done so.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
To be continued In$a Allah.
Your Br. Irfan in Islam.



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83454
From: david@terminus.ericsson.se (David Bold)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality

In article Fo2@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU, pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:

<Moral Driver distinctions deleted>

>>In this case, the Driver does not evolve but simply Is. There would
>>probably not be any manifestation in an infant  because the Moral
>>Code has not been learnt yet (ie. the object upon which the Driver
>>acts upon). 
>
>Without manifestation, though, how can the Driver be detected? For
>all purposes it seems not to exist until Moral Coding begins.
>Actually, I agree with your notion of a Driver, except that I think
>it's not moral but pre- (and super-)moral. It is, as I mentioned
>earlier in this thread, a primal sense of connection, a pre- and
>post-natal umbilical the awareness of which is expressed in a
>partial, fragmented way that accomodates (and forms, in return) the
>language and customs of a given culture. This halting, pidgin-english
>expression is, I think, what we come to call 'morality'. 

Compare the Driver to an urge such as Jealousy, where there is an urge
and an "object". The jealousy does not technically exist until the object
is apparent. However, the capacity to be jealous is presumably still there
even though it is not detectable.

Your description of the Unbilical took me three passes to understand (!) but
I get the gist and I have to tentatively agree. I think our two definitions
can sit side by side without too much trouble, though. I haven't attempted to
define the reason behind the Moral Driver (only hinted through the essence of
each Moral). Your definition hints that animals are also capable of a
similar morality - Simians have a similar Social Order to ourselves and it is
easy to anthropomorphize with these animals. Is this possible or have I
misunderstood?

>
>>>>If my suggestion holds true then this is the area where work must be
>>>>carried out to prevent a moral deterioration of Society,
>
>>>What kind of work, exactly?
>
>>Well, here you have asked the BIG question. [...]
>>I have a slight suspicion that you were hoping I would say
>>something really contentious in this reply (from your final question).
>
>No, not at all. I was just wondering if you subscribed to some
>particular school of psycho-social thought and rehabilitation, and if
>perhaps you had a plan. I'd have been interested to hear it. 
>

My p.s. thoughts falls roughly in line with John Stuart Mill and
his writings on Utilitarianism. I have no particular plan (except to do
my bit - personal ethics AND social work). My opinion (for what it is worth)
is that the Authority for each Moral must be increased somehow, and that this
will probably take several generations to be effective. I don't think that the
list of Morals has changed for Society significantly, though . The Authority element
may come from our authority figures and roles models (see Eric Berne and his
transactional analysis work [+ Mavis Klein] for references) and this is what
gives rise to a deterioration of moral standards in the long term.

I've had some more thoughts on my definitions:

I've was thinking that I should add Moral Character to the list of definitions
in order to get a dynamic version of the Moral Nature (ie. the interplay of
the Moral Code and associated Authorities). A suitable analogy might be a
graphic equaliser on a HiFi system - the Moral Nature being the set of
frequencies and the chosen 'amplitudes', and the Moral Character being the
spectrum over time.

Conscience is a little more difficult because I can't define it as the
reasoning of a person between actions in the context of his Moral Nature
because Conscience seems to cut in most of the time unbidden and often
unwanted. I think Conscience is manifest when a decision is made at a given
time which compromises one's Moral Nature. My Conscience fits in more with
Freud's SuperEgo (plus the Moral Driver) with the stimulous being the
urges or Freud's Id. The reasoning that I mentioned before is Freud's Ego,
I suppose. If the Moral Driver is part of the Id then the reason why
Conscience cuts in unbidden is partially explained. The question is "what
provides the stimulous to activate the Moral driver?". I think I need some
more time with this one.

That's about it for now!

David.

---
On religion:

"Oh, where is the sea?", the fishes cried,
As they swam its clearness through.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83455
From: "David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

After tons of mail, could we move this discussion to alt.religion?
=============================================================
--There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke. (Bob Dylan)
--"If you were happy every day of your life you wouldn't be a human
being, you'd be a game show host." (taken from the movie "Heathers.")
--Lecture (LEK chur) - process by which the notes of the professor
become the notes of the student without passing through the minds of
either.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83456
From: system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Subject: Bhagavad-Gita 2.44

                                TEXT 44

                       bhogaisvarya-prasaktanam
                           tayapahrta-cetasam
                        vyavasayatmika buddhih
                          samadhau na vidhiyate
  
bhoga--to material enjoyment; aisvarya--and opulence; prasaktanam--for
those who are attached; taya--by such things;
apahrta-cetasam--bewildered in mind; vyavasaya-atmika--fixed in
determination; buddhih--devotional service to the Lord; samadhau--in
the controlled mind; na--never; vidhiyate--does take place.
    
                              TRANSLATION

	In the minds of those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and
material opulence, and who are bewildered by such things, the resolute
determination for devotional service to the Supreme Lord does not take
place.
  
                                PURPORT

	Samadhi means ``fixed mind.'' The Vedic dictionary, the Nirukti,
says, samyag adhiyate 'sminn atma-tattva-yathatmyam: ``When the mind is
fixed for understanding the self, it is said to be in samadhi.''
Samadhi is never possible for persons interested in material sense
enjoyment, nor for those who are bewildered by such temporary things.
They are more or less condemned by the process of material energy.

Bhagavad-Gita As It Is
Books of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami


       ---------------------------------------------------------
      |                Don't forget to chant:                   |
      |                                                         |
      |  Hare Krishna Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |       Hare Rama Hare Rama, Rama Rama Hare Hare          |
      |                                                         |
      |    Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA      |
      |          (system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us)           |
       ---------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83457
From: david@terminus.ericsson.se (David Bold)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality

In article 17570@freenet.carleton.ca, ad354@Freenet.carleton.ca (James Owens) writes:
>
>In a previous article, david@terminus.ericsson.se (David Bold) says:
>
>>
>>I don't mean to be rude, but I think that you've got hold of the wrong
>>end of a different stick...
>>
>>David
>
>I had a look at your posting again and I see what you mean!  I was so
>intent on explaining how Jung thought we could be more moral than God that
>I overlooked your main line of thought.
>
>You seem to be saying that, God being unknowable, His morality is unknowable.

Yep, that's pretty much it. I'm not a Jew but I understand that this is the
Jewish way of thinking. However, the Jews believe that the Covenant between
YHWH and the Patriarchs (Abraham and Moses, in this case) establishes a Moral
Code to follow for mankind. Even the Jews could not decide where the boundaries
fall, though.

As I understand it, the Sadducees believed that the Torah was all that was
required, whereas the Pharisees (the ancestors of modern Judaism) believed that
the Torah was available for interpretation to lead to an understanding of
the required Morality in all its nuances (->Talmud).

The essence of all of this is that Biblical Morality is an interface between
Man and YHWH (for a Jew or Christian) and does not necessarily indicate
anything about YHWH outside of that relationship (although one can speculate).

>
>The first thing that comes to mind is that man is supposed to be created
>in His image, so there is an argument that we are committed to whatever
>moral code He follows as part of trying to live up to that image.  If we
>are supposed to live by Christ's example, you would be hard pressed to
>argue that God is a "do what I say, not what I do" kind of guy.

The trouble with all of this is that we don't really know what the "created
in His image" means. I've heard a number of different opinions on this and
have still not come to any conclusion. This rather upsets the Apple Cart if
one wants to base a Life Script on this shaky foundation (to mix metaphors
unashamedly!) As to living by Christ's example, we know very little about
Jesus as a person. We only have his recorded utterances in a set of narratives
by his followers, and some very small references from comtemporary historians.
Revelation aside, one can only "know" Christ second-hand or worse.

This is not an attempt to debunk Christianity (although it may seem that way
initially), the point I`m trying to make is that we only really have the Bible
to interpret, and that interpretation is by humanity. I guess this is where
Faith or Relevation comes in with all its inherent subjectiveness.

>
>Metaphysically, if there are multiple moral codes then there is no
>Absolute moral code, and I think this is theologically questionable.

No. There may be an absolute moral code. There are undoubtably multiple
moral codes. The multiple moral codes may be founded in the absolute moral
code. As an example, a parent may tell a child never to swear, and the child
may assume that the parent never swears simply because the parent has told
the child that it is "wrong". Now, the parent may swear like a trooper in
the pub or bar (where there are no children). The "wrongness" here is if
the child disobeys the parent. The parent may feel that it is "inappropriate"
to swear in front of children but may be quite happy to swear in front of
animals. The analogy does not quite hold water because the child knows that
he is of the same type as the parent (and may be a parent later in life) but
you get the gist of it? Incidentally, the young child considers the directive
as absolute until he gets older (see Piaget) and learns a morality of his own.

David.

---
On religion:

"Oh, where is the sea?", the fishes cried,
As they swam its clearness through.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83460
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1qjahh$mrs@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <pww-140493214334@spac-at1-59.rice.edu> pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker) writes:
>#In article <1qie61$fkt@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank
>#O'Dwyer) wrote:
>#> Objective morality is morality built from objective values.

>#But where do those objective values come from? How can we measure them?
>#What mediated thair interaction with the real world, a moralon? Or a scalar
>#valuino field?

>Science ("the real world") has its basis in values, not the other way round, 
>as you would wish it.  If there is no such thing as objective value, then 
>science can not objectively be said to be more useful than a kick in the head.
>Simple theories with accurate predictions could not objectively be said
>to be more useful than a set of tarot cards.  You like those conclusions?
>I don't.

I think that you are changing the meaning of "values" here. Perhaps
it is time to backtrack and take a look at the word.

value n. 1. A fair equivalent or return for something, such as goods
or service. 2. Monetary or material worth. 3. Worth as measured in 
usefulness or importance; merit. 4. A principle, standard, or quality
considered inherently worthwhile or desirable. 5. Precise meaning, as
of a word. 6. An assigned or calculated numerical quantity. 7. Mus. 
The relative duratation of a tone or rest. 8. The relative darkness or
lightness of a color. 9. The distinctive quality of a speech or speech
sound. 

In context of a moral system, definition four seems to fit best. In terms
of scientific usage, definitions six or eight might apply. Note that
these definitions do not mean the same thing.

In my mind, to say that science has its basis in values is a bit of a
reach. Science has its basis in observable fact. Even the usages of the
word "value" above do not denote observable fact, but rather a standard
of measurement. I would conclude that science does not have its
basis in values, and so your statement above fails. In fact, if one
concludes that a scientific set of measurements (values) are based on
systems derived from observation, then it must follow that in a
scientific context, there is no such thing as there is no such thing as
"objective values."

Back to the present. This has nothing to do with a moral system anyhow.
Just because the word "values" is used in both contexts does not mean
that there is a relationship between the two contexts.

If one is to argue for objective values (in a moral sense) then one must
first start by demonstrating that morality itself is objective. Considering
the meaning of the word "objective" I doubt that this will ever happen.

So, back to the original question:

And objective morality is.....?

If you can provide an objective foundation for "morality" then that will
be a good beginning.

>-- 
>Frank O'Dwyer                                  'I'm not hatching That'
>odwyer@sse.ie                                  from "Hens",  by Evelyn Conlon

eric

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83461
From: jmeritt@mental.MITRE.ORG (Jim Meritt - System Admin)
Subject: An invisible God!

 God CAN be seen:
        "And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts."
        (Ex. 33:23)
        "And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his
        friend." (Ex. 33:11)
        "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."
        (Gen. 32:30)
God CANNOT be seen:
        "No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
        "And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man
        see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
        "Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)

Pick what you want!

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83463
From: m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Kind, loving, merciful and forgiving GOD!

In article <8846@blue.cis.pitt.edu> joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
}m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
}>}(a) out of context;
}>Must have missed when you said this about these other "promises of god" that we keep
}>getting subjected to.  Could you please explain why I am wrong and they are OK?
}>Or an acknowledgement of public hypocrisy. Both or neither.
}
}So, according to you, Jim, the only way to criticize one person for
}taking a quote out of context, without being a hypocrite, is to post a
}response to *every* person on t.r.m who takes a quote out of context?

Did I either ask or assert that?  Or is this your misaimed telepathy at work again?

}>BTW to David Josli:  I'm still waiting for either your public
}>acknowledgement of your
}>telepathy and precognition (are you a witch?) or an appology and retraction.
}
}Can you wait without whining? To pass the time, maybe you should go
}back and read the portions of my article that you so conveniently
}deleted in your reply.  You'll find most of your answers there.  

Nope:  In particular:
>once he realized that he had
Example of telepathy?

>responding Jim's threa
What threat.  Produce it.

>Jim again, still mystified
More telepathy?  Or maybe just empathic telepathy, capable of determining emotional states.

>Jim, trying to
More telepathy.  How do you know "trying"?!?!?

>Jim, preparing to
Precognition?  Substantiate.  

All this taken from your Message-ID: <8257@blue.cis.pitt.edu>.




Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83467
From: <KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:    Catholic Right & Pat Robertson

The Roman Catholic conservatives are coming out in the open to line
up with Pat Robertson and his ultra Right Wing Christian Coalition.
Former Secretary of Education William Bennet, a Roman Catholic, stood
beside the Christian Coalition's spokesman Ralph Reed at a March 3
conference in Washington.  The purpose of the conference was to
publish results of a Christian Coalition poll which was designed
to prove that the Republican party would lose major support if it
backed away from the "Family Values" positons of the '92 convention.

Conservative Catholics have swung behind Robertson's organization
with political expertise, legal assistance and high tech communications
support.

The Catholic Campaign for  American, designed as a Catholic version
of the Moral Majority, was founded by Marlene Elwell and Tom Wykes.
Ms. Elwell has been with Robertson since the days of his Freedom
Council in 1985 and worked for him in his presidential bid in 1988.

Ms. Elwell was hired by Domino's Pizza magnate, Tom Monaghan, in 1989
to manage Legatus, a "nonpolitical", Catholic businessmen's group.
Membership is limited to Catholics who head corporations with a least $4
million in annual revenues.  Relying on a network of wealthy contacts
at Legatus, Elwell and Wykes had little trouble forming and funding the
Catholic Campaign.

The Campaign's list of national committee members includes U.S. Rep.
Robert K. Dornan, Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum, the lovely
Pat Buchanan and Rev. Richard J. Neuhaus.   Also on the national
committee is Keith Fournier, a Catholic who heads Pat Robertson's
American Center for Law and Justice.  Another Catholic, Thomas
Patrick Monaghan, senior counsel of Robertson's ACLJ, is also an
active supporter of the Catholic Campaign.

The board of directors includes Frank Shakespeare, broadcasting exec
and former U.S. ambassador to the Pope, Wall Street executive Frank
Lynch, former Reagan official Richard V. Allen, Bishop Rene Gracida
of Corpus Christi and Mary Ellen Bork, wife of unsuccessful Supreme
Court nominee Robert Bork.

In the Winter 1992 issue of _Campaign Update_ the organization's
quarterly newsletter, Rocco L. Martino, a Philadelphia business
executive wrote: "Separation of church and state is a false premise
that must finally be cast aside and replaced by the true meaning of
our constitution."

Oh yes, the organization's "national ecclesisatical advisor" is
Catholic politician Cardinal John J. O'Connor of New York.

Jack Carroll

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83468
From: simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1qjclt$nh7@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:

> [...]
>
> [as I recall, I first entered the fray on this matter in response to
> an assertion by Simon Clippingdale that morality was relative.

Oops! Quite right. I got so busy that I saved Frank's last post back then,
intending to respond when I could, and I sort of forgot. I'll try to do it
soon if anyone's still interested, and probably even if they're not.

> Is he therefore trying to sell something?  I don't think so. ]

Well, yes, maybe I am. I'm trying to have people buy and take on my opinions,
thus causing said opinions to spread in time-honoured memetic virus mode until
the world is a veritable paradise. So how about it, folks? As they say over
here, You Know It Makes Sense.

> Frank O'Dwyer                                  'I'm not hatching That'
> odwyer@sse.ie                                  from "Hens",  by Evelyn Conlon

Cheers

Simon
-- 
Simon Clippingdale                simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk
Department of Computer Science    Tel (+44) 203 523296
University of Warwick             FAX (+44) 203 525714
Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83469
From: ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1qjbn0$na4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <kmr4.1571.734847050@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
>#	You have only pushed back the undefined meaning. You must now define 
>#what "objective values" are.
>
>Really?  You don't know what objective value is?  If I offered the people
>of the U.S., collectively, $1 for all of the land in America, would that 
>sound like a good deal?  
Well, that would depend on how much we wanted the US and how much
we wanted the $1, wouldn't it?
-Ekr

-- 
Eric Rescorla                                     ekr@eitech.com
             Would you buy used code from this man?
        

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83470
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <C5HqxJ.JDG@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> lis450bw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (lis450 Student) writes:
>Hmmmm.  Define objective morality.  Well, depends upon who you talk to.
>Some say it means you can't have your hair over your ears, and others say
>it means Stryper is acceptable.  _I_ would say that general principles
>of objective morality would be listed in one or two places.

>Ten Commandments

>Sayings of Jesus

>the first depends on whether you trust the Bible, 

>the second depends on both whether you think Jesus is God, and whether
>  you think we have accurate copies of the NT.

Gong!

Take a moment and look at what you just wrote. First you defined
an "objective" morality and then you qualified this "objective" morality
with subjective justifications. Do you see the error in this?

Sorry, you have just disqualified yourself, but please play again.

>MAC
>

eric

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83471
From: ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1qjd3o$nlv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <sandvik-140493230024@sandvik-kent.apple.com# sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>#In article <1qie61$fkt@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank
>#O'Dwyer) wrote:
>#> Objective morality is morality built from objective values.
>#
>#You now pushed down the defintion of objectivity into realm of
>#objective values. So you need to explain that as well, as well
>#as the objective sub-parts, the objective atoms, quarks...
>Firstly, science has its basis in values, not the other way round.
You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it
means.
Perhaps you should explain what you think "science has it's basis
in values" means. The reason why people DO science is that
they value it's results. That does not mean that science has
it's basis in values. Any more than DES stops working if I stop
valuing my privacy.

>So you better explain what objective atoms are, and how we get them
>from subjective values, before we go any further.
See above.

-Ekr


-- 
Eric Rescorla                                     ekr@eitech.com
             Would you buy used code from this man?
        

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83472
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <C5Hr14.Jxw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> lis450bw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (lis450 Student) writes:
>My definition of objective would be absolute, or fixed, rather than
> 
>  subjective, or varying and changing.
>

Lets see what the dictionary has to say:

objective adj. 1. As having to do with a material object as distinguished
from a mental concept. 2. Having actual existance. 3.a. Uninfluenced
by emotion or personal prejudice. b. Based on observable phenomenon.

eric


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83473
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Subject: Re: Kind, loving, merciful and forgiving GOD!

m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
>joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
>}m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
>}>}(a) out of context;
>}>Must have missed when you said this about these other "promises of god" that we keep
>}>getting subjected to.  Could you please explain why I am wrong and they are OK?
>}>Or an acknowledgement of public hypocrisy. Both or neither.
>}
>}So, according to you, Jim, the only way to criticize one person for
>}taking a quote out of context, without being a hypocrite, is to post a
>}response to *every* person on t.r.m who takes a quote out of context?
>
>Did I either ask or assert that?  Or is this your misaimed telepathy at work again?

(1)  Stephen said you took a quote out of context
(2)  You noted that Stephen had not replied to some other t.r.m article
     (call it A) that took a quote out of context
(3)  But the lack of evidence for X does not constitute evidence for the
     lack of X  (a common creationist error)
(4)  So the fact that Stephen did not reply to A does not justify the
     conclusion that Stephen condoned taking quotes out of context in A
(5)  You asked Stephen to explain why you were wrong and they were OK,
     or to acknowledge that he was being a hypocrite.  
(6)  Both of the choices you give Stephen assume that he condoned
     taking quotes out of context in A.
(7)  I assumed you were being logical, and that the sentence that begins
     "Could you please explain ..." was not a nonsequitur, but was intended
     to follow from the sentence that preceded it.
(8)  Therefore, I concluded that you believed that (2) implied that Stephen
     condoned taking quotes out of context in A
(9)  But we've already seen that (2) does not imply this
(10) Therefore, you were incorrect to believe that (2) implied that Stephen
     thought it was okay to take quotes out of context in A, and were 
     making an error of a kind that is frequently made by creationists.

Is that better Jim?   It's called an argument.  If you disagree with it,
explain why the argument is not sound.  (I admit that my assumption in (7)
may have been a bit hasty.)  If you agree with it, just say "yup."

dj
"Yup." -- Jim's e-mailed response when I pointed out, in a posted article,
that one of his arguments was a straw man argument, reminiscent of a
frequent creationist ploy.  (3/22/93)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83476
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <1993Apr17.010734.23670@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:
> The truth is, is that it is not some sort of magic spell.  The truth
> is is that you do not understand it, and enjoy not understanding it.

I'm curious about this statement, is it a known understanding amongst
Christian believers that people who don't understand the Christian
doctrines are enjoying this state? I come from a background with 
a heavy Christian teaching (Lutheran church), and consider myself
knowledgeable with the basic understandings of Christianity. At the 
same time I'm *not* proud of things I don't understand or know of at
this point of time. Ignorance is not bliss!

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83477
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Clarification of personal position

In article <C5MuIw.AqC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu
(Darius_Lecointe) wrote:
> I will repeat my position here.  Worshipping on Sunday has never been a
> sin.  As a child I attended services on Saturday and Sunday--at the SDA
> church and at the Pentecostal church across the street.  I might even go to a
> Baptist church next week.  I worship God every day, and every Christian 
> should.  Even if we can prove that Christians should meet on Sunday (and
> we can't) we can never prove that violation of the Sabbath is not a sin
> any longer.  Nor can we prove that violation of Sunday is a sin.  We
> cannot use the Sabbath commandment for that purpose.

My online Bible is on a CD, but I don't own a CD-ROM system for the
time being, so I can't search for the famous cite where Jesus explicitly
states that he didn't want to break existing (Jewish) laws. In other
words technically speaking Christians should use Saturday and not Sunday
as their holy day, if they want to conform to the teachings of Jesus.

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83478
From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Re: scientology???

> i need some brief information on scientology (or applientology as frank zappa
> would call it) anyone have the time to send me some info on ol' l.ron and the b
> asics of what scientology is all about would be appreciated---p.s.i am not inte
> rested in any propaganda

I've taken the liberty of passing your name and address to your local org
(Scientology office).  They'll be contacting you in a few days.  I also
threw in a small contribution, so they'd know you're serious.    :-)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83479
From: mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <30136@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:
>Atoms are not objective.  They aren't even real.  What scientists call
>an atom is nothing more than a mathematical model that describes 
>certain physical, observable properties of our surroundings.  All
>of which is subjective.  
>
>-jim halat

This deserves framing.  It really does.  "[Atoms] aren't even real."

Tell me then, those atoms we have seen with electron microscopes are
atoms now, so what are they?  Figments of our imaginations?  The
evidence that atoms are real is overwhelming, but I won't bother with
most evidence at the moment.
-- 
***************************************************************************
* mccullou@whipple.cs.wisc.edu * Never program and drink beer at the same *
* M^2                          *  time.  It doesn't work.                 *
***************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83481
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!


Kent:

     You say that

>There are about 4-10 competing Rosicrucian orders existing today,
                      ^^^^^^^^^
>most of them are spin-offs from OTO and other competing organizations
>from the 19th century France/Germany. Maybe I should write an article
                        Please don't!  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>about all this, I spent some time investigating these organizations
>and their conceptual world view systems.

     Name just three *really* competing Rosicrucian Orders. I have
probably spent more time than you doing the same. 

     None of them are spin-offs from O.T.O. The opposite may be the
case. 

Study Harder,

Tony

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83482
Subject: Re: "lds" Rick's reply
From: <ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET>


Robert Weiss (psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu) writes:

#Rick Anderson replied to my letter with...
#
#ra> In article <C5ELp2.L0C@acsu.buffalo.edu>,
#ra> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) says:
#ra>

(...)

# Just briefly, on something that you mentioned in passing. You refer to
# differing interpretations of "create," and say that many Christians may
# not agree. So what? That is really irrelevant. We do not base our faith
# on how many people think one way or another, do we? The bottom line is
# truth, regardless of popularity of opinions.

It may be "irrelevant" to you and *your* personal beliefs (or should I say
"bias"?), but it is relevant to me and many others.  You're right, "the
bottom line IS truth," independant from you or anyone else.  Since you
proclaim "truths" as a self-proclaimed appointee, may I ask you by what
authority you do this?  Because "it says so in the Bible?"  --Does the
Bible "say so," or is it YOU, or someone else, who interprets whether a
scripture or doctrine conforms to your particular liking or "disapproval"?

Excuse moi, but your line of "truths" haven't moved me one bit to persuade
me that my beliefs are erroneous.  Of all the "preachers" of "truth" on
this net, you have struck me as a self-righteous member of the wrecking
crew, with no positive message to me or other latter-day saints whatsoever.
BTW, this entire discussion reminds me a lot of the things said by Jesus
to the pharisees: "ye hypocrite(s) . . . ye preach about me with your lips,
but your hearts are far removed from me..."

# Also, I find it rather strange that in trying to persuade that created
# and eternally existent are equivalent, you say "granted the Mormon
# belief..." You can't grant your conclusion and then expect the point to
# have been addressed. In order to reply to the issue, you have to address
# and answer the point that was raised, and not just jump to the
# conclusion that you grant.

Sophistry.  Look who's talking: "jumping to conclusions?"  You wouldn't do
that yourself, right?  All YOU address is your own convictions, regardless
whether we come up with any Biblical scriptures which supports our points
of view, because you reject such interpretations without any consideration
whatsoever.

#
# The Bible states that Lucifer was created.  The Bible states that Jesus
# is the creator of all. The contradiction that we have is that the LDS
# belief is that Jesus and Lucifer were the same.

A beautiful example of disinformation and a deliberate misrepresentation
of lds doctrine.  The former KGB would have loved to employ you.
Jesus and lucifer are not "the same," silly, and you know it.

(...)

# The Mormon belief is that all are children of God. Literally. There is
# nothing symbolic about it. This however, contradicts what the Bible
# says. The Bible teaches that not everyone is a child of God:

Correction: it may contradict would YOU think the Bible says.  The Bible
indeed does teach that not all are children of God in the sense that they
"belong to" or follow God in His footsteps.  Satan and his followers have
rebelled against God, and are not "children (=followers/redeemed) of God,"
but it doesn't mean that they were not once created by God, but chose to
separate themselves from those who chose to follow God and His plan of
salvation.

#
#        The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the
#        kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked "one";
#        (Matthew 13:38)

So?  --This illustrates nicely what I just said: the children of the
kingdom are those who have remained valiant in their testimony of Jesus
(and have shown "works of repentance, etc.), and the children of the
wicked one are those who rebelled against God and the lamb.  The issue
of satan's spirit-offspring (and those who followed him) has not been
addressed in this and other verses you copied from your Bible.  You
purposefully obscured the subject by swamping your "right" with non-
related scriptures.

(...lots of nice scriptures deleted (NOT Robert W. copyrighted) though...)

#ra> > We are told that, "And this is life eternal, that they might know
#ra> > thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
#ra> > (John 17:3). Life eternal is to know the only true God. Yet the
#ra> > doctrines of the LDS that I have mentioned portray a vastly
#ra> > different Jesus, a Jesus that cannot be reconciled with the Jesus of
#ra> > the Bible. They are so far removed from each other that to proclaim

Correction: "my" Jesus is indeed different than your Jesus, and CAN be
reconciled with the Jesus in the Bible.  --Not your interpretation of Him,
I concur, but I honestly couldn't care less.

#ra> > one as being true denies the other from being true. According to the
#ra> > Bible, eternal life is dependent on knowing the only true God, and
#ra> > not the construct of imagination.

In this single posting of yours, I've seen more "constructs of imagination"
than in all of the pro-lds mails combined I have read so far in this news
group.  First get your lds-facts straight before you dare preaching to us
about "the only true God," whom you interpret according to your own likes
and dislikes, but whose image I cannot reconcile with what I know about
Him myself.  I guess your grandiose self-image does not allow for other
faiths, believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ, but in a different
way or fashion than your own.  Not that it really matters, the mission
and progress of the lds church will go on, boldly and nobly, and no mob
or opponent can stop the work from progressing, until it has visited
every continent, swept every clime, and sounded in every ear.

#  This is really a red herring. It doesn't address any issue raised, but
#  rather, it seeks to obfuscate. The fact that some groups try to read
#  something into the Bible, doesn't change what the Bible teaches.

Sigh.  "What the Bible teaches"?  Or: "what the bible teaches according to
Robert Weiss and co.?"  I respect the former, I reject the latter without
the remotest feeling that I have rejected Jesus.  On the contrary.  And by
the way, I do respect your interpretations of the Bible, I even grant you
being a Christian (following your own image of Him), as much as I am a
Christian (following my own image of Him in my heart).

(...)

#  Most of the other replies have instead hop-scotched to the issue of
#  Bruce McConkie and whether his views were 'official doctrine.' I don't
#  think that it matters if McConkie's views were canon. That is not the
#  issue.  Were McConkie's writings indicative of Mormon belief on this
#  subject is the real issue. The indication from Rick is that they may
#  certainly be.

The issue is, of course, that you love to use anything to either mis-
represent or ridicule the lds church.  The issue of "official doctrine"
is obviously very important.  McConkie's views have been controversial
(e.g. "The Seven Deadly Heresies" has made me a heretic!  ;-) at best,
or erroneous at worst ("blacks not to receive the priesthood in this
dispensation").  I respect him as someone who has made his valuable
contribution to the church, but I personally do NOT rely on his personal
interpretations (his book "Mormon Doctrine" is oftentimes referred to
as "McConkie's Bible" in mormon circles) on mormon doctrine.  I rather
look to official (doctrinal) sources, and... to Hugh Nibley's books!
(The last comment is an lds-insider reference.)  Summarizing: McConkie
was a wise man who contributed undoubtedly far more to the kingdom of
God than I have, but whose views are by no means dogma or accepted
doctrine, some of it clearly belongs to personal interpretation and
speculation.  But having said this, I find McConkie (even in his most
biased and speculative moments) far more thought-provoking than the
trash coming from your proverbial pen.  I'm somewhat appalled that I have
allowed myself to sink as low as you in this posting...

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu


Casper C. Knies              isscck@byuvm.bitnet
Brigham Young University     isscck@vm.byu.edu
UCS Computer Facilities

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83483
From: russpj@microsoft.com (Russ Paul-Jones)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is 

In article <1993Apr16.193723.19050@asl.dl.nec.com> duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy) writes:
>
>How does one falsify any origin theory? For example, are a forever existing
>universe or abiogenesis strictly falsifiable?

The same way that any theory is proven false.  You examine the predicitions
that the theory makes, and try to observe them.  If you don't, or if you
observe things that the theory predicts wouldn't happen, then you have some 
evidence against the theory.  If the theory can't be modified to 
incorporate the new observations, then you say that it is false.

For example, people used to believe that the earth had been created
10,000 years ago.  But, as evidence showed that predictions from this 
theory were not true, it was abandoned.

-Russ Paul-Jones
russpj@microsoft.com

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83484
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is oxymoronic?

forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) writes:
> From article <1qcq3f$r05@fido.asd.sgi.com>, by livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com 
> (Jon Livesey):
> > If there is a Western ethic against infanticide, why
> > are so many children dying all over the world?
> 
> The majority of the world isn't "Western".

Superficially a good answer, but it isn't that simple.  An awful lot of the
starvation and poverty in the world is directly caused by the economic
policies of the Western countries, as well as by the diet of the typical
Westerner.  For instance, some third-world countries with terrible
malnutrition problems export all the soya they can produce -- so that it can
be fed to cattle in the US, to make tender juicy steaks and burgers.  They
have to do this to get money to pay the interest on the crippling bank loans
we encouraged them to take out.  Fund-raising for Ethiopia is a truly bizarre
idea; instead, we ought to stop bleeding them for every penny they've got.

Perhaps it's more accurate to say that there's a Western ethic against
Western infanticide.  All the evidence suggests that so long as the children
are dying in the Third World, we couldn't give a shit.  And that goes for the
supposed "Pro-Life" movement, too.  They could save far more lives by
fighting against Third World debt than they will by fighting against
abortion.  Hell, if they're only interested in fetuses, they could save more
of those by fighting for human rights in China.

And besides, Suzanne's answer implies that non-Western countries lack this
ethic against infanticide.  Apart from China, with its policy of mandatory
forced abortion in Tibet, I don't believe this to be the case.


mathew

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83485
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> In article <1qg8bu$kl5@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon
> Livesey) writes:
> #And this "objective morality" is........?
> 
> And here, children, we have a person playing the "objective morality doesn't 
> exist, show me one" game.  You can play this with just about anything:
> 
> And this "objective medicine" is.....?
> And this "objective physics" is.....?
> And this "objective reality" is.....?

Precisely.

There's no objective medicine; some people get marvellous results from
alternative therapy, others only respond to traditional medicine.

There's no objective physics; Einstein and Bohr have told us that.

There's no objective reality.  LSD should be sufficient to prove that.

> One wonders just what people who ask such questions understand by the term 
> "objective", if anything.

I consider it to be a useful fiction; an abstract ideal we can strive
towards.  Like an ideal gas or a light inextensible string, it doesn't
actually exist; but we can talk about things as if they were like it, and not
be too far wrong.


mathew

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83486
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> (b) I am neither a Christian nor a theist, but I believe in objective
> morality in preference to a relativist soup of gobbledegook.

Well, there are two approaches we can take here.  One is to ask you what this
objective morality is, assuming it's not a secret.

The other is to ask you what you think is wrong with relativism, so that we
can correct your misconceptions :-)


mathew

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83487
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> I am not a Christian, however I suspect that all flavours of 
> Christianity hold that (a) objective morality exists and (b) their
> particular interpretation of scripture/revelation/TV is a goodly glimpse
> of it.  That they may all disagree about (b) says nothing about the truth 
> or falsehood of (a).

Actually, they generally claim that (b) their particular interpretation of
scripture/revelation *is* this objective morality.  That there are two
conflicting versions of this objective morality does tell us something about
(a).  It tells us at least one fake objective morality exists.

The next logical step is to deduce that any given religion's objective
morality could be the fake one.  So caveat emptor.


mathew
-- 
Atheism: Anti-virus software for the mind.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83488
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1993Apr17.162105.3303@scic.intel.com> sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth J. Bradley) writes:

>Ifone simply says "God did it", then that is not falsifiable.

	Unless God admits that he didn't do it....

	=)


---  

  " I'd Cheat on Hillary Too."

   John Laws
   Local GOP Reprehensitive
   Extolling "Traditional Family Values."





Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83490
Subject: Re: "lds" Rick's reply
From: <ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET>


Robert Weiss (psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu) writes:

#Rick Anderson replied to my letter with...
#
#ra> In article <C5ELp2.L0C@acsu.buffalo.edu>,
#ra> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) says:
#ra>

(...)

# Just briefly, on something that you mentioned in passing. You refer to
# differing interpretations of "create," and say that many Christians may
# not agree. So what? That is really irrelevant. We do not base our faith
# on how many people think one way or another, do we? The bottom line is
# truth, regardless of popularity of opinions.

It may be "irrelevant" to you and *your* personal beliefs (or should I say
"bias"?), but it is relevant to me and many others.  You're right, "the
bottom line IS truth," independant from you or anyone else.  Since you
proclaim "truths" as a self-proclaimed appointee, may I ask you by what
authority you do this?  Because "it says so in the Bible?"  --Does the
Bible "say so," or is it YOU, or someone else, who interprets whether a
scripture or doctrine conforms to your particular liking or "disapproval"?

Excuse moi, but your line of "truths" haven't moved me one bit to persuade
me that my beliefs are erroneous.  Of all the "preachers" of "truth" on
this net, you have struck me as a self-righteous member of the wrecking
crew, with no positive message to me or any other Latter-day Saint...
BTW, this entire discussion reminds me a lot of the things said by Jesus
to the pharisees: "ye hypocrite(s) . . . ye preach about me with your lips,
but your hearts are far removed from me..."

# Also, I find it rather strange that in trying to persuade that created
# and eternally existent are equivalent, you say "granted the Mormon
# belief..." You can't grant your conclusion and then expect the point to
# have been addressed. In order to reply to the issue, you have to address
# and answer the point that was raised, and not just jump to the
# conclusion that you grant.

Sophistry.  Look who's talking: "jumping to conclusions?"  You wouldn't do
that yourself, right?  All YOU address is your own convictions, regardless
whether we come up with any Biblical scriptures which supports our points
of view, because you reject such interpretations without any consideration
whatsoever.

#
# The Bible states that Lucifer was created.  The Bible states that Jesus
# is the creator of all. The contradiction that we have is that the LDS
# belief is that Jesus and Lucifer were the same.

A beautiful example of disinformation and a deliberate misrepresentation
of lds doctrine.  The former KGB would have loved to employ you.
Jesus and lucifer are not "the same," silly, and you know it.

(...)

# The Mormon belief is that all are children of God. Literally. There is
# nothing symbolic about it. This however, contradicts what the Bible
# says. The Bible teaches that not everyone is a child of God:

Correction: it may contradict would YOU think the Bible says.  The Bible
indeed does teach that not all are children of God in the sense that they
"belong to" or follow God in His footsteps.  Satan and his followers have
rebelled against God, and are not "children (=followers/redeemed) of God,"
but it doesn't mean that they were not once created by God, but chose to
separate themselves from those who chose to follow God and His plan of
salvation.

#
#        The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the
#        kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked "one";
#        (Matthew 13:38)

So?  --This illustrates nicely what I just said: the children of the
kingdom are those who have remained valiant in their testimony of Jesus
(and have shown "works of repentance, etc.), and the children of the
wicked one are those who rebelled against God and the lamb.  The issue
of satan's spirit-origin (and of those who followed him) has not been
addressed in this and other verses you copied from your Bible.  You
purposefully obscured the subject by swamping your "right" with non-
related scriptures.

(...lots of nice scriptures deleted (NOT Robert W. copyrighted) though...)

#ra> > We are told that, "And this is life eternal, that they might know
#ra> > thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
#ra> > (John 17:3). Life eternal is to know the only true God. Yet the
#ra> > doctrines of the LDS that I have mentioned portray a vastly
#ra> > different Jesus, a Jesus that cannot be reconciled with the Jesus of
#ra> > the Bible. They are so far removed from each other that to proclaim

Correction: "my" Jesus is indeed different than your Jesus, and CAN be
reconciled with the Jesus in the Bible.  --Not your interpretation of Him,
I concur, but I honestly couldn't care less.

#ra> > one as being true denies the other from being true. According to the
#ra> > Bible, eternal life is dependent on knowing the only true God, and
#ra> > not the construct of imagination.

In this single posting of yours, I've seen more "constructs of imagination"
than in all of the pro-lds mails combined I have read so far in this news
group.  First get your lds-facts straight before you dare preaching to us
about "the only true God," whom you interpret according to your own likes
and dislikes, but whose image I cannot reconcile with what I know about
Him myself.  I guess your grandiose self-image does not allow for other
faiths, believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ, but in a different
way or fashion than your own.  Not that it really matters, the mission
and progress of the lds church will go on, boldly and nobly, and no mob
or opponent can stop the work from progressing, until it has visited
every continent, swept every clime, and sounded in every ear.

#  This is really a red herring. It doesn't address any issue raised, but
#  rather, it seeks to obfuscate. The fact that some groups try to read
#  something into the Bible, doesn't change what the Bible teaches.

Sigh.  "What the Bible teaches"?  Or: "what the bible teaches according to
Robert Weiss and co.?"  I respect the former, I reject the latter without
the remotest feeling that I have rejected Jesus.  On the contrary.  And by
the way, I do respect your interpretations of the Bible, I even grant you
being a Christian (following your own image of Him), as much as I am a
Christian (following my own image of Him in my heart).

(...)

#  Most of the other replies have instead hop-scotched to the issue of
#  Bruce McConkie and whether his views were 'official doctrine.' I don't
#  think that it matters if McConkie's views were canon. That is not the
#  issue.  Were McConkie's writings indicative of Mormon belief on this
#  subject is the real issue. The indication from Rick is that they may
#  certainly be.

The issue is, of course, that you love to use anything to either mis-
represent or ridicule the lds church.  The issue of "official doctrine"
is obviously very important.  McConkie's views have been controversial
(e.g. "The Seven Deadly Heresies" has made me a heretic!  ;-) at best,
or erroneous at worst ("blacks not to receive the priesthood in this
dispensation").  I respect him as someone who has made his valuable
contribution to the church, but I personally do NOT rely on his personal
interpretations (his book "Mormon Doctrine" is oftentimes referred to
as "McConkie's Bible" in mormon circles) on mormon doctrine.  I rather
look to official (doctrinal) sources, and... to Hugh Nibley's books!
(The last comment is an lds-insider reference.)  Summarizing: McConkie
was a wise man who contributed undoubtedly far more to the kingdom of
God than I have, but whose views are by no means dogma or accepted
doctrine, some of it clearly belongs to personal interpretation and
speculation.  But having said this, I find McConkie (even in his most
biased and speculative moments) far more thought-provoking than the
trash coming from your proverbial pen.  I'm somewhat appalled that I have
allowed myself to sink as low as you in this posting...

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu


Casper C. Knies              isscck@byuvm.bitnet
Brigham Young University     isscck@vm.byu.edu
UCS Computer Facilities

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83491
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!! (NOT!)

In article <sandvik-160493205451@sandvik-kent.apple.com> 
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <1993Apr16.181605.15072@ra.royalroads.ca>,
>mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
>> This brings up another question I still have to ponder:  why is there so 
>> much anti-Semitism?  Why do people hate Jews?  I don't hate Jews.  I consider
>> them to be like anyone else, sinners we all are.
>I don't know, I don't care about ethnical rights and wrongs myself,
>but it's evident that Christians consider Jews no longer to be the 
>sole selected group of God's people -- while Jews consider this to
>be the case.

Christian anti-Semitism comes from the obvious fact that the Jews should
know the Hebrew Scriptures better than anyone else, yet they did not
convert to Christianity en mass, thus rejecting "Christian Love."

>No wonder this caused anti-Semitism. One might even
>wonder that if Christianity didn't do this separation, would anti-Semitism
>have even started?

I don't see why not. Where are the rest of the tribal people? What
happened to the tribes of the Americas? Culture is seen as different and
undesirable in the West, particular in the US with its failed "melting
pot concept." Most tribes have been hunted to extinction, the Hebrew
tribe is one of the few survivers from the Neolithic. Of course it
becomes difficult at times to separate Christianity from the Western
experience, so perhaps you are right, perhaps it would have been a better 
world if the cultural experiment in Christianity never happened.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83492
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Flaming Nazis

In article <1993Apr18.020655.14233@news.cs.brandeis.edu> deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>Okay, I'll bite. I should probably leave this alone, but what the heck...
>
>In article <1993Apr14.124301.422@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>, 
>gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>>In article <TT3R2B5w165w@brewich.hou.tx.us> popec@brewich.hou.tx.us
>>(Pope Charles) writes:
>>
>>>Rhoemer was the name of the guy responsible for much of the uniforms, 
>>>and props used by the early Nazis in their rallies and such.
>>
>>The name is Roehm, not Rhoemer.  And Hitler does claim that he came up
>>with the Swastika business.
>
>But didn't he credit the actual flag design to a party member - some dentist or
>other? I believe he gives such credit in Mein Kampf.
>
>>>He was killed in an early Nazi purge. He and many of his associates
>>>were flaming homosexuals well know also for their flamboyant orgies.
>>
>>I have been trying to find if there is any actual evidence for this
>>common assertion recently.  Postings to such groups as soc.history and
>>soc.culture.german has not uncovered any net.experts who could provide
>>any. 
>
>Well, I'm no expert, but all of the histories of Nazi Germany assert this. They
>make reference to several scandals that occurred long before "the night of the
>long knives". The impression that I got was that homosexuality in portions of
>the SA was common knowledge. Also, a book (by a homosexual author whose name
>escapes me at the moment) called "Homosexuals in History" asserts that Roehm
>and Heines were homosexuals, as well as others in Roehm's SA circle.

[Rest deleted.  Can anybody out in a.p.h help out?]

Find out about "the night of the brown shirts".
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83494
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Christians above the Law? was Clarification of personal position

In article <C5MuIw.AqC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> 
dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
>... other good stuff deleted ...
>You can worship every day of the week.  The issue is not whether
>Christians are at fault for going to church on Sunday or for not going to
>church on Saturday.  Attending a church service does not mean you have
>recognized the holiness of that day (my apologies to  Paul Hudson).  The
>question is "On what authority do we proclaim that the requirements of the
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>fourth commandment are no longer relevant to modern Christians?"  Please
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>note that the commandment does not command you to go to church, only to
>keep it holy unto the Lord by refraining from doing on it what only serves
>to give you pleasure and satisfaction.

When are we going to hear a Christian answer to this question? 

In paraphrase: 

On what or whose authority do Christians proclaim that they
are above the Law and above the Prophets (7 major and 12 minor) and not 
accountable to the Ten Commandments of which Jesus clearly spoke His opinion 
in Matthew 5:14-19? What is the source of this pseudo-doctrine? Who is
the pseudo-teacher? Who is the Great Deceiver?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83495
From: zxmkr08@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Cornelius Krasel)
Subject: Re: The _real_ probability of abiogenesis (was Re: Albert Sabin)

In <1qc6tiINNhie@ctron-news.ctron.com> king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:

>adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:

>>1) We're not just talking about proteins.  In fact, we shouldn't be
>>talking about proteins at all, since (if I have to say this again I'm
>>goint to be really upset) *nobody*claims*that*proteins*appeared*de*
>>*novo*
>>the proteins did not form randomly.
>> 

>Before I repond to 2.), Andy, please clarify 1.).  You state that
>proteins did not form randomly.  That seems to be my point.  

Well, I am not Andy, but if you had familiarized yourself with some of
the current theories/hypotheses about abiogenesis before posting :-), you
would be aware of the fact that none of them claims that proteins were
assembled randomly from amino acids. It is current thinking that RNA-
based replicators came before proteinaceous enzymes, and that proteins
were assembled by some kind of primitive translation machinery.

Now respond to 2. :-)
--Cornelius.
-- 
/* Cornelius Krasel, Department of Physiological Chemistry, U Tuebingen    */ 
/* email: krasel@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de                             */
/* "People are DNA's way of making more DNA." (R. Dawkins / anonymous)     */

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83496
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: An invisible God!

In article <1993Apr17.152833.7811@maths.tcd.ie> 
pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes:
>jmeritt@mental.MITRE.ORG (Jim Meritt - System Admin) writes:
>> God CAN be seen:
>>        "And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts."
>Wot? God's a mooner? 

Such lunacy!

>(Gee, maybe there's something in this Christianity thing after all -
>maybe God is John Belushi from "Animal House")

The SuperNatural One wants to have a personal relationship with you.
JHVH-1, come quick!

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83497
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Ignorance is BLISS, was Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <sandvik-170493104859@sandvik-kent.apple.com> 
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>Ignorance is not bliss!

Ignorance is STRENGTH!

Help spread the TRUTH of IGNORANCE!

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83498
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Christians above the Law, was Clarification of personal position

In article <sandvik-170493104641@sandvik-kent.apple.com> 
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>My online Bible is on a CD, but I don't own a CD-ROM system for the
>time being, so I can't search for the famous cite where Jesus explicitly
>states that he didn't want to break existing (Jewish) laws. In other
>words technically speaking Christians should use Saturday and not Sunday
>as their holy day, if they want to conform to the teachings of Jesus.

Who said Christians want to conform to the teachings of Jesus?

"You are the light of the world. A city can't be hidden lying on a
mountaintop. Nor do people light a candle and cover it with a big
basket; they put it up on a tall candlestick where it can shine for
everyone in the house. That's how your light must shine in front of the
world, so that people see your good deeds and give credit to your Father
in the skies. Don't think I came to dissolve The Law [Torah aka First
Five Books] or The Prophets: [7 major plus 12 minor] I didn't come to
dissolve them, I came to fulfill them. I assure you, till the sky and
the earth go away, not one letter or punctuation mark of The Law will
ever go away until everthing has come to pass. So anyone who dissolves
even one of the smallest commandments and teaches others the same way,
will be known as the lowest in the kingdom of the skies; whereas anyone
who keeps the commands and teaches them too, will be known as someone
great in the kingdom of the skies."  Matt5:14-19, Gaus, ISBN:0-933999-99-2

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83499
From: buddha@iastate.edu (Scott H Vann)
Subject: The bad press Islam has recieved.


	I recently read an article in a local paper written by an Islamic
  person who was upset with the way Islam has been portrayed by western media.
  When a terrorist action takes place in the middle east, it is always played
  up as an Islamic Terrorist.  However, when the a Serbian terrorist attacks
  the Croations, its not a Christian terrorist, its just a terrorist.
	I have often tried to explain this to some close friends who believe
  the press, that Islam is somehow tied to violence.  Often times you hear
  things like "They just don't value human life like we do..." and so on.
  I was wondering if anyone out there had any suggestions for how we can
  change this image, or how I can help my friends to see that this is just 
  hype.  I would appreciate any serious suggestions or comments via e-mail,
  and I'm not interested in hearing about how right the press is.

					-Scott Vann
					buddha@iastate.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83500
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Spreading Christianity (Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor)

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

->I addressed most of the key issues in this very long (284 lines) post
->by Dean Kaflowitz in two posts yesterday.  The first was made into the
->title post of a new thread, "Is Dean Kaflowitz terminally irony-impaired?"
->and the second, more serious one appeared along the thread
->"A Chaney Post, and a Challenge, reissued and revised"

if you're so insecure about people reading your posts
that you feel the need to write new posts announcing
what you wrote in old, posts, why bother? accept it
PHoney, you're a laughingstock.




Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83501
From: alamut@netcom.com (Max Delysid (y!))
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!

In article <1qppef$i5b@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes:
>
>     Name just three *really* competing Rosicrucian Orders. I have
>probably spent more time than you doing the same. 
>
>     None of them are spin-offs from O.T.O. The opposite may be the
>case. 

Can we assume from this statement that you are >unequivocally< saying that
AMORC is not a spin off of OTO? .. and that in fact, OTO may well be a spin
off of AMORC??
i would be quite interested in hearing what evidence you have to support this
claim. 

>Study Harder,

Study Smarter, not Harder! :-)



-- 
--->|<-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<---|--->  More. More of Everything. More of Everything for Everybody.
  <-|-> "Real total war has become information war, it is being fought now..."
<---|---> !MaX! Delysid - alamut@netcom.com - ALamutBBS 415.431.7541 1:125/51
--->|<-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83503
From: dickeney@access.digex.com (Dick Eney)
Subject: Re: Swastika (was: Hitler - pagan or Christian?)

The observation that the Tree of Life would rotate clockwise in the
northern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the southern probably doesn't
give enough consideration to the feebleness of the Coriolis force compared
to, say, the phototropism of vegetation.  A much more likely explanation
is the classic one: that the clockwise swastika is the Sun-wheel, because
the sun progresses across the sky that way.  (Although that's not the
historical way it happened; clocks were first made as little imitation
images of the sun moving thru the heavens.  So it's more valid to talk of
the clock going sunwise, but do the engineers listen to me?  Of course
not.)  Anyway, there is still much uncertainty about whether the
anti-swastika goes counter-sunwise because that represents Evil, or
because it is the Sun's twin-opposite, the Moonwheel.  The use of anti-Sun
to represent Evil may be because humans are so strongly visually-oriented,
but I'm not going to try to settle THAT one just now.
-- Diccon Frankborn (dickeney@access.digex.com)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83504
From: dickeney@access.digex.com (Dick Eney)
Subject: Re: Swastika (was: Hitler - pagan or Christian?)

RE: Red, wwhite, and black, the colors of the Imperial German war-flag --

Go further back still.  There are +XVIII Prussian drinking songs
celebrating the red, the white and the black -- the colors, as Fletcher
Pratt points out, of blood and iron.
-- Diccon Frankborn

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83505
From: dickeney@access.digex.com (Dick Eney)
Subject: Re: Flaming Nazis

The trouble with trying to find out the truth is that Roehm and his
buddies were ACCUSED OF being flaming faggots, one of the pretexts for the
Night of Long Knives in which Roehm and most of the SA wing of the NSDAP
were purged.  Since the accusers thereafter controlled the records,
anything bearing on the subject -- true or not -- has to be considered
tainted evidence.  The available data suggest that Roehm and his crowd,
the SA -- Sturmabteilung, "Storm Troopers" -- left the world a better
place when they departed, but concrete particulars are still no more than
more or less shrewd guesses.  
-- Diccon Frankborn

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83506
From: Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Subject: Re: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars

930418

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. [Honestly.]
The word of Sin is Restriction. [Would I kid you?]


Does one man's words encompass the majestic vision of thousands
of individuals?  Quoting a man is not the same as quoting the
Order.  Taken out of context, words can be interpreted much
differently than had one applied them within the confines of
their original expression.

I think this is the case regarding Hymenaeus Beta, Frater Superior 
of the Order to which I belong.  When he included that bit
from Merlinus X' he did us all a service.  He showed us the extremes
to which Order members have been known to go in their fervor.
I have little knowledge regarding Reuss' background, but surely
he was an unusual man, and he was an important force in the Order 
for many years.

Yet as people change so do Orders change, and while we look back
so carefully at the dirty laundry of O.T.O. remember that this is
only the surface skim and that many perspectives are now encompassed
which extend beyond any one individual.  I hope to show that there
was and is much room for a difference of opinion within the Order
itself, perhaps by testing the limits myself.


Let us examine this issue a bit more closely....

"In 1895, Karl Kellner (1850-1905), a wealthy Austrian industrialist
and paper chemist, as well as a high-grade Mason, founded the Ordo
Templi Orientis.  Kellner had traveled widely in the East, where he
met three adepts who instructed him specific magical practices.  
Kellner's efforts to develop the Order were later assisted by Franz
Hartmann, Heinrich Klein and Theodore Reuss, who had worked together
prior to joining the O.T.O.  The Order was first proclaimed in 1902
in Reuss's Masonic publication, 'Oriflamme'.  On Kellner's death,
Reuss succeeded him as Outer Head [O.H.O.].  The 'Jubilee' edition of
the 'Oriflamme', published in 1912, announced that the Order taught
secret of sexual magic.
 
"Theodore Reuss was an interesting character.  Born June 28, 1855 in
Augsburg, he entered Masonry in 1876.  He was a singer, journalist and
possibly a spy for the Prussian political police, infiltrating the Socialist
League founded by Karl Marx's daughter and her husband.  Reuss was
later associated with William Wynn Westcott, a leader of the Golden
Dawn, who later introduced him to John Yarker.  Yarker chartered Reuss to
found the Rites of Memphis and Mizraim in Germany.  After several
attempts to concretize various Masonic Rites, Reuss settled on the
development of the O.T.O.

"The Order experienced reasonably steady growth under Reuss' leadership.
For example, he chartered Papus in France, Rudolph Steiner in Berlin
and H. Spencer Lewis in the USA.  In 1912, the historic meeting between
Reuss and Crowley occurred.  Crowley wrote that Reuss came to him and
accused him of revealing Order secrets.  When Crowley looked at it afresh,
the initiated interpretation of sexual magick unfolded itself to him for
the first time.  Reuss appointed Crowley as Supreme and Holy King of all
the English speaking world, and it was this authorization that he invoked
when publishing the material of the Equinox.

"Reuss resigned as Outer Head of the Order in 1922 after suffering a
stroke and named Crowley his successor.  All was well until 1925 when
_The Book of the Law_ was translated into German.  There was a break
in the continuity of the Order.  Manyk members split with the new O.H.O.
over the book, which Crowley was actively promulgating through the Order.
He had earlier revise dthe Order rituals at Reuss's request, deeply
infusing the doctrines of the New Aeon revelation."

_An Introduction to the History of the O.T.O._, by Ad Veritatem IX'

Within _Equinox III:10_, Edited by 
  Hymenaeus Beta, Frater Superior, Rex Summus Sanctissimus,
    Caliph of the United States of America,
      Published by Samuel Weiser, 1990.



There are many possible reasons that our Frater Superior included this
material in _Equinox III:10_.  And this is the real point, is it not?
Why did he wish to publish such things about the history of his own
organization?  Does he represent a dogmatic threat to the principle
of Thelema?  Or is he exercising his True Will and putting forth very
complex pictures with no easy answers?  A picture which leaves room
for very many interpretations.

It is quite easy for me to see, for example, that all of O.T.O. derived
out of the dribble of faltering Masonry, purchased by clever hucksters
with an ounce of courage and some writing ability to aid them.  And I
can take that all the way down to our present Caliph, whose feeble
support of the 'Law of Thelema' is laughable at best.

Would I be thrown out of the Order for speaking in this way?  
Will I?  
I think not.
Why?  Because my Frater will see it as a perspective, an interjection
I am using as an example.  My illustration shows that we may express things
in the context of a larger work and the true significance of this may be
quite difficult to apprehend at first.

So it may be with OTO and Merlinus X'.  Please look O.T.O. more carefully.
I do not support Reuss's words myself, as I am not qualified to assess
them, and I am critical of their pomposity.  If I who am a member of
the Order take such a stand and am allowed to continue doing so, then
what can this say about the health of the Order?  Does it mean that
the Order has 'gone soft' and abandoned its moral principles?  Or
does it mean that it is strong in its ability to let the will of
universal kinship arise on its own, not shackled by some dogmatic
requirement?  How shall we resolve these two possibilities?


I find a high calibre of individual associated with Ordo Templi Orientis.
They are often quite intelligent and sometimes very well versed in arcane
or usual information.  They are quite often artists and geniuses.  
Having met some 20 longstanding members in the SF Bay Area (many who are or
were very heavily involved with the Order), I can vouch for the integrity
of the organization as it stands.

I have sometimes questioned the policy of Hymenaeus Beta.  In these moments 
I followed my intuition, and I've found little to stop me from requesting
a Second initiation from a different O.T.O. body.  I'm happily participating
in social groups (Feasts or Initiations) and have come to know the Gnostic
Mass well enough for my tastes.
 

This doesn't make me an authority on Order politics and explanations, however.
I can only hypothesize and relay to you what I understand based on my
limited contact with other members.

I urge you not to take the words of Merlinus X too far.  There are many
ways to interpret words, and many people who have become involved with
the Order feel very strongly about the sanctity of personal freedom
and the preservation of individual vision.

I welcome other comment on this issue and will be writing more in response
to other posts in this thread.


Invoke me under my stars.  Love is the law, love under will.

I am I!

Frater (I) Nigris (DCLXVI) CCCXXXIII

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83507
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin
From: rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota)

In article <1993Apr15.231515.19982@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
>In article <C5FtJt.885@sunfish.usd.edu>, rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota) writes:
>|> In article <1993Apr10.213547.17644@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
>|> 
>|> [earlier dialogue deleted]
>|> 
>|> >|> Perhaps you should read it and stop advancing the Bible as evidence relating 
>|> >|> to questions of science.  
>|> 
>|> [it = _Did Jesus exist?_ by G. A. Wells]
>|> 
>|> >     There is a great fallacy in your statement. The question of origins is
>|> >     based on more than science alone.  
>|> 
>|> Nope, no fallacy.  Yep, science is best in determining how; religions handle
>|> why and who.
>
>        The problem is that most scientists exclude the possibility of the
>        supernatural in the question of origins.  Is this is a fair premise?

Not entirely.  Its not a premise, its a conclusion.  Second, that scientists
(for the most part) exlude the possibility is not a problem, its a necessity. 
Scientists are empircists, not theologians.

>        I utterly reject the hypothesis that science is the highest form of
>        truth.

So do scientists, and long before you did.  Clearly you have a deep and 
fundamental misunderstanding of science.

>|> 
>|> >     If you met a man who could walk on
>|> >     water, raise people from the dead, claimed to be the Son of God, and
>|> >     then referred to the inviolability of the scriptures, this would affect
>|> >     your belief in the origin of man.  (I can expand on this.)  
>|> 
>|> Nope, wouldn't affect my knowledge (not belief) of origins of anatomically
>|> modern humans.  If that man could show me something better, I'd change, even if 
>|> it was the biblical story in exact detail.  But then I would ask, "Why in the
>|> world did your father endow us with intellect and reason, and then proceed to
>|> fool us.  I mean, the bible says nothing about the human-like creatures that we
>|> know exist.
>
>        Some of these so-called human-like creatures were apes.  Some were
>        humans.  Some were fancifully reconstructed from fragments.

Absolutely and utterly false (except for some were AMHs). Lucy (Australopithecus
afarensis, ca. 3 to 3.25 mya) is 40% complete, and about 80% taking into 
consideration bilateral symmetry.  Lucy walked upright and bipedally, just 
like humans, and the two share a remarkably similar dental pattern.  Her
cranial morphology is unlike humans or modern apes.  There are hundreds of 
other specimens of this and other species, of which only some are *partially* 
reconstructed.  They exist Bill.  You can touch them, feel them, hold them.  
But forget hominids.  The earth, the universe, the cultural record all look and 
test out as ancient indeed.  They are not reconstructions.  Has God has tricked
us here too?  It won't go away, Bill.
  

>
>|> 
>|> I doubt any of us will meet a man like this.  But, Bill, if your version of all
>|> this is absolutely correct, I'm still no worried about my salvation.  I'll
>|> probaby make it (I don't steal, murder, covet, etc, and I like to help other
>|> people).  All I did was use the reason and intellect your god provided. 
>|> He or she - benevolent and loving - will understand my dilemma, don't you
>|> think? 
>           Good deeds do not justify a person in God's sight.
>           An atonement (Jesus) is needed to atone for sin.

So *you* and other fundamentalists say.  What about the billions who don't 
say so?  Beware of people who say they have the truth, Bill, and reconsider
each time you think you do.

>|> 
>|> >  Science and
>|> >  the Bible are not in contradiction.  God can supercede the scientific
>|> >  "laws" as man understands them.  Creation is a good example.  God has the
>|> >  power to create something out of nothing, order out of chaos.
>|> 
>|> Haven't been on t.o. long, but I have a feeling, Bill, that the veterans will
>|> agree with you here.  No contradiciton, and god *can* do anything at will.  So,
>|> what's the beef? (or more properly, "where's")
>
>     My point: God is the creator.  Look's like we agree.

That was not your point, Bill.  Your point above was God *has* the power ....
Scientists generally agree with that.  That's a far cry from saying God did.
Please attempt to understand your own posts.
 
>|> 
>|> >    If the title of the book you mentioned has anything to do with the 
>|> >    substance of the book, it must be a real laugher.  Of course Jesus existed,
>|> >    and there are volumes of evidence to back it up.  I can give many if you
>|> >    are interested.
>|> 
>|> Its not a laugher, Bill.  Its a scholarly book that many happen to disagree
>|> with.  I am definitely (and seriously) interested in confirmation.  I know of
>|> the bible, inferences therefrom (e.g., prophecies), apocrypha, the Koran and
>|> others.  What I am interested is independent evidence.  Do you have any?  I
>|> know of Josephus, but this is almost certainly an insertion.  Also I know of a
>|> few Roman documents (e.g., Pliny), but these deal only with early Christians.
>|> Do you have any independent evidence?  I am most interested.  Please Email or 
>|> post.  Thanks, and best regards.
>
>     I'll send you some info via e-mail.
>     Regards, Bill.

I have your info, and I have replied - several days ago.  Hope you have it.  
Somehow your post above appeared at my server only today.


Rich Fox, Anthro, Usouthdakota

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83508
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!

In article <sandvik-160493205355@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, 
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes...

>(stephen) wrote:
>> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) quotes ML...

>> >> Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied
>> >> only to God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We
>> >> are living in the age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable
>> >> by death.  There is repentance and there is salvation through our
>> >> Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just for a few chosen people.  Salvation
>> >> is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile alike. 
>> >
>> >Jews won't agree with you, Malcolm.
>> 
>> Which Jews KS? 
> 
>Most religious Jews with the exception of the Messianic ones and 
>atheists/agnostics, Malcolm.

KS, I see you're wanting Malcolm's response. Allow me one last inter-
jection then please:

Distinguishing among the religious Jews, you've excepted the Messianic
for obvious reasons. Specifically, are you saying it's these religious 
Jews, who trace their lineage back to Abraham by blood and orthodoxy, 
rather than by faith, who won't agree?  Orthodox Jews?  

As to the a/a (if I understand your direction), the issue remains 
unproven I suspect, considering how atheists and agnostics so often 
look to reason. Atheist, it is reasonable to conclude will not agree.
For agnostics, a poll seems in order. Who knows?  Myself, I'm not so 
sure the atheists can be counted out. 

For the orthodox, I wonder how many would follow Moses, or Abraham,
or David in accepting God's Word? Is the particular covenant to which
one adheres, more important than God promisimg? I reckon for many it
depends on the ongoing dialogue. Under these considerations, you might 
understand why I think it's premature to assert who will and won't agree.

   |
-- J --
   |
   | stephen


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83509
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is oxymoronic

In article <930416.140529.9M1.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> 
mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
>livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>>Not, of course, The Greatest Salesman in the World. That was Jesus, wasn't it?
>No, J.R. "Bob" Dobbs.

Definitely, J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, numero uno, top dog, not one can touch, not
one can knock Bob out of the box. Bob kills me mon! Everyday!

But close El Segundo (el subliminal) is the infamous Paul (birthname Saul) the
Evangeline who became famous as a result of his numerous trampoline act 
tours of the eastern Mediterranean.

Jesus on the other hand was duped, a pawn of the Con, fell pray to the
Holywood Paradox (ain't nothing but a sign in the hills!). Like many
Afro-Asians, Jesus found the earth all too pink! And to think that after
his death, the Con changed him into a tall blond Holywood sun god! And I 
do mean that in the kindest way possums! Now Jesus does gigs with Hendrix, 
Joplin, Morrison, Lennon, Marley, Tosh, etc. Mostly ska beat jah-know!

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83510
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin
From: rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota)

In article <1993Apr15.225657.17804@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
>|> >|> 
>|> However, one highly biased account (as well as possibly internally 
>|> inconsistent) written over 2 mellenia ago, in a dead language, by fanatic
>|> devotees of the creature in question which is not supported by other more 
>|> objective sources and isnt  even accepted by those who's messiah this creature 
>|> was supposed to be, doesn't convince me in the slightest, especially when many
>|> of the current day devotees appear brainwashed into believing this pile of 
>|> guano...
>
>       Since you have referred to the Messiah, I assume you are referring
>        to the New Testament.  Please detail your complaints or e-mail if
>        you don't want to post.  First-century Greek is well-known and
>        well-understood.  Have you considered Josephus, the Jewish Historian,
>        who also wrote of Jesus?  In addition, the four gospel accounts
>        are very much in harmony.  

Bill, I have taken the time to explain that biblical scholars consider the
Josephus reference to be an early Christian insert.  By biblical scholar I mean
an expert who, in the course of his or her research, is willing to let the
chips fall where they may.  This excludes literalists, who may otherwise be
defined as biblical apologists.  They find what they want to find.  They are
not trustworthy by scholarly standards (and others).

Why an insert?  Read it - I have, a number of times.  The passage is glaringly
out of context, and Josephus, a superb writer, had no such problem elsewhere 
in his work.  The passage has *nothing* to do with the subject matter in which 
it lies.  It suddenly appears and then just as quickly disappears.

Until you can demonstrate how and why the scholarly community is wrong about
the Josephus insert, your "proof" is meaningless and it should not be repeated
here.  What's more, even if Josephus happened to be legitimate, it would "prove"
nothing.  Scholars speak of the "weight of evidence."  Far more independent
evidence would be required to validate your claim.  Until forthcoming, your
belief is based on faith.  That's OK, but you exceed your rights when you pass
faith off as fact.

As for the gospels, there are parallels, but there are also glaring
inconsistencies and contradictions.  Shouldn't a perfect canon be perfect? 
Shouldn't there be absolutely no room for debate?  I suggest you read _Gospel 
Fictions_ by Randel Helms, and _The Unauthorized Version_ by Robin Fox (for 
Herb Huston, no known kinship or familial relationship, but we do indeed share 
an evolutionary ancestry).

The fact that there are inconsistencies, gaps and contradictions does not deny
your position.  On the other hand, neither do the gospels "prove" your faith. 
Independent evidence is necessary, and I know of none (which we have already
discussed, and so far you have not provided any).  Until then, its faith. 
Moreover, you have committed a fundamental error in logic.  You have attempted
to "prove" your claim with that which you want to prove.  Its no different than
saying "I am right because I say so."  

Your logic is full of circles.  It reminds me a bit of the 1910 Presbyterian 
General Assembly.  The assembly defined five fundamentals (this is where
"fundamentalist" came from) of orthodox Protestant Christianity, to wit: 1)
Jesus performed miracles, 2) Jesus was born of a virgin, 3) Jesus was bodily
resurrected, 4) Jesus' crucifixion atoned for human sin, and - here is the
clincher - 5) the bible is the inerrant word of God.  Presbyterians construe
"inerrant" broadly as spritually inerrant.  Fundamentalists take the
first four as literally true, and then validate them with a literally inerrant
bible, which contains the first four, and which is the only thing known to 
contain the first four.  

Smoke and mirrors and wands and hand waving if ever there was!

Its faith, Bill.  You don't have any more or better truths than anyone else. 
Whatever works for you.  Just don't foist it on others. 

Regards,

Rich Fox, Anthro, Usouthdakota

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83511
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Ignorance is BLISS, was Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <f1682Ap@quack.kfu.com>, pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
wrote:
> In article <sandvik-170493104859@sandvik-kent.apple.com> 
> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >Ignorance is not bliss!
 
> Ignorance is STRENGTH!
> Help spread the TRUTH of IGNORANCE!

Huh, if ignorance is strength, then I won't distribute this piece
of information if I want to follow your advice (contradiction above).


Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83512
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1qme79$c0k@kyle.eitech.com> ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1qm36b$gn2@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>In article <1qktj3$bn9@squick.eitech.com> ekr@squick.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>#In article <1qkn1t$59l@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>
>>#Like I said before, DES works whether I value my privacy or
>>#not.
>>
>>O.K., which DES?  The abstract function DES? that stops working in any 
>>important sense if no-one cares for the importance of truth, mathematics, 
>>meaning, information, etc.  A DES chip or DES s/w?  That stops working in any 
>>important sense if no-one values science, objective reality, etc.   DES
>>does not work in a value vacuum.  Nothing else does, either.
>
>This is just truth by blatant assertion. Your "in any important sense"
>seem to be just weasel words. Imagine that I have a box which
>accepts 16 bytes and uses the first 8 to ECB the second 8.
>It still does a perfect job of DESing, whether or not any input
>is being made at the time--whether or not anyone values mathematics..

If no-one looks at the results, or acknowledges their correctness, in what
meaningful sense can the chip be said to "work"?? Does flibozity exist?
By "flibozity", I mean a particular, extremely complex configuration of 
physical phenomena, which no-one, absolutely NO-ONE cares about in the 
slightest. Does it exist, Eric?

Getting back to the question of whether the DES chip "works", doesn't "work" 
mean something like "achieving the desired/expected effect"? Note the way 
intentionality subtly underlies that definition. Even if we take the 
definition as "expected", instead of "desired", can you deny that conformance 
to expectations is itself a value of sorts, namely the scientific values of 
accuracy-of-prediction and reproducibility-of-results?

The phenomenologist Husserl, for one, considered Intentionality to be the
primary ontological "stuff" from which all other ontology was built --
perceptions, consciousness, thoughts, etc. Frank is by no means alone in
seeing intentionality (or "values", as he puts it) underlying all human
experience, even the so-called "objective" experiences, such as 
measurements of the natural world, or the output of your DES chip.

								- Kevin

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83513
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is 

In article <1993Apr15.010329.23133@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>[Followups set out of talk.abortion...]
>
>In article <C5Fuo2.FF8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>>Am I reading this thread wrong or is this just another bemoaning of the fact
>>that Christianity has a code of objective morality?
>
>Please define this "objective morality".
>
>While you're at it, please state the theory of creationism.

Still searching for an irrelevant issue in which to mire a pro-lifer, I see.
Slimy tactic.

								- Kevin

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83514
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1qlvh1$fh0@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> In article <1qkn25$k@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> 
|> #Do you mean it's moral to use force on someone who advocates
|> #the use of force?
|> 
|> With a few provisos, yes.  Minimum force, for a start. And, it
|> depends on what is being forced (on either side).   
|> 
|> #Or do you mean that sometimes we have to use force on such
|> #people out of necessity or self-defence, while recognizing
|> #that our own actions in doing so are not moral?
|> 
|> My opinion is that our actions would be moral, and it would be
|> immoral not to act if action would be both necessary and effective.  
|> Again, there many caveats and provisios.
|> 
|> Note, my usage of "my opinion" is an admission that I don't have a lock
|> on morals, not that there is no truth about morality to have a lock on.

You're admitting a lot more than that.  You are admitting that
your morals are situational.   You are admitting that the actions
of other people and the situation you are in help to determine
how you judge the moral significance of one of your own actions.

If you employ X degree of force, that's not moral, but if you employ
X degree of force, but previously someone else has employed Y degree
of force, and the situation is thus-and-so, that *is* moral.

This is quite different from saying "Employing force on other people
is immoral, period.   Unfortunately, from time to time we are obliged
to do this immoral thing for reasons of self-preservation, and so
we have to bear the moral consequences of that.

For what it's worth - and yes, I know you claim to be an agnostic -
it's this ability to re-label things from "immoral" to "moral" 
that I find one of the *least* attractive qualities of the religious
mind.

jon.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83515
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1qm069$fm8@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> In article <1qkndq$k@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> #In article <1qjbn0$na4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> #|> In article <kmr4.1571.734847050@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:
|> #|> #	You have only pushed back the undefined meaning. You must now define 
|> #|> #what "objective values" are.
|> #|> 
|> #|> Really?  You don't know what objective value is?  If I offered the people
|> #|> of the U.S., collectively, $1 for all of the land in America, would that 
|> #|> sound like a good deal?  
|> #
|> #You mean that if you can find a ridiculous price, the rest of
|> #us are supposed to conclude that an objectively correct price
|> #exists?
|> 
|> I said nothing about the price.  I asked if the deal was good.  It isn't.

So it was a complete non-sequitur, is that it?     How does coming
up with a derisory deal tell us anything about the existence of
"objective" values.

You're asking us to accept that the deal you offered would be turned
down, and we believe that, not because we appeal to objective values
but becasue we know, or think we know, something about people.

All the people we know exhibit *subjective* values that would lead
them to reject a deal of $1 for all of the land in America.

Great.   Now, so what?

jon. 

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83516
From: lfoard@hopper.Virginia.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: The bad press Islam has recieved.

In article <buddha.735157446@du248-07.cc.iastate.edu> buddha@iastate.edu (Scott H Vann) writes:
>
>	I recently read an article in a local paper written by an Islamic
>  person who was upset with the way Islam has been portrayed by western media.
>  When a terrorist action takes place in the middle east, it is always played
>  up as an Islamic Terrorist.  However, when the a Serbian terrorist attacks
>  the Croations, its not a Christian terrorist, its just a terrorist.
>	I have often tried to explain this to some close friends who believe
>  the press, that Islam is somehow tied to violence.  Often times you hear
>  things like "They just don't value human life like we do..." and so on.
>  I was wondering if anyone out there had any suggestions for how we can
>  change this image, or how I can help my friends to see that this is just 
>  hype.  I would appreciate any serious suggestions or comments via e-mail,
>  and I'm not interested in hearing about how right the press is.

Very easily. Show them pictures of crime scenes perpetrated by Christian
terrorists in this country, if that doesn't convince them have them talk
to the victims of Christian terrorism. 

A brutal act of terrorism inspired by Christian propoganda was recently
commited on your very campus. 

Its very simple religious extremists of all religions put no value on
human life. Christian and Islamic fundamentalists put advancing there
religion above all else, even if doing so violates the religion itself.

P.S. I'm not saying all Christians are terrorists, I'm using "Christian
     terrorist" in the same way the media uses Islamic terrorist.
-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83517
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!



Kent: With all due respect, how can I take you seriously, when you have
the NAMES wrong in the 1st place? E.g.:

>
>The San Jose RC (Ordo Rosae Crucis) 

	There is no such thing. The correct name is Ancient & Mystical
Order Rosae Crucis, abbreviated AMORC.

>...and the Rocicrusian
>order created by Max Heindel.

	There is no such thing either. It's the Rosicrucian Fellowship.
And they clearly state that they DO NOT pretend to descend from the
Order of the Fama Fraternitatis.

>In addition there are many splinter groups
>all around Europe that all claim some connection with the original
>group supposedly founded in the middle ages.

The Lectorium? And who else?

>Some Freemason groups
>also have Rosicrucian-like separate groups, even if they are far
>from the ideologies the RC groups have somehow in common.

These are NOT Rosicrucian "orders". They are Masonic study groups, none
of which *claims* to be descendant of the original Order.

>
>We might compete about how much time we have spent with this :-). Let
>me start, I was part of the ORC for about 8 years.
>Kent
>
What is ORC? If you mean AMORC, you didn't even learn the correct
name?!

Tony


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83518
From: alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!

alamut@netcom.com (Max Delysid (y!)) writes:

> In article <1qppef$i5b@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony
> >
> >     Name just three *really* competing Rosicrucian Orders. I have
> >probably spent more time than you doing the same. 
> >
> >     None of them are spin-offs from O.T.O. The opposite may be the
> >case. 
> 
> Can we assume from this statement that you are >unequivocally< saying that
> AMORC is not a spin off of OTO? .. and that in fact, OTO may well be a spin
> off of AMORC??
> i would be quite interested in hearing what evidence you have to support this
> claim. 
> 
> 

Well, there is a fair amount of evidence floating around that indicates
that OTO has been around since at least the late 1800s, long before
Crowley ever heard of it, how long has AMORC been around? (yes, I know
that they claim to have existed as an organization clear into prehistory,
but I doubt that they have any organizational paperwork
as a non-profit that can be carbon-dated to 20,000 BC)
                                             A.Lizard

-------------------------------------------------------------------
A.Lizard Internet Addresses:
alizard%tweekco%boo@PacBell.COM        (preferred)
PacBell.COM!boo!tweekco!alizard (bang path for above)
alizard@gentoo.com (backup)
PGP2.2 public key available on request

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83519
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!


In a previous article, alamut@netcom.com (Max Delysid y!)) says:

>
>Can we assume from this statement that you are >unequivocally< saying that
>AMORC is not a spin off of OTO? 

Absolutely. Lewis didn't care for the 1921 O.T.O. charter from Reuss. He had
in mind something completely diferent. Crowley and Lewis were very
different persons, as you probably know.

>.. and that in fact, OTO may well be a spin
>off of AMORC??

No. My overstatement, sorry :-)

>>Study Harder,
>Study Smarter, not Harder! :-)
>
I ALWAYS DO.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83520
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!


ON the subject of how many competing RC orders there are, let me point out the
Golden Dawn is only the *outer* order of that tradition.  The inner order is
the Roseae Rubeae et Aurae Crucis.  That's Ruby Rose and Gold Cross, in rough
translation.  The G.'.D.'. is a Rosicrucian order, as are all derivative
groups.  Of course, real Rosicrucians never admit to being Rosicrucian.

Enjoy the journey!
                      --Br'anArthur
                                      Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)

******************************************************************************
Closed minds don't want to know.        --JJObermark

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83522
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!


In a previous article, ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe) says:

>
>ON the subject of how many competing RC orders there are, let me point out the
>Golden Dawn is only the *outer* order of that tradition.  The inner order is
>the Roseae Rubeae et Aurae Crucis.  
>

	Just wondering, do you mean the "Lectorium Rosicrucianum"?
Warning: There is no point in arguing who's "legit" and who's not. *WHICH*
Golden Dawn are you talking about?

	Just for the sake of argument, (reflecting NO affiliation)
I am going to say that the TRUE Rosicrucian Order is the Fraternitas
Rosae Crucis in Quakertown, Penn.,

	Any takers? :-)

Fraternally,

Tony

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83523
From: irfan@davinci.ece.wisc.edu (Irfan Alan)
Subject: A TREATISE ON THE MIRACLES OF MUHAMMAD SAW, PART-2


The following is an introduction as to who is Muhammad SAW
as will be covered with this treatise.

MUHAMMAD peace and blessings of Allah be upon him (SAW)
is the last prophet of Islam.  He is the Prophet who is revealed
the last Holy Scripture, Qur'an, by Allah SWA (all praise be to Him)
through the Arch Angel Gabriel.  He is the seal of all prophets
till the day of judgement as stated in the Qur'an by Allah
SWA (all praise be to Him).  Muhammad SAW lived between
571-632 AC.  All other prophethoods claimed after Muhammad SAW,
is a treason against Islam, against Qur'an, against the message
of Allah SWA.  Muhammad SAW is from the seed of Ishmael, another
messenger of Allah and son of Abraham also a messenger of Allah.
He is the Messenger that previous holy scriptures foretold his
coming.  The above mentioned verse from the Qur'an is from 
Chapter 33, Verse 40 whose rough translation is as follows:

	Muhammad is not the father of any of your men,
	but (he is) the messenger of Allah, and the seal
	of the prophets, and Allah has full knowledge of
	all things.

---------------------
Commentary on the above verse:  When a document is sealed,
it is complete, and there can be no further addition.  The 
Holy Prophet Muhammad SAW closed the long line of Messengers.
Allah's teaching is and will always be continuous, but there
has been and will be NO Prophet after Muhammad SAW.  The later
ages will want thinkers, and revivers, not Prophets.  This is not
an arbitrary matter.  It is a decree full of knowledge and wisdom,
"for Allah has full knowledge of all things."

----------------------
DROPLET VOL 1, No 11, Part 2

A   D R O P L E T
From The Vast Ocean Of The Miraculous Qur'an

Translations from the Arabic and Turkish Writings of 
Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, The Risale-i Noor

VOL 1, No 11, Part 2
------------------------------------------------------------------
   		 NINETEENTH LETTER  

		 MU'JIZAT-I AHMEDIYE RISALESI 
(A TREATISE ON THE MIRACLES OF MUHAMMED SAW)       

(continued from Droplet Vol 1, No 11, Part 1)

   SECOND  SIGN:   The  Noble  Messenger  (SAW)
declared His prophethood, and presented to humanity a
decree as the Glorious Qur'an and manifest miracles
which number, according to the scholars, one thousand.
The occurrence of those miracles in their entirety is as
certain as the fact that He declared himself prophet.  In
fact, as a shown by the words of the  most obstinate
unbelievers quoted in various places of the Wise
Our'an, even they could not deny the occurrence of His
miracles, but only called them -hasha wa kella!-(Allah forbids) 
sorcery, in order to satisfy themselves, or to deceive their
followers.  The miracles of Muhammad (SAW) have the
certainty of confirmation by consensus of Ulema (scholars
of Islam) to the hundreth degree.
   The Miracle is the conformation by the CREATOR of
the universe of His declaration of Prophethood; it has the
effect of the words,'You have indeed spoken the truth !'
   Suppose that you said in the assembly of a ruler,
while being observed by Him, 'The true ruler has
appointed me to such and such position.  'At a time when
you were asked to prove your claim, the word 'Yes'
uttered by the ruler would sufficiently support you.  Or, if
the ruler changed his usual practice and attitude at your
request, this would confirm your claim even more soundly
and more definitely than would the word 'Yes.'
   In the same way, ALLAH's Most Noble Messenger
claimed: 'I am the envoy of the CREATOR of this
universe.  My proof is that He will change His unbroken
order at my request and my prayer.  Now look at my
fingers:  He makes them run like a fountain with five
spigots.  Look at the moon: by a gesture of my finger, He
splits it in two.  Look at that tree: to affirm me, and to bear
witness to me, it moves and comes near to me.  Look at
this food: although it is barely enough for two or three
men, it satisfies two or three hundred.  'Further he shows
hundreds of similar miracles.  However, the evidences  of
the veracity of this high being and the proofs of his
prophethood are not restricted to his miracles.  All his
deeds and acts, his words and behavior, his moral
conduct and manners, his character and appearance
prove to the attentive his truthfulness and seriousness.
Indeed, many people  such  as  Abdullah  b. Salam,  the
famous scholar of the Children of Israel, came to belief
merely by seeing him, and said, 'No lie can hide in this
face, nor can any fraud be found in it!'
   Although many of the  researchers have concluded
that the proofs of the prophethood of Muhammad and his
miracles number about one thousand, there are
thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of proofs  of
his prophethood.  And hundreds of thousands of
truth-seeking men (muhakkikiin) with varying opinions
have affirmed his prophethood in an equal number of
ways.
   The Wise Our'an alone demonstrates thousands of
the proofs of his prophethood, in addition to its own forty
aspects of miraculousness.  Since prophethood is as a
phenomenon of humanity, and hundreds of thousands of
individuals who claimed prophethood and performed
miracles have lived and passed away; then, the
prophethood of Muhammad (SAW) is of a certanity
superior to that of the prophethood of all the others.  For
whatever evidences, qualities  and attributes  became the
means of the prophethood and messengership of all the
messengers such as Jesus (AS) and Moses (AS), they
are all owned in a more perfect and comprehensive
fashion by Muhammad (SAW).  And since the causes and
means of prophetic authority exist more perfectly in the
person of Muhammad (SAW), this authority is to be found
in him with more certanity than all the other prophets.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
To be Continued Allah Willing.
Irfan Alan, A Servant of Islam.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83524
From: magney@cco.caltech.edu (Michael Agney)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <1993Apr15.010329.23133@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>[Followups set out of talk.abortion...]
>>
>>In article <C5Fuo2.FF8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>>>Am I reading this thread wrong or is this just another bemoaning of the fact
>>>that Christianity has a code of objective morality?
>>
>>Please define this "objective morality".
>>
>>While you're at it, please state the theory of creationism.

>Still searching for an irrelevant issue in which to mire a pro-lifer, I see.
>Slimy tactic.

>								- Kevin

Well, when you crosspost to talk.origins, what do you expect?

-- 
| Michael Agney          | Just because you're paranoid | 
|                        | doesn't mean they're not out |
|                        | to get you.                  | 
| magney@cco.caltech.edu |                              |

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83525
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)

In article <C5p660.36t@sunfish.usd.edu>, rfox@charlie.usd.edu writes...
>In article <1993Apr15.225657.17804@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
>>|> >|> 
>>|> However, one highly biased account (as well as possibly internally 
>>|> inconsistent) written over 2 mellenia ago, in a dead language, by fanatic
>>|> devotees of the creature in question which is not supported by other more 
>>|> objective sources and isnt  even accepted by those who's messiah this creature 
>>|> was supposed to be, doesn't convince me in the slightest, especially when many
>>|> of the current day devotees appear brainwashed into believing this pile of 
>>|> guano...
>>
>>       Since you have referred to the Messiah, I assume you are referring
>>        to the New Testament.  Please detail your complaints or e-mail if
>>        you don't want to post.  First-century Greek is well-known and
>>        well-understood.  Have you considered Josephus, the Jewish Historian,
>>        who also wrote of Jesus?  In addition, the four gospel accounts
>>        are very much in harmony.  
> 
>Bill, I have taken the time to explain that biblical scholars consider the
>Josephus reference to be an early Christian insert.  By biblical scholar I mean
>an expert who, in the course of his or her research, is willing to let the
>chips fall where they may.  This excludes literalists, who may otherwise be
>defined as biblical apologists.  They find what they want to find.  They are
>not trustworthy by scholarly standards (and others).
> 
>Why an insert?  Read it - I have, a number of times.  The passage is glaringly
>out of context, and Josephus, a superb writer, had no such problem elsewhere 
>in his work.  The passage has *nothing* to do with the subject matter in which 
>it lies.  It suddenly appears and then just as quickly disappears.

I think this is a weak argument.  The fact is, there are *two* references to
Jesus in _Antiquities of the Jews_, one of which has unquestionably at least
been altered by Christians.  Origen wrote, in the third century, that
Josephus did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, while the long passage
says the opposite.  There is an Arabic manuscript of _Antiquities of the
Jews_ which contains a version of the passage which is much less gung-ho
for Jesus and may be authentic.
   There is no question that Origen, in the third century, saw a reference
to Jesus in Josephus.  There are no manuscripts of _Antiquities_ which
lack the references.

It is possible that it was fabricated out of whole cloth and inserted, but
I don't think it's very likely--nor do I think there is a consensus in
the scholarly community that this is the case. (I know G.A. Wells takes
this position, but that's because he takes the very small minority view
that Jesus never existed.  And he is a professor of German, not of
biblical history or New Testament or anything directly relevant to
the historicity of Jesus.)

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83526
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!

ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes:


>In a previous article, ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe) says:

>>
>>ON the subject of how many competing RC orders there are, let me point out the
>>Golden Dawn is only the *outer* order of that tradition.  The inner order is
>>the Roseae Rubeae et Aurae Crucis.  
>>

>	Just wondering, do you mean the "Lectorium Rosicrucianum"?
>Warning: There is no point in arguing who's "legit" and who's not. *WHICH*
>Golden Dawn are you talking about?

No, I don't mean the LR, whatever that is.  As for which GD, I'm using _The
Complete Golden Dawn System of Magic_ as my source, so (unless Regardie is
lying) I'm pulling the name out the the original order's rituals.  The
multiple modern groups are part of why I through in the comment about all
the "spin-offs".

>	Just for the sake of argument, (reflecting NO affiliation)
>I am going to say that the TRUE Rosicrucian Order is the Fraternitas
>Rosae Crucis in Quakertown, Penn.,

As a member of the Religious Society of Friends (my membership is in the
Urbana-Champaign (IL) Friends Meeting) I find that amusingly ironic. :)

>	Any takers? :-)

Not me--I don't want to belong to *anything* which runs around claiming to
be the TRUE whatever.  I find that disgusting. :(

Enjoy the journey!
                      --Br'anArthur
                                      Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)

******************************************************************************
Closed minds don't want to know.        --JJObermark

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83527
From: house@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- objectively subjective) writes:

>Question:  Is there any effective difference between:

>"Objective values exist, and there is disagreement over what they are"

>and

>"Values are subjective?"

>I don't see any.

The first means that some aspect of reality contains objective values.
The second means that values are a reference to some preference of the
individual.  In the first case, it is possible that some future discovery
might invalidate certain views re what objective values are.

--

Ron House.                 USQ
(house@helios.usq.edu.au)  Toowoomba, Australia.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83528
From: deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane)
Subject: Re: Flaming Nazis

In article <1qsami$3h7@access.digex.net>, dickeney@access.digex.com (Dick Eney)
writes:
>The trouble with trying to find out the truth is that Roehm and his
>buddies were ACCUSED OF being flaming faggots, one of the pretexts for the
>Night of Long Knives in which Roehm and most of the SA wing of the NSDAP
>were purged. 

Stop! Hold it! You have a few problems here. Official history says that 
the first accusations of homosexuality in the SA came from OUTSIDE of the Nazi 
party, long BEFORE the Nazis ever came to power. So this objection is a red
herring, even if established history is wrong on this point. Moreover, none of 
the histories I've read ever made mention of Hitler or anyone else ever using 
homosexuality as a pretext for purging Roehm. A point I saw reiterated was that
Hitler and the party covered up these accusations. If you are going to accuse
official history of being a fabrication, you should at least get your facts
right. The pretext for purging Roehm was that he was planning to use the SA in
a coup against Hitler. Nowhere is there mention of using allegations of
homosexuality as a pretext for the purge, nor as a justification afterwards (it
is possible that the histories I've read have not mentioned this, but I doubt
it - would it be in Hitler's best interest to admit to the world that his
former right hand man was a homosexual?). 

Anyway, as I said before, it is always possible that I have missed references 
to the Nazis making use of charges of homosexuality against the SA after the 
night of the long knives - but this does not prove that they were false. Even 
the Nazis could tell the truth when it was to their advantage. In any case, 
this does not deal with accusations of homosexuality in the SA during the 
1920's.

>Since the accusers thereafter controlled the records,
>anything bearing on the subject -- true or not -- has to be considered
>tainted evidence. 

Ah, yes. I forgot this was being posted to alt.conspiracy. I can smell the
paranoia from here. Since the Nazis never officially charged Roehm with 
homosexuality (at least, not according to what I've read), I'd like to know 
what tainted "evidence" you are talking about. Since the accusations were made 
by persons outside of the Nazi party, long before it came to power, and those 
accusations were common knowledge to journalists and others in Germany in the 
1920's and 30's, just how would it be possible for the Nazis to go back in 
time and plant "tainted" evidence? How exactly does one doctor newspapers 
which were circulated around the world, without the discrepancies being 
obvious? What actual incidences of Nazi doctoring evidence on this matter
do you know about? And what about the testimony of people who were involved in 
these matters, some of whom were not Nazis? And what is the point of making a 
false accusation of homosexuality if you do not publicize it? Since the point 
here seems to be to discredit established history, then the burden of proof 
falls on the revisionist. The revisionists had better do their homework 
before making accusations. Otherwise they simply look like conspiracy nuts.

>The available data suggest that Roehm and his crowd,
>the SA -- Sturmabteilung, "Storm Troopers" -- left the world a better
>place when they departed, 

This is just about the *only* thing we agree on. 

I suspect that the notion that there might have been bad people - Roehm and 
his SA buddies - who were homosexuals must disturb some people. The feeling
seems to be that if a nasty individual is accused of homosexuality, that this
must be an attempt to bash homosexuals. This fear - often justified - is what
lies behind this distrust of official history, or so it seems to me. But this
is not a good justification for trashing accepted accounts of this subject. If 
you really think that historians are so incompetent, why don't you write them 
and ask where they got their sources on this subject, if you can't tell from 
their footnotes? I'm a graduate student in history. Writing to professors and
tracking down sources is old hat. But my time is limited and this is not my
specialty - and neither you nor anyone else have said anything that would
cast one shred of doubt on existing evidence. I'm not going to waste my time
trying to debunk someone's paranoia. Do the research yourself.

>but concrete particulars are still no more than
>more or less shrewd guesses.  
>-- Diccon Frankborn

Given that you already consider all evidence "tainted", what on earth would
constitute concrete particulars? And since when have concrete particulars been
considered "shrewd guesses"?

I suggest that those who do not trust popular historians (Irving et al) -
historians writing for a popular audience do not, as a rule, provide copious 
footnotes - should try instead reading academic historians, who usually 
provide footnotes to all their sources in immmense detail. This is the place 
to start looking. Assuming that one really wants to know the truth.

I'll bet the folks on alt.pagan are tired of this subject already. My
apologies - we seem to have gone off on a bit of a tangent. I forget which gods
are responsible for keeping strings within appropriate newsgroup subject
boundaries...
                                                                       
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
David Matthew Deane (deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu)
"...Be in me as the eternal moods of the bleak wind...Let the Gods speak softly
of us in days hereafter..." (Ezra Pound)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83529
From: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Subject: Re: Clarification of personal position (Jesus and the Law)

sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>My online Bible is on a CD, but I don't own a CD-ROM system for the
>time being, so I can't search for the famous cite where Jesus explicitly
>states that he didn't want to break existing (Jewish) laws. In other
>words technically speaking Christians should use Saturday and not Sunday
>as their holy day, if they want to conform to the teachings of Jesus.

I think the passage you're looking for is the following.

Matthew 5:17    "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the 
prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. 
Matthew 5:18   For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, 
not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 
Matthew 5:19   Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments 
and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he 
who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of 
heaven. 
Matthew 5:20   For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of 
the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 

There are several problems with this.  The most serious is that the
Law was regarded by Jews at the time (and now) as binding on Jews, but
not on Gentiles.  There are rules that were binding on all human
beings (the so-called Noachic laws), but they are quite minimal.  The
issue that the Church had to face after Jesus' death was what to do
about Gentiles who wanted to follow Christ.  The decision not to
impose the Law on them didn't say that the Law was abolished.  It
simply acknowledged that fact that it didn't apply to Gentiles.  This
is a simple answer, which I think just about everyone can agree to.
(A discussion of the issue in more or less these terms is recorded
in Acts 15.)

However there's more involved.  In order to get a full picture of the
role of the Law, we have to come to grips with Paul's apparent
rejection of the Law, and how that relates to Jesus' commendation of
the Law.  At least as I read Paul, he says that the Law serves a
purpose that has been in a certain sense superceded.  Again, this
issue isn't one of the abolition of the Law.  In the middle of his
discussion, Paul notes that he might be understood this way, and
assures us that that's not what he intends to say.  Rather, he sees
the Law as primarily being present to convict people of their
sinfulness.  But ultimately it's an impossible standard, and one that
has been superceded by Christ.  Paul's comments are not the world's
clearest here, and not everyone agrees with my reading.  But the
interesting thing to notice is that even this radical position does
not entail an abolition of the Law.  It still remains as an
uncompromising standard, from which not an iota or dot may be removed.
For its purpose of convicting of sin, it's important that it not be
relaxed.  However for Christians, it's not the end -- ultimately we
live in faith, not Law.

While the theoretical categories they use are rather different, in the
end I think Jesus and Paul come to a rather similar conclusion.  The
quoted passage from Mat 5 should be taken in the context of the rest
of the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus shows us how he interprets the
Law.  The "not an iota or dot" would suggest a rather literal reading,
but in fact that's not Jesus' approach.  Jesus' interpretations
emphasize the intent of the Law, and stay away from the ceremonial
details.  Indeed he is well known for taking a rather free attitude
towards the Sabbath and kosher laws.  Some scholars claim that Mat
5:17-20 needs to be taken in the context of 1st Cent. Jewish
discussions.  Jesus accuses his opponents of caring about giving a
tenth of even the most minor herbs, but neglecting the things that
really matter: justice, mercy and faith, and caring about how cups and
plates are cleaned, but not about the fact that inside the people who
use them are full of extortion and rapacity.  (Mat 23:23-25) This, and
the discussion later in Mat 5, suggest that Jesus has a very specific
view of the Law in mind, and that when he talks about maintaining the
Law in its full strength, he is thinking of these aspects of it.
Paul's conclusion is similar.  While he talks about the Law being
superceded, all of the specific examples he gives involve the
"ceremonial law", such as circumcision and the Sabbath.  He is quite
concerned about maintaining moral standards.

The net result of this is that when Paul talks about the Law being
superceded, and Jesus talks about the Law being maintained, I believe
they are talking about different aspects of the Law.  Paul is
embroiled in arguments about circumcision.  As is natural in letters
responding to specific situations, he's looking at the aspect of the
Law that is currently causing trouble: the Law as specifically Jewish
ceremonies.  He certainly does not intend to abolish divine standards
of conduct.  On the other hand, when Jesus commends the Law, he seems
to be talking the Law in its broadest implications for morals and
human relationships, and deemphasizing those aspects that were later
to give Paul so much trouble.

It's unfortunate that people use the same terms in different ways, but
we should be familiar with that from current conflicts.  Look at the
way terms like "family values" take on special meaning from the
current context.  Imagine some poor historian of the future trying to
figure out why "family values" should be used as a code word for
opposition to homosexuality in one specific period in the U.S.  I
think Law had taken on a similar role in the arguments Paul was
involved in.  Paul was clearly not rejecting all of the Jewish values
that go along with the term "Law", any more than people who concerned
about the "family values" movement are really opposed to family
values.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83535
From: mimir@stein.u.washington.edu (Grendel Grettisson)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!

In article <1qsqar$n8m@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes:
>
>In a previous article, ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe) says:
>
>>
>>ON the subject of how many competing RC orders there are, let me point out the
>>Golden Dawn is only the *outer* order of that tradition.  The inner order is
>>the Roseae Rubeae et Aurae Crucis.  
>>
>
>	Just wondering, do you mean the "Lectorium Rosicrucianum"?
>Warning: There is no point in arguing who's "legit" and who's not. *WHICH*
>Golden Dawn are you talking about?

 Which Golden Dawn? How about the original from 100 years ago?

>	Just for the sake of argument, (reflecting NO affiliation)
>I am going to say that the TRUE Rosicrucian Order is the Fraternitas
>Rosae Crucis in Quakertown, Penn.,
>
>	Any takers? :-)

 No. No Rosicrucian would ever admit or deny being such.

Wassail,
Grendel Grettisson


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83544
From: paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick

kosinski@us.oracle.com (Kevin Osinski) writes:

> I recall reading in Michael (?) Rutherford's novel "Sarum" a scene in
> which the son of a Roman nobleman living in Britain takes part in a
> secret ceremony involving a bull.  He stands naked in a pit covered
> with some sort of scaffolding while assistants coax a bull to stand on
> the scaffolding.  They then fatally stab the bull, which douses the
> worshipper in the pit with blood.  This is supposedly some sort of
> rite of passage for members of the bull cult.  I wonder if this is
> related to the Mithras cult?

Yes, this is certainly one of the traditional ideas about the Mithraic
cult (although not the only one.)  It had many elements that seem
to have been borrowed by Catholicism (e.g. the Mass, communion, the
sharing of a sacred meal, consecration of bread and wine, etc.)

For quite an amusing novel that uses this same idea, check out:

The Covenant of the Flame
by David Morrell.

It has some quite interesting occult bits, and lots of killing.
I won't spoil it by revealing the ending, but I will say that it
is relevant to Mithraism.
--
paul@actrix.co.at (Paul Gillingwater)
Home Office in Vienna, Austria
** If you read news with rn or trn, ask me about EEP! the .newsrc editor!

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83547
From: rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com
Subject: Part 1 and part 2  (re: Homosexuality)

Tony-

I read your post, it was nothing new, I had seen much the same in other
typical"Christian" anti-gay sentimental literature.  Gay people are and will
con- tinue to be persecuted as long as such propaganda petpetuates.  You may
be unaware of all the statistica "findings" concerning African-Americans that
have been published and used by various groups to re-enforce their own bias
against African-Americans.  We usually think of the KKK in these instances,
but there are many other groups.  Of course, the vast majority of the public
scoff at such findings and documents today, but that was not always the case.
Fortunately African-Americans had "whites" who supported their 'cause' and
public sentiment was eventually (if not entirely) turned around.  There was
even a Civil War, and anti-negro sentiment increased.  In fact, until laws
were put in place to protect the inalienable rights of Blacks it was pretty
much legal to discriminate against them.

I know many gays and I will NOT turn my back on them or their right to be free
form discrimination.  You may think that I have been deceived or something,
that is your perogative.  My church, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
openly affirms the rights of oppressed people of all segments of society,
including gays.  We believe the Gospel message of preaching to all creation
and making disciples.  We believe in the Lord's great commandment to Love,
and we beleive in standing up for the oppressed, even if it is not popular
to do so.  I really like my church for last reason the most.  I can find a
church almost anywhere in the valley that stands for the Gospel and believes
in the commandment of Love (though I'm hard-pressed to find many who actually
sho Love), but not many are willing to champion the oppressed, especially
within their own community.  I may have lost face with the greater Christian
community for the unpopularity of my beliefs, but so did the abolitionists
against the oppression of African-Americans.  Many were even killed and
treated as runaway slaves for being "nigger-lovers" and such.  I guess I've
decided the challenge is worth it.

In my talks with gay men and women I have heard tragic story after tragic
story centering around failed marriages, wives and husbands who are straight
who have been hurt in the process, etc.  Funny thing is, I don't know of one
case where the parents, ex-wives, or even children have continued to reject
their gay family member (son, daughter, ex-husband, father, etc.) after they
began to take part in some form of support group, like PFLAG.

I'm apalled by the legislation which passed in Colorado, and am equally out0
raged that such slimey people as Louis Sheldon (from the Tradition Values
Coalition) have been actively working in the Christian underground to garner
support within several (8 I believe) states this coming November for more
oppressive legisation against gays.

Perhaps you don't get it, and maybe you never will.  Many didn't get it in the
Middle Ages and the proclaimed God's will be done as they massacred thousands
in witch hunts and inquisitions.

The message that comes through, loud and clear, by proponents against gay
rights and against gays in general, is that there is a strong dislike, even
hatred for gays, whether you want to call it such or not (it doesn't change
the results).  The major flaw in all this posturing is that in the end, the
final effect of posts like that of yours and Mr. Hudson is that YOU have a
"conditional" love for gays.  Condition:  Change and we'll love you. This is
sure strange coming from a group who claim that God has an "unconditional"
love, one that calls people "just as they are."  Sure there are things that
will 'naturally' change, and habits (like alcoholism, wife beating, etc.) that
need to be changed through some sort of therapy.  But then there are things
like left-handedness, etc. that no amount of beating it out of people, is
going to result in anything more than an outward conforminty to "other
people's expectations." In the process this coerced conformity causes many
people a great deal of harm, especially when it is caused by people who have
nothing more to gain from it that to become even more puffed up about their
own sense of pseuper-spirituality.

This is sad, but I thoroughly believe that one day it will change.  It may be
unpopular to cry for justice and equality when the basis has to do with
something very personal like 'sexuality' (a taboo subject even today), but I
firmly believe in the rights of individuals to be free from impose regulation
on thier bedrooms.  It's funny that most straight people have successfully
removed restrictive and oppressive legislation against invasive legislation,
but we like to maintain this little chestnut of repression...as though it
helps us maintain a sense of superiority over at least one segment of society.
Gay people are not criminals.

Another interesting thing happened recently.  A very prominent charismatic
church in the Silicon Valley (here) had two of it's pastors arrested for self-
admitted charges of pederasty (men having sex with boys).  This had apparently
been going on for some time (a couple years?), but since the charges were
voluntary, and the church worked closely with the police, so I imagine that
was how they managed to downplay it in the media.  How could such a thing
happen when the church, itself, has an ex-gay ministry?  One of my friends
recently told me he was "approached" by someone who is going through the
reparitive therapy there, and he was thoroughly convinced that the request for
dinner was not an invitation to attend the ministry.

These are difficult times we live in, but providing hostile environments and
creating and perpetuating an atmosphere that breed hate and violence is not
the call of the Christian community.  The results of the passing amendment in
Colorado has created an organization who's posters are appearing all over
Colorado called "S.T.R.A.I.G.H.T." (I forget the whole definition off hand,
but the last part was Against Immoral Gross Homosexual Trash) and their motto
is "Working for a fag-free America" with an implicit advocation for violence.

This is sick, and it seems to be what you and Mr. Hudson, and others are
embracing.

We Christians have a LOOOOOOOOOONG tradition of coersion and oppression
towards those we feel don't 'measure up', and constant beratement from
organizations like The Christian Research Institute, while they do have a good
purpose also, their major work seems to be finding new and better ways of
excluding people.

The Gospel I believe is not so negative, rather it seeks ways to "include"
people.  I have several of Dr. Martin's books and find them quite helpful,
especially concerning 'cults.' But it seems that CRI, has become a cult unto
itself.  Why don't we just stick to the positive and find ways to bring people
to Jesus istead of taking bullwhips and driving them away?

Whatever

Rich :-(

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83558
Subject: Re: Christian Daemons? [Biblical Demons, the u
From: stigaard@mhd.moorhead.msus.edu

>>>667
>>>the neighbor of the beast
>>
>>No, 667 is across the street from the beast.  664 and 668 are the
>>neighbors of the beast.
>
>I think some people are still not clear on this:
>667 is *not* the neighbor of the beast, but, rather, across the
>street. It is, in fact, 668 which is the neighbor of the beast.

no, sheesh, didn't you know 666 is the beast's apartment?  667 is across the
hall from the beast, and is his neighbor along with the rest of the 6th floor.

>Justin (still trying to figure out what this has to do with alt.discordia)

This doesn't seem discordant to you?

-----------------------     ----------------------     -----------------------
	-Paul W. Stigaard, Lokean Discordian Libertarian
  !XOA!		internet:  stigaard@mhd1.moorhead.msus.edu
 (fnord)       Episkopos and Chair, Moorhead State University Campus Discordians
		Rectal neufotomist at large
     "If I left a quote here, someone would think it meant something."

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83561
From: rkwmo@pukrs3.puk.ac.za (MNR M OOSTHUYSEN)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!

In article <9304141620.AA01443@dangermouse.mitre.org> jmeritt@mental.mitre.org writes:

>Leviticus 21:9
>And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the
>whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

>Deuteronomy 22:20-21
>...and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: then they shall
>bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of the
>city shall stone her with stones that she die...

>Deuteronomy  22:22
>If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall
>both of them die...

>Deuteronomy 22:23-24
>If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her
>in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the
>gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die...

>Deuteronomy 22:25
>BUT if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her,
>and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

IF it were'nt for the sin of men, none of this killing would have been 
necesarry, He is KIND and LOVING, but also RIGHTEOUS, 
SIN MUST BE PUNISHED.

Before Jesus, man had to take the sins on himself.
But Jesus died and took it all upon Him, so now we also have a FORGIVING GOD.

If He were not KIND and LOVING, there wouldn't have been any people left.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83562
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Part 1 and part 2  (re: Homosexuality)

rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com writes:
> 
> The results of the passing amendment in
> Colorado has created an organization who's posters are appearing all over
> Colorado called "S.T.R.A.I.G.H.T." (I forget the whole definition off hand,
> but the last part was Against Immoral Gross Homosexual Trash) and their motto
> is "Working for a fag-free America" with an implicit advocation for violence.

I live in Colorado, and have never heard of such a group.  Obviously claims 
that their posters are appearing "all over Colorado" are a tad overdone... 

> This is sick, and it seems to be what you and Mr. Hudson, and others are
> embracing.

Hardly.  Saying that homosexuality is a sin is a far cry from 
"Working for a fag-free America".  Saying that I wouldn't want 
a homosexual babysitting for my kids doesnt mean I endorse 
"Against Immoral Gross Homosexual Trash".  

> We Christians have a LOOOOOOOOOONG tradition of coersion and oppression
> towards those we feel don't 'measure up',

And now we have homosexual advocates telling us that if we don't teach 
our kids that homosexuality is natural and a perfectly acceptable 
alternative lifestyle, then they will have it done for us.  No, thanks. 

> The Gospel I believe is not so negative, rather it seeks ways to "include"
> people. 

Absolutely.  And the message is always, "go and sin no more".  Not, 
Go and do whatever "feels good". 

One question, at the start of your post, you wrote:

> I know many gays and I will NOT turn my back on them or their right to be free
> form discrimination...I may have lost face with the greater Christian
> community for the unpopularity of my beliefs, but so did the abolitionists
> against the oppression of African-Americans.  Many were even killed and
> treated as runaway slaves for being "nigger-lovers" and such.  I guess I've
> decided the challenge is worth it.

This sounds real nice, but struck me as a little odd.  You're 
presenting yourself as if you were a straight Xian, who is sticking
his neck out and taking on the challenge of speaking out in support 
of gays in the church.  But I was under the impression that you
yourself are gay.  That's all well and fine, but presenting yourself 
as sticking out your neck to help "repressed others" seems a bit 
untruthful under the circumstances.... 

Walter


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83568
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

In article <f1VMPxk@quack.kfu.com> pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <bskendigC5H4o3.D5p@netcom.com> 
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>>>	But if we walk in the light,
>>>	as he is in the light,
>>>	we have fellowship one with another,
>>>	and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son
>>>	cleanseth us from all sin.
>>	It can not be a light which cleanses
>>	if it is tainted with the blood
>>	of an innocent man.
>
>Human blood sacrifice! Martyrdom of an innocent virgin! "Nailed" to a
>wooden pole! What is this obsession with male menstruation?

Christian:  washed in the blood of the lamb.
Mithraist:  washed in the blood of the bull.

If anyone in .netland is in the process of devising a new religion,
do not use the lamb or the bull, because they have already been
reserved.  Please choose another animal, preferably one not
on the Endangered Species List.  

Thank you.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83572
From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Subject: Re: Christian Owned Organization list

In article <47749@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, shopper@ucsd.edu writes:
 
> Does anyone have or know where I can find a list of
> christian-owned corporations and companies?  One that I know of
> is WordPerfect.

Naw, the owners of WordPerfect are Mormons, and by Tony Rose's
and Robert Weiss' standards, Mormons aren't Christians.  :-)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker),  Logan, Utah


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83581
From: rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com
Subject: Walter?

Walter-

I tried several times in the past to communicate with you and Susan, but
you ignored me, and I don't honestly believe my letters were mean.  Rather
I thought they were thoughtful and compassionate, but I see now what I should
have seen then.  Call me naive.

I give up on this group.  As my Lord advised, that if you are unwelcome in
a city then brush the dust of your feet and go on.

If anyone cares about the topic they write to me direct, if not, well,
may God bless you as well.

Bye to this group.
PAX

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83582
From: m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Kind, loving, merciful and forgiving GOD!

In article <8968@blue.cis.pitt.edu> joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
}m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
}>joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
}>}m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
}>}>}(a) out of context;
}>}>Must have missed when you said this about these other "promises of god" that we keep
}>}>getting subjected to.  Could you please explain why I am wrong and they are OK?
}>}>Or an acknowledgement of public hypocrisy. Both or neither.
}>}
}>}So, according to you, Jim, the only way to criticize one person for
}>}taking a quote out of context, without being a hypocrite, is to post a
}>}response to *every* person on t.r.m who takes a quote out of context?
}>
}>Did I either ask or assert that?  Or is this your misaimed telepathy at work again?
}
}(1)  Stephen said you took a quote out of context
}(2)  You noted that Stephen had not replied to some other t.r.m article
}     (call it A) that took a quote out of context
}(3)  But the lack of evidence for X does not constitute evidence for the
}     lack of X  (a common creationist error)
}(4)  So the fact that Stephen did not reply to A does not justify the
}     conclusion that Stephen condoned taking quotes out of context in A

Excellent.  Now under what conditions could such a conclusion be made, other
than a direct assertion by his part.  For instance, am I to assume that
you have no position on eating shit merely because you have not said
your position, or might a conclusion be made by observing that you do not.

}(7)  I assumed you were being logical, and that the sentence that begins
}     "Could you please explain ..." was not a nonsequitur, but was intended
}     to follow from the sentence that preceded it.

}Is that better Jim?   It's called an argument.  If you disagree with it,
}explain why the argument is not sound.  (I admit that my assumption in (7)
}may have been a bit hasty.)  If you agree with it, just say "yup."

Have you, by chance, ever even heard of inductive logic?  You are not
demonstrating any familiarly with it (i.e. you are being insufficiently
logical).



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83585
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!


In article <9304141620.AA01443@dangermouse.mitre.org>, jmeritt@mental.mitre.org writes:
|> Leviticus 21:9
|> And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the
|> whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.
|> 
|> Deuteronomy 22:20-21
|> ...and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: then they shall
|> bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of the
|> city shall stone her with stones that she die...
|> 
|> Deuteronomy  22:22
|> If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall
|> both of them die...
|> 
|> Deuteronomy 22:23-24
|> If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her
|> in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the
|> gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die...
|> 
|> Deuteronomy 22:25
|> BUT if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her,
|> and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had
expressly set apart from the rest of the world.  The Israelites were a
direct witness to God's existence.  To disobey God after KNOWing that God
is real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately punishable.
Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to 
God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We are living in the
age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death.  There is
repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just
for a few chosen people.  Salvation is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile
alike.

God be with you,

Malcolm Lee  :)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83586
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

Brian Kendig writes:

>  Lev 17:11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given
>  it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is
>  the blood that makes atonement for the soul.
>
>The Old Testament was very big on the "eye for an eye" business.  It
>makes sense that Leviticus would support physical injury to "repay"
>moral wrongdoing.

Brian K., guess what?  You missed the point.  On a scale from cold to
hot, you are at 0 degrees Kelvin.

>I know about sanctification.  I've been taught all about it in Sunday
>school, catechism class, and theology classes.  But even after all
>that, I still can't accept it.  Maybe I'm still not understanding it,
>or maybe I'm just understanding it all too well.

Then as you understand it, what is it?

>From the bottom of my heart I know that the punishment of an innocent
>man is wrong.

Yes.  I agree with that.  But what does that have to do with Jesus?
Punishment you say?  Jesus did not regard his death as punishment. 

>I've tried repeatedly over the course of several years
>to accept it, but I just can't. 

Good.  I wouldn't either--not the way you understand it.  

>If you can explain to me why the death of Jesus was a *good* thing,
>then I would be very glad to hear it, and you might even convert me.
>Be warned, however, that I've heard all the most common arguments
>before, and they just don't convince me.

Ask Jesus himself.  He himself said why in John 12:23-32.  It
isn't a mystery to anyone and there certainly is no need for
a persuasive argument.   Read Jesus's own reply to your
question.

Jesus gives more reasons in John 16:7.  But one obvious reason
why Jesus died, (and as with everything else, it has nothing do with
his punishment) was that he could rise to life again--so that
we would "stop doubting and believe" (John 21:27).  The fact
that Jesus rose from the dead is my hope that I too will rise
from the dead.  It is an obvious point.  Do not overlook it.
Without this obvious point, I would have no hope
and my faith would be vanity.

Why did Jesus suffer in his death?  Again, ask Jesus.  Jesus
says why in John 15:18-25.   That's no mystery either.  "The
world hates him without reason."  It is a direct proclamation
of how far we humans botch things up and thus, how much we
need a Saviour.

And why can't you, Brian K., accept this?  How can you?  "The
world cannot accept him because it neither sees him nor knows
him."  (John 14:17).   The animosity and the lack of knowledge
that comes out in your twistings of Robert's daily verses is
very convincing testimony of the truth of John 14:17 and 16:25.
I pray and hope that I do blurt out such animosity and lack of
knowledge. I am not perfect either.  But regardless of that, I thank
God that Jesus revealed himself to me, without whom I'd also be
bumbling about blindly though arrogantly slandering the very
Person who created me and who loves me.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83587
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

In article <bskendigC5I9yH.ICp@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>If you can explain to me why the death of Jesus was a *good* thing,
>then I would be very glad to hear it, and you might even convert me.
>Be warned, however, that I've heard all the most common arguments
>before, and they just don't convince me.

Be warned, it is not my job to convert you.  That is the job of
the Holy Spirit.  And I, frankly, make a lousy one.  I am only
here to testify.  Your conversion is between you and God.  I am
"out of the loop".  If you decide to follow Jesus, of which I
indeed would be estatic, then all the glory be to God.

-------------
Brian Ceccarelli
brian@gamma1.lpl.arizona.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83591
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Subject: Re: Kind, loving, merciful and forgiving GOD!

m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
>}(4)  So the fact that Stephen did not reply to A does not justify the
>}     conclusion that Stephen condoned taking quotes out of context in A
>Excellent. Now under what conditions could such a conclusion be made, other
>than a direct assertion by his part.

Replace "Stephen" with "David Joslin," since you directed the same
accusation of hypocrisy at me.  In e-mail to me you wrote:
    In t.r.m. Robert Weiss writes [a promise from Psalm 9:10]
    Gee, since you wouldn't be at all hypocritical, you must be really
    busy arguing against these out-of-context extracted translations!

As you may recall, you mailed me six mail messages quoting articles by
Robert Weiss, all sent within a few minutes of each other.  You added:
    Naturally, I await your arguments against this out-of-context
    translation.  But I shall not await holding my breath...
and
    Wonder when you get to sleep, disputing all these out-of-context
    extracted translations!
and other similar comments. 

Perhaps you could explain why you ever thought that I might have a
reason to read all of these articles you pulled off of t.r.m, much
less write responses to them?  


>Have you, by chance, ever even heard of inductive logic?  You are not
>demonstrating any familiarly with it (i.e. you are being insufficiently
>logical).

I am familiar with inductive logic.  Go ahead and give me the details
of the "logic" that led you to conclude, incorrectly, that I would
condone Robert Weiss taking verses out of context.  Your conclusion was
wrong, of course, since I agree that both you and Robert Weiss were
guity of taking verses out of context.  Nothing hypocritical about
that, is there?  

Since you reached a false conclusion, you made some mistake in your
"logic."  The only question is where.  Did you think that it would
be hypocritical for me not to post a reply to Robert Weiss' articles?
Did you make the common creationist error of confusing a lack of
evidence for X with evidence for the lack of X?   Is your grasp of
inductive logic not quite as firm as you think? See if you can figure
out what your mistake was, and learn from it.

dj

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83592
From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: JUDAS, CRUCIFIXION, TYRE, Etc...

In article <1qe8qk$58t@news.ysu.edu> af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes:
>
>I need to prioritize things in my life, and this board is not all that important
>to me.  My personal relationship wife the Lord is first, my wife is second, and
>my ministry at church is third.  (Not to mention my job!)

Have you informed your wife of this prioritization?

This board will have
>to wait until (if ever) I can organize my life to fit it in.  I tried dropping
>out, but Sieferman coerced me to come back.  He won't this time.

Thou hast used my name in vain!  I never coerce.  Ridicule, maybe, but
never coerce.  Please take responsibility for your actions.

(deletia)

>I'm history.
>Frank

I appreciate your efforts.  Good luck.




Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83593
From: ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale M. Skiba)
Subject: Re: BIBLICAL CONTRADICTIONS and Archer

Jenny Anderson (jennya@well.sf.ca.us) wrote:

: medtronic.COM (Dale M. Skiba) entirely missed my point in my previous
: posting, in which I wrote:

: : firmly on the western coast of the Med.  You can bet IUm gonna keep this
: baby

: >My my my, such double standards.  You neglected to give any primary sources
: >for your book,  _Encyclopedia of the Bible_.  Are we to expect that source
: >to be as unbiased as the other sources...  MR. Butler *DID* give at least
: >one source, you have given none.

: REPLY

: It was a JOKE.  The Readers digest _Encyclopedia of the Bible_ was the most
: outrageously bogus *authority* I could dredge from my shelves.
: I was trying to point out that going to some encyclopedia, rather than
:  original or scholarly sources is a BIG MISTAKE in procedure.  I am glad
: to note that Butler and DeCesno are arguing about substance now,
: rather than about arguing.

I guess the joke was on me...  I am so used to seeing bogus stuff
posted here that I assumed that yours was necessarily the same.

--
Dale Skiba

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83594
From: ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale M. Skiba)
Subject: Re: BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS and Archer

Jenny Anderson (jennya@well.sf.ca.us) wrote:


: medtronic.COM (Dale M. Skiba) entirely missed my point in my previous
: posting, in which I wrote:

: COMMENT:

: Shortly after that post, I realized two things:  I was running a fever of
: over 102, and that I probably should not have gone directly from reading
: alt.slack to posting on this august newsgroup.

: >: >it is not ad hominen to point out that Mr Archer willingly prints blatant
: >: lies
: >: >in defense of Bible inerrancy, and thus is worthless as an expert witness.

: >: Okay, Im game, give us a listing of blatant lies from _Encyclopedia of
: >: Biblical Difficulties_ or other Archer writings.

: >That would be interesting.  If only a very short list can be generated,
: >I think it is more likely that Mr. Archer, with his inerancy mindset is
: >not always impartial and made a doozy of a mistake.  (IMHO I also think
: >that this mindset tends to generate these sorts of mistakes...)

: >On the other hand, if a long list can be generated, it is more likely
: >that Mr. Archer intentionally uses deception in hs books. (Why should
: >he be deceptive just with Tyre?)

: So, Archer is just sitting around, rubbing his hands and plotting how next
: to deceive?  OK, lets _see_ the list...

This was an open question.  I assumed that if Mr. Archer is a chronic
liar, someone whould have documented it.   This assumption is based on
how talk.origins regulars have documented numerous cases of Creationist
deceptions (such as Duane Guish and his friends).

No long list of Archer mistakes has yet been given, so this may be just
an isolated incident...

--
Dale Skiba

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83601
From: kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???

I must correct the following in my previous posting:
 
: If you are trying to be objective, you must also recognise that
: 
: 1) the gospels are not independent sources, on the contrary, they
: share much of the same material

I should have been a bit more careful here - the gospels not only
tell us about the same events, they usually use the same wordings.
Textual analyses show that Matthew and Luke probably had a common
source, which may have influenced Mark, too.

Petri

--
 ___. .'*''.*        Petri Pihko    kem-pmp@          Mathematics is the Truth.
!___.'* '.'*' ' .    Pihatie 15 C    finou.oulu.fi    Physics is the Rule of
       ' *' .* '*    SF-90650 OULU  kempmp@           the Game.
          *'  *  .*  FINLAND         phoenix.oulu.fi  -> Chemistry is The Game.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83602
From: foster@mtechca.maintech.com
Subject: Catholic Lit-Crit of a.s.s.

In article <1qevbh$h7v@agate.berkeley.edu>, dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu 
(Dennis Kriz) writes:

[ a lot of religious opinions and quotations from the Bible and from 
many Catholic theologians and Papal Bulls ]

[ which, although introduced with a smiley, was not as funny as it
might have been (notable exception: subject headers such as "ONE'S 
DICK IS ONE'S INSTRUMENT OF REDEMPTION." ]

[ and indeed, the posting seemed to be more a vehicle for the
religious text than for any "literary/moral analysis" ]

I am surprised and saddened. I would expect this kind of behavior
from the Evangelical Born-Again Gospel-Thumping In-Your-Face We're-
The-Only-True-Christian Protestants, but I have always thought 
that Catholics behaved better than this.

Friend Dennis, I urge you to follow the example of your fellow
Catholics, of who I count many dozens as my friends, and practice
your faith through good example and decent living and respect
for the common humanity of others. Please do not stoop to the
level of the E B-A G-T I-Y-F W-T-O-T-C Protestants, who think
that the best way to witness is to be strident, intrusive, loud,
insulting and overbearingly self-righteous.

The imagery in the Song of Solomon is a little bit dated (get it? 
Middle East - date palms - oh, never mind) but apparently acceptable, 
on a steaminess level, to be accepted as part of the canon. From
this fact I derive that erotica itself is not incompatible with
Catholic doctrine.

Is there such a thing as Catholic erotica? Not necessarily a love
story between people of that faith, but a love story that is not
exploitative, does not seek redemption through penis size, pays
proper respect to the dignity of each partner, and is still erotic
enough to have a place on a.s.s.

I would submit that the _Darknites_ series of stories qualify, also
most of the _Journal Entries_, and _Rings I and II_.

I would guess that your aim is to cut down on the pornography and
increase the erotica. I actually agree with you that nearly all of
the "I've got an enormous dick, and I shot my wad all over her face"
stories are crap. I count them as noise, which makes my take on the
signal-to-noise ration much lower than many other people's.

Since you are one of the few posters here who can actually write 
decent prose, could you write a few stories for us instead of
overwhelming us with commentary?  

> Anyway, this is a big subject.  PLEASE add your comments,
> additions and observations.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> dennis
> dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu
> 
-- 
Thank you.

Jeff
foster@mtechca.maintech.com

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83608
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

In article <1993Apr15.202729.6649@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:
> Jesus gives more reasons in John 16:7.  But one obvious reason
> why Jesus died, (and as with everything else, it has nothing do with
> his punishment) was that he could rise to life again--so that
> we would "stop doubting and believe" (John 21:27).  The fact
> that Jesus rose from the dead is my hope that I too will rise
> from the dead.  It is an obvious point.  Do not overlook it.
> Without this obvious point, I would have no hope
> and my faith would be vanity.

Glad to hear this, just a note, Osiris, Mithras and many other
cult gods resurrected as well, so there's a good chance for all of
us to maybe end up in a virtual reality simulator, and live forever,
hurrah!

Sorry, this was a joke, some sort of one anyway. I'm the first
that connected Osiris with a virtual reality personality database.
Time to write a book.


Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83609
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

In article <1qknu0INNbhv@shelley.u.washington.edu>, > Christian:  washed in
the blood of the lamb.
> Mithraist:  washed in the blood of the bull.
> 
> If anyone in .netland is in the process of devising a new religion,
> do not use the lamb or the bull, because they have already been
> reserved.  Please choose another animal, preferably one not
> on the Endangered Species List.  

This will be a hard task, because most cultures used most animals
for blood sacrifices. It has to be something related to our current
post-modernism state. Hmm, what about used computers?

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83610
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!

In article <1993Apr15.200231.10206@ra.royalroads.ca>,
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
> These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had
> expressly set apart from the rest of the world.  The Israelites were a
> direct witness to God's existence.  To disobey God after KNOWing that God
> is real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately punishable.
> Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to 
> God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We are living in the
> age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death.  There is
> repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just
> for a few chosen people.  Salvation is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile
> alike.

Jews won't agree with you, Malcolm.

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83614
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen)
Subject: Re: Comments on the Koresh 3-02 Transcript

In article <1993Apr14.200259.20419@microsoft.com>, 
iank@microsoft.com (Ian Kennedy) writes...

(stephen) wrote:
>>Correction to my prior post, proper citation is:
>>
>>	Isaiah 30:26 -- Moreover the light of the moon shall
>>	   be as the light of the sun, and the light of the 
>>	   sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days,
>>	   in the day that the LORD bindeth up the breach of
>>	   his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound.
> 
>So we have to wait for the sun to nova?

More along the lines of Hebrews 12:25-29, I reckon...

	See that you refuse not him that speaks. For if they
	escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much 
	more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that 
	speaks from heaven:

	Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he has promised,
	saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also
	heaven.

	And this word, Yet once more, signifies the removing of
	those things that are shaken, as of things that are made,
	that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.

	Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, 
	let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably 
	with reverence and godly fear:

	For our God is a consuming fire.


Or 2nd Thessalonians 1:7-10...

	And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord
	Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
 	In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God,
	and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

	Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from 
	the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
 	When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be
	admired in all them that believe (because our testimony 
	among you was believed) in that day. 


Kinda gives Flaming a whole new meaning, I reckon. 

			      - < > -

The impression I got from talking with Livingston was that the coming
of the Lord, power-wise, is going to be something that those who are
unprepared can't handle -- kinda like overloading a fuse -- due to 
guilt. Somehow it seems to also apply to the entire physical world as 
we know it. LF suggests that God doesn't want that and has sent Koresh 
as a reminder. 

Seems that those who have been purified through salvation, or that those
protected by the Seals, will be the ones who survive. And no -- I don't 
have a good idea yet what "being shielded by the seals" actually involves 
or how exactly it relates to salvation. (Other than it involves the
marriage of the Bridegroom and the Bride... for those of you Biblical
well versed.)
			     - < > -

Me personally, I'm totally 100% dependent on God through Christ, so 
if God wants me to understand, good. If not, also good. If God wants
to save me, or dispose of me, that's great either way. Being born in
the Spirit, means being part of the Body of Christ (Ephesians 2), so
who and what I was, matters little. * What's important is loving GOD *

Come Nova, Nuke, or Apocalypse -- who cares? Satan might even be able 
to pull off a pretty convincing fake. Big deal. Not worth fearing or 
worrying about though, not before:


		   -* The Greater Glory of GOD *-
 	

Maybe Koresh is right, maybe he isn't, and it should be interesting to 
see the new message (or prophecy). The tour of the Bible I've taken in 
studying the passages he points to in the 3-02 text, has been most re-
warding. But the test of prophecy is still the fruit it bears -- which 
is not yet clear. 

Much much more important is "Charity" -- which by definition *is* --

	                   Love for GOD

(I hope Dear Reader, you've taken all this as an expression of faith, 
 and not a statement of mere fact. Seems many folks get real upset at 
 reminders. ;-)

   |
-- J -- 
   |
   | stephen


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83617
From: starowl@rahul.net (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

On 15 Apr 1993 22:34:40 GMT, Eric Sieferman observed:

: Christian:  washed in the blood of the lamb.
: Mithraist:  washed in the blood of the bull.

: If anyone in .netland is in the process of devising a new religion,
: do not use the lamb or the bull, because they have already been
: reserved.  Please choose another animal, preferably one not
: on the Endangered Species List.  

How about "washed in the blood of Barney the Dinosaur"?  :)

--
Michael D. Adams  (starowl@a2i.rahul.net)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83620
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian M
From: NUNNALLY@acs.harding.edu (John Nunnally)

In <1qksc2$2mr@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com writes:

> In article <1qkoel$5fr@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> |> 
> |> Good question, my point was that a world with truth is better than a world
> |> with falsehood.  A world in which it were possible to say "yes, I am
> |> holding a Jew" (the truth) and you, me, the Jew, and the SS guy all sit
> |> down to crack open a bottle of whiskey is better than the grim alternatives 
> |> you present. Obviously, this is not possible, and the best alternative seems
> |> to be to lie.  That's because other values are involved, such as life.
> |> Now that IS just my opinion - don't confuse the claim 'objective morality
> |> exists' with the claim 'I have a lock on morals'.
> 
> I think that at this point it would actually be quite easy to
> confuse objective morality with relative morality.
> 
> jon.
Actually, jon, that is quite true.  Christian people have caused
"objective morality" to look very "relative."  After all, that was the
point of the original question in this thread, i.e. can we toss out
Christianity because it is so obviously inconsistent with its own
principles?  If you will bear with me, I will attempt to explain this
apparent inconsistency from at least one Christian's viewpoint:

If God exists and is the creator of mankind as the Bible claims, then
He has a pretty well-defined concept of what makes people tick
physically, emotionally, etc.  GOD has an "objective" morality for us.
That is to say, He has no trouble understanding what is good for (or
detrimental to) the creature He created. 

	Galatians 2:10-- For we [mankind] are His workmanship, created in
	Christ Jesus for good works [a morality], which God prepared
	beforehand [a well-defined design], that we might walk in them.

However, contrary to what many people assume (including the Pharasees
of the Bible,) God's morality cannot be completely codified in a list
of rules and regulations.  To some extent, every activity of a
person's life creates a new situation to which morality must be
applied.  There never could be enough volumes to codify God's
"objective" morality for us. 

Throughout history, mankind has tried to reduce morality to a list of
rules (objectivity, if you please.)  In the Old Testament, we have
both principles and specific rules.  By the time of Jesus, most of the
principles were obscured by the emphasis men had placed on the rules.
Volumes of additional rules had been made to try to codify the
application of the principles.  We [mankind] weren't comfortable with
the "subjectivity" of principles. 

	For reference see Matthew 5 where Jesus explains the difference
	between the Law and the principles of the Law.  For example, in
	verses 21-22:  "You have heard that the ancients were told,
	'You shall not commit murder'...and 'Whoever commits murder shall
	be liable to the court.'  But I say to you that everyone who is
	angry with his brother shall be liable to the court..."

The "objective morality" of God gets blurred by our inept
interpretation of it.  We [Christians] have made our biggest errors
when we have allowed any one person or group of people decide EXACTLY
what God intended for us.  If we [Christians] would stay committed to
seeking God's will instead of trying to prove we already had it all
figured out, we might do a better job of allowing others to find God's
"objective morality" for themselves.  If Jesus is who he said he
was/is (and that's the fundamental question,) then HE IS "objective
morality." 

John Nunnally

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83621
From: dmcgee@uluhe.soest.hawaii.edu (Don McGee)
Subject: Federal Hearing


Fact or rumor....?  Madalyn Murray O'Hare an atheist who eliminated the
use of the bible reading and prayer in public schools 15 years ago is now
going to appear before the FCC with a petition to stop the reading of the
Gospel on the airways of America.  And she is also campaigning to remove
Christmas programs, songs, etc from the public schools.  If it is true
then mail to Federal Communications Commission 1919 H Street Washington DC
20054 expressing your opposition to her request.  Reference Petition number

2493.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83622
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Catholic Right & Pat Robertson

In <93105.093812KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET> <KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:

>Rocco L. Martino, a Philadelphia business
>executive wrote: "Separation of church and state is a false premise
>that must finally be cast aside and replaced by the true meaning of
>our constitution."

blechhhh.  Gimme that ole' time Inquisition ...

>Oh yes, the organization's "national ecclesisatical advisor" is
>Catholic politician Cardinal John J. O'Connor of New York.

It figures, doesn't it?
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		We must know the truth, and we must
mls@ulysses.att.com		love the truth we know, and we must
     - or -			act according to the measure of our love.
mls@panix.com		  				-- Thomas Merton

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83623
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: Christian meta-ethics

In <lsjc8cINNmc1@saltillo.cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
writes:

>In article <C554F5.3GF@panix.com> mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
>
>> The issue, then, is this:
>>
>>	Christian A says, "Behavior such-and-such is sinful."  What is
>>	Christian B supposed to *do* with such a statement?
>>
>> One possibility *always* exists:  A may be able to persuade B that the
>> behavior in question *does* exhibit a failure in loving God or neighbor.
>
>Michael, modern liberal that he is, reads a fairly benign meaning
>into this word.  He then constructs his religious beliefs around
>this understanding, reading *other* scripture in the context of 
>these commandments, with "love" benignly understood.

I regard love as no more or less "benign" than any other Christian does.
You are merely expressing "approval" of the consequences I find therein.
Which says more about our politics and cultural trappings than about my
(or any) religion.  "Love" is a highly ambiguous word, of which Christians
can write both the "gentle" words Paul uses of it in 1 Corinthians -- in
a passage that even the "conservatives" will quote at you :-) -- and the
words of T. S. Eliot in his Pentacost Hymn, "Love is the unfamiliar Name
that wove the intolerable shirt of flame ..."

This is in any case rather to the side of what I was attempting to raise
in my note, as will become more evident below.

>As a non-believer, I find Michael's Christianity kinder and gentler.

blechhh.  I think you are misreading me, rather seriously.  Though,
given my principle that one CANNOT force one's own notion of "sin" on
another, and my unshakeable "disestablishmentarianism", Russel Turpin
and others (believers and unbelievers alike) are under no threat of my
legislating my own understanding of Christian love.

>If I take him at
>his word, he cannot condemn the Inquisitors, because they were
>also following these commandments as *they* understood them.  If

You misread.  I can do (and have repeatedly done) a complete bill of
accusation against the Inquisition by exhibiting in as thorough a form
as anyone might want a demonstration of the harm it has done to human
beings (in the first place) and to respect for (let alone love of) "God"
in near succession.  Please go back to my quoted words above:

The "possibility that always exists" is that I (or, to revert to proper
time sequence, my predecessors over the last several centuries) could
persuade "Christian B" of my case that the Inquisition *does* indeed
constitute an egregious violation of the Law of Love.  I must also note
that the majority of Christians HAVE been so persuaded.  By Christian
argumentation, as well as by secular [both Christian and non-Christian]
prohibitions.

What Mr. Turpin alludes to is a trickier point:

	A.  I demonstrate the human pain and violation of love involved
	    in the Inquisition.

	B.  The Inquisitor responds that Mother Church must, however
	    painful this *seems*, "discipline" her children for their
	    own good -- in this case the salvation of their souls (or
	    if the tortured heretic will not recant, than by bad example
	    "deterring" others from the same loss-of-soul.)

	A.  I point out that this "justification" of a failure in love
	    depends on a highly speculative construal of texts and of
	    philosophical assertions that are quite undemonstrable.

	B.  Burns me at the stake.

My rhetoric has failed, but the point I am making is sustained.  What is
going on here has a *lot* to do with "cultural baggage."  In this case,
the baggage includes a (nearly universal, and absolutely secular) belief
that an accused person must prove innocence and that testimony is most
believable if taken under torture.  The elimination of Inqisitorial
practice (in those places where it *has* been eliminated, or at least
greatly reduced) has very little, if anything, to do with the discussion
of sin in the exchange between A and B.

Mr. Turpin is pointing out that, if I am A versus the Grand Inquisitor's B,
then my persuasion is not very likely to work.  I know this; and in what-
ever personal agony, I consign the issue to God and my ghostly defense
attorney.  So, "one possibility" fails in this case -- as it will fail in
may others.  At the other extreme, the "persuasion" will succeed when it
properly SHOULD not, if it entails mistaken assumptions I share with the
Inquisitor.  And that is potentially an even more troubling case, in that
many of the victims of Inquisition will have "accepted" that they were in
fact sinful (in such random cases as they may actually have been guilty
of charges brought against them.)

The point is that the "persuasion" breaks down when the parties do NOT
share enough to agree on all the cultural baggage -- and given the main
thrust of the Inquisition, against "heresy", it is *bound* to break down
in precisely the "worst" cases.  The "conservative" (I don't think that
is the right word, BTW) will take refuge in what I attribute to B above,
that he is "justified" in causing harm because he *thinks* that works to
a "greater good."  But this is a violent and extravagant REFUSAL to follow
the gospel, as if one's theories about "sin" entitled one to cast aside
Jesus' words on dealing with sinners (cf. Matthew 5:39ff).

I am a "radical" Christian *only* in that I take the gospel seriously.

>(Or, for that matter, what does it mean to love one's fellow
>man?) And what is the "right thing"?  And how does one go about
>loving god? 

Well, the whole *point* of making these the "base" commandments is that
they *aren't* reducible to rules.  A set of rules is a moral code or a
law code or an algorithm for acting.  Such things can be very helpful
to individuals or societies -- but not if they are used *instead* of a
personal involvement in and responsibility for one's actions.  The Great
Commandment is, more than anything else, a call to act *as if you were
God and accepting ultimate responsibility* in your every action.  A
demand that I, like most, would rather *not* hear, but it keeps popping
up nonetheless (along with the reassurance that it is more important
that I be open to trying this, than succeeding at it).  "Conservatives"
may twist this "act as if you were God" to mean "lay down rules for other
people and be as nasty to them as possible if they don't keep YOUR rules."
They are so insistent (and obvious) about this that they have convinced a
lot of people (who rightly reject the whole concept!) that such idiocy
IS how God acts.  That, after all, is the standard accusation "against
God" by the atheists here and elsewhere.  That the "conservatives" have
confused THEIR manipulative, hoop-jumping notions of coercing other
people with the Nature of God is almost the entire content of standard
American atheism -- and I quite agree with it on this point.

>Ethical systems are not differentiated by the nice sounding goo
>up front, much of which sounds pretty much the same, but by the
>*specific* acts, procedures, and arguments that they recommend.

And different bodies of Christians have, from the beginning, urged
*different* "ethical systems" (or in some cases, none).  As a result,
it is bizarre to identify any one of these systems, however popular
(or infamous) with Christianity.  Christianity DOES NOT HAVE A TORAH.
It does not have a QU'RAN.  Specifically Christian scripture has very
little, if anything, in the way of "commandments" -- so little that
the "Christians" who desperately *want* commandments go "mining" for
them with almost no support (and thus almost no obvious limitation :-))
for their efforts.  The one, single, thing in the gospels which Jesus
specifically "gives" as "a commandment" to us is "love one another."

	[I will be expanding on this point in a reply to Paul Hudson
	 that I hope to get to in a day or so -- it is quite true that
	 SOME Christians infer LOTS of commandments from the NT; I'll
	 point out what has to be going on in these inferences, and why
	 there is a huge amount of "cultural baggage" involved.]

You are quite right that this is "goo" if one is looking for an ethical
system.

But why should anyone BE looking for an ethical system, since our
society is eager to hand us one or more no matter what we do?  It
may be that we need a principle for the CRITIQUE of ethical systems
-- in which case I will profer the _agapate allelou_ once again.

>I am glad that a few Christians,
>such as Michael, find a benign meaning for the goo, and then
>interpret the usually ugly specifics in a more constructive
>fashion.  On the other hand, I do think that this tells us more
>about Michael and Christians like him that it tells us about
>Christianity. 

I think you are begging the question. Why don't I and the (myriads
of) other Christians like me tell you something about Christianity?
[Nor is this very new in Christianity -- you might want to look up
the origins and fundamental doctrines of the Quakers, from the 17th
century onwards, and they are not at all the first to understand the
gospel in a manner that is congenial to my case.]
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83624
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: 16 Apr 93   God's Promise in Psalm 32:8


	I will instruct thee and teach thee
	in the way which thou shalt go:
	I will guide thee with mine eye.

	Psalm 32:8

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83627
From: ds0007@medtronic.COM (Dale M. Skiba)
Subject: Re: JUDAS, CRUCIFIXION, TYRE, Etc...

David Joslin (joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu) wrote:
: af664@yfn.ysu.edu (Frank DeCenso, Jr.) writes:
: >Based on the amount of E-Mail from fellow Christians who have read the
: >posts and told me I was wasting my time with Butler and Joslin, I told
: >them I wasn't doing it for DB or  DJ but for other Christians.  They
: >have told me that DB's and DJ's arguments won't convince most Bible
: >studying Christians.  So I have reevaluated my purpose here and it's
: >also contributed to my decision.

: So most Bible-studying Christians won't be convinced by my arguments? 
: And this is supposed to be a Good Thing, I presume?

Where does this "Most Bible studying Christians think as Frank
does" come from.  And what implied "good" are you doing for other
Christians?

At least some of what you are teaching has been demonstrated as
wrong.  Has it ever occured to you that you may be doing more harm
than good to your fellow Christians?

BTW, I used to think like Frank does.  I went to a fundamentalist
church for a while.  I didn't start to really think about what
they were saying until I noticed a "God's Science" phamphlet
there.  I read it and noticed that the authors of it knew virtually
nothing about Science.  I asked church members some questions about
"theories" from the phamphlet and got only deceptive answers.  I
began to notice a very similar style of "answers" for theological
questions as well.  The only conclusion I could reach was that
these peoples' beliefs about the Bible were about as valid as
their beliefs in their God's Science phamphlet.

: If there are still people out there who think that my purpose here
: is to "attack the Bible," (an accusation Frank once made) I would point
: out that I have also criticized people who have posted "bible
: contradictions" that turn out to be silly, out of context, or easily
: (and legitimately) reconciled.  I'm not attacking the Bible, but 
: intellectual dishonesty *about* the Bible, from either side.

If one of the primary purposes of Christians is to seek out truth,
how can people condemn you for doing this?

--
Dale Skiba

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83629
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: [lds] Rick's reply

Rick Anderson replied to my letter with...

ra> In article <C5ELp2.L0C@acsu.buffalo.edu>,
ra> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) says:
ra>
ra> >     Well, Jason, it's heretical in a few ways. The first point is that
ra> >     this equates Lucifer and Jesus as being the same type of being.
ra> >     However, Lucifer is a created being: "Thou [wast] perfect in thy
ra> >     ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in
ra> >     thee." (Ezekiel 28:15). While Jesus is uncreated, and the Creator of
ra> >     all things: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
ra> >     God, and the Word was God.  The same was in the beginning with God.
ra> >     All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made
ra> >     that was made." (John 1:1-3) "And he is before all things, and by
ra> >     him all things consist." (Colossians 1:17)
ra>
ra>    Your inference from the Ezekiel and John passages that Lucifer was
ra> "created" and that Jesus was not depends on a particular interpetation of
ra> the word "create" -- one with which many Christians may not agree.
ra> Granted the Mormon belief that all of God's children (including Christ
ra> and Lucifer) are eternally existent intelligences which were "organized"
ra> into spirit children by God, the term "creation" can apply equally well
ra> to both of those passages.

     Just briefly, on something that you mentioned in passing. You refer to
     differing interpretations of "create," and say that many Christians may
     not agree. So what? That is really irrelevant. We do not base our faith
     on how many people think one way or another, do we? The bottom line is
     truth, regardless of popularity of opinions.

     Also, I find it rather strange that in trying to persuade that created
     and eternally existent are equivalent, you say "granted the Mormon
     belief..." You can't grant your conclusion and then expect the point to
     have been addressed. In order to reply to the issue, you have to address
     and answer the point that was raised, and not just jump to the
     conclusion that you grant.

     The Bible states that Lucifer was created.  The Bible states that Jesus
     is the creator of all. The contradiction that we have is that the LDS
     belief is that Jesus and Lucifer were the same.

ra> >     Your point that we all are brothers of Jesus and Lucifer is also
ra> >     heretical, since we are not innately brothers and sisters of Christ.
ra> >     We are adopted, "For ye have not received the spirit of bondage
ra> >     again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby
ra> >     we cry, Abba, Father." (Romans 8:15); and not the natural children
ra> >     of God. It is only through faith that we even enter the family of
ra> >     God; "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."
ra> >     (Galatians 3:26). And it is only through the manifestation of this
ra> >     faith in receiving Jesus that we are become the sons of God.  "But
ra> >     as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of
ra> >     God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not
ra> >     of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but
ra> >     of God." (John 1:12-13)
ra>
ra>    Has it occured to you, Robert, that being "born of" someone or being
ra> of that person (or Person)'s "family" may be a symbolic term in the New
ra> Testament?  Mormons believe that we are "adopted" into the House of
ra> Israel through baptism and faith in Christ, although some have expressed
ra> belief that this does evince a physical change in our bodies.

     The Mormon belief is that all are children of God. Literally. There is
     nothing symbolic about it. This however, contradicts what the Bible
     says. The Bible teaches that not everyone is a child of God:

          The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the 
          kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked [one];
          (Matthew 13:38)

          I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which 
          ye have seen with your father. (John 8:38)

          Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not 
          born of fornication; we have one Father, [even] God.  Jesus said 
          unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I 
          proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he 
          sent me.  Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye 
          cannot hear my word.  Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the 
          lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the 
          beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in 
          him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a 
          liar, and the father of it. (John 8:41-44)

          And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, [thou] child of 
          the devil, [thou] enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease 
          to pervert the right ways of the Lord? (Acts 13:10)

          Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this 
          world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit 
          that now worketh in the children of disobedience: (Ephesians 2:2)

          In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the 
          devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he 
          that loveth not his brother. (1 John 3:10)

     One becomes a child of God...

          But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the
          sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: (John 1:12)

          Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that
          we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us
          not, because it knew him not.  Beloved, now are we the sons of God,
          and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when
          he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he
          is. (1 John 3:1-2)

     ...when he is born again through faith in Jesus Christ:

          Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of
          the will of man, but of God. (John 1:13)

          Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus
          Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
          (Ephesians 1:5)

          Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should
          be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (James 1:18)

          For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of
          God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear;
          but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba,
          Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we
          are the children of God: (Romans 8:14-16)

          Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one
          that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. (1 John 4:7)

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and
          every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is
          begotten of him. (1 John 5:1)

          For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
          (Galatians 3:26)

ra> >     We are told that, "And this is life eternal, that they might know
ra> >     thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
ra> >     (John 17:3). Life eternal is to know the only true God. Yet the
ra> >     doctrines of the LDS that I have mentioned portray a vastly
ra> >     different Jesus, a Jesus that cannot be reconciled with the Jesus of
ra> >     the Bible. They are so far removed from each other that to proclaim
ra> >     one as being true denies the other from being true. According to the
ra> >     Bible, eternal life is dependent on knowing the only true God, and
ra> >     not the construct of imagination.
ra>
ra>
ra>    Robert, with all due respect, who died and left you Chief Arbiter of
ra> Correct Biblical Interpretation?  I don't mean to be snotty about this,
ra> but the fact is that the Bible is so differently interpreted by different
ra> groups of Biblical scholars (what do you think of the Jehovah's
ra> Witnesses, for example?) that to make reference to the "Jesus of the
ra> Bible" is simply ridiculous.  Whose "Jesus of the Bible" do you mean?

     This is really a red herring. It doesn't address any issue raised, but 
     rather, it seeks to obfuscate. The fact that some groups try to read 
     something into the Bible, doesn't change what the Bible teaches. For 
     example, the fact that the Jehovah's Witnesses deny the Deity of Christ 
     does not alter what the Bible teaches [ "Looking for that blessed hope,
     and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus
     Christ;" (Titus 2:13),"Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus
     Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through
     the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:" (2 Peter 1:1)] 
     on the Deity of Christ.

     We first look to the Bible to see what it teaches. To discount, or not 
     even address, what the Bible teaches because there are some groups that 
     have differing views is self-defeating. To see what the Bible teaches, 
     you have to look at the Bible.

ra> >     "Our Lord's mortality was essential to his own salvation" (_The
ra> >     Promised Messiah_, p. 456), "He had to work out his own salvation by
ra> >     doing the will of the Father in all things" (ibid., p.54), "he had
ra> >     to be baptized to gain admission to the celestial kingdom" (_Mormon
ra> >     Doctrine_, p.71).
ra>
ra>    Welcome to the wonderful world of Mormon paradoctrine, Robert.  The
ra> above books are by the late Bruce R. McConkie, a former general authority
ra> of the LDS Church.  Those books were not published by the Church, nor do
ra> they constitute "offical doctrine."  They consist of his opinions.  Now,
ra> does that mean that what he says is not true?  Not at all; I'll have to
ra> think about the idea of Christ's personal salvation before I come to any
ra> conclusions myself.  The conclusions I come to may seem "heretical" to
ra> you, but I'm prepared to accept that.

     I find this rather curious. When I mentioned that the Mormon belief is
     that Jesus needed to be saved, I put forward some quotes from the late
     apostle, Bruce McConkie. The curious part is that no one addressed the
     issue of `Jesus needing to be saved.' Rick comes the closest with his "I
     have my own conclusions" to addressing the point.

     Most of the other replies have instead hop-scotched to the issue of
     Bruce McConkie and whether his views were 'official doctrine.' I don't
     think that it matters if McConkie's views were canon. That is not the
     issue.  Were McConkie's writings indicative of Mormon belief on this
     subject is the real issue. The indication from Rick is that they may 
     certainly be.


=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83630
From: Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Subject: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars

93!04.16 e.v.  After the Glorious Eve of Taxation

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The word of Sin is Restriction.


"To all whom it may concern -

...

"It is known only to a few that there exists an external visible
organization of such men and women, who having themselves found
the path to real self-knowledge, and who, having travelled the
burning sands, are willing to give the benefit of their experience,
and to act as spiritual guides to those who are willing to be
guided.

"While numberless societies, associations, orders, groups etc.
have been founded during the last thirty years in all parts of
the civilised world, all following some line of occult study,
yet there is but ONE ancient organization of genuine Mystics
which shows the seeker after truth a Royal Road to discover
The Lost Mysteries of Antiquity, and to the Unveiling of the
One Hermetic Truth.

"This organization is known at the present time as the Ancient
Order of Oriental Templars.  Ordo Templi Orientis.  Otherwise:
The Hermetic Brotherhood of Light.

"It is a Modern School of Magic.  And, like the ancient schools
of magic, it derived its knowledge from the East.  This Knowledge
was never its possessors.[sic] It was recorded in symbol, parable 
and allegory, requiring a Key for its interpretation....

"This key can be placed within the reach of all those who... apply
for membership to the Oriental Templars (O.T.O.). 

"The O.T.O.... is a body of Initiates in whose hands are
concentrated the secret knowledge of all Oriental Orders and of all
existing Masonic Degrees....

"The O.T.O., although an Academia Masonica, is not a Masonic Body,
so far as the Craft degrees are concerned in the sense in which that
expression is usually understood in England, and therefore in no way
conflicts with or infringes the just priveleges of the United Lodge
of England.  English Master Masons in good standing, by arrangement,
on affiliation, are admitted at reduced charges.  Members of the IX
degree become part-proprietors of the Estates and Goods of the Order.
For further information see the publications of the O.T.O., and the
synopsis of the degrees of the O.T.O."

'Constitution of the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars,
 Ordo Templi Orientis', 

by Frater Superior Merlin Peregrinus X Degree, 
Past Grand Master Albert Karl Theodor Reuss


Taken from _Equinox III: 10_, 
Edited by Frater Superior Rex Summus Sanctissimus,
United States Caliph of Ordo Templi Orientis


Invoke me under my stars.  Love is the law, love under will.

I am I!

Frater (I) Nigris (DCLXVI) (CCCXXXIII) 

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83642
From: swaim@owlnet.rice.edu (Michael Parks Swaim)
Subject: Re: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars

In article <79615@cup.portal.com> Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:

>"To all whom it may concern -
>
>"It is known only to a few that there exists an external visible
>organization of such men and women, who having themselves found
>the path to real self-knowledge, and who, having travelled the
>burning sands, are willing to give the benefit of their experience,
>and to act as spiritual guides to those who are willing to be
>guided.
>
>"While numberless societies, associations, orders, groups etc.
>have been founded during the last thirty years in all parts of
>the civilised world, all following some line of occult study,
>yet there is but ONE ancient organization of genuine Mystics
>which shows the seeker after truth a Royal Road to discover
>The Lost Mysteries of Antiquity, and to the Unveiling of the
>One Hermetic Truth.
>
>"This organization is known at the present time as the Ancient
>Order of Oriental Templars.  Ordo Templi Orientis.  Otherwise:
>The Hermetic Brotherhood of Light.

  Up to this point, I was kinda hoping that this was a joke. Still,
it would make a great premise for a bad syndicated TV show- "These
are the adventures of the Oriental Templars... dedicated to truth,
justice, and good karma! (Dramatic music in the background.)"
  No doubt I've just horribly offended someone.
-- 
Mike Swaim            |Whenever the soft drink  machine needs to be 
swaim@owlnet.rice.edu |restocked, rather than getting angry,
Disclamer: I lie      |meditate on the impermanence of all things
                      |and the emptiness of coke.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83643
From: system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Subject: Bhagavad-Gita 2.45

                                TEXT 45

                        trai-gunya-visaya veda
                        nistrai-gunyo bhavarjuna
                     nirdvandvo nitya-sattva-stho
                          niryoga-ksema atmavan
  
trai-gunya--pertaining to the three modes of material nature;
visayah--on the subject matter; vedah--Vedic literatures;
nistrai-gunyah--transcendental to the three modes of material nature;
bhava--be; arjuna--O Arjuna; nirdvandvah--without duality;
nitya-sattva-sthah--in a pure state of spiritual existence;
niryoga-ksemah--free from ideas of gain and protection;
atma-van--established in the self.
    
                              TRANSLATION

 The Vedas deal mainly with the subject of the three modes of material
nature. O Arjuna, become transcendental to these three modes. Be free
from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain and safety, and be
established in the self.
  
                                PURPORT

 All material activities involve actions and reactions in the three
modes of material nature. They are meant for fruitive results, which
cause bondage in the material world. The Vedas deal mostly with fruitive
activities to gradually elevate the general public from the field of
sense gratification to a position on the transcendental plane. Arjuna,
as a student and friend of Lord Krsna, is advised to raise himself to
the transcendental position of Vedanta philosophy where, in the
beginning, there is brahma-jijnasa, or questions on the supreme
transcendence. All the living entities who are in the material world are
struggling very hard for existence. For them the Lord, after creation of
the material world, gave the Vedic wisdom advising how to live and get
rid of the material entanglement. When the activities for sense
gratification, namely the karma-kanda chapter, are finished, then the
chance for spiritual realization is offered in the form of the
Upanisads, which are part of different Vedas, as the Bhagavad-gita is a
part of the fifth Veda, namely the Mahabharata. The Upanisads mark the
beginning of transcendental life.

 As long as the material body exists, there are actions and reactions in
the material modes. One has to learn tolerance in the face of dualities
such as happiness and distress, or cold and warmth, and by tolerating
such dualities become free from anxieties regarding gain and loss. This
transcendental position is achieved in full Krsna consciousness when one
is fully dependent on the good will of Krsna.

Bhagavad-Gita As It is
Books of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami


       ---------------------------------------------------------
      |                Don't forget to chant:                   |
      |                                                         |
      |  Hare Krishna Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |       Hare Rama Hare Rama, Rama Rama Hare Hare          |
      |                                                         |
      |    Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA      |
      |          (system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us)           |
       ---------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83646
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Re: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars


In a previous article, Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) says:

>
>"It is known only to a few that there exists an external visible
>organization of such men and women, who having themselves found
>the path to real self-knowledge, and who, having travelled the
>burning sands, are willing to give the benefit of their experience,
>and to act as spiritual guides to those who are willing to be
>guided.
>"While numberless societies, associations, orders, groups etc.
>have been founded during the last thirty years in all parts of
>the civilised world, all following some line of occult study,
>yet there is but ONE ancient organization of genuine Mystics
>

	Up to that point I thought you were talking about the
Rosicrucian Order... :-)  [No offense intended!]

Tony

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83650
From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Subject: Re: Part 1 and part 2 (re: Homosexuality)

	Long time, no see.

			Andreas

-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

	No ITU, love, evolution.           Tuusniemi ! Siis imein suut !

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83651
From: jburrill@boi.hp.com (Jim Burrill)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

Brian Kendig (bskendig@netcom.com) wrote:
: 
: Can you please point to something, anything, that proves to me that
: the universe cannot possibly be explained without accepting as a fact
: the existence of a god in precisely the way your holy book describes?
: 
: Can you please convince me that your religion is more than a very
: cleverly-constructed fable, and that it does indeed have some bearing
: on my own personal day-to-day life?

Would you consider the word of an eye-witness (Peter) to testify to the
events surrounding Jesus' life?


 2Pe 1 16  We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you
 about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were 
 eyewitnesses of his majesty.

 2Pe 1 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the
 voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom 
 I love; with him I am well pleased."

 2Pe 1 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we
 were with him on the sacred mountain.

 2Pe 1 19  And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and
 you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark
 place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

This is a documented testimony. Perhaps further research on your part is
warranted before making more statements. There is considerably more to study
in Peters' two books of testimony regarding the Messiah. It is well worth 
your time, Mr. Brian.

Jim Burrill

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83658
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion


In article <sandvik-190493200420@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|> So we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire
|> on their house, killing most of the people inside.
|> 

I would hardly consider the BD's to be Christian.  They were acting in
direct contradiction to scripture.  Jesus' Second Coming is something
that everyone will know of.  Jesus also predicted that there will be
false Messiahs who will use His name.  His prophecy has been fulfilled.

|> I'm not that annoyed about the adults, they knew supposedly what
|> they were doing, and it's their own actions.
|> 
|> What I mostly are angry about is the fact that the people inside,
|> including mothers, let the children suffer and die during awful
|> conditions.
|>

I agree with you there.
 
|> If this is considered religious following to the end, I'm proud
|> that I don't follow such fanatical and non-compassionate religions.
|>

Me too.  I have already given my life to God.  If God tells me to lay
down my life, it will be to save another life.
 
|> You might want to die for whatever purpose, but please spare
|> the innocent young ones that has nothing to do with this all.
|> 
|> I have a hard time just now understanding that Christianity
|> knows about the word compassion. Christians, do you think 
|> the actions today would produce a good picture of your 
|> religion?
|>

Do you judge all Christians by the acts of those who would call
themselves Christian and yet are not?  The BD's contradicted scripture
in their actions.  They were NOT Christian.  Simple as that.  Perhaps
you have read too much into what the media has portrayed.  Ask any
true-believing Christian and you will find that they will deny any
association with the BD's.  Even the 7th Day Adventists have denied any
further ties with this cult, which was what they were.

Do you judge all Muslims by the acts committed by Saddam Hussein, a 
supposedly devout Muslim?  I don't.  Saddam is just a dictator using
the religious beliefs of his people to further his own ends.

God be with you,

Malcolm Lee   :)
 
|> 
|> Kent
|> 
|> ---
|> sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83659
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!


In article <sandvik-190493200858@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr19.165717.25790@ra.royalroads.ca>,
|> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
|> > 
|> > It is true what you stated above:  Jesus' saving grace is available to
|> > everyone, not just Jews.  In other words, everyone can have salvation but
|> > not everyone will.  This option is now open to people other than just
|> > Jews.  Of course, if the Jews don't accept the deity of Christ, I would
|> > hardly expect them to accept anything that Christ said.  But I don't feel
|> > any animosity towards them.  Even though they persecuted Jesus and his
|> > disciples and eventually crucified Him, I bear them no ill will.  If anything,
|> > I feel pity for them.  Jesus had to die to pay the price for our sins and
|> > so the Jews were merely fulfilling prophesy.  Jesus knew He had to die even
|> > before He began His ministry.  That demonstrates the great depth of His love
|> > for us.
|> 
|> Jesus certainly demonstrated the great depth of his love for the
|> children who died today at the Davidian complex.
|> 
|> Sorry, but the events today made me even more negative concering
|> organized religion.
|> 

I understand and sympathize with your pain.  What happened in Waco was a very
sad tradgedy.  Don't take it out on us Christians though.  The Branch
Davidians were not an organized religion.  They were a cult led by a ego-maniac
cult leader.  The Christian faith stands only on the shoulders of one man,
the Lord of Lords and King of Kings, Jesus Christ.   BTW, David Koresh was NOT
Jesus Christ as he claimed.

God be with you,

Malcolm Lee  :)

|> Cheers,
|> Kent
|> ---
|> sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83660
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion


In article <sandvik-200493000159@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|> In article <93Apr20.011634edt.47719@neat.cs.toronto.edu>,
|> cbo@cs.toronto.edu (Calvin Bruce Ostrum) wrote:
|> > In article <sandvik-190493200420@sandvik-kent.apple.com>
|> >    sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|> > | I have a hard time just now understanding that Christianity
|> > | knows about the word compassion. Christians, do you think 
|> > | the actions today would produce a good picture of your 
|> > | religion?
|> > Clearly all people considering themselves Christians are all alike,
|> > and support one another in everything they do.  In particular, it
|> > follows that they certainly will support all the actions of any
|> > other person calling himself a Christian...  NOT.
|> 
|> I see, there are Christians, and there are Christians. No wonder
|> the Christian world is in shambles, you can't even agree who
|> is a rightful one and a wrong one.
|> 

If one does not follow the teachings of Christ, he is NOT Christian.  
Too easy?  

|> Please, I would like to hear your comments about a supposed
|> Christian leader that makes sure that children are burnt to
|> death.
|> 

Would you say all Muslims are like Saddam Hussein?  I wouldn't make
such a blanket judgement, why do you?

|> Kent
|> ---
|> sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83661
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!


In article <1r0ejoINNjfj@owl.csrv.uidaho.edu>, lanph872@crow.csrv.uidaho.edu (Rob Lanphier) writes:
|> Malcolm Lee (mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca) wrote:
|> : What bothers me most is why people who have no religious affiliation 
|> : continue to persecute Jews?  Why this hatred of Jews?  The majority of
|> : people who persecute Jews are NOT Christians (I can't speak for all 
|> : Christians and there are bound to be a few who are on the anti-Semitism
|> : bandwagon.)
|> 
|> Do you even have anecdotal evidence to back this up?  The most blatent
|> persecution of the Jews in history was of course done by the Nazis before
|> and during World War II, a predominately Lutheran crowd.  Sure, many
|> Muslims in the Middle East consider the Israelites to be a thorn in their
|> side, but the most of the modern persecution of Jews has been at the hands
|> of Christians (at least as far as I'm aware).
|> 
|> Rob Lanphier
|> lanph872@uidaho.edu

Do you consider Neo-Nazis and white supremists to be Christian?  I'd hardly
classify them as Christian.  Do they follow the teachings of Christ?  Love
one another.  Love your neighbour as yourself.  Love your enemies.  Is Jesus
Christ their Lord and Saviour?  By the persecution of Jews, they are violating
all the precepts of what Christ died for.  They are in direct violation of
the teachings of Christ.  Even Jesus who was crucified by the Jewish leaders
of that time, loved His enemies by asking the Father for forgiveness of their
sins.  I am a Christian and I bear no animosity towards Jews or any one else.
The enemy is Satan, not our fellow man.

God be with you,

Malcolm Lee  :)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83662
From: netd@susie.sbc.com ()
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

In article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>For those who think David Koresh didn't have a solid structure,
>or sound Biblical backing for his hour long tape broadcast,

I don't think anyone really cares about the solid structure of his
sermon.  It's the deaths he's responsible for that concern most people.

>I've enclosed a partial list of the sources he cites or quotes
>he exactly used. As a Christian sermon, it's pretty good, if not 
>inspired.
>
>Though I differ in part on some of his conclusions, the argument 
>he presents is well backed -- which is why it's taken me this long
>to work through -- still ongoing. 
>
>If you thought it was rambling -- that says far more about you than
>it does Koresh. There is a very definite relationship between the

You've made me curious.  What does this say about me?

>First Seal in Revelation 6, the entirety of Psalms 45, and the
>most of Revelation 19 -- which demonstrated one of his major points 
>about how the writings in the Prophets (including David), and in 
>the Psalms, and in Revelation are all telling the same story when 
>you understand how they're related (ie have the key). The largely 
>explain each other. 

Charles Manson used revelation as well.  Do we see a pattern here?
I wonder of Koresh liked the Beatles?

>
>The sequence following is keyed to the Koresh tape, should you care
>to check it out. You can almost see the note cards he used when 
>doing the analysis. 
>
	[long list of Biblical references which
	 impressed me tremendously but were deleted
	 in the interests of common sense.]

Koresh was a nut, okay?  Just because he found ways for the Bible
to backup his rantings does not make him any less of a kook.

>
>Seems to me Koresh is yet another messenger that got killed
>for the message he carried. 

I'll type this very slowly so that you can understand.  He either set
the fire himself or told his followers to do so.  Don't make him out to
be a martyr.  He did not "get killed", he killed himself.

>
>In the mean time, we sure learned a lot about evil and corruption.
>Are you surprised things have gotten that rotten?
>

The evil was inside the compound.  All that "thou shalt not kill" stuff.

>Oh yeah, one last point for the believers -- Philippian 2:14-19.

For the rest of us, could you please post the text?



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83668
From: lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison)
Subject: Re: Freemasonry and the Southern Baptist Convention

In article <1qv82l$oj2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes:
>
>
>     With the Southern Baptist Convention convening this June to consider
>the charges that Freemasonry is incompatible with christianity, I thought
>the following quotes by Mr. James Holly, the Anti-Masonic Flag Carrier,
>would amuse you all...
>
>
>     The following passages are exact quotes from "The Southern 
>Baptist Convention and Freemasonry" by James L. Holly, M.D., President
>of Mission and Ministry To Men, Inc., 550 N 10th St., Beaumont, TX 
>77706. 
> 
<much drivel deleted>
>     "Jesus Christ never commanded toleration as a motive for His 
>disciples, and toleration is the antithesis of the Christian message."
>Page 30. 
> 
>     "The central dynamic of the Freemason drive for world unity 
>through fraternity, liberty and equality is toleration. This is seen 
>in the writings of the 'great' writers of Freemasonry". Page 31. 
<more drivel deleted>
>     I hope you all had a good laugh! I know *I* did! <g>,
>
>
>Tony   
A Laugh?  Tony, this religeous bigot scares the shit out of me, and that
any one bothers to listen to him causes me to have grave doubts about the
future of just about anything.  Shades of the Branch Davidians, Jim Jones,
and Charlie Manson.

--Uncle Wolf
--Member Highland Lodge 748 F&AM (Grand Lodge of California)
--Babtized a Southern Babtist
--And one who has beliefs beyond the teachings of either.

> 
> 



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83669
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!


In a previous article, cdcolvin@rahul.net (Christopher D. Colvin) says:
>
>I guess the San Jose Mercury news is wrong then,... 
				      ^^^^^
>
	No: It is old. You said AMORC *IS*, not *was*... :-)
Nothing personal, OK? Good! :-)

	Maybe you didn't know that it's over by now. There is no more
pending legal actions from no where, period. So yes, there was a
situation and it has been resolved by BOTH parties. As long as humans 
handle anything, it is subjected to "breaking" :-)

	BTW, Gary L. Stewart has a P.O. Box in TX calling his org ARC:
Ancient Rosae Crucis. I guess he couldn't take the "MO" from AMORC :-)


Tony



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83670
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Clarification of personal position

In article <C5MuIw.AqC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:

>If it were a sin to violate Sunday no one could
>ever be forgiven for that for Jesus never kept Sunday holy.  He only
>recognized one day of the seven as holy.

Jesus also recognized other holy days, like the Passover.  Acts 15 says 
that no more should be layed on the Gentiles than that which is necessary.
The sabbath is not in the list, nor do any of the epistles instruct people
to keep the 7th day, while Christians were living among people who did not
keep the 7th day.  It looks like that would have been a problem.

Instead, we have Scriptures telling us that all days can be esteemed alike
(Romans 14:5) and that no man should judge us in regard to what kind of
food we eat, Jewish holy days we keep, or _in regard to the sabbath. (Col. 2.)

>The
>question is "On what authority do we proclaim that the requirements of the
>fourth commandment are no longer relevant to modern Christians?"

I don't think that the Sabbath, or any other command of the law is totally
irrelevant to modern Christians, but what about Collosions 2, where it says
that we are not to be judged in regard to the keeping of the sabbath?

Link Hudson.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83671
From: rosst@pogo.wv.tek.com (Ross Taylor)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion

Is there evidence independent of the FBI that indicates that the Branch
Davidians set the fire?  What have the survivors said?  Did the press see
anything?

There is, unfortunately, precedent for the U.S. government saving children by
roasting them alive.  (There is precedent for religious self-imolation
as well.)

I still wonder why the government couldn't just leave them alone.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83672
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!


In a previous article, cdcolvin@rahul.net (Christopher D. Colvin) says:

>I worked at AMORC when I was in HS.

OK: So you were a naive teen.

>He [HS Lewis] dates back to the 20's. 

	Wrong: 1915 and if you do your homework, 1909.
But he was born LAST century (1883).

>
>Right now AMORC is embroiled in some internal political turmoil. 

No it isn't. 



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83673
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Re: Freemasonry and the Southern Baptist Convention


In a previous article, jluther@cs.umr.edu (John W. Luther) says:

John:

	It not "good netiquette" to quote a complete article :-) NOTHING
PERSONAL, Please! :-)

>I also appreciate your being amused
>by such determined ignorance.  Without taking anything away
>from your mirth, I want to say that these views sadden me.
>
	This views sadden me too! Don't think that I don't care! Sorry
if it seemed different. It IS serious stuff; but I have a 'sick' sense of
humor though (some say... :-)

Tolerance!

Tony


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83674
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

jburrill@boi.hp.com (Jim Burrill) writes:
>Brian Kendig (bskendig@netcom.com) wrote:
>: 
>: Can you please point to something, anything, that proves to me that
>: the universe cannot possibly be explained without accepting as a fact
>: the existence of a god in precisely the way your holy book describes?
>: 
>: Can you please convince me that your religion is more than a very
>: cleverly-constructed fable, and that it does indeed have some bearing
>: on my own personal day-to-day life?
>
>Would you consider the word of an eye-witness (Peter) to testify to the
>events surrounding Jesus' life?

No.  There are two problems here:

(1) Peter died two millenia ago.  The original letters he wrote have
long since decayed into dust.  If he were alive today and I could
question him, then this might lend credibility to your claims (but
probably not much, because after all, I've heard people claim with all
sincerity that they've spoken with Elvis recently).  But after his
death, Peter's writings were transcribed by monks for centuries, and I
find it hard to believe that one of them somewhere didn't decide to
change the wording of something to make it (in his opinion) a little
easier to understand.

(2) Even if Peter did witness the miracles of Jesus two millenia ago,
that doesn't mean that your deity is what the Bible says it is (God
might just be Satan, trying to convince everyone that he's a nice
guy), or even that your deity is still alive and active in the world
today.

Nice try, but it just isn't enough to convince me, especially since
your wild claims about your deity seem to fly in the face of the way
I've observed the world to work.  Please find something more compelling.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83677
From: critus@cwis.unomaha.edu (Michael J. Abboud)
Subject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions

critus




  

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83680
From: joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick


In article <Pegasus-150493132018@fp1-dialin-4.uoregon.edu> 
Pegasus@aaa.uoregon.edu (LaurieEWBrandt) writes:

>    Lets add to those percentages 13-15% for the Orphaic docterians brought to
>   the group by Paul/Saul who was a high ranking initiate. On the development
>   of Orphaic Mysteries, see Jane Harrisons .Prolegomena to the study of Greek
>   religion. Cambridge U Press 1922. and you can easly draw your own
>   conclusions.

perhaps you can quote just a bit of her argument?

josh


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83681
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Re: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars


In a previous article, shades@sorinc.cutler.com (Darrin A. Hyrup) says:

>They [Thelema Lodge] don't have an internet address, but they do have a CIS
>address which can be reached via uucp/internet.  It is 72105,1351 so I guess
>that would be '72105.1351@cis.com' or something like that.
>
		......@compuserve.com

Tony


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83686
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>
>They do not want to know it or be exposed to light 
>because their own evil deeds will be uncovered.  And so by their
>own choice, they will remain in darkness.  Sort of like bugs under
>a rock.  However, some people, but not many, will not like the
>darkness.  Sometimes it gets too cold and too dark to be
>comfortable.  These people will crawl out from under the rock,
>and although blinded at first, will get accustomed to the light
>and enjoy its warm.  And after a while, by virtue of the light,
>they will see the depths of their own shortcomings AND how to correct them. 
>And also, they will see that there is much much more to this world
>than just the narrow little experiences under the rock.  They will 
>discover that life under a rock was incredibly yukky and that
>life with the Light of the World, is great.  So great, that they
>will want to tell all their friends about it.

And I maintain:

Some people do not want to enter into the light and the knowledge that
they alone are their own masters, because they fear it; they are too
afraid of having to face the world on their own terms.  And so, by
their own choice, they will remain in darkness, sort of like bugs
under a rock.  However, some people, but not many, will not like the
darkness.  Sometimes it gets too cold and too dark to be comfortable.
These people will crawl out from under the rock, and, although blinded
at first, will get accustomed to the light and enjoy its warmth.  And,
after a while, now that they can see things for what they really are,
they will also see the heights which they can reach, and the places
they can go, and they will learn to choose their own paths through the
world, and they will learn from their mistakes and revel in their
successes.

They will see that there is much much more to the world than just the
narrow experiences under the rock.  They will discover that life under
a rock was incredibly yucky, and that life on their own terms is great
-- so great that they will want to tell everyone else about it.

Do you see my point?  I think you're the one under the rock, and I'm
getting a great tan out here in the sunlight.  My life has improved
immesurably since I abandoned theism -- come and join me!  It will be
a difficult trip at first, until you build up your muscles for the
long hike, but it's well worth it!

>Not all people hate light Kent. We all have an adversion to it to some
>extent.  But Brian Kendig who has been replying to this thread certainly likes
>darkness.  Brian K. enjoys stating false concepts and false pressumptions
>about the God of the Bible.  Without checking his own presumptions,
>he compares my God with Odin or Zeus.

Look, you just practically equated Odin and Zeus?  They're as much
different as your god is from them...

Don't you see?  I'm not going to accept ANYTHING that I can't witness
with my own eyes or experience with my own senses, especially not
something as mega-powerful as what you're trying to get me to accept.
Surely if you believe in it this strongly, you must have a good
*reason* to, don't you?

>Withough checking his own
>presumption, he thinks hell is the equivalent of non-existence.

When did I say that?  I say that I would rather CEASE EXISTING instead
of being subject to the whims of a deity, but that if the deity
decided to toss me into the fiery pits because of who I am, then so be it.

>Do you enjoy darkness?  Most people will honestly admit "yes".  Most people
>are fond of their sexual sins, their hording of money, their
>selfishness, and not to mention, their Biblical ignorance.

Nope -- most people are Christian.  Most people are fond of feeling
that they are imperfect, of believing that the world is an undesirable
place, of reciting magical mystical prayers to make the world nice and
holy again, of doing just as their priests tell them, like good little
sheep.  You enjoy darkness, and you're proud of it.

You may know the Bible well -- but have you read any of the Koran?  Or
Zen writings?  Or Hare Krishna literature?  If you haven't, then how
can you say you have an open mind?

>Sin is fun!  Let's
>admit it.  But a life of sin leads to trouble and death in this
>life, and hell in the next.

Nope.  You make decisions, enjoy your successes, and accept your
failures; then you die.  If you are content with the life you've led
as you reflect back on it in your final moments, then you've led a
good life.

>Come out from under the rock.  

Please do.

>    "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,
>    that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal
>    life."

I'm sorry, I don't feel that sacrificing Jesus was something any god
I'd worship would do, unless the sacrifice was only temporary, in
which case it's not really all that important.

Forget the Bible for a minute.  Forget quoting verses, forget about
who said what about this or that.  *Show me.*  Picture just you and me
and a wide open hilltop, and convince me that you're right.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83687
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93 God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>
>Consider your mother Merlyn.  You know your mother.  What would you think
>of me if I asserted that your mother is 9 feet tall, murdered your father,
>and sexually abused you when you were a kid?

I would just go fetch my parents, and show them to you, and thereby
prove quite definitively that my mother is not named Merlyn, she is
not nine feet tall, and my father is quite alive.

Then I would assert quite simply that your deity does not exist, and
wait for a similar demonstration from you.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83688
From: cdcolvin@rahul.net (Christopher D. Colvin)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!

In article <1qvibv$b75@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony 
Alicea) writes:
>
>In a previous article, cdcolvin@rahul.net (Christopher D. Colvin) says:
>
>>I worked at AMORC when I was in HS.
>
>OK: So you were a naive teen.
>
>>He [HS Lewis] dates back to the 20's. 
>
>Wrong: 1915 and if you do your homework, 1909.
>But he was born LAST century (1883).
>
>>
>>Right now AMORC is embroiled in some internal political turmoil. 
>
>No it isn't. 
>
>

I guess the San Jose Mercury news is wrong then, and if so, why is the DA 
involved? 
 
-- 
Christopher D. Colvin <cdcolvin@rahul.net>

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83689
From: rana@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Nabeel Ahmad Rana)
Subject: Re: New newsgroup: soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya?


Mr. Esam Abdel-Rahem writes:

>I urge you all to vote NO to the formation of the news group ''AHMADYA.ISLAM''.
>If they want to have their own group, the word ISLAM shouldnot be attached to 
>the name of such group. We don't consider them as Muslims.


Dr. Tahir Ijaz comments on Esam Abdel-Rahem's statement:

>But the problem is We consider ourself to be Muslims, even though you don't.
>Luckily, faith is determined by what one believes and is a personal matter.
>You cannot declare the faith of someone else.


Mr. Jawad Ali then comments on Tahir Ijaz's statement:

>You are not considering the consequences of your argument.  The converse
>would be that the problem is that Muslims dont consider Ahmadies to be
>Muslims.  Who one considers to be one's co-believer is also a personal
>matter.  It would be just as wrong to tell the Muslims who should be
>included in their self-defination.


The argument by Jawad Ali is funny, He writes:
"The converse would be that the problem is that Muslims dont consider
Ahmadies to be Muslims"

Which is a wrong statement. In the light of Dr. Ijaz's statement, the
above statement should be corrected:
".......................................is that (some) non-Ahmadi Muslims
don't consider Ahmadi-Muslims as Muslims"

So, the problem does not get solved:-) Who is a muslims and who is not?
Humans cannot decide. Humans may not declare others faiths. Its that 
simple. I don't understand, why the mere use of the word "ISLAM" is
becomming such a big issue. I have seen numorous postings on the net
on this subject, and all they say, "No, NO, you cannot use ISLAM as 
the name of your newsgroup". ?? 

I haven't seen a single posting stating what right do they have in declaring
the name of other's faiths? Who gives them this authority? Quran? or
Hadith? or something else? I want to know this! 

Just a small reminder to all my Muslim Brothers, Did _EVER_ the 
Holy Prophet of Islam (Muhammad PBUH), say to anyone who called
himself a Muslim:

No, You are not a Muslim ! ???????

NEVER! I challenge all my Muslim brothers to produce a single 
such evidence from the history of Islam!

Hence, if the Prophet Muhammad could never do that to anyone, how
could the Muslims, Mullahs or even Governments of today do
it to anyone. Do you consider yourself above the Holy Prophet 
Muhammad (PBUH) ?? 


Sincerely,
Nabeel.


-- 
||\\  ||         //\\     ||\\         *******************    (Note: 
|| \\ ||        //==\\    ||//         * LOVE FOR ALL    *     views    
||  \\||abeel  //    \\.  ||\\ana      * HATRED FOR NONE *      are 
[e-mail: rana@rintintin.colorado.edu]  *******************     mine) 

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83690
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Subject: Apology to Jim Meritt (Was: Silence is concurance)

m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
>}So stop dodging the question.  What is hypocritical about my
>}criticizing bad arguments, given that I do this both when I agree
>}with the conclusion and when I disagree with the conclusion?  
>
>You are the one who has claimed to possess the fruits of precognition,
>telepathy, and telempathy.  Divine it yourself.

Another dodge.  Oh well.  I'm no match for your amazing repertoire
of red herrings and smoke screens.  

You asked for an apology.  I'm not going to apologize for pointing out
that your straw-man argument was a straw-man argument.  Nor for saying
that your list of "bible contradictions" shows such low standards of
scholarship that it should be an embarrassment to anti-inerrantists,
just as Josh McDowell should be an embarrassment to the fundies.  Nor
for objecting various times to your taking quotes out of context.  Nor
for pointing out that "they do it too" is not an excuse. Nor for calling
your red herrings and smoke screens what they are.

I'm still not sure why you think I'm a hypocrite.  It's true that I
haven't responded to any of Robert Weiss' articles, which may be due in
part to the fact that I almost never read his articles.  But I have
responded to both you and Frank DeCenso (a fundie/inerrantist.)  Both
you and Frank have taken quotes out of context, and I've objected to
both of you doing so.  I've criticized bad arguments both when they
were yours and I agreed with the conclusion (that the Bible is not
inerrant), and when they were Frank's and I disagreed with the
conclusion.  I've criticized both you and Frank for evading questions,
and for trying to "explain me away" without addressing the objections
I raise (you by accusing me of being hypocritical and irrational, Frank
by accusing me of being motivated by a desire to attack the Bible.) I
don't see that any of this is hypocritical, nor do I apologize for it.

I do apologize, however, for having offended you in any other way.

Happy now?

dj

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83691
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion

In article <sandvik-190493200420@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>So we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire
>on their house, killing most of the people inside.

We have no way to know that the cultists burned the house; it could have been
the BATF and FBI.  We only have the government's word for it, after all, and
people who started it by a no-knock search with concussion grenades are hardly
disinterested observers.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83701
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>
>Be warned, it is not my job to convert you.  That is the job of
>the Holy Spirit.  And I, frankly, make a lousy one.  I am only
>here to testify.  Your conversion is between you and God.  I am
>"out of the loop".  If you decide to follow Jesus, of which I
>indeed would be estatic, then all the glory be to God.

I've asked your god several times with all my heart to come to me.  I
really wish I could believe in him, 'cos no matter how much confidence
I build up on my own, the universe *is* a big place, and it would be
so nice to know I have someone watching over me in it...

I've gone into this with an open mind.  I've layed my beliefs aside
from time to time when I've had doubt, and I've prayed to see what
good that would do.  I don't see what more I can do to open myself to
your god, short of just deciding to believe for no good reason.  And
if I decide to believe for no good reason, why not believe in some
other god?  Zeus seems like a pretty cool candidate...

All I know is that in all my searching, even though I've set aside my
pride and decided that I want to know the truth no matter how
difficult it may be to accept, I have never had any encounter with any
deity, Christian or otherwise.

Please tell me what more I can do while still remaining true to myself.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83704
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

COCHRANE,JAMES SHAPLEIGH writes

>it wouldn't be the first time a group has committed suicide to avoid the 
>shame of capture and persecution.

This group killed itself to fulfill its interpretation of prophecy
and to book a suite in Paradise, taking innocent kids along for the
ride. I hardly think the feds were motivated by persecution. If they
were, all Koresh would have had to do was surrender quietly to the
authorities, without firing a shot, to get the American people behind
him and put the feds in the hot seat. But no, God told him to play
the tough guy. There's great strength in yielding, but few appreciate
this. 

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83705
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

Bill Gripp writes

>>Anyway, I've often wondered what business followers of Christ would have
>>with weapons.

>FYI, these people were not "followers of Christ".  David Koresh was
>their messiah.

ok, but didn't Jesus figure somewhere into their beliefs? Anyway, my
original question regarding christians and weaponry still stands. 

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83706
From: jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1qvh8n$gf4@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> friedenb@maple.egr.msu.edu (Gedaliah  
Friedenberg) writes:
> In article <1qvfik$6rf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu  
(John W. Redelfs) writes:
> |> 
> |> Now that Big Brother has rubbed out one minority religion in Waco, who is
> |> next?  The Mormons or Jews?
> 
> Give me a break.  If the Mormons fortified Utah and armed it to the teeth,
> and were involved in illegal activity, then they deserve whatever they get.
> 

Where were you brought up?  In the former USSR?  Is Innocent until proven  
guilty by a jury of your peers, NOT Dan Rather, dead in this country?  Seems  
so.  Is tax evasion, the only charge brought against the BDs, punishable by  
death in this country, now?


> You are making a ludicrous suggestion.
> 
Not really.  You are a blind idiot.

> |> We used to live in a country where everyone enjoyed the free exercise of
> |> their rights to worship and bear arms.  Now we don't.
> 
> Does that include the right to murder little children?  How about killing
> ATF officers?  I do not know much about the gun laws in Texas, but 
> Koresh's folks claimed to have grenades, grenade launchers, and rocket
> launchers.  I am not sure that the NRA feels that this falls under 
> "right to bear arms."

"Not sure", yet you condem them to death for it?  If the BATF had stayed home,  
all would be alive, now.  So who murdered who?
>  
> |> Of course, to Jews and Mormons this is just a broken record.  It has
> |> happened before.
> 
> Please explain.  I do not remember Jews or Mormons (as a group) overtly 
> breaking a judicious (a.k.a. non-Nazi) law and being punished for it.
>  
You have a short memory.

> |> I'll bet all you cult haters are happy now, right?  Just hope you're not  
next.
> 
> Followups to /dev/null  
> 
> Alternative followups set to talk.religion.misc
> 

Sleep well, tonite, heartless idiot.  Sleep the sleep of the simple-minded.

I shall weep for my country, myself.

>  
> |> ------------ John W. Redelfs, cj195@cleveland.freenet.edu -------------
> |> --------- All my opinions are tentative pending further data. ---------
>  
> Gedaliah Friedenberg
> -=-Department of Mechanical Engineering
> -=-Department of Metallurgy, Mechanics and Materials Science
> -=-Michigan State University
> 
> 
>                    

I'm short of patience tonite, but rabid dogs deserve and get better treatment  
than the BDs got.

Jim
--
jmd@handheld.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm always rethinking that.  There's never been a day when I haven't rethought  
that.  But I can't do that by myself."  Bill Clinton  6 April 93
"If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed  
in my country, I never would lay down my arms,-never--never--never!"
WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM 1708-1778 18 Nov. 1777

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83708
From: jluther@cs.umr.edu (John W. Luther)
Subject: Re: Freemasonry and the Southern Baptist Convention

In article <1qv82l$oj2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes:
>
>
>     With the Southern Baptist Convention convening this June to consider
>the charges that Freemasonry is incompatible with christianity, I thought
>the following quotes by Mr. James Holly, the Anti-Masonic Flag Carrier,
>would amuse you all...
>
>
>     The following passages are exact quotes from "The Southern 
>Baptist Convention and Freemasonry" by James L. Holly, M.D., President
>of Mission and Ministry To Men, Inc., 550 N 10th St., Beaumont, TX 
>77706. 
> 
>     The inside cover of the book states: "Mission & Ministry to Men, 
>Inc. hereby grants permission for the reproduction of part or all of 
>this booklet with two provisions: one, the material is not changed and
>two, the source is identified." I have followed these provisions. 
>  
>     "Freemasonry is one of the allies of the Devil" Page iv. 
> 
>     "The issue here is not moderate or conservative, the issue is God
>and the Devil" Page vi." 
> 
>     "It is worthwhile to remember that the formulators of public 
>school education in America were Freemasons" Page 29. 
> 
>     "Jesus Christ never commanded toleration as a motive for His 
>disciples, and toleration is the antithesis of the Christian message."
>Page 30. 
> 
>     "The central dynamic of the Freemason drive for world unity 
>through fraternity, liberty and equality is toleration. This is seen 
>in the writings of the 'great' writers of Freemasonry". Page 31. 
> 
>     "He [Jesus Christ] established the most sectarian of all possible 
>faiths." Page 37. 
> 
>     "For narrowness and sectarianism, there is no equal to the Lord 
>Jesus Christ". Page 40. 
> 
>     "What seems so right in the interest of toleration and its 
>cousins-liberty, equality and fraternity-is actually one of the 
>subtlest lies of the 'father of lies.'" Page 40. 
> 
>     "The Southern Baptist Convention has many churches which were 
>founded in the Lodge and which have corner stones dedicated by the 
>Lodge. Each of these churches should hold public ceremonies of 
>repentance and of praying the blood and the Name of the Lord Jesus 
>Christ over the church and renouncing the oaths taken at the 
>dedication of the church and/or building." Page 53-54.  
> 
>
>     I hope you all had a good laugh! I know *I* did! <g>,
>
>
Tony   

I appreciate the narrow-mindedness of the view expressed in
the text you quoted.  I also appreciate your being amused
by such determined ignorance.  Without taking anything away
from your mirth, I want to say that these views sadden me.
I can only hope that that sort of narrow-mindedness will
die with the generations that have promoted it.  Teach 
your children well.

<wet blanket mode off>

Pax.

John
> 
> 


-- 
* John W. Luther                        |   Anybody who mistakes my *
* jluther@cs.umr.edu   <-Best for Email |   opinions for UMR's just *
* 71140.313@compuserve.com  <-$$$$$!    |   doesn't know UMR.       *
********************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83711
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

Ken Arromdee writes

>>Did they not know that these men were federal officers?

>Do you know what a "no-knock search" is?

Yes, but tell me how you think your question answers my question. If
the BDs didn't know immediately that they were dealing with feds
(uniform apparel, insignia), they must have figured it out in pretty
short order. Why did they keep fighting? They seemed awfully ready
for having been attacked "without warning". 

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83713
From: Pegasus@aaa.uoregon.edu (Pegasus)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick

In article <JOSHUA.93Apr19183833@bailey.cpac.washington.edu>,
joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller) wrote:
> 
> 
> In article <Pegasus-150493132018@fp1-dialin-4.uoregon.edu> 
> Pegasus@aaa.uoregon.edu (LaurieEWBrandt) writes:
> 
LEWB>> Lets add to those percentages 13-15% for the Orphaic docterians
brought LEWB>>to the group by Paul/Saul who was a high ranking initiate. On
the LEWB>>development of Orphaic Mysteries, see Jane Harrisons .Prolegomena
to the LEWB>>study of Greek religion. Cambridge U Press 1922. and you can
easly draw LEWB>>your own conclusions.
 
josh> perhaps you can quote just a bit of her argument?

Love to,but I must do it a bit later My copy of Harrison in packed, but the
last chapter as best as I can rember deals with Orphic mysteries and their
views of women though she does not come out and say it it is strongly
implyed that the Christian view was drawn heavly from the Orphic and other
Major cults of the time.
Pegasus

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83714
From: jmeritt@mental.MITRE.ORG (Jim Meritt - System Admin)
Subject: Identity crisis (God == Satan?)

II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel,
and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah.

I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to
number Israel.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83719
From: ad354@Freenet.carleton.ca (James Owens)
Subject: Re: Question for those with popular morality


In article 70257, david@terminus.ericsson.se (David Bold) writes:
 
>In article 17570@freenet.carleton.ca, ad354@Freenet.carleton.ca 
>(James Owens) writes:
 
>>You seem to be saying that, God being unknowable, His morality 
>>is unknowable.
 
>Yep, that's pretty much it.    . . .
 
>. . .
 
>As I understand it, the Sadducees believed that the Torah was all 
>that was required, whereas the Pharisees (the ancestors of modern
>Judaism) believed that the Torah was available for interpretation 
>to lead to an understanding of the required Morality in all its 
>nuances (->Talmud).
 
>The essence of all of this is that Biblical Morality is an 
>interface between Man and YHWH (for a Jew or Christian) and does
>not necessarily indicate anything about YHWH outside of that 
>relationship (although one can speculate).
 
>. . .
 
>. . . the point I`m trying to make is that we only really have the 
>Bible to interpret, and that interpretation is by humanity. I guess 
>this is where Faith or Relevation comes in with all its inherent 
>subjectiveness.
 
God being unknowable, I can't comment on His motives, but it would be
distressing if He allowed us to misunderstand Him through no fault of 
our own.  For sanity's sake we must assume, if we believe in Him at all,
that His message comes through somehow.  The question is whether it comes 
through immediately to every individual, or is contained in a complex 
canon that must be interpreted by experts in consultation with one another, 
or is transmitted directly through appointed representatives who are free
to interpret, extend and modify the canon.  If God's message is indeed
mediated, the further problem arises as to whether the individual under-
stands the mediated message fully and clearly.  Since the responsibility 
for understanding lies ultimately with the individual, we must assume that 
God in His benevolence guides each individual to the appropriate source 
for that individual, whereof the person may or may not drink. 
 
>>Metaphysically, if there are multiple moral codes then there is no
>>Absolute moral code, and I think this is theologically questionable.
 
>No. There may be an absolute moral code. There are undoubtably multiple
>moral codes. The multiple moral codes may be founded in the absolute moral
>code. As an example, a parent may tell a child never to swear, and the child
>may assume that the parent never swears simply because the parent has told
>the child that it is "wrong". Now, the parent may swear like a trooper in
>the pub or bar (where there are no children). The "wrongness" here is if
>the child disobeys the parent. The parent may feel that it is "inappropriate"
>to swear in front of children but may be quite happy to swear in front of
>animals. The analogy does not quite hold water because the child knows that
>he is of the same type as the parent (and may be a parent later in life) but
>you get the gist of it? Incidentally, the young child considers the directive
>as absolute until he gets older (see Piaget) and learns a morality of his own.
 
Your example is complicated in our age by the thin line between morality
and politeness.  You might have said "burp", for burping and swearing carry
about the same stigma today.  If you are talking about "taking the Lord's 
name in vain" as a serious transgression, then this example is more a case of 
hypocrisy than of varying moral codes.
 
If there is an absolute moral code, propositions or laws in that code apply
absolutely and universally, by definition.  Conceivably some moral codes
could be subsets of the universal code, as you say at the outset.  So, for
example, God's code could include, "Thou shalt not create Beings without
a hospitable planet to live on", but this law would be inapplicable to us.
Nevertheless, we would be entitled to suppose that all laws applicable
to us are also applicable to God.
 
But when you begin to ask what laws might appear in God's moral code, you have
a sense of the absurdity of the question.  Does God make laws for Himself to
follow?  Perhaps God is not the sort of being to which the category "morality"
can be sensibly applied.
-- 
                                     James Owens  ad354@Freenet.carleton.ca
                                     Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83722
From: muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah)
Subject: cults (who keeps them going ?)


Mr. Clinton said today that the horrible tragedy of the Waco fiasco
should remind those who join cults of the dangers of doing so.
Now, I began scratching my head thinking (a bad sign :-), "don't the 
mainstream religions (in this case Christianity...or the 7th day 
adventist in particular) just keep these guys going ? Isn't Mr. Clinton 
condemning his own religion ? After all, isn't it a cult too ?"

... bad thoughts these.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83725
From: markbr%radian@natinst.com (mark)
Subject: Re: Freemasonry and the Southern Baptist Convention

In article <1qv82l$oj2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes:
>     With the Southern Baptist Convention convening this June to consider
>the charges that Freemasonry is incompatible with christianity, I thought
>the following quotes by Mr. James Holly, the Anti-Masonic Flag Carrier,
>would amuse you all...
<MUNCH!>
>     I hope you all had a good laugh! I know *I* did! <g>,

It would be funny if it wasn't so damn *NASTY*; and as non-xian as I am, 
it's hard to believe that someone is pushing black is white and freedom
is slavery so blatantly.

	mark


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83727
From: Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Subject: Re: O.T.O clarification

930420

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
The word of Sin is Restriction.


Kent (sandvik@newton.apple.com) writes:

Sorry, the San Jose based Rosicrucian order is called A.M.O.R.C, 
I don't remember for the time being what the A.M. stand for
but O.R.C is Ordo Rosae Crucis, in other words latin for
Order of the Rose Cross. 


Response:

Yes, very true.  The entire title is 'The Ancient and Mystical Order
 Rosae Crucis'.  They are located at 1342 Naglee Avenue, San Jose,
California, 95191-0001, USA.

They are considered different and largely unrelated by a number of
sources.  I've seen documentation which links them through the figure
of H. Spencer Lewis.  Lewis was apparently involved with Reuss, who
was the O.H.O. of Ordo Templi Orientis for many years.  Apparently it
is also true that Lewis had a charter to form an O.T.O. body and then
created A.M.O.R.C. (as a subsidiary?  an interesting question).


Kent:

Otherwise their headquarters in San Jose has a pretty decent
metaphysical bookstore, if any of you are interested in such books.
And my son loves to run around in their Egyptian museum.


Response:

Indeed, and diagonally across the street is another metaphysical
book store called 'Ram Metaphysical', wherein I've purchased some
wonderful works by Crowley and others.  Ram Metaphysical Books,
1749 Park Ave., San Jose, CA.  (408) 294-2651.


Invoke me under my stars.  Love is the law, love under will.

I am I!

Frater (I) Nigris (DCLXVI) CCCXXXIII

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83728
From: e_p@unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
Subject: Re: cults (who keeps them going ?)

muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:


>Mr. Clinton said today that the horrible tragedy of the Waco fiasco
>should remind those who join cults of the dangers of doing so.
>Now, I began scratching my head thinking (a bad sign :-), "don't the 
>mainstream religions (in this case Christianity...or the 7th day 
>adventist in particular) just keep these guys going ? Isn't Mr. Clinton 
>condemning his own religion ? After all, isn't it a cult too ?"


A good point.  What helps to keep such things going is the public
attitude that one should have "faith""; that some authority from
on high should not be subjected to mere reason.  Couple this with a
variety of personality quirks, mojor and minor mental illnesses, and
ego of would-be leaders, and you get all the variety of cults and 
religions that people subscribe to.


.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83729
From: $stephan@sasb.byu.edu (Stephan Fassmann)
Subject: Re: [lds] Are the Mormons the True Church?

In article <C5rr9M.LJ7@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
>Subject: [lds] Are the Mormons the True Church?
>Date: 20 Apr 93 06:29:00 GMT
>
>            IS THE MORMON CHURCH CHRIST'S TRUE CHURCH?
>
[...lots of stuff about intellectual errors deleted...]

This is cute, but I see no statement telling me why your church is the true 
church. I do presume that you know or at least believe that yours is true. 
Attempting to ream my faith without replacing it with something "better" is 
a real good way to loose a person completely from Christ.

This is the greatest reason I see that these attacks are not motivated by 
love. They only seek to destroy there is no building or replacing of belief. 
This is not something Christ did. He guided and instructed He didn't 
seek to destroy the faith He found, He redirected it. 

This is what I see when people say they "love" <insert favorite group here>. 
And I have to laugh at the irony. 

Please excuse the scarcasm but it was nice to say it. 
Oh, BTW Robert don't take this personally, your post was merely convinent.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83732
From: m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt)
Subject: See? ( was Re: Apology to Jim Meritt (Was: Silence is concurance)

In article <9473@blue.cis.pitt.edu> joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
}m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
}>}So stop dodging the question.  What is hypocritical about my
}>}criticizing bad arguments, given that I do this both when I agree
}>}with the conclusion and when I disagree with the conclusion?  
}>
}>You are the one who has claimed to possess the fruits of precognition,
}>telepathy, and telempathy.  Divine it yourself.
}
}Another dodge.  Oh well.  I'm no match for your amazing repertoire
}of red herrings and smoke screens.  
}
}You asked for an apology.  I'm not going to apologize for pointing out
}that your straw-man argument was a straw-man argument.  Nor for saying
}that your list of "bible contradictions" shows such low standards of
}scholarship that it should be an embarrassment to anti-inerrantists,
}just as Josh McDowell should be an embarrassment to the fundies.  Nor
}for objecting various times to your taking quotes out of context.  Nor
}for pointing out that "they do it too" is not an excuse. Nor for calling
}your red herrings and smoke screens what they are.

How about the following inaccurate, unsubstantiated accusations:
In 8257@blue.cis.pitt.edu
>Jim has been threatening
	- but no "threat" produced 
>once he realized that
	- display of telepathy
>threatening to quote me
	- in spite of no "threat" produced, nor forecast ever happening (precognition?)
>responding Jim's threat to quote me
	- in spite of claimed threat never being given
>Jim, preparing to...
	- in spite of it never happening.  telepathy or precognition?
>Jim again, still mystified
	- unsubstantiated and untrue.  more telepathy?  Or maybe telempathy?
>Jim, still scandalized
	- unsubstantiated again.  Seems to be a habit...

Having more trouble with reality, it appears.  Why get bothered with the facts when
you appear to have the products of paranatural divination methods?


*yawn*



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83736
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93 God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

I had said:

> Merlyn, you missed the point too.  Christianity is a relationship.  I have
> a relationship with my God.  I <<know>> Him.  
>
> Consider your mother Merlyn.  You know your mother.  What would you think
> of me if I asserted that your mother is 9 feet tall, murdered your father,
> and sexually abused you when you were a kid?   Would you, who knows your
> mother well, think was a blind arrogant idiot to proclaim such things?

Merlyn LeRoy says:
 
>This analogy is not good; for example, there are plenty of people who
>"know" god as well as you do, but don't agree on things like:
>
>1) how many children he/she has
>2) whether he/she approves of polygamy
>3) whether Mohammed was one of his/her prophets
>
>Now, if you AND all these other people who ABSOLUTELY KNOW what god is
>like can't agree on basic attributes like these, at least one of you
>who "knows" what this god-thing is like must be wrong; therefore,
>subjective certainty is worthless regarding knowledge of this god.
>
>On the other hand, I don't know any large groups of people who claim
>absolute knowledge of my mother and who disagree about her basic
>attributes.  This is the difference between real people and imaginary friends.

Meryln, therefore by your logic, since your people disagree about
the characteristics of your mother, you mother must be imaginary.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83738
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?


In article <C5sL3z.2B2@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
|> 
|> Anyway, I've often wondered what business followers of Christ would have
|> with weapons.
|> 
|> --
|> Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
|> Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
|> University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
|> pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho

IMO, a Christian has no need of weapons.  I know it is very contrary to the
American NRA ethos of the right to bear arms, but Christians should rely on
the strength of God to protect them.  Note that I say *should*.  We are
inherently insecure but I feel that that is not proper justification to be
armed to the teeth.  A Christian should not have to rely on physical weapons
to defend himself.  A Christian should rely on his faith and intelligence.
For instance, I have the faith that God will protect me but God also gave
me the intelligence to know not to go walking down that dark alley at night.
To jump off a cliff and say that God will save me would be putting God to the
test.  And who are we to test God?

God be with you,

Malcolm Lee  :)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83740
From: xcpslf@oryx.com (stephen l favor)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

: Seems to me Koresh is yet another messenger that got killed
: for the message he carried. (Which says nothing about the 
: character of the messenger.) I reckon we'll have to find out
: the rest the hard way.
: 

Koresh was killed because he wanted lots of illegal guns.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83741
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)

In article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:

>Seems to me Koresh is yet another messenger that got killed
>for the message he carried. (Which says nothing about the 

Seems to be, barring evidence to the contrary, that Koresh was simply
another deranged fanatic who thought it neccessary to take a whole bunch of
folks with him, children and all, to satisfy his delusional mania. Jim
Jones, circa 1993.

>In the mean time, we sure learned a lot about evil and corruption.
>Are you surprised things have gotten that rotten?

Nope - fruitcakes like Koresh have been demonstrating such evil corruption
for centuries.
-- 
The Old Frog's Almanac - A Salute to That Old Frog Hisse'f, Ryugen Fisher 
     (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) SCO XENIX 2.3.2 GT 
  Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. Serving Central Vancouver Island  
with public access UseNet and Internet Mail - home to the Holocaust Almanac

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83744
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <bskendigC5rBvn.AAI@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>And I maintain:
>
>Some people do not want to enter into the light and the knowledge that
>they alone are their own masters, because they fear it; they are too
>afraid of having to face the world on their own terms.  And so, by
>their own choice, they will remain in darkness, sort of like bugs
>under a rock.  However, some people, but not many, will not like the
>darkness.  Sometimes it gets too cold and too dark to be comfortable.
>These people will crawl out from under the rock, and, although blinded
>at first, will get accustomed to the light and enjoy its warmth.  And,
>after a while, now that they can see things for what they really are,
>they will also see the heights which they can reach, and the places
>they can go, and they will learn to choose their own paths through the
>world, and they will learn from their mistakes and revel in their
>successes.


Are you your own master?  Do you have any habits that you cannot break?
For one, you seem unable to master your lack of desire to understand
even the slightest concept of the Bible.  Seems that ignorance has you
mastered.  How about sexual sins?  Gotta any of those secret desires
in your head that you harbor but can get control of?   Do you dehumanize
women when they walk past you?  Do you degrade them to a sex object in
your head?  Are you the master of that kind of thinking?  Do you insult
people unknowingly, then regret it later.  Yet do it again the next
time opportunity presents itself?  Are you truly the master of yourself?

I have admitted that I am not the master of my thought life at all times.
That I sometimes say things I do want to say, and then repeat my mistake
unwantingly.  I have admitted to myself that I cannot control every aspect
of my being.  There are times I know I shouldn't say something, but
then say it anyway.  There are times I simply forget a lesson.
I, in fact, am not my own master.  I need help.  Jesus promised me
this help.  And I took him up on his offer.  I have willfully let
Jesus be my master because Jesus knows what is better for me than
I myself do.  And why not?  Does not the creator know his creation
better than the creation?  Does Toyota know what's better for the
Corolla than the Corolla?

>Do you see my point?  I think you're the one under the rock, and I'm
>getting a great tan out here in the sunlight.  My life has improved
>immesurably since I abandoned theism -- come and join me!  It will be
>a difficult trip at first, until you build up your muscles for the
>long hike, but it's well worth it!

Then I guess ignorance is bliss for you.  Because Brian, you enjoy
not having a clue about the Bible.   

>Don't you see?  I'm not going to accept ANYTHING that I can't witness
>with my own eyes or experience with my own senses, especially not
>something as mega-powerful as what you're trying to get me to accept.
>Surely if you believe in it this strongly, you must have a good
>*reason* to, don't you?


Can you witness motherly love with your senses?  How does caring and
concern for you register with your senses?  If nothing registers
to you other than what you can see, taste, smell, hear and touch,
then you better become a Vulcan and fast.  You better get rid
of your emotions.

And I do have a good reason to believe what I do.


>When did I say that?  I say that I would rather CEASE EXISTING instead
>of being subject to the whims of a deity, but that if the deity
>decided to toss me into the fiery pits because of who I am, then so be it.

The topic was about my God and your lack of knowledge about what my
God says.   My God says that you will not CEASE EXISTING.  You have
life forever.  You can choose to either live it in hell in eternal
torment where there is no communication whatsoever, or can choose to 
live it in paradise with God.  That is what my God says.  And that
was the issue.  Your made-up theism is what it is--made up.  It's
wishful thinking.
 
>Nope -- most people are Christian.  Most people are fond of feeling
>that they are imperfect, of believing that the world is an undesirable
>place, of reciting magical mystical prayers to make the world nice and
>holy again, of doing just as their priests tell them, like good little
>sheep.  You enjoy darkness, and you're proud of it.

Is this the religion of Kendigianism?  Most people are not Christian.  Most
people, including Christians,  are not fond of feeling that they
are imperfect.  Is "the world an undesireable place" a doctrine
of Kendigianism?  It has nothing to do with my God.  Does
Kendigism have magical mystical prayers as a part of its worship?
Mine doesn't.  Does Kendigianism believe that the world will be holy again?  
Mine doesn't.  Does Kendigianism also dictate that one must obey what the
priest tells them like good little sheep?  Mine doesn't.  Is this
a bunch of lies you tell yourself so that you can justify being 
ignorant of the Bible?

Brian, following Christ has nothing to do with the doctrines of Kendigianism.
You would find any of your doctrines in the Bible.   I don't follow Kendigianism.
I follow Christ.   Also, to try to again show you your ignorance
of Christ and the Bible in regards to "priests",  have you not read about
the sole Melchizedek priest in Hebrews 7 and 8?  Have you not read what the
purpose is of the Old Testament Levitical priesthood and why there should
NOT be priests today?  Yes, guess what?  The Catholics messed up.  I do
not follow Catholicism or any "ism."  I follow Christ.

>Nope.  You make decisions, enjoy your successes, and accept your
>failures; then you die.  If you are content with the life you've led
>as you reflect back on it in your final moments, then you've led a
>good life.

Why would you want to live a good life?
To you, you die and that's it.  Don't contradict yourself.  You have
no reason to live a good life.  It doesn't do you any good in the
end.  Your life doesn't do anybody else any good  either because
everyone dies anyway.  So you have no reason to lead a good life. Leading
a good life is meaningless.   Why do you do such a meaningless thing?

>I'm sorry, I don't feel that sacrificing Jesus was something any god
>I'd worship would do, unless the sacrifice was only temporary, in
>which case it's not really all that important.

Has the resurrection sunk in?  Jesus is alive.  Jesus is NOT dead.
Jesus was sacrified to fufill the Old Testament sacrificial system
in its every detail.  Jesus's death was like a seed.  He needed
to fall to the ground so that many new lives would take root.  Did
you miss the entire John passage as well?  


>Forget the Bible for a minute.  Forget quoting verses, forget about
>who said what about this or that.  *Show me.*  Picture just you and me
>and a wide open hilltop, and convince me that you're right.

Forget that I am a person.  Forget that I know how to type.  Forget
that I know how to put a sentence together.  Forget that I know
how to send e-mail.   Forget my existence.  Proove to me that I
exist.  .


Be honest.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83745
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

In article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>For those who think David Koresh didn't have a solid structure,
>or sound Biblical backing for his hour long tape broadcast,
>I've enclosed a partial list of the sources he cites or quotes
>he exactly used. As a Christian sermon, it's pretty good, if not 
>inspired.

David Koresh was born in Bethlehem ehh?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83776
From: jmeritt@mental.MITRE.ORG (Jim Meritt - System Admin)
Subject: Keep Firm the foundations!

JOB 26:7  He stretcheth out the north over the empty  place,  and
hangeth the earth upon nothing.

JOB 38:4  Where wast thou when I  laid  the  foundations  of  the
earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83777
From: jburrill@boi.hp.com (Jim Burrill)
Subject: Re: Disillusioned Protestant Finds Christ

John W. Redelfs (cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote:
: 
: I am a Mormon.  I believe in Christ, that he is alive.  He raised himself
: [Text deleted]
:
: I learned that the concept of the Holy Trinity was never taught by Jesus
: Christ, that it was "agreed to" by a council of clergymen long after Christ
: was ascended, men who had no authority to speak for him.
:
If Jesus never taught the concept of the Trinity, how do you deal with the 
following:   

   Mat 28 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven
   and on earth has been given to me.

   Mat 28 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing
   them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

   Mat 28 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
   And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." 

Also Jesus speaking:

   Act 1 5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will
   be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

I believe that you may have overlooked some key verses, that are crucial to
the Christian faith. 

Jim Burrill
jburrill@boi.hp.com

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83781
From: m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt)
Subject: Silence is concurance


Is it not the case that, in the eyes of the law, when someone is aware of
something and has the capability of taking action and does not, that individual
may be held responsible for that action?

Example: the driver of a getaway car may be held as an accomplice to murder.
	 The "I didn't know" defense spawned the "ignorance of the law is no excuse"

When an individual is held as a material witness to a crime, is there a criminal
charge against the individual?  If not, on what grounds is the person imprisoned?

--
James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@mitre.org
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83783
From: jburrill@boi.hp.com (Jim Burrill)
Subject: Question about Islamic view   

A question regarding the Islamic view towards homosexuality came up in a
discussion group that I participate in, and I'd like to ask the question here,

"What is the Islamic view towards homosexuality?"             

Jim Burrill
jburrill@boi.hp.com


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83786
From: cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs)
Subject: Re: Disillusioned Protestant Finds Christ


In a previous article, tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) says:

>In article <1qb726$j9d@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu< cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes:
><
><I learned that God loves his children who have never heard of him and has a
><plan for redeeming them too, even those who have died without a knowledge
><of Christ.  I learned that a man cannot frustrate justice by repenting on
><his death bed because repentance is more than a feeling of remorse.  It
><requires faith in Christ proven by following him, by keeping his
><commandments.  Such cannot be accomplished on ones deathbed.
>
>So Jesus must have lied to the thief on the cross.

Paradise and salvation are not the same thing.  Salvation is better.  Refer
to John 14:2.
>-- 
>Tom Albrecht
>
-- 
------------ John W. Redelfs, cj195@cleveland.freenet.edu -------------
--------- All my opinions are tentative pending further data. ---------

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83788
Subject: Re: [lds] Rick's reply
From: <LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET>

In article <C5KDzK.497@acsu.buffalo.edu>, psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert
Weiss) says:
>     Just briefly, on something that you mentioned in passing. You refer to
>     differing interpretations of "create," and say that many Christians may
>     not agree. So what? That is really irrelevant. We do not base our faith
>     on how many people think one way or another, do we? The bottom line is
>     truth, regardless of popularity of opinions.

   I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing heresy.  I assumed that heresy
meant a departure from orthodoxy, in which case generally accepted belief is
indeed an important issue.  In this case, the definition of the word "create"
is of great importance, since creation is the issue being discussed.

>
>     Also, I find it rather strange that in trying to persuade that created
>     and eternally existent are equivalent, you say "granted the Mormon
>     belief..." You can't grant your conclusion and then expect the point to
>     have been addressed. In order to reply to the issue, you have to address
>     and answer the point that was raised, and not just jump to the
>     conclusion that you grant.

  I should have said "given the Mormon belief."  If you disagree with the
Mormon belief that creation is more a function of organization of eternally
existent substance than one of ex nihilo creation, then that is the important
point.

>     The Bible states that Lucifer was created.  The Bible states that Jesus
>     is the creator of all. The contradiction that we have is that the LDS
>     belief is that Jesus and Lucifer were the same.

  Correction: you interpret the Bible to mean something very specific by
such terms.

>     The Mormon belief is that all are children of God. Literally. There is
>     nothing symbolic about it. This however, contradicts what the Bible
>     says. The Bible teaches that not everyone is a child of God:
>
   It always cracks me up when anti-Mormons presume to tell Mormons what they
believe.  Mormons do, in fact, believe that all people, including Christ and
Lucifer, are children of God in the sense that we were all created (or
organized or whatever) by Him.  We also believe that being "offspring" of
God has a symbolic sense when applied to being spiritually "born again" of
Him.  Thus the same word can be used to convey different meanings.  This is
how language works, Robert, and it's why making someone an offender for a
word is dangerous.


>     This is really a red herring. It doesn't address any issue raised, but
>     rather, it seeks to obfuscate. The fact that some groups try to read
>     something into the Bible, doesn't change what the Bible teaches. For
<...>
>     We first look to the Bible to see what it teaches. To discount, or not
>     even address, what the Bible teaches because there are some groups that
>     have differing views is self-defeating. To see what the Bible teaches,
>     you have to look at the Bible.

   On the contrary, Robert, it is not a red herring at all to show that those
who rely wholly on the Bible cannot seem to agree on what it says.  You say
that one must simply "look at the Bible" to see what it teaches, but centuries
of people doing just that have sho0wn that no one is really sure what it says.
Are we to believe that you are the only one who really understands the
scriptures?

>     I find this rather curious. When I mentioned that the Mormon belief is
>     that Jesus needed to be saved, I put forward some quotes from the late
>     apostle, Bruce McConkie. The curious part is that no one addressed the
>     issue of `Jesus needing to be saved.' Rick comes the closest with his "I
>     have my own conclusions" to addressing the point.

  Let me clarify this one more time.  You did not refer to the Mormon belief
that Jesus needed to be saved, but rather to McConkie's belief in same.  We
keep trying to point out to you that Bruce McConkie is not the source of
Mormon doctrine, and you keep ignoring it. (see below)

>
>     Most of the other replies have instead hop-scotched to the issue of
>     Bruce McConkie and whether his views were 'official doctrine.' I don't
>     think that it matters if McConkie's views were canon. That is not the
>     issue.  Were McConkie's writings indicative of Mormon belief on this
>     subject is the real issue. The indication from Rick is that they may
>     certainly be.

  On the contrary, Robert, if you are quoting McConkie's words as Mormon
canon then the question of whether they are canon or not is of *great*
importance.  The fact is that they are not.  Whether or not they indicate
general Mormon belief would only be ascertainable by interviewing a large
number of Mormons.
>
>
>=============================
>Robert Weiss
>psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
--
Rick Anderson  librba@BYUVM.BITNET


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83789
From: hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr)
Subject: Re: Part 1 and part 2  (re: Homosexuality)

In article <m0njXCg-0000VEC@juts.ccc.amdahl.com> rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com writes:

>Perhaps you don't get it, and maybe you never will.  Many didn't get it in the
>Middle Ages and the proclaimed God's will be done as they massacred thousands
>in witch hunts and inquisitions.

There were many injustices in the middle ages.  And this is truely sad.
I would hate to see a day when churches put people to death or torchured
them for practicing homosexuality, or any other crime.  The church is not
called to take over the governments of the world.  It may be that homosexuals
treated cruelly today, but that does not mean that we should teach 
Christians to practice homosexual immorality.  Do you think that we should
also teach Christians to practice divination and channelling because
the witches in the middle ages were persecuted.


>The major flaw in all this posturing is that in the end, the
>final effect of posts like that of yours and Mr. Hudson is that YOU have a
>"conditional" love for gays.  Condition:  Change and we'll love you. This is
>sure strange coming from a group who claim that God has an "unconditional"
>love, one that calls people "just as they are."

And you accuse me of judging?  When did you look into my heart and see
if I have love.  I have been writing that we should not teach Christians
to practice homosexual immorality, and you pretend to have divine knowledge
to look into my heart.  I can't say that I love homosexuals as I should-
I can't say that I love my neighbor as I should either.  I don't know
very many homosexuals as it is.  

But Jesus loves homosexuals, just as He loves everyone else.  If His love
were conditional, I not know Him at all.  Yes.  We should show love to 
homosexuals, but it is not love to encourage brothers in the church to 
stumble and continue in their sin.  That is a very damaging and dangerous 
thing.

>The results of the passing amendment in
>Colorado has created an organization who's posters are appearing all over
>Colorado called "S.T.R.A.I.G.H.T." (I forget the whole definition off hand,
>but the last part was Against Immoral Gross Homosexual Trash) and their motto
>is "Working for a fag-free America" with an implicit advocation for violence.
>
>This is sick, and it seems to be what you and Mr. Hudson, and others are
>embracing.

That is slander.   I could just as easily say  that NAMBLA has been able
to implement legislation to make child molesting easier because of
the tearing down of societies morality due to people accepting homosexuality
as normal, and that this is what you are embracing.  I do believe
that homosexual sex is immoral, that does not mean I endorse using violence
against them.  There is a problem of hatred in the church.  But there
is also the problem of what has been called "unsanctified mercy."
Many in the conservative churches have seen the moral breakdown in 
this country and the storm on the horizon, and have gotten militant in 
the flesh.  This is truely sad.  Yet others in other churches have 
embraced immorality in society, and have pointed to the carnality in the
conservative churches to justify their actions.  

>Why don't we just stick to the positive and find ways to bring people
>to Jesus istead of taking bullwhips and driving them away?

Certainly we should not use a bullwhip to drive people from Jesus.
But we shouldn't water down the gospel to draw people in.  Jesus didn't
go out of His way to show only what might be considered positive aspects
to draw people in.  He told one man to sell all He had.  He told
another not to say good bye to His family.  His words were hard at times.
We should present people with the cost of the tower before we allow them
to begin construction.  many people have already been innoculated to the
gospel.

Link Hudson.




>
>Whatever
>
>Rich :-(



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83790
From: edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Federal Hearing

>>>>> On Fri, 16 Apr 1993 04:21:09 GMT, dmcgee@uluhe.soest.hawaii.edu (Don McGee) said:
DM> Fact or rumor....?  Madalyn Murray O'Hare an atheist who eliminated the
DM> use of the bible reading and prayer in public schools 15 years ago is now
DM> going to appear before the FCC with a petition to stop the reading of the
DM> Gospel on the airways of America.  And she is also campaigning to remove
DM> Christmas programs, songs, etc from the public schools.  If it is true
DM> then mail to Federal Communications Commission 1919 H Street Washington DC
DM> 20054 expressing your opposition to her request.  Reference Petition number

DM> 2493.

False.  This story has been going around for years.  There's not a drop of
truth.  Note that I don't care for O'Hare (O'Hair?) myself, but this
is one thing she's not guilty of.

--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
edm@twisto.compaq.com                                   _-\_<, 
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83795
From: ins559n@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Andrew Bulhak)
Subject: Re: 666 - MARK OF THE BEAST - NEED INFO

 (U28698@uicvm.uic.edu) wrote:
: Marian CATHOLIC high school, outside of chicago:
: 
: 666 south ASHLAND avenue.
: 
Actually, Satanism is technically inverted Catholicism.


+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Andrew Bulhak	     | :plonk: n. The sound of Richard Depew        |
|  acb@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au |   hitting the ground after being             | 
|  Monash Uni, Clayton,      |   defenestrated by a posse of angry Usenet   |
|  Victoria, Australia       |   posters.                                   |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83798
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Subject: Re: Silence is concurance

For those missing the context of this thrilling discussion between
Jim and I, Jim wrote the following to me in e-mail after I pointed out
that he (Jim) had taken a quote out of context:
>In t.r.m. Robert Weiss writes [a promise from Psalm 9:10]
>Gee, since you wouldn't be at all hypocritical, you must be really
>busy arguing against these out-of-context extracted translations!

He directed a similar accusation of hypocrisy, again based on a lack of
response to an article by Robert Weiss, toward Stephen.

I pointed out that I did, in fact, agree that both Robert Weiss and
Jim Meritt took quotes out of context.  Hence, I find it difficult to
understand why Jim thinks I am a hypocrite.  Needless to say, I don't
have time to reply to *every* article on t.r.m. that takes a quote
out of context.  

I asked Jim the following:
>}So, according to you, Jim, the only way to criticize one person for
>}taking a quote out of context, without being a hypocrite, is to post a
>}response to *every* person on t.r.m who takes a quote out of context?

Jim replied by saying 
>Did I either ask or assert that?

But today we find four articles from Jim, one of which has the subject
"Silence is concurrence":  

m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
>Is it not the case that, in the eyes of the law, when someone is aware of
>something and has the capability of taking action and does not, that individual
>may be held responsible for that action?

Which is, of course, a complete red herring.  Taking quotes out of
context isn't a crime.  I don't have time to read every article on
t.r.m., and I'm certainly under no obligation to reply to them all.

Does "silence is concurrence" imply that Jim thinks that because I
didn't respond to Weiss' articles I must condone Weiss' taking quotes
out of context?  Jim doesn't want to give a direct answer to this
question; read what he has written and decide for yourself.


But back to the context of my conversation with Jim.  Jim's next 
gambit was to claim that he was using inductive logic when he
concluded that I was being a hypocrite.  I challenged him to provide
the details of that logic that led him to an incorrect conclusion.
Today we find another obscure article (posting it twice didn't help
make it more clear, Jim), titled "Inductive Logic":

>Scenario:
>A white goose waddles past the door
>A white goose waddles past the door
>A white goose waddles past the door
>...( repeat an uncountably large number of times)...
>A black goose waddles past the door.  An individual hits it with an axe.
>
>1. Given that the population of geese is uncountably large, and the size of the
>   confidence interval for the decision is undetermined, under what conditions
>   could a decision upon the behavior of the individual towards white geese
>   be made?
>
>2. If ONLY black geese are observed to be axed, is it not a valid question 
>   to be concerned with the different behavior between black and white geese?

More red herrings.  Could Jim mean that he has read an uncountably large
number of my articles?  Could Jim mean that because I "axed" his articles,
but not Weiss' articles, he wants to conclude inductively ...
Well, I can't see where he is going with this.

But I can help him with his induction.  I've written roughly 80
articles since January.  The vast majority of them are discussions with
Frank DeCenso and other inerrantists, where I take the position that
they are making bad arguments.  Some are discussions with Jim Meritt
where I take the position that he is making bad arguments (a straw man
argument earlier, and taking quotes out of context more recently.)

Think hard about this Jim.  See the pattern?  Think harder.  Run it
through your induction engine and see what pops out.  

dj

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83799
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Spreading Christianity (Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor)

I addressed most of the key issues in this very long (284 lines) post
by Dean Kaflowitz in two posts yesterday.  The first was made into the
title post of a new thread, "Is Dean Kaflowitz terminally irony-impaired?"
and the second, more serious one appeared along the thread

"A Chaney Post, and a Challenge, reissued and revised"

both only in talk.abortion, but I am posting its contents into
talk.religion.misc as soon as I exit here.

This should be enough for us to thrash out for the next week or so.  The
second post really grapples with the main bones of contention between us.
The first is more lighthearted and tells about such things as 
KaflowitzDebatingPoints [tm], which he continues to rack up on both
talk.abortion and talk.religion.misc, while setting follow-ups to 
talk.abortion alone.  His lame excuse for the latter policy is that
he gets a prompt as to where to set follow-ups, and does not follow
talk.religion.misc much; this suggests that he is being hypocritical in not
also setting his Newsgroups line to talk.abortion alone.

Peter Nyikos




Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83800
From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Spreading Christianity (Re: Christian Extremist Kills Doctor)

Most of the key issues in the 284 line post to which I am following up are
dealt with in the following post I made on talk.abortion yesterday,
modified to correct the next to last paragraph.

Message-ID: <nyikos.734890344@milo.math.scarolina.edu>

References: <nyikos.734360987@milo.math.scarolina.edu> <nyikos.734640769@milo.math.scarolina.edu> <1993Apr13.122356.3612@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>

In <1993Apr13.122356.3612@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:

>In article <nyikos.734640769@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> In <CS132073.93Apr9160836@cslab1g.cs.brown.edu> cs132073@cs.brown.edu (John Bates) writes:
>> 
>> >In article <nyikos.734360987@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>> > perhaps out
>> >of dedication to your convictions. I never, *never*, thought that you
>> >would be consciously intellectually dishonest, though.
>> 
>> I am not.  Can you show me anything that would lead you to think 
>> otherwise?

>See the "Spreading Christianity" thread, in which he says I
>ignore certain statements that I specifically acknowledged and

Dean did not.  He called them "the Great Commission" but this is NOT
descriptive of Jesus's words in Matt. 10:15.

Matt. 10:14, Jerusalem Bible translation:

	"And if anyone does not welcome you or listen to what you have
	to say, as you walk out of the house or town shake the dust
	from your feet."

Matt. 10:15:

 	"I tell you solemnly, on the day of Judgment it will not 
 	go as hard with the land of Sodom and Gomorrah as with 
 	that town."

In the post to which Dean is referring above, I said:

"> The above is a good description of Kaflowitz, who keeps harping on
 > shaking the dust off the feet but ignoring what Christ said next."
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                                ^^^^

The highlighted words refer to Matt 10:14 and 10:15 respectively.

And Dean countered:

"Actually, this comment of your's is a perfect example of what an
intellectually dishonest little sparrowfart you are, since I
specifically acknowledged the Great Commission and the entreaty
to spread the word.  In fact, it is the combination of the two
statements I was addressing, and not just the one, and for you to
characterize that as "ignoring" the instruction to spread the
word is a good example of what a dishonest little fellow you are."

Of course, Matt 10:15 [quoted above] makes no mention of "instruction
to spread the word."

All these quotes btw are from:

Message-ID: <1993Apr13.121624.3400@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>

>in which, at the end, he claims I did not answer a question
>which I answered, and which he deleted (to get the chronology
>right, he deleted the answer and then said I didn't answer).

And I claim it correctly, because my question went:

"Do you, too, measure
the goodness of a post by its entertainment value, and care not
a whit for such mundane things as truth and falsehood?"

and the closest Dean came to an answer was:

"Peter, Peter, Peter.  You're just so stupid, pretentious, dull,
and generally unworthy of the value you place on yourself that
the sport is all there is."

Of course, this does NOT answer my question, which has to do with posts
in GENERAL and not my posts in particular.  Surely even Dean knows this,
yet he brazenly asserts otherwise, reinforcing his claim with an insult:

"So I now restore the answer to your question
that you deleted.  If you're still unable to figure it out, ask
a nice kid at the local junior high to help you.  It really
doesn't take much sophistication to understand."

On top of which, I doubt that the "answer" is at all representative
of Dean's true frame of mind.  The insults you have seen quoted thus
far are but a small sample of the stream that oozes out of Dean's 
mind throughout the 284-line post from which these quotes were taken.
One wonders whether Dean's mind is so warped as to find sport in all
this.

He even dredges up a falsified account of
events that transpired earlier on another thread:

"You made an ass of yourself by claiming that it
				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
was in the tradition of Lent to make public announcements of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the "sins" of other individuals."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

False.  I said it was the tradition to recall and atone for one's sins.
That I made public announcements of the "sins" of others
--"sins", BTW, that were a matter of public record, documented in
the posts of others-- is a different matter.

Many of the individuals involved are so nearly amoral that
they do not see as sins what morally upright people see as sins, so
I pointed some of them out.  And I expressly set up a whole thread,
YOUR TURN, to let people point out MY sins to me.

Dean again:

"You made an ass of yourself
by saying that my statement of the tradition of tzedukkah was
somehow an attempt to "paint Jews as plaster saints," thereby
revealing your inability to understand the discussion as well
as showing your dislike for people saying positive things
about Jews, and now you show your intellectual dishonesty by
repeatedly ignoring the simple argument being made, and then
claiming I am ignoring the very argument I acknowledge."

Actually, what happened was that Dean made it seem like ANY Jew
who gave alms or did other acts of charity in public was a hypocrite
according to Jewish customs.  In doing so, he was caricaturing
Jewish customs as being almost impossibly demanding, as well as
implicitly slandering all Jews who make public their acts of charity.

I went very easily on Dean for this, giving him the benefit of
the doubt in a post following my initial crack about "plaster saints", 
suggesting that he had been merely careless in his wording.

In an astonishing act of ingratitude, Dean now serves up an incredibly
distorted picture of what took place between us, and using it as
the basis of one insult after another.

Peter Nyikos





Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83801
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Subject: Re: Part 1 and part 2  (re: Homosexuality)

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
> In article <m0njXCg-0000VEC@juts.ccc.amdahl.com> rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com writes:
> 
> >Why don't we just stick to the positive and find ways to bring people
> >to Jesus istead of taking bullwhips and driving them away?
> 
> Certainly we should not use a bullwhip to drive people from Jesus.
> But we shouldn't water down the gospel to draw people in. 

Very well put.  And, in the case of someone who calls himself a Christian
brother yet continues in his sin (and claims that his sin is not a sin at 
all, but perfectly acceptable), what should be done?  Should Christians 
just ignore a sinful lifestyle in order to not offend the person?  By 
reaffirming that the lifestyle is sinful according to the Bible, are 
they using "a bullwhip to drive people from Jesus"? 

Frankly, I find the occurance of a homosexual Christian attempting to 
pass himself off as a 'straight' Christian in order to have other 
Christians accept his chastisement better a *lot* more serious than 
people reaffirming that the Bible teaches homosexuality is a sin.  

Walter


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83803
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Subject: THE DIVINE MASTERS

          

                             THE DIVINE MASTERS       
      
               Most Christians would agree, and correctly so, that 
          Jesus Christ was a Divine Master, and a projection of God 
          into the physical world, God Incarnate. 
          
               But there are some very important related facts that 
          Christians are COMPLETELY IGNORANT of, as are followers of 
          most other world religions. 
           
               First, Jesus Christ was NOT unique, John 3:16 NOTWITH-
          STANDING.  There is ALWAYS at least one such Divine Master 
          (God Incarnate) PHYSICALLY ALIVE in this world AT ALL TIMES, 
          a continuous succession THROUGHOUT HISTORY, both before and 
          after the life of Jesus. 
    
               The followers of some of these Masters founded the 
          world's major religions, usually PERVERTING the teachings of 
          their Master in the process.  Christians, for example, added 
          THREATS of "ETERNAL DAMNATION" in Hell, and DELETED the 
          teaching of REincarnation. 
       
               Secondly, and more importantly, after a particular 
          Master physically dies and leaves this world, there is 
          NOTHING that He can do for ANYbody except for the relatively 
          few people that He INITIATED while He was still PHYSICALLY 
          alive.  (THAT IS SIMPLY THE WAY GOD SET THINGS UP IN THE 
          UNIVERSES.)                             

               Therefore, all those Christians who worship Jesus, and 
          pray to Jesus, and expect Jesus to return and save them from 
          their sins, are only KIDDING THEMSELVES, and have allowed 
          themselves to be DUPED by a religion that was mostly 
          MANUFACTURED by the Romans. 
      
               And emotional "feelings" are a TOTALLY DECEIVING 
          indicator for religious validity. 
    
               These things are similarly true for followers of most 
          other major world religions, including Islam. 
     
               Thirdly, the primary function of each Master is to tune 
          His Initiates into the "AUDIBLE LIFE STREAM" or "SOUND 
          CURRENT", (referred to as "THE WORD" in John 1:1-5, and as 
          "The River of Life" in Revelation 22:1), and to personally 
          guide each of them thru the upper levels of Heaven while they 
          are still connected to their living physical bodies by a 
          "silver cord". 
    
               True Salvation, which completes a Soul's cycles of 
          REincarnation in the physical and psychic planes, is achieved 
          only by reaching at least the "SOUL PLANE", which is five 
          levels or universes above the physical universe, and this 
          canNOT be done without the help of a PHYSICALLY-Living Divine 
          Master. 
    
               One such Divine Master alive today is an American, Sri 
          Harold Klemp, the Living "Eck" Master or "Mahanta" for the 
          "Eckankar" organization, now headquartered in Minneapolis, 
          (P.O. Box 27300;  zip 55427). 
    
               Another Divine Master is Maharaj Gurinder Singh Ji, now 
          living in Punjab, India, and is associated with the "Sant 
          Mat" organization. 
      
               One of the classic books on this subject is "THE PATH OF 
          THE MASTERS" (Radha Soami Books, P.O. Box 242, Gardena, CA  
          90247), written in 1939 by Dr. Julian Johnson, a theologian 
          and surgeon who spent the last years of his life in India 
          studying under and closely observing the Sant Mat Master of 
          that time, Maharaj Sawan Singh Ji. 
    
               Several of the Eckankar books, including some authored 
          by Sri Paul Twitchell or Sri Harold Klemp, can be found in 
          most public and university libraries and some book stores, or 
          obtained thru inter-library loan.  The book "ECKANKAR--THE 
          KEY TO SECRET WORLDS", by Sri Paul Twitchell, is ANOTHER 
          classic. 
    
               Many Christians are likely to confuse the Masters with 
          the "Anti-Christ", which is or was to be a temporary world 
          dictator during the so-called "last days".  But the Masters 
          don't ever rule, even when asked or expected to do so as 
          Jesus was. 
    
               People who continue following Christianity, Islam, or 
          other orthodox religions with a physically-DEAD Master, will 
          CONTINUE on their cycles of REincarnation, between the 
          Psychic Planes and this MISERABLE physical world, until they 
          finally accept Initiation from a PHYSICALLY-LIVING Divine 
          Master. 
    
          
    
          RE-INCARNATION
          
               The book "HERE AND HEREAFTER", by Ruth Montgomery, 
          describes several kinds of evidence supporting REincarnation 
          as a FACT OF LIFE, including HYPNOTIC REGRESSIONS to past 
          lives [about 50% accurate; the subconscious mind sometimes 
          makes things up, especially with a bad hypnotist], 
          SPONTANEOUS RECALL (especially by young children, some of 
          whom can identify their most recent previous relatives, 
          homes, possessions, etc.), DREAM RECALL of past life experi-
          ences, DEJA VU (familiarity with a far off land while travel-
          ing there for the first time on vacation), the psychic read-
          ings of the late EDGAR CAYCE, and EVEN SUPPORTING STATEMENTS 
          FROM THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE including Matthew 17:11-13 (John the 
          Baptist was the REINCARNATION of Elias.) and John 9:1-2 (How 
          can a person POSSIBLY sin before he is born, unless he LIVED 
          BEFORE?!).  [ ALWAYS use the "KING JAMES VERSION".  Later 
          versions are PER-VERSIONS! ] 
          
               Strong INTERESTS, innate TALENTS, strong PHOBIAS, etc., 
          typically originate from a person's PAST LIVES.  For example, 
          a strong fear of swimming in or traveling over water usually 
          results from having DROWNED at the end of a PREVIOUS LIFE.  
          And sometimes a person will take AN IMMEDIATE DISLIKE to 
          another person being met for the first time in THIS life, 
          because of a bad encounter with him during a PREVIOUS 
          INCARNATION. 

               The teaching of REincarnation also includes the LAW OF 
          KARMA (Galatians 6:7, Revelation 13:10, etc.).  People would 
          behave much better toward each other if they knew that their 
          actions in the present will surely be reaped by them in the 
          future, or in a FUTURE INCARNATION! 



          "2nd COMINGS"

               If a Divine Master physically dies ("translates") 
          before a particular Initiate of His does, then when that 
          Initiate physically dies ("translates"), the Master will meet 
          him on the Astral level and take him directly to the Soul 
          Plane.  This is the ONE AND ONLY correct meaning of a 2nd 
          Coming.  It is an INDIVIDUAL experience, NOT something that 
          happens for everyone all at once.  People who are still 
          waiting for Jesus' "2nd Coming" are WAITING IN VAIN. 
    
          
          
          PLANES OF EXISTENCE

               The physical universe is the LOWEST of at least a DOZEN 
          major levels of existence.  Above the Physical Plane is the 
          Astral Plane, the Causal Plane, the Mental Plane, the Etheric 
          Plane (often counted as the upper part of the Mental Plane), 
          the Soul Plane, and several higher Spiritual Planes.  The 
          Soul Plane is the FIRST TRUE HEAVEN, (counting upward from 
          the Physical).  The planes between (but NOT including) the 
          Physical and Soul Planes are called the Psychic Planes. 
    
               It is likely that ESP, telepathy, astrological 
          influences, radionic effects, biological transmutations [See 
          the 1972 book with that title.], and other phenomena without 
          an apparent physical origin, result from INTERACTIONS between 
          the Psychic Planes and the Physical Plane. 
    
               The major planes are also SUB-DIVIDED.  For example, a 
          sub-plane of the Astral Plane is called "Hades", and the 
          Christian Hell occupies a SMALL part of it, created there 
          LESS THAN 2000 YEARS AGO by the EARLY CATHOLIC CHURCH by some 
          kind of black magic or by simply teaching its existence in a 
          THREATENING manner.  The Christian "Heaven" is located 
          elsewhere on the Astral Plane.  Good Christians will go there 
          for a short while and then REincarnate back to Earth. 
          
          
          
          SOUND CURRENT vs. BLIND FAITH

               The Christian religion demands of its followers an 
          extraordinary amount of BLIND FAITH backed up by little more 
          than GOOD FEELING (which is TOTALLY DECEIVING). 
       
               If a person is not HEARING some form of the "SOUND 
          CURRENT" ("THE WORD", "THE BANI", "THE AUDIBLE LIFE STREAM"), 
          then his cycles of REINCARNATION in this MISERABLE world WILL 
          CONTINUE. 
    
               The "SOUND CURRENT" manifests differently for different 
          Initiates, and can sound like a rushing wind, ocean waves on 
          the sea shore, buzzing bees, higher-pitched buzzing sound, a 
          flute, various heavenly music, or other sounds.  In Eckankar, 
          Members start hearing it near the end of their first year as 
          a Member.  This and other experiences (such as "SOUL TRAVEL") 
          REPLACE blind faith. 
    


               For more information, answers to your questions, etc., 
          please consult my CITED SOURCES (3 books, 2 addresses). 



               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. 


                                           Robert E. McElwaine
                                           2nd Initiate in Eckankar,
                                              (but not an agent thereof)

         

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83805
From: joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!


In article <1qppef$i5b@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu 
(Tony Alicea) writes:

>   Kent:

>	You say that

>   >There are about 4-10 competing Rosicrucian orders existing today,
			  ^^^^^^^^^
>   >most of them are spin-offs from OTO and other competing organizations
>   >from the 19th century France/Germany. Maybe I should write an article
>			    Please don't!  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

huh? it might be interesting. he is relating the story as I have heard
it, btw.

>   >about all this, I spent some time investigating these organizations
>   >and their conceptual world view systems.

>	Name just three *really* competing Rosicrucian Orders. I have
>   probably spent more time than you doing the same. 

>	None of them are spin-offs from O.T.O. The opposite may be the
>   case. 

huh? care to back that up?

josh

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83807
From: joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick


In article <Pegasus-200493113800@fp1-dialin-1.uoregon.edu> 
Pegasus@aaa.uoregon.edu (Pegasus) writes:

>   In article <JOSHUA.93Apr19183833@bailey.cpac.washington.edu>,
>   joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller) wrote:

>   > In article <Pegasus-150493132018@fp1-dialin-4.uoregon.edu> 
>   > Pegasus@aaa.uoregon.edu (LaurieEWBrandt) writes:

>   LEWB>> Lets add to those percentages 13-15% for the Orphaic docterians
>   brought LEWB>>to the group by Paul/Saul who was a high ranking initiate. On
>   the LEWB>>development of Orphaic Mysteries, see Jane Harrisons .Prolegomena
>   to the LEWB>>study of Greek religion. Cambridge U Press 1922. and you can
>   easly draw LEWB>>your own conclusions.

>   josh> perhaps you can quote just a bit of her argument?

>   Love to,but I must do it a bit later My copy of Harrison in packed, but the
>   last chapter as best as I can rember deals with Orphic mysteries and their
>   views of women though she does not come out and say it it is strongly
>   implyed that the Christian view was drawn heavly from the Orphic and other
>   Major cults of the time.

I would really appreciate if when someone brought something like
this up they didn't back out when someone asked for details.

have a day,
josh


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83808
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion

In article <C5sLAs.B68@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <sandvik-190493200420@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>>So we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire
>>on their house, killing most of the people inside.
>
>We have no way to know that the cultists burned the house; it could have been
>the BATF and FBI.  We only have the government's word for it, after all, and
>people who started it by a no-knock search with concussion grenades are hardly
>disinterested observers.
>--
	Nor, to point out the obvious, are the deluded, siege-mentality
followers of a religious nut-case who thought he was Jesus Christ or possibly
The Big Guy.
	Personally, much as I regard the BATF and FBI as ConDupes, I'll take
their word over a bunch of silly pinks who were stoopid enough to lock
themselves up with a goofball like "David Koresh" in a makeshift arsenal.
	************************************************************
	*  	The_Doge of South St. Louis			   *
	*		Dobbs-Approved Media Conspirator(tm)	   *
	*	"One Step Beyond"  -- Sundays, 3 to 5 pm	   *
	*		88.1 FM		St. Louis Community Radio  *
	*  "You'll pay to know what you *really* think!"           *
	*			-- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs"		   *
	************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83811
From: kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: Freemasonry and the Southern Baptist Convention


There were some recent developments in the dispute about Masonry among
Southern Baptists.  I posted a summary over in bit.listserv.christia, and
I suppose that it might be useful here.  Note that I do not necessarily
agree or disagree with any of what follows: I present it as information.

 *

For a short summary:  a Southern Baptist named Larry Holly wrote a book
claiming that Freemasonry is a religion incompatible with Christianity.
(Mr Holly's father rejects Christianity, and Mr Holly blames that on the
Masons.)

The SBC's Home Missions Board includes an interfaith witness department,
which studies other religions and how to teach them about Christ.  A few
years ago, they were ordered to produce a report on Masonry: they concluded
that it was not a religion, and therefore was outside their speciality.
However, Mr Holly led a movement of people who oppose Masonry, and
last year the Convention again ordered the HMB to study Masonry.  (I got the
feeling that they were saying "You got the wrong answer last time, try to
do better and get the answer we want.")

Anyway, there's been a bit of infighting and some inappropriate actions, but
the dust has settled and the report is in.  Nobody is entirely happy with it,
but everybody seems willing to live with it.  Both sides are saying things
such as: "This was the best we were going to get in the current environment."

The report commends the Masons for the charity work they do, such as the
hospitals and burn centers they operate, as well as efforts to help the
elderly and prevent drug abuse.  The report acknowledges that many well-
known Christians are and have been Masons, and notes that many teachings
of Masonry are "supportive of Christian faith and practice".  Examples of
the latter include belief in God, emphases on honesty and integrity, and
that some Masonic lodges incorporate explicit Christian beliefs.

On the other hand, they note that some aspects of Masonry are incompatible
with Southern Baptist principles.  These included the use of titles which some
people consider sacrilegious, the taking of certain oaths (even though they
are not meant seriously), the "undeniably pagan and/or occultic" writings of
some Masonic leaders, the implication in some Masonic writings that salvation
can be achieved by good works, and the racial discrimination practiced by many
Masonic lodges.  (I note with some chagrin that Baptist churches as a whole
aren't really in a place to speak on this last point.)


The report concludes that Masonry is not a religion, and says that membership
should not be endorsed or censured, but left to the discretion of individuals.
This was in part because there is variation among different Masonic Lodges,
and while one may include elements strongly against Christianity, another may
not.  Many Southern Baptists have strong convictions about the priesthood of
the believer and the autonomy of the local church, and this history probably
influenced how the report came out.

 *

The information above was gleaned from "The Religious Herald", a publication
of the Baptist General Association of Virginia, and "Baptists Today", which
does not have any direct links to a religious organisation.  (Autonomy is a
big issue among some Baptists.  8-)

Because I have neither the report itself, nor whatever Masonic documents are
relevant to these issues, none of the above comes with a guarantee.  Your
mileage may vary.  Void where prohibited.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu

Milton:  "We use only the finest baby frogs, dew picked and flown from Iraq,
          cleansed in finest quality spring water, lightly killed, and then
          sealed in a succulent Swiss quintuple smooth treble cream milk
          chocolate envelope and lovingly frosted with glucose."

Praline: "That's as may be, it's still a frog."

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83812
From: rjk@world.std.com (Robert J. Kolker)
Subject: Odds and Ends

Just a few cheap shots a Christianity:

Riddle: What is the shortest street in Jerusalem?
Answer: The Street of the Righteous Poles.

Limrick:

There was an archeologist Thostle
Who found an amazing fossil
By the way it was bent
And the knot it the end
'twas the penis of Paul the Apostle.

Jingle:
Christianity hits the spot
Twelve Apostles thats a lot
Jesus Christ and a Virgin too
Christianity's the faith for you
(with apologies to Pepsi Cola and its famous jingle)

Riddle:
How many Christians does it take to save a light bulb.
Answer: None, only Jesus can save.

Aphorism:
Jesus Saves
Moses Invests

Proof that Jesus was Jewish:
1. He lived at home till he was 33
2. He went into his fathers business
3. He thought he mother was a virgin
4. His mother thought he was God.

QED.

So long you all

Bob Kolker
"I would rather spend eternity in Hell with interesting people 
than eternity in Heaven with Christians"


-- 
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83816
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Subject: Re: Ignorance is BLISS, was Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <sandvik-180493131125@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <f1682Ap@quack.kfu.com>, pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
>wrote:
>> In article <sandvik-170493104859@sandvik-kent.apple.com> 
>> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>> >Ignorance is not bliss!
> 
>> Ignorance is STRENGTH!
>> Help spread the TRUTH of IGNORANCE!
>
>Huh, if ignorance is strength, then I won't distribute this piece
>of information if I want to follow your advice (contradiction above).
>
>
>Cheers,
>Kent
>---
>sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

He was quoting Big Brother from Orwell's 1984.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83817
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: The Magi of Matthew was The Jewish Discomfort With Jesus

In article <1746.2BD37A66@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> 
Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson) writes:
> Since everywhere I look, Zoroaster is suggested as being a probable
> descendant of Daniel; suppose you prove he wasn't.

Ref: Encyclopedia of Religion, Mircea Eliade

MAGI: 

[Sneak Preview: Later still, eschatology and apocalyptics were a fertile meeting
 ground for Iranian and Judeo-Christian religions, as can be seen in the famous
 _Oracles of Hystaspes_, a work whose Iranian roots are undeniable and which
 most likely dates from the beginning of the Christian era, probably the
 second century CE (Widengren, 1968). The Zoroastrian doctrine of the Savior of
 the Future (Saoshyant) was the basis for the story of the coming of the Magi
 to Bethlehem in the _Gospel of Matthew_ (2:1-12).]

  The Old Persian word magu, rendered in Greek by magos, is of uncertain 
etymology. It may originally have meant "member of the tribe," as in the
Avestan compound mogu-tbish ("hostile to a member of the tribe"). This meaning
would have been further resticted, among the Medes, to "member of the priestly
tribe" and perhaps to "priest" (Benveniste, 1938; Boyce, 1982). The term is
probably of Median origin, given that Herodotus mentions the "Magoi" as one of
the six tribes of the Medes.
  For a variety of reasons we can consider the Magi to have been members of a
priestly tribe of Median origin in western Iran. Among the Persians, they were
responsible for liturgical functions, as well as for maintaining their
knowledge of the holy and the occult. Most likely, the supremacy of the Median
priesthood in western Iran became established during the time of the Median
monarchy that dominated the Persians from the end of the eighth century
through the first half of the sixth century BCE until the revolt of Cyrus the
Great (550 BCE). The Persians were indebted to the Medes for their political
and civil institutions as well. Even if hypotheses have been advanced
concerning the existence of Magi of Persian origin in the Achaemenid period
(Boyce, 1982), we must still maintain that they were of Median origin. This is
demonstrated by the eposide of the revolt of Gaumata the Magian, mentioned by
Darius I (522-486 BCE) in the inscription at Bisutun (Iran), as well as by
Greek sources. Indeed, Herodotus insists on the idea of the usurpatory power of
the Medes against the Persians through the conspiracy of the Magi.
  The fact that the Magi may have been members of a tribe that handed down the
sacerdotal arts in a hereditary fashion naturally did not exclude the
possibility that some of them undertook secular prefessions. This seems to be
attested by the Elamite tablets at Persepolis.
  There is a theses, put forth by Giuseppe Messina, that denies that the Magi
are members of an ethnic group by suggesting that they are simply members of
the priesthood - a priesthood of purely Zoroastrian origin. This thesis is
untenable; on the other hand, the hypothesis that their name is related to the
Avestan term magavan, derived from the Gathic maga (Vedic, magha, "gift"), is
not without foundation (Mole, 1963). The meaning of maga can probably be found,
in conformity with the Pahlavi tradition, within the context of the concept of
purity, or separation of the "mixture" of the two opposed principles of spirit
and matter. The maga, which has been erroneously interpreted as "chorus," from
the root mangh, which is said to mean "sing the magic song" (Nyberg, 1966) and
has been rendered simply by an expression like unio mystica, seems to be an
ecstatic condition that opens the mind to spiritual vision. In any case, though
there may be a relation between the Old Persian term magu and the Avestan terms
magavan and maga, we must maintain a clear distinction between the Magi and the
Avestan priesthood. The Avesta ignores the Median or Old Persian term, despite
a recent hypothesis proposed by H.W. Bailey; Old Persian inscriptions ignore
the Avestan term for "priest," athravan (Vedic, athravan), even if this is 
perhaps present in an Achaeminid setting in the Elamite tablets of Persepolis 
(Gershevitch, 1964).
  The term magu has been present in Zoroastrianism throughout its history; the
Pahlavi terms mogh-mard and mobad represent its continuation. The latter in
particular derives from an older form, magupati ("head of the Magi"). During
the Sasanid period (third to seventh centuries CE), which saw the formation of
a hierarchically organized church, the title mobadan mobad ("the high priest of
high priests") came to be used to designate the summit of the ecclesiastical
hierarchy.
  The Magi practiced consanguineous marriage, or khvaetvadatha (Av.; Pahl.,
khwedodah). They also performed a characteristic funeral rite: the exposure of
the corpse to animals and vultures to remove the flesh and thereby cleanse it.
The corpse was not supposed to decompose, lest it be contaminated by the demons
of putrefaction. This practice later became typical of the entire Zoroastrian
community and led to the rise of a complex funeral ritual in Iran and among the
Parsis in India. Stone towers, known as dakhmas, were built especially for this
rite. During the time of Herodotus the practice of exposure of the corpse was
in vogue only among the Magi; the Persians generally sprinkled the corpse with
wax, then buried it. The practice was widespread, however, among the peoples
of Central Asia.
  The Magi were the technicians of and experts on worship: it was impossible to
offer sacrifices without the presence of a Magus. During the performance of a
ritual sacrifice, the Magus sang of the theogony (the Magi were possibly the
custodians of a tradition of sacred poetry, but we know nothing about the
relationship of this tradition to the various parts of the Avesta) and was
called upon to interpret dreams and to divine the future. The Magi were also
known for the practice of killing harmful, or "Ahrimanical," animals (khrafstra)
such as snakes and ants. They dressed in the Median style, wearing pants,
tunics, and coats with sleeves. They wore a characteristic head covering of
felt (Gr. tiara) with strips on the sides that could be used to cover the nose
and mouth during rituals to avoid contaminating consecrated objects with their
breath (Boyce, 1982). The color of these caps, in conformity with a tradition
that is probably of Indo-European origin, according to Georges Dumezil, was
that of the priesthood: white.
  In all likelihood, during the Achaemenid period the Magi were not in
possession of a well-defined body of doctrine, and it is probable that they
gradually adopted Zoroastrianism; they were most likely a clergy consisting of
professional priests who were not tied to a rigid orthodoxy but were naturally
inclined to eclecticism and syncretism. Nonetheless, they must have been
jealous guardians of the patrimony of Zorastrian traditions. By virtue of this
they were the educators of the royal princes. The wisest of them was responsible
for teaching the prince the "magic of Zarathushtra, son of Horomazes" and thus
the "cult of the gods." Magi who excelled in other virtues were entrusted with
the education of the prince so that he would learn to be just, courageous, and
master of himself.
  During the Achaemenid period the Magi maintained a position of great
influence, although they were certainly subordinate to the emperor. Despite
several dramatic events such as the massacre they suffered after the death of
Gaumata the Magian - in which, according to Herodotus (who calls himself
Smerdis), the Persians killed a large number of Magi to avenge the usurpation -
the Magi nevertheless managed to maintain their influence at court in Media,
in Persia, and in the various regions of the empire where they were stationed
as a consequence of the Persian civilian and military administration.
  No priesthood of antiquity was more famous than that of the Magi. They were
renowned as followers of Zarathushtra (Zoroaster); as the teachers of some of
the greatest Greek thinkers (Pythagoras, Democritus, Plato); as the wise men
who arrived, guided by a star, at the manger of the newborn savior in
Bethlehem; and as the propagators of a cult of the sun in India. But they were
also known as the Chaldeans, the priesthood of Babylon, known for its occultism;
this was perhaps the reason that the term magos had a pejorative sense in Greek,
like "goes," "expert in the magic arts" (Bidez and Cumont, 1938). Indeed, the
Chaldeans were experts in all types of magical arts, especially astrology, and
had a reputation for wisdom as well as knowledge.
  To understand the reasons for such various and sometimes discordant views, it
is necessary to distinguish between the Magi of Iran proper and the so-called
western Magi, who were later hellenized. In the Achaemenid period both must
have been at least in part Zoroastrian, but the western Magi (those of the
Iranian diaspora in Asia Minor, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Armenia), who came in
contact with diverse religious traditions, must have, sooner or later and in
varying degrees, been influenced by syncretic concepts.
  The Greeks were familiar with both kinds of Magi and, depending on their
varying concerns, would emphasize one or the other aspect of them. Classical
historians and geographers, including Herodotus and Strabo, document their
customs, while the philosophers dwell above all on their doctrines: dualism,
belief in the hereafter, Magian cosmology and cosmogony, and their theology
and eschatology. Those sources most interested in the doctrines of the Magi
even speak of Zarathushtra as a Magus. In doing so they are repeating what the
Magi themselves said from the Median and Achaemenid periods, when they adopted
Zoroastrianism. At that time they embraced Zarathushtra as one of their own and
placed themselves under his venerable name.
  Zoroastrianism had already undergone several profound transformations in the
eastern community by the time of the Acheamenids and was already adapting those
elements of the archaic religion that refused to die. It has been said quite
often, in an attempt to characterize the precise role of the Magi in the
Zoroastrian tradition, that the Vendidad (from vi-daevo-data, "the law-abjuring
daivas"), part of the Avesta, should be attributed to them. (This collection of
texts from various periods is primarily concerned with purificatory rules and
practices.) Nonetheless, the hypothesis is hardly plausible, since the first
chapter of the Vendidad - a list of sixteen lands created by Ahura Mazda, the
supreme god of Zoroastrianism, but contaminated by an attack by Ahriman (Pahl.;
Gathic-Avestan, Angra Mainyu), the other supreme god and the ultimate source of
all evil and suffering - does not mention western Iran, Persia, or Media (the
land of Ragha mentioned in the text cannot be Median Raghiana). Furthermore, it
has been noted (Gershevitch, 1964) that if the authors had been Magi the
absence of any reference to western Iranian institutions, including their own
priesthood, would be very strange.
  The Magi were above all the means by which the Zoroastrian tradition and the
corpus of the Avesta have been transmitted to us, from the second half of the
first millennium BCE on. This has been their principal merit. We can attribute
directly to the Magi the new formulation that Iranian dualism assumed, known to
us especially from Greek sources and, in part, from the Pahlavi literature of
the ninth and tenth centuries CE. According to this formulation, the two poles
of the dualism are no longer, as in the Gathas, Spenta Mainyu ("beneficent
spirit") and Angra Mainyu ("hostile spirit") but Ahura Mazda himself and Angra
Mainyu (Gershevitch, 1964). [See Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu.] This trans-
formation was of immense consequence for the historical development of Zoro-
astrianism and was most likely determined by the contact of the Magi with the
Mesopotamian religious world. In this new dualism - which was that later known
to the Greeks (Aristotle, Eudemus of Rhodes, Theopompus, and others) - we can
see the affirmation of a new current of thought within Zoroastrianism, to which
we give the name Zurvanism. [See Zurvanism.]
  Thanks to their adherence to Zoroastrianism, the Magi played an enormously
important role in the transmission of Zarathushtra's treachings, as well as in
the definition of the new forms that these would assume historically. Their
natural propensity to eclecticism and syncretism also helped the diffusion of
Zoroastrian ideas in the communities of the Iranian diaspora. The Greeks began
to study their doctrines and to take an interest in them (Xanthus of Lydia,
Hermodorus, Aristotle, Theopompus, Hermippus, Dinon), even writing treatises
on the Persian religion, of which only the titles and a few fragments have
survived. In the Hellenistic period, the Magi were seen as a secular school of
wisdom, and writings on magic, astrology, and alchemy were lent the authority
of such prestigious names as Zarathushtra, Ostanes, and Hystaspes, forming an
abundant apocryphal literature. (Bidez and Cumont, 1938).
  Later still, eschatology and apocalyptics were a fertile meeting
ground for Iranian and Judeo-Christian religions, as can be seen in the famous
_Oracles of Hystaspes_, a work whose Iranian roots are undeniable and which
most likely dates from the beginning of the Christian era, probably the
second century CE (Widengren, 1968). The Zoroastrian doctrine of the Savior of
the Future (Saoshyant) was the basis for the story of the coming of the Magi
to Bethlehem in the _Gospel of Matthew_ (2:1-12). [See Saoshyant.]
  The Sasanid period saw the Magi once again play a determining role in the
religious history of Iran. Concerned to win back the western Magi (de Menasce,
1956), and eager to consolidate Zoroastrianism as the national religion of
Iran, the priests of Iranian sanctuaries in Media and Persia were able to
establish a true state church, strongly hierarchical and endowed with an
orthodoxy based on the formation of a canon of scriptures. The leading figures
in the development of a state religion and of Zoroastrian orthodoxy were Tosar
and Kerder, the persecutors of Mani in the third century.

SAOSHYANT:
  The Avestan term saoshyant ("future benefactor"; MPers., soshans) designates
the savior of the world, who will arrive at a future time to redeem humankind.
The concept of the future savior is one of the fundamental notions of Zoro-
astrianism, together with that of dualism; it appears as early as in the Gathas.
Zarathushtra (Zoroaster), as the prophet of the religion, is himself a Sao-
shyant, one who performs his works for the Frashokereti, the end of the present
state of the world, when existence will be "rehabilitated" and "made splendid."
[See Frashokereti]
  Later Zoroastrian doctrine developed this notion into a true eschatological
myth and expanded the number of Saoshyants from one to three. All the saviors
are born from the seed of Zarathushtra, which is preserved through the ages in
Lake Kansaoya (identified with present-day Lake Helmand, in Seistan, Iran),
protected by 99,999 fravashis, or guardian spirits. The greatest of the awaited
Saoshyants, the victorious Astvatereta ("he who embodies truth"), the son of
the Vispataurvairi ("she who conquers all"), is the third, who will make
existence splendid; he appears in Yashts 19. Upon his arrival humankind will
no longer be subject to old age, death, or corruption, and will be granted
unlimited power. At that time the dead will be resurrected, and the living will
be immortal and indestructable. Brandishing the weapon with which he kills the
powerful enemies of the world of truth (that is, the world of the spirit, and
of asha), Astvatereta will look upon the whole of corporeal existence and
render it imperishable. He and his comrades will engage in a great battle with
the forces of evil, which will be destroyed.
  The name Astvatereta is clearly the result of theological speculation
(Kellens, 1974), as are those of his two brothers, Ukhshyatereta, "he who makes
truth grow," and Ukhshyatnemah, "he who makes reverence grow"; the names of the
three virgins (Yashts 13) who are impregnated with the seed of Zarathushtra
when they bathe in Lake Kansaoya and give birth to the Saoshyants, are equally
speculative. Each of these Saoshyants will arrive at the beginning of a
millennium, initiating a new age and a new cycle of existence; Astvatereta will
appear in the third and final millennium to save mankind.
  The doctrine of the future savior had already taken shape in the Archaemenid
period (sixth to fourth century BCE). It was not, perhaps the principal element
in the formation of the messianic idea, but it was certainly a determining
factor, one that enjoyed great success in the Hellenistic period beyond the
confines of the Iranian world. A similar concept, that of the future Buddha,
Maitreya, was most likely indebted to it, and Christian messianism can trace
its roots to the same source.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83818
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Clarification of personal position

In article <C5rBHt.Fw4@athena.cs.uga.edu> 
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:
>In article <C5MuIw.AqC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> 
dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
>>If it were a sin to violate Sunday no one could
>>ever be forgiven for that for Jesus never kept Sunday holy.  He only
>>recognized one day of the seven as holy.
>Jesus also recognized other holy days, like the Passover.  Acts 15 says 
>that no more should be layed on the Gentiles than that which is necessary.
>The sabbath is not in the list, nor do any of the epistles instruct people
>to keep the 7th day, while Christians were living among people who did not
>keep the 7th day.  It looks like that would have been a problem.
>Instead, we have Scriptures telling us that all days can be esteemed alike
>(Romans 14:5) and that no man should judge us in regard to what kind of
>food we eat, Jewish holy days we keep, or _in regard to the sabbath. (Col. 2.)
>>The
>>question is "On what authority do we proclaim that the requirements of the
>>fourth commandment are no longer relevant to modern Christians?"
>I don't think that the Sabbath, or any other command of the law is totally
>irrelevant to modern Christians, but what about Collosions 2, where it says
>that we are not to be judged in regard to the keeping of the sabbath?

Why are you running away from the word of Jesus? Has somebody superseded
the word of Jesus? If you don't follow the morality of the Ten
Commandments and the Law and the Prophets and the word of Jesus, whose
morality do you follow?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83823
From: royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)
Subject: Re: That Kill by Sword, Must be Killed by Sword

In article <20APR199306173611@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>In article <sandvik-190493201048@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, 
>sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes...
...
>>So are you happy now when 70+ people, including innocent kids,
>>died today?

	It's amazing how everyone automatically blames one side or the other.
	One thing for sure:  Koresh will have no chance to defend himself
	against the statements (lacking in fact or COurt sponsored verification)
	made  by agents who participated in the situation that killed him.

		I don't know they murdered him; I also don't know
		that the Branch Davidians set a fire and suicidede.

		It is SICK of BATF or FBI spokepeople to make such
		comments in advance of forensic pathology.

	Stephen:  thank you.  God speed.  

>No. Kinda numb. I thought something like this was going to happen
>over a week ago. One of the things that's been obvious from the

	Yah.

>start is that when there are two armed camps, neither of which 
>yields, it's usually get slaughtered -- when any little spark 
>sets it off.
>
>Which is why Koresh and company shouldn't have stockpiled weapons,
>and why the BATF shouldn't have come primed for a raid. 

	BINGO.  Am I the only one  to notice:
	a)	No peaceful attempt to serve a warrant.
	b)	Six months to develop a scene and six days to end it?
	c)	.... ah God:

			25 children
			at least 64 adults
			plus 6 at the beginning
			and more BATF agents

			all dead.

>
>Painful point #1:
>
>	If the Davidians fired first -- why were the BATF
>	on the roof -- rather than taking cover?

	Has anyone asked themselves these questions:

	1)  Have you seen the ENTIRE video sequences taken during the
	  opening rounds?  I seem to recall missing several key parts:
		a)  The first five minutes of day one; only the shooting
		  part comes out.
		b)  What happened to the Feds video units?  You mean they do
		  not carry helmet cams?  Wonder why not?
	2)   How is it you can have camera crews with live transmission
	  video present and NOT have an uninterrupted record?

		a)  You realize the units carry ittle bitty 8mm backups?
			That hold 90 minutes per unit?  And there are
			twounits on the professional handhelds (so no
			tape turnover gaps)?
		b)  Until all views are seen, it is premature to point
			fingers in either direction.

	As you well point out, Stephen.

>
>	Anyone (BATF, BD, X-BD, Other) could have touched it off,
>	by mistake or maliciously?

	More on this below.

>
>	Once Koresh was shot... (disregarding his being a religious
>	leader, and apocalyptically obsessed) most likely the people
>	inside just went on drill. Just like the BATF outside.
>
>Is the lesson that automatic responses are very hazardous last resort 
>measures?

	Yes.  But it is so hard toremain human under the full
	pressure of hazard, game playing, and life.

>
>
>Painful point #2:
>
>	Either side could have backed off, to help defuse the
>	situation.  We see the problem constantly here on the
>	net with flaming.  
>
>Ego problems.  Nuff said. 

	More to the point:  when someone dies (almost like it was intended
	that way), both sides will kill to maintain their innocence --
		a contradiction in terms.

>
>
>Painful point #3:
>
>	It doesn't help to take sides in such a situation. Just
>	adds fuel to the fire. Better is to let it burn out on
>	it's own. 

	True.  Usually I pick the unpopular side and point out
	from the evidence seen what might have alternatively happened.

>
>Best example I can think of is Christ with the tax coin. He didn't 
>have one (and so didn't sanction the Roman authority unduly). When 
>they showed it to him, he noted that it was Caesar's minting, and
>so said give it to him, (no waste of time). And then he got back to
>more worthwhile concerns -- God's will. 

	This requires someone interested in God's Will.  Please note
	that the outstanding _overt_ problem in this country today
	is one where the Government:

		wants Caesar's coin to pay off the debt.

>
>The anti-tax movement of today, and the anti-ssan-as-i.d. groups,
>would do well to note who the issuing authority is. Ditto for those

	Yes:  The AMerican People.  Not the Federal Government.
	ANd if it is not spent towards that end, _no_one_ deserves
	the coin.


>made in the image of God.

	Yah.  Fewpeople hear the contradiction:

		Money
		made
		in the image
		of God

>
>No need to stir things up in ever larger revo-revo-revolution, as
>governments turn over, and over, and over. 

	I wish you were wrong.  Many pundits are saying 3 years.
	The onyl good thing to come out of my divorce (and my
	exposure to the Damned (pardon me) American Divorce Attorney
	is:

		I have no money left to lose to taxes or inflation.

>
>
>painful point #4:
>
>	For many, this was just entertainment. 
>	
>	Thumbs-up. Thumbs-down. 
>
>	Just another thriller like "Terminator 2,"
>	or a good-old ball game.
>
>Is the lesson that we've become jaded to media reality?

	25 children dead.  If anyone thinks blaming Koresh -- or the BATF
	helps this any at all, is sick.  and wrong.

		The reason you can tell that the BATF may not be entirely
		straight on this is that the leaders at press conferences
		havew made ANY comments about even the POSSIBILITY that
		Koresh or his followers caused this.

		The BATF agentss are more concerned with their repuations
		and morals ("not my fault, Koresh did it!") than they
		are with:

			25 dead children.

	Same goes for Koresh & his followers - who are all (mostly) dead.

>
>
>
>Painful point #5:
>
>       	LA burned. The Davidians burned. In one case society has
>	abandoned the people -- which has returned to a frontier.
>	In the other -- the outskirts were bumping against the
>	suburbs. 
>
>Is the lesson that what's lawful in different areas of society,
>depends more on conditions than laws?

	More on power and favoritism.  (My personal opinion).

	Look to history:  whenever privilege has replaced whatever
	token of objective law and justice a society has had,

		Hitlerrs have followed.

>
>
>If we don't learn-the-lessons, or at least make an honest effort,
>the next conflagration will no doubt be closer to home. 
>
>Rather than putting out fires, aren't there much more important
>concerns for us to work on??

	You do your name sake proud, Stephen.
	Its hard, but please keep on keeping on:
		each voice in the wilderness now will
		save a generation unborn from horror

>
>>Kent
>>....who can't 'cheers' today exactly.
>
>What keeps me from being a bomb-thrower is my loving God (as irra-
>tional as that is for so many). One direct benefit is being able to 
>keep things in perspective, KS.

	The day I _need_ a gun or abomb to protect myself in this
	society is the day that society is already beyond redemption

		and that aint' redundant, if you have any Christian
		belief aytall.

	... and the day that I cannot peacefully enjoin others in the
	act that Thoreau called Civil Disobedience to rectify the
	wrongs that my society practises, without undue harm or
	punishment befalling me, is the day that society has ceased to
	be a human society, and become a society of animals.

		We are _very_ cclose to that.

>
>Such as who hurts more -- the ones who died, or the loved ones who 
>are left? Besides the lessons. It's also time for many to grieve.
>Including those who've lost their faith in others, or in God.
>
>I'm learning to be patient, and let things heal. God willing.

	Six years fighting an unjust COurt issue:  still struggling to be
	patient.

For those who like contrary questions:

	NB:  I was not there.  I am not a Branch Davidian nor a     law
	official hater.  I do hate liars or the six letter variety of same.
	The official side has its advocates already; lets balance the
	equation and asj a few questions on the other side, for the sake
	of an old saw the BATF abd FBI seem to want to bypass:

		innocent until proven guilty.
	not
		innocent until presumed guilty.

	1)  Where are the video tapes from the tanks?  ALL of them.

		Don't tell me they do not exist.  They are standard
		equipment.

	2)  So you think Koresh fired the place, because of the explosion?

		a)  Tear gas comes with an aerosol to spread it.  This
		  aerosol is DELIBERATELY made to be as non-flammable
		  as possible.  It is as non-flammable as possible.

			.... gotcha!

		  ... when in isolation from other substances.

		  WHy was a pipe deliveryu system used rather than remote
		  launchers?  WHy did the FBI not announce "this window,
		  blown in plus tear gas, five minutes; then the wall come
		  down", and maintain a left to right sequence?

		b)  Most aerosols also have a secondary compound, that when
		  mixed in, becomes a VERY flammable (and difficult to trace)
		  suspension, with a VERY special property:  exposure to
		  brief eruptions of high heat (muzzle blasts) or long
		  exposure to low heat (matches, a stove) will NOT tend
		  to ignite.

			What other chemicals come up in the forensics?
			Who else will be allowed to test the site?

		c)  After a few minutes to hours (ifdesired, the combnation
		  rate can be controlled as desired), the mixture can be made
		  to become veryignitable onb exposure to a temperature
		  above a certain point (a tracer round) for a certain
		  heat quantity (a small explosive charge) or for a length
		  of time (start a wall fire and wait).

			Check your military records; look at the tapes.
			Why were tanks (large capacity delivey systems),
			tear gas (why not somnorifics?), and now (why
			the hurry. was there still a comm channel open
			to the outside?).

			Do you see any trace of fire coming BACK to the
			compound in the videos?  ALL the videos?  Which ones
			are missing?

	Do I sound paranoid?  Maybe.  Am I? Probably not.
	You trust the FBI and BATF  to render judgement?
		IN advance of a Court?  God help us.
			(For we are surely not helping ourselves).
	You trut the Federal Gevernment to give us a clean slate?

		You are 4.3 trillion (admitted!) down and counting.
		Look again.

	Did it happen that way?  I do not know.  I was not there.
		AND IT SHOULD WAIT FOR A COURT TO DECIDE.
	But will that happen?  89 people will NOT have the chance
		to tell their side as the BATF leader was, on camera.

No one wins.  Except:  more force next time.

	Listen to your hearts, people.

Thanx again Stephen.
>
>   |
>-- J --
>   |
>   | stephen
>

roy andrew crabtree

	roy:  red haired king
	andrew:  the virtuous one
	crabtree:  iron workers, ...

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83827
From: stevep@Cadence.COM (Steve Peterson)
Subject: Re: Question on Sabbath question; Correction

>> There are a few groups that continue to believe Christians have to
>> worship on the Sabbath (Saturday).  The best-known are the Seventh-Day
>> Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses.  They argue that Act 20:7 is not a
>> regular worship service, but a special meeting to see Paul off, and
>> that I Cor 16:2 doesn't explicitly say it's a regular worship service.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Christians are required to observe
the Sabbath, whether it is on Saturday or Sunday.  The Sabbath was part
of a Covenent between God and the Israelites and is not required for
Christians.

Steve Peterson


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83828
From: donc@microsoft.com (Don Corbitt)
Subject: Re: Christian Owned Organization list

In article <1993Apr16.232149.22105@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu wrote:
> Sorry, but Mormons aren't generally considered to be Christians.
> >--
> >=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
> >=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
> >="Do you have some pumps and a purse in this shade?  A perfume that whispers, =
> >='please come back to me'?  I'm looking for something in Green."-Laurie Morgan=

Sorry, but it doesn't matter what _you_ think, I am a Christian, who happens to
belong to the LDS Church.  [The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints].

I don't usually read t.r.m.  It is truly informative to stop by, and see that there
are still people in the world like those that forced my ancestors into the deserts
of Utah, and then out of the country entirely.  (My grandmother was born in Mexico,
where her family had moved to escape religious persecution in the US).  I'm willing
to admit that members of other churches are Christians, if they believe in Christ and
(try to) follow his teachings, even though they have different interpretations of 
the bible.  And yet these other churches often go out of their way to define whether
or not I am considered to be Christian.  Could someone mail me a set of rules/beliefs
that must be followed to be a Christian?  Does this set of rules exclude other large
bodies of believers?  

I know, this is a waste of everyone's time, this has probably been discussed N times,
etc.  I guess I'm more sensitive to this 'demonization' after what went on in Texas.
--
Don Corbitt, donc@microsoft.com
Mail flames, post apologies.   Support short .sigs, three lines max.
(I consider this a rebuttal, not a flame...)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83829
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>
>>And I maintain:
>>
>>Some people do not want to enter into the light and the knowledge that
>>they alone are their own masters, because they fear it; they are too
>>afraid of having to face the world on their own terms.  ...
>
>Are you your own master?  Do you have any habits that you cannot break?

If I have a habit that I really want to break, and I am willing to
make whatever sacrifice I need to make to break it, then I do so.
There have been bad habits of mine that I've decided to put forth the
effort to break, and I've done so; there have been other bad habits
that I've decided are not worth the effort to break.  It's my choice,
either way.

I am my own master.  I choose what I want to do.  I weigh the benefits
of my actions against their consequences, and I use my experience to
help me deal with the unexpected, which in turn make me more experienced.

I don't always succeed, but I never fail, either -- I learn.

Do *you* have any habits you can't break?  Why not?

>For one, you seem unable to master your lack of desire to understand
>even the slightest concept of the Bible.

I have arrived at my own understanding of Christianity, just as you've
probably arrived at your own understanding of Islam that is most
likely very different from the way a Moslem thinks of his religion.
Are you "unable to master your lack of desire to understand even the
slightest concept of the Quran"?  If that's different, then how is it
different from what you accuse me of?  Can I accuse you of having no
desire to understand even the slightest concept of atheism?

>How about sexual sins?  Gotta any of those secret desires
>in your head that you harbor but can get control of?   Do you dehumanize
>women when they walk past you?  Do you degrade them to a sex object in
>your head?

Of COURSE not.  That's disgusting.  For centuries, religions have been
discriminating on sex and treating women as second-class humans;
that's one of the reasons I renounced my Christianity.

>Do you insult
>people unknowingly, then regret it later.  Yet do it again the next
>time opportunity presents itself?

No.  I don't insult people.  Period.  It's not in my nature, and it's
not something that I want to do, either.

>Are you truly the master of yourself?

Not yet -- but my life is the ground I use to practice on.  The fun is
in the getting there!

>I have admitted that I am not the master of my thought life at all times.
>That I sometimes say things I do want to say, and then repeat my mistake
>unwantingly.  I have admitted to myself that I cannot control every aspect
>of my being.  There are times I know I shouldn't say something, but
>then say it anyway.  There are times I simply forget a lesson.
>I, in fact, am not my own master.

We don't start out perfect; we've got to strive to be something
better.  I know my shortcomings, and I know my strengths, and I live
my life according to the decisions I make, and I am content to abide
with the consequences of my decisions as easily as I'll accept the
praise for them.  There have been times in my life when I've made
mistakes, yes; I try to never make the same mistake twice.

>I need help.  Jesus promised me
>this help.  And I took him up on his offer.  I have willfully let
>Jesus be my master because Jesus knows what is better for me than
>I myself do.

I regard Christ as a myth.  I feel that there are far too many people
offering far too many interpretations of what he supposedly said and
did.  The only person who can really judge me is *me*.  I choose the
roads I travel, and I decide whether or not I want to reach the end of
any given road or turn back -- and as long as I don't *always* turn
back, there's no shame in it.  When I need help, I seek out my friends.

>>Do you see my point?  I think you're the one under the rock, and I'm
>>getting a great tan out here in the sunlight.  My life has improved
>>immesurably since I abandoned theism -- come and join me!  It will be
>>a difficult trip at first, until you build up your muscles for the
>>long hike, but it's well worth it!
>
>Then I guess ignorance is bliss for you.  Because Brian, you enjoy
>not having a clue about the Bible.   

And you don't have a clue about what I'm saying, either.  Open your
eyes and SEE; open your ears and LISTEN.  I'm not just spouting off
empty words.  This is my LIFE, this is what gives me MEANING.

>>Don't you see?  I'm not going to accept ANYTHING that I can't witness
>>with my own eyes or experience with my own senses, especially not
>>something as mega-powerful as what you're trying to get me to accept.
>>Surely if you believe in it this strongly, you must have a good
>>*reason* to, don't you?
>
>Can you witness motherly love with your senses?  How does caring and
>concern for you register with your senses?  If nothing registers
>to you other than what you can see, taste, smell, hear and touch,
>then you better become a Vulcan and fast.  You better get rid
>of your emotions.

Huh?  You're going WAY off the track here.

I say my mother loves me.  How do I know, you ask?  I can point to
definite things she's done for me, and I can even just bring her to
you so you can ask her, face-to-face.

You say your deity loves you.  How do you know, I ask?  You can't even
convince me that it exists!

>My God says that you will not CEASE EXISTING.  You have
>life forever.  You can choose to either live it in hell in eternal
>torment where there is no communication whatsoever, or can choose to 
>live it in paradise with God.  That is what my God says.  And that
>was the issue.  Your made-up theism is what it is--made up.  It's
>wishful thinking.

If any god dangles 'heaven' before me like a carrot, promising untold
pleasures to me if I'll only suspend my disbelief and ignore my
rationality for just this once, then I would choose 'hell'.  I can
*not* lie to myself to placate another being, no matter how powerful
it is.

Note also that there are several gods trying to lure me this way:
Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Odin, Ra...  Please give me a solid reason to
choose one of them over the others.

[ description of Kendigism deleted -- hee hee! ]

>Why would you want to live a good life?
>To you, you die and that's it.  Don't contradict yourself.  You have
>no reason to live a good life.  It doesn't do you any good in the
>end.  Your life doesn't do anybody else any good  either because
>everyone dies anyway.  So you have no reason to lead a good life. Leading
>a good life is meaningless.   Why do you do such a meaningless thing?

That paragraph demonstrates that you haven't listened to a single word
I've said.

Have you ever gone to an amusement park?  Why?  I mean, after a few
hours, it closes, and nothing's different except that you're a few
dollars lighter.  Going to the amusement park doesn't do you any good
at all.  Why do you do such a meaningless thing?

The answer is that you think it's fun.  You play the skee-ball over
and over because you'd like to get better at it, even though you're
not going to win anything better than a stuffed animal even if you
blow ten dollars on it.  You ride the roller coaster because it's an
thrilling experience, even though (because?) it scares the dickens out
of you.

In the same way, I think life is fun.  And I don't intend to leave the
amusement park of life until they close down for the night!  :-D

>>I'm sorry, I don't feel that sacrificing Jesus was something any god
>>I'd worship would do, unless the sacrifice was only temporary, in
>>which case it's not really all that important.
>
>Has the resurrection sunk in?  Jesus is alive.  Jesus is NOT dead.

So you (and your holy book) say.  By the same token, therefore, Santa
Claus delivers toys every xmas.  Don't you see?  I have NO REASON to
believe that what you say is true.  Please give me some reason that I
can't similarly apply to Santa Claus.

>>Forget the Bible for a minute.  Forget quoting verses, forget about
>>who said what about this or that.  *Show me.*  Picture just you and me
>>and a wide open hilltop, and convince me that you're right.
>
>Forget that I am a person.  Forget that I know how to type.  Forget
>that I know how to put a sentence together.  Forget that I know
>how to send e-mail.   Forget my existence.  Proove to me that I
>exist.  .

I can't do it, because your existence means nothing more to me than
just your communications over the net.  You have no more bearing on
nor importance in my life than that; remove it, and you will cease to
be significant to me.

Are you thereby inferring that your deity is nothing more than a
collection of verses in a book, and cannot be supported without
invoking them?

Or do you mean that the existence of your deity (and, in fact, any
other deity that can be written about) is as real as your own
existence?

Why do you believe what you believe?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83830
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: hating the sin but not the sinner?

What are the consequences of the homophobic ranting of the
self-righteous?  Well, I just noted this on another group,
and thought I'd pass it along.  The context is talk.origins,
and a report of yet another "debate" that was nothing but an
attempt at mindless bullying and factless assertion by a
standard-issue Creationist.  The writer reflects that the
behavior reported reminds him of some Christian groups he has
known.  I believe that the writer is a (non-homosexual) Christian:

+	There is a very effective technique used to promote
+	unit cohesion among the Soldiers of the Lord.  It is
+	called "witnessing"...  I've seen this process used well
+	and poorly; the near devil worship I mention was a group 
+	... that was using the witnessing to get people lathered
+	up to go kill homosexuals or at least terrorize them off 
+	campus as it was clearly God's will that they do so.

I have deleted the specifics of the location, as I do not
believe it characteristic of the place (a state in which I
spent my formative first 10 years), though it *does* have,
unfortunately, a subpopulation that this remark fits to a tee.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83835
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: 21 Apr 93   God's Promise in 2 Chronicles 15:2


	And he went out to meet Asa,
	And said unto him,
	Hear ye me, Asa,
	And all Judah and Benjamin;
	The LORD is with you, while ye be with him;
	and if ye seek him, he will be found of you;
	but if ye forsake him, he will forsake you.

	2 Chronicles 15:2

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83841
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: [lds] Thief goes to Paradise; Kermit goes off tangent


Kermit Tensmeyer quoted from a few sources and then wrote something.
I will attempt to construct a facsimile of what was previously said, and 
then address Kermit's offering.

John Redelfs originally wrote...

  jr> I learned that a man cannot frustrate justice by repenting on his
  jr> death bed because repentance is more than a feeling of remorse.  It
  jr> requires faith in Christ proven by following him, by keeping his
  jr> commandments.  Such cannot be accomplished on ones deathbed.

Tom Albrecht responded...

  ta> So Jesus must have lied to the thief on the cross.

John Redelfs wrote back that...

  jr> Paradise and salvation are not the same thing.  Salvation is better.
  jr> Refer to John 14:2.

I responded to John that...

  rw>    I don't see the effort to equate salvation with paradise.
  rw>
  rw>    Rather, I see implied the fact that only those who are saved
  rw> may enter paradise.

To which Kermit wrote...

kt> Incomplete reference:
kt>
kt> See also the discussion: Did Jesus go into Hell in the BibleStudy group
kt> for the arguments that Paradise and Hell(sheol) are places after death
kt> The discussion (no LDS were involved as far as I could see) argued using
kt> standard Christian argument from the Bible that pretty much support the
kt> LDS position.
kt>
kt>    Christ went to paridise after his death and burial.
kt>
kt>    He taught the prisoners and freed them from Darkness.
kt>
kt>    When he was resurrected, he had not yet ascended to his father.
kt>
kt> The arguement centered around what was or wasn't the proper biblical
kt> terms for those places.

     I respond.

     The question that was raised was not if Jesus went to infernal Paradise
     before entering into heaven. No one has made a point for or against 
     that issue, nor have they compared the LDS position against orthodox
     belief. The infernal paradise is held to be Abraham's bosom (Luke 16), 
     the place of the righteous dead in sheol (equivalent to hades).

     The point that was raised by John was that someone could not repent
     on their death bed. Tom Albrecht pointed to a Biblical example that was
     contradictory to what John's position put forward. The thief on the 
     cross was promised by Christ to be with Him in Paradise, the abode of 
     the righteous dead. John's position possibly needs to be reworked.
     Kermit needs to address the topic at hand.

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83842
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion

In article <1993Apr20.143400.569@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca
(Malcolm Lee) wrote:
> Do you judge all Christians by the acts of those who would call
> themselves Christian and yet are not?  The BD's contradicted scripture
> in their actions.  They were NOT Christian.  Simple as that.  Perhaps
> you have read too much into what the media has portrayed.  Ask any
> true-believing Christian and you will find that they will deny any
> association with the BD's.  Even the 7th Day Adventists have denied any
> further ties with this cult, which was what they were.

Well, if they were Satanists, or followers of an obscure religion,
then I would be sure that Christians would in unison condemn and 
make this to a show case. But when we are dealing with a fanatical
Revelation preacher that kills ultimately everyone, including the
innocent children, then it seems that we are dealing with Christians 
and christians (note the spelling).
 
> Do you judge all Muslims by the acts committed by Saddam Hussein, a 
> supposedly devout Muslim?  I don't.  Saddam is just a dictator using
> the religious beliefs of his people to further his own ends.

And does not this show the dangers with religion -- in order 
word a mind virus that will make mothers capable of letting
their small children burn to ashes while they scream?

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83843
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion

In article <C5sLAs.B68@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu
(Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> 
> In article <sandvik-190493200420@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >So we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire
> >on their house, killing most of the people inside.
> 
> We have no way to know that the cultists burned the house; it could have been
> the BATF and FBI.  We only have the government's word for it, after all, and
> people who started it by a no-knock search with concussion grenades are hardly
> disinterested observers.

Well, looking at the videos it seems that this fire started in various
places at the same time, which would indicate that this was a planned
action. I'm sure FBI and BATF didn't *deliberately* start a possible
fire, having a sniper kill Korresh would have been a far easier 
method. Looking at the careful operation, and use of tear gas
that as I know don't start fires, it is less likely that this 
was the case.

Sorry, but my bets are on fanatical people keen to start
Armageddon -- theirs.

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83844
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion

In article <C5sLAs.B68@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu
(Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> 
> In article <sandvik-190493200420@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> >So we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire
> >on their house, killing most of the people inside.
> 
> We have no way to know that the cultists burned the house; it could have been
> the BATF and FBI.  We only have the government's word for it, after all, and
> people who started it by a no-knock search with concussion grenades are hardly
> disinterested observers.

There's another point to be made. Those who have been inside burning
houses know that if they want to stay alive, it's better to run out
from the building. We had one case where an FBI agent *had to 
drag out a women* from the burning house, she run back in when
she saw the forces arriving. It is a good indication of the fanatical
mind that the followers had -- including having they children burned
instead of saving these innocent victims of the instance.

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83845
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!

In article <1993Apr20.143754.643@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca
(Malcolm Lee) wrote:
> I understand and sympathize with your pain.  What happened in Waco was a very
> sad tradgedy.  Don't take it out on us Christians though.  The Branch
> Davidians were not an organized religion.  They were a cult led by a ego-maniac
> cult leader.  The Christian faith stands only on the shoulders of one man,
> the Lord of Lords and King of Kings, Jesus Christ.   BTW, David Koresh was NOT
> Jesus Christ as he claimed.

The interesting notion is that (I watched TV tonight) Koresh never
claimed officially to be Jesus Christ. His believers hoped that 
he would be, but he never took this standpoint himself.

He was more interested in breaking the seven seals of Revelation,
and make sure that Armageddon would start. Well it did, and 19
children died, and no God saved them.

Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83846
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: That Kill by Sword, Must be Killed by Sword

In article <20APR199306173611@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu
(stephen) wrote:
> tional as that is for so many). One direct benefit is being able to 
> keep things in perspective, KS.
> 
> Such as who hurts more -- the ones who died, or the loved ones who 
> are left? Besides the lessons. It's also time for many to grieve.
> Including those who've lost their faith in others, or in God.
> 
> I'm learning to be patient, and let things heal. God willing.

Christians through ages have had to learn to be patient. I do think
it's time to face the reality. The events during the last 52 two
days showed what the world is really like.

Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83847
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: O.T.O clarification

In article <79895@cup.portal.com>, Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth
NagaSiva) wrote:
> They are considered different and largely unrelated by a number of
> sources.  I've seen documentation which links them through the figure
> of H. Spencer Lewis.  Lewis was apparently involved with Reuss, who
> was the O.H.O. of Ordo Templi Orientis for many years.  Apparently it
> is also true that Lewis had a charter to form an O.T.O. body and then
> created A.M.O.R.C. (as a subsidiary?  an interesting question).

If anyone is interested in the history of AMORC, I do think Spencer
Lewis published books about the beginning and his mission. The 
Alexandria bookstore (that's the name of the book store operated 
by AMORC) should have a selection that should provide the interested
reader more insight). 

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83848
From: irfan@davinci.ece.wisc.edu (Irfan Alan)
Subject: A TREATISE ON THE MIRACLES OF MUHAMMAD, PART-3

DROPLET VOL 1, No 11, Part 3

D R O P L E T
From The Vast Ocean Of The Miraculous Qur'an

Translations from the Arabic and Turkish Writings of 
Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, The Risale-i Noor

VOL 1, No 11, Part 3
------------------------------------------------------------------
   		 NINETEENTH LETTER  

		 MU'JIZAT-I AHMEDIYE RISALESI 
A TREATISE ON THE MIRACLES OF MUHAMMED SAW, Part 3       

(continued from Droplet Vol 1, No 11, Part 2)

   THIRD SIGN:  The miracles of Muhammad (SAW)
are extremely varied.  Because his messengership is
universal, he has been distinguished by  miracles that
relate to almost all species of creation.
    Just as the supreme aide of a renowned ruler, arriving
with many gifts in a city where various people live, will be
welcomed by a representative of each people who
acclaims him and bids him welcome in his own language
so, too, when the supreme messenger of the Monarch of
Pre- and  Post-Eternity  (Ezel and Ebed  Sultani) honored the
universe by coming as an envoy to the inhabitants of the
earth, and brought with him the light of truth and spiritual
gifts sent by the Creator of the universe and derived from
the realities of the whole universe, each species of
creation -from water, rocks, trees, animals and human
beings to the moon, sun and stars- welcomed him and
acclaimed his prophethood, each in its own language, and
each bearing one of his miracles.
    Now it would require a voluminous work to mention all
his miracles.  As the punctilious scholars have written
many volumes concerning the proofs of His prophethood,
here we will briefly point out only the general category
into which fall fhe miracles that are definite and accepted
as accurate reports.
    The evidences of the prophethood of Muhammad
(SAW) fall into two main categories:  

    The first is called irhasat and includes the paranormal 
events that happened at the time of his birth, or before his 
declaration of prophethood.  

    The second group pertains to all the remaining evidences 
of the prophethood, and contains two subdivisions: 

    1) Those wonders that were manifested after
his departure from this world in order to confirm his
prophethood, and 
	2) Those that he exhibited during the era
of his prophethood.  The latter has also two parts:  
	2.1) The evidences of his prophethood that became manifest
in his own personality, his inner and outer being, his moral
conduct and perfection, and 
    2.2) The miracles that: related to substantial matters.  
The last part again has two branches:  
	2.2.1) Those concerning the Qur'an and spirituality, and 
	2.2.2) Those relating to matter and creation.  This last 
branch is again divided into two categories:  
	2.2.2.1) The first involves the paranormal happenings 
that occured during his mission either to break the 
stubbornness of the unbelievers, or to augment the
faith of the belivers.  This category has twenty different
sorts, such as the splitting of the moon, the flowing of
water from the fingers, the satisfying of large numbers with
a little food, and the speaking of trees, rocks and animals
Each of these sons has also many instances, and thus
has, in meaning, the strength of confirmation by
consensus.  
	2.2.2.2)  As for the second category, this
includes events lying in the future that occured as he had
predicted upon Allah (SWT)'s instructions.  Now starting
from the last category, we will summarize a list of them.(1)

(1) Unfonunately, I could not write as I had intended
without choice, I wrote as my head dictated, and I could
not completely conform to the order of this classification.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
To be Continued Allah Willing.
Irfan Alan, A Servant of Islam.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83849
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Christians above the Law? was Clarification of personal position

In article <1993Apr19.131102.7843@rchland.ibm.com> 
xzz0280@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (R. J. Traff) writes:
>|> In article <C5MuIw.AqC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> 
>|> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
>|> >question is "On what authority do we proclaim that the requirements of the
>|>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|> >fourth commandment are no longer relevant to modern Christians?"  Please
>|> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I don't believe most Christians believe they are *above* the Law.  However,
>we are not saved by adherence to the Law.  The Law exists to tell us what
>is sinful.  We all sin.

Hence we are "all" above the Law where "all" in this case refers to
Christians.

>Jews believe that their sins are atoned for with
>blood sacrifice of animals as described in the Old Testament.

When was the last time you heard about a Jewish animal sacrifice?

>Christians 
>believe that their sins are atoned for by the blood sacrifice of Jesus.

The blood sacrifice of an innocent man?

>This does not make the Law 'irrelevant'.

Then why don't Christians follow it, why don't they even follow their
own Ten Commandments?

>Breaking the Law *is* sinful,
>and we are to avoid sinful ways, but sinning, by itself, does not jeopardize
>salvation.

So, in short; Hitler is in heaven and Gandhi is in Hell?

>Note that I'm not a theologian.  But this is the gist of several
>sermons I've heard lately and some Bible studies I've been through.  

Did you ever wonder if someone, perhaps a great deceiver, was pulling
your leg?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83852
From: caldwell@facman.ohsu.edu (Larry Caldwell)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick

kosinski@us.oracle.com (Kevin Osinski) writes:

>I recall reading in Michael (?) Rutherford's novel "Sarum" a scene in
>which the son of a Roman nobleman living in Britain takes part in a
>secret ceremony involving a bull.  He stands naked in a pit covered
>with some sort of scaffolding while assistants coax a bull to stand on
>the scaffolding.  They then fatally stab the bull, which douses the
>worshipper in the pit with blood.  This is supposedly some sort of
>rite of passage for members of the bull cult.  I wonder if this is
>related to the Mithras cult?
>
>I don't know where Rutherford got his information for this chapter.
>The book is historical fiction, and most of the general events which
>take place are largely based on historical accounts.

There is a rite like this described in Joseph Campbell's
_Occidental_Mythology_.  He also described levels of initiation, I think
6?  I don't know where Campbell got his info, but I remember thinking he
was being a little eclectic.

>I also wonder what if any connection there is between the ancient bull
>cults and the current practice of bullfighting popular in some
>Mediterranean cultures.

Quite a bit.  If you haven't read Campbell, give him a try.  

-- 
-- Larry Caldwell  caldwell@ohsu.edu  CompuServe 72210,2273
Oregon Health Sciences University.  (503) 494-2232

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83855
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Davidians and compassion

So we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire
on their house, killing most of the people inside.

I'm not that annoyed about the adults, they knew supposedly what
they were doing, and it's their own actions.

What I mostly are angry about is the fact that the people inside,
including mothers, let the children suffer and die during awful
conditions.

If this is considered religious following to the end, I'm proud
that I don't follow such fanatical and non-compassionate religions.

You might want to die for whatever purpose, but please spare
the innocent young ones that has nothing to do with this all.

I have a hard time just now understanding that Christianity
knows about the word compassion. Christians, do you think 
the actions today would produce a good picture of your 
religion?


Kent

---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83856
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!

In article <1993Apr19.165717.25790@ra.royalroads.ca>,
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
> 
> It is true what you stated above:  Jesus' saving grace is available to
> everyone, not just Jews.  In other words, everyone can have salvation but
> not everyone will.  This option is now open to people other than just
> Jews.  Of course, if the Jews don't accept the deity of Christ, I would
> hardly expect them to accept anything that Christ said.  But I don't feel
> any animosity towards them.  Even though they persecuted Jesus and his
> disciples and eventually crucified Him, I bear them no ill will.  If anything,
> I feel pity for them.  Jesus had to die to pay the price for our sins and
> so the Jews were merely fulfilling prophesy.  Jesus knew He had to die even
> before He began His ministry.  That demonstrates the great depth of His love
> for us.

Jesus certainly demonstrated the great depth of his love for the
children who died today at the Davidian complex.

Sorry, but the events today made me even more negative concering
organized religion.

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83860
From: uphrrmk@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Jack Coyote)
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.taoism

Sunlight shining off of the ocean.


-- 
Aleph null bottles of beer on the wall, Aleph null bottles of beer!
Take one down, pass it around  ...  Aleph null bottles of beer on the wall!



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83863
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: To Rob Lanphier

Dear Rob,

>When I read Brian K.'s postings, I find someone who is honestly seeking
>the truth.  When I read your response here, I see condescension.  When you
>reply to a post, reply to the post you quote.  This statement undermines
>any good points you might have had (it was enough to make me stop reading).

Sometimes I do come across condesending, and I am sorry I come across that
way at times.  Thank you for the reproach, I really do appreciate it.  I'll
try to get better.

Rob, at the same time, I have also learned that some people respond to the gentle
approach while others respond only at a harsh rebuke.  Brian K., so far,
only responds to the latter.  And I am glad he responds at all.   In both
cases of approach,  my intention is to be loving.  I am making no excuse
for myself if I am coming across condesending.  I apologize for that.

Rob, sometimes Brian K. comes across as honest. I know this.  But Brian K. 
vasillates back and forth.  One post looks honest; the next is
an excuse.  Now he wants me to explain the universe in 50 words or less.  
I think Brian Kendig is really trying but he is too comfortable with
his set of excuses.  

I just want Brian K. to be honest with himself.  If he really wants
to know, he will ask questions and stop asserting irrelevant excuses
which have nothing to do with my God.   I wish Brian would read the
Bible for himself and come to his own decisions without being
sidetracked with the temptation to mock God.

From my perspective Rob, when I look at Brian Kendig, I see a man
standing out in the middle of a highway.  Off into the distance I 
see a Mack truck heading right for him, but Brian K. is faced away
from the oncoming truck.  He doesn't see it.   Here's is how I see
the dialog:


Me:  "Brian K, please step aside before you get run over." 

BK:  "There is no truck."

Me:  "Turn around at look."

BK:  "No."

Me:  "Look!  You will be healthier if you do take a look at
     the oncoming truck."

BK:  "No. Explain to me why trucks exist."

Me:  "Turn around or you will run over."

BK:  "No. I won't because I like hiking and tomorrow is Tuesday."

Me:  "You blind fool!  Why do you choose ignorance? You have nothing
      to lose if you look.  But if do not look, you will certainly lose your life."
      I do not want to see you squashed all over the road.

BK:  "It is my life to lose.  I rather not look.
      Besides, a truck running over me will not harm me."
      And by the way, I really have an open mind."


So is my motivation to belittle Brian, or to love Brian the best I know how?   

I do not wish to single Brian Kendig out.  Because millions if not
billions of people fall into the same category.  Perhaps all people
fall have fallen into this category at one time in their lives.  I have.
I can now see the truck behind Brian.

My hope is that Brian will look and will see the ramifications of the
truck coming towards him.  My hope is that Brian will want to step out
of the way.  My fear, though,  is that Brian will instead choose to glue himself
to the middle of the highway, where he will certainly get run over.  But if
he so chooses, he so chooses, and there is nothing I can do beyond that
to change his mind.   For it is his choice.   But at this very moment,
Brian hasn't gotten even that far.  He is still at the point where he
does not want to look.  Sure he moves his eyeball to appease me, but his
head will not turn around to see the entire picture.  So far he is
satisfied with his glimpse of the mountains off in the distance. 

Thank you again Rob for your reproach.  I really do appreciate it.  (My
wife tells me the same thing at times.)   :-)   I will try to do better.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83867
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

Jim Burhill writes:

>Would you consider the word of an eye-witness (Peter) to testify to the
>events surrounding Jesus' life?

>No.  There are two problems here:

Brian Kendig writes:

>(1) Peter died two millenia ago.  The original letters he wrote have
>long since decayed into dust.  If he were alive today and I could

Do you question the existence of Alexander the Great, Tilgrath Pilisar III,
Nero, Caligula, Josephus, Cyrus the Great, Artexerxes?   Their documents
have decayed to dust too.  Brian, why another excuse? 

>(2) Even if Peter did witness the miracles of Jesus two millenia ago,
>that doesn't mean that your deity is what the Bible says it is (God
>might just be Satan, trying to convince everyone that he's a nice
>guy), or even that your deity is still alive and active in the world
>today.

Peter wrote a bit of the Bible.  What Peter says about God is what
the Bible says.   


Consider the Bible a court recording.  Over the period of thousands of
years, various people come up and testify of their experience with the
living God.  Up comes Abraham the wealthy rancher.  Up comes Moses,
once the high official of Egypt.  Up comes Elijah, a priest.  Up comes
David, a mere shepherd who became King.  Up comes the pagan King 
Nebuchanezzar.  Up comes the pagan King of Persia, Cyrus.  Up comes
Nehemiah, cupbearer to the King of Persia.  Then Matthew, an IRS agent
takes the stand.  Up comes Luke, an M.D.  Then Paul a Jew who use
to kill Christians for fun.  Up comes John, a 17 year old boy.  Up
comes Peter, a fishermen.  Up comes James, the brother of Jesus himself.
Up comes hundreds of others.  You hear testimony from fishermen, IRS
agents, priests, Kings.  The court hearing lasts thousands of years
with people coming up and testifying about the God who calls himself
"I am." 

While you are listening to all this stuff, you realize that
King David could have never known John, Solomon could have never known
Matthew, Nehemiah could have never known Peter.  You realize that all these
people are independent witnesses, and so, you rule out collaboration.  Yet
all of the witnesses tell of the same God.   Each testifier tells
of his own experiences with the living God.  Each experience is
different, but each experience has enough cross-over to unmistakenly
reveal that each one of these people is talking about the very same God.
What Daniel did not know about God, the 3rd Highest Official of
Babylon, God revealed to John 600 years later--but with a different
perspective.  No two testimonies are identical.  Each testimony
dares to venture off what is already known.  Yet each witness's
testimony, even though different from those prior, consistently
describes harmoniously fitting facets of the character of the same God.  

Now.  As we stare gazing at the computer, you got this seeming fanatic
on the other end of the net, saying, I know this God  "I am".  He has
revealed himself to me too.  He also calls himself Jesus (John 8:58).
Please believe me.  I am telling the truth.  It is wonderful to know him.

Are you going to just pass off all this testimony as fictiousness? 
Are you going to call three thousand years worth of testimony from
shepherds to IRS agents to royal officials to kings to computer
programmers, fiction?  With a scoff of your keyboard, with near
complete ignorance of the testimonies, are you going to say that
that is all complete hooey?   Would that not be the most audacious
display of arrogance?  Do you actually think you know better than
King Solomon, King David, or even Abraham Lincolnr?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83876
From: goldm@rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold)
Subject: Re: New Religion Forming -- Sign Up

*yawn* The Church of Kibology did it first and better.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83880
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: Re: Disillusioned Protestant Finds Christ

In article <1qmhp7$33t@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes...
> 
>In a previous article, tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) says:
> 
>>In article <1qb726$j9d@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu< cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs) writes:
>><
>><I learned that God loves his children who have never heard of him and has a
>><plan for redeeming them too, even those who have died without a knowledge
>><of Christ.  I learned that a man cannot frustrate justice by repenting on
>><his death bed because repentance is more than a feeling of remorse.  It
>><requires faith in Christ proven by following him, by keeping his
>><commandments.  Such cannot be accomplished on ones deathbed.
>>
>>So Jesus must have lied to the thief on the cross.
> 
>Paradise and salvation are not the same thing.  Salvation is better.  Refer
>to John 14:2.

	I don't see the effort to equate salvation with paradise. 

	Rather, I see implied the fact that only those who are saved 
may enter paradise.

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83882
From: <KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:    re: ABORTION and private health insurance

>In <1qid8s$ik0@agate.berkeley.edu> dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis Kriz)
writes:

  >I recently have become aware that my health insurance includes
  >coverage for abortion.  I strongly oppose abortion for reasons of
  >conscience.  It disturbs me deeply to know that my premiums may
  >be being used to pay for that which I sincerely believe is
  >murder.  I would like to request that I be exempted from abortion
  >coverage with my health premiums reduced accordingly.

I share Dennis's outrage over a similar manner.  I have recently become aware
that my health insurance includes coverage for illness and injuries
suffered by Christians.  It disturbs me deeply to know that my premiums
may be used to pay for that which I sincerely believe is divine
punishment for their sinful conduct.  In addition these folks are able to
avail themselves of such alternative therapies as Lourdes, Fatima,
Morris Cerullo, Benny Hinn, etc.  In any case as "Jesus Saves' I feel
that there is no reason for them to be covering their bets at my
expense.  I would like to request that I be exempted from Christian
coverage with my health premiums reduced accordingly.

Jack Carroll

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83884
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Is it good that Jesus died?

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>Brian Kendig writes:
>
>>If you can explain to me why the death of Jesus was a *good* thing,
>>then I would be very glad to hear it, and you might even convert me.
>>Be warned, however, that I've heard all the most common arguments
>>before, and they just don't convince me.
>
>Ask Jesus himself.  He himself said why in John 12:23-32.  It
>isn't a mystery to anyone and there certainly is no need for
>a persuasive argument.   Read Jesus's own reply to your
>question.

John 12:24-26: "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat
falls onto the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it
produces much grain.
  "He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in
this world will keep it for eternal life.
  "If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there My
servant will be also.  If anyone serves Me, him My Father will honor."

Why would I want an eternal life if I hate this one?

If we were created by a deity, why would that deity not wish us to
enjoy what he has given us?

Why would I want to live forever?  The challenge in my life is that I
will die, and that I must give my life the meaning I wish it to have
before that happens.  My time is here and will someday pass; I will be
content to live on in the memories of my friends, and once they too
are dead, then I will no longer have any reason to exist.

In short: even if your deity *does* exist, that doesn't automatically
mean that I would worship it.  I am content to live my own life, and
fend for myself, so when I die, I can be proud of the fact that no
matter where I end up, it will be because of *my* actions and *my* choices.

If your god decides to toss me into a flaming pit for this, then so be
it.  I would much rather just cease to exist.  But if your god wants
my respect and my obedience, then it had better earn these; and if it
does, then they will be very strong and true.

>Jesus gives more reasons in John 16:7.  But one obvious reason
>why Jesus died, (and as with everything else, it has nothing do with
>his punishment) was that he could rise to life again--so that
>we would "stop doubting and believe" (John 21:27).  The fact
>that Jesus rose from the dead is my hope that I too will rise
>from the dead.  It is an obvious point.  Do not overlook it.
>Without this obvious point, I would have no hope
>and my faith would be vanity.

Jesus wasn't the only one who rose from the dead -- I think it was
Osiris who did the same, as well as a few characters from Greek or
Norse legend, if memory serves.

But still: WHY would I want to rise from the dead?  Why do *you* want to?

>Why did Jesus suffer in his death?  Again, ask Jesus.  Jesus
>says why in John 15:18-25.   That's no mystery either.  "The
>world hates him without reason."  It is a direct proclamation
>of how far we humans botch things up and thus, how much we
>need a Saviour.

If your god wants to win my devotion, then it knows what it can do --
provide some way for me to believe without having to resort to blind
faith that could be applied equally well to any religion.

>And why can't you, Brian K., accept this?  How can you?  "The
>world cannot accept him because it neither sees him nor knows
>him."  (John 14:17).

That's precisely it.  I neither see nor know Zeus either, nor Odin.
Shall I offer them the same devotion I offer Jesus?

>The animosity and the lack of knowledge
>that comes out in your twistings of Robert's daily verses is
>very convincing testimony of the truth of John 14:17 and 16:25.

You've got to understand my point-of-view: I see Christians spouting
Bible verse all the time as if it were some sort of magic spell that
will level all opposition.  Truth is, it's not.  Robert has never
demonstrated that he actually understands what the verses imply; he
just rattles them off day by day.  Some brazenly fly in the face of
common sense and reality, and I point these out where I can.

But even more than that, even when Christians *do* try to explain the
verses in their own words, they do so from a Christian point of view,
which is that every human being would want to be a Christian if only
he or she understood the Christian message properly, and then all
strife and suffering on the earth would end.  Here's the problem with
that: substitute "Moslem" or "Buddhist" or "Satanist" instead of
"Christian", and it means the same thing.

Christanity is a very nice belief set around a very nice book.  But if
you want to make me believe that it has any bearing on the REAL WORLD,
you've got some convincing to do.

>I pray and hope that I do blurt out such animosity and lack of
>knowledge. I am not perfect either.  But regardless of that, I thank
>God that Jesus revealed himself to me, without whom I'd also be
>bumbling about blindly though arrogantly slandering the very
>Person who created me and who loves me.

And in my opinion, you're bumbling about blindly making up entities
where there aren't any, and depriving yourself of a true understanding
and enjoyment of your life.  As long as you keep your beliefs to
yourself, I'll keep my beliefs to myself -- but as soon as you start
waving them around, expect me to toss in my opinions, too.
-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83885
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Subject: Re: Language and agreement

I responded to Jim's other articles today, but I see that I neglected
to respond to this one.  I wouldn't want him to think me a hypocrite
for not responding to *every* stupid article on t.r.m.

m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt) writes:
>From my handy dictionary:
[dictionary definitions of "not" "disagree" and "agree" deleted]
>Please operationally differentiate between "not disagree" and "agree".

Oh, but I'm weary of trying to wade through Jim's repertoire of 
red herrings and smoke screens.

Let's see what we get when we run all four articles posted by Jim today
through the 'discord' filter (a Markov chain program that Steve Lamont
was kind enough to send me):

	Taking action? A white geese be held
	as an accomplice to be held as
	a decision upon the door
	A black and white goose waddles past
	the eyes of the door. 
	Hits it with the confidence interval for 
	that individual is held responsible 
	for that, that individual 
	may be held as a 
	getaway car may be held 
	as an uncountably large number 
	of the driver of something 
	and agree.

	A black goose 
	waddles past the person imprisoned?

	White goose waddles past the 
	confidence interval for the population 
	of geese be axed, 
	fine.
	And white goose 
	waddles past the door.

Does running Jim's articles through 'discord' make them more
coherent?  Less coherent?

Or has 'discord' turned Jim's articles into an angst-ridden poem
about making choices in a world filled with uncertainty, yet being
held responsible for the choices we make?  Do the geese symbolize
an inner frustration with ambiguity, a desire that everything be
black and white, with no shades of gray?  Does the "getaway car"
tell us that to try to renounce the existential nature of our
being is not to "get away" from responsibility for our actions,
but rather to take the role of the passive accomplice, the
"driver" of the getaway car, as it were?  Does the juxtaposition
of man and machine, car and driver, reveal a subtext: an internal
conflict between determinism and moral responsibility?

Or am I reading too much into a collaboration between Jim and
a random number generator?

dj

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83891
From: dlphknob@camelot.bradley.edu (Jemaleddin Cole)
Subject: Re: Catholic Lit-Crit of a.s.s.

In <1993Apr14.101241.476@mtechca.maintech.com> foster@mtechca.maintech.com writes:

>I am surprised and saddened. I would expect this kind of behavior
>from the Evangelical Born-Again Gospel-Thumping In-Your-Face We're-
>The-Only-True-Christian Protestants, but I have always thought 
>that Catholics behaved better than this.
>                                   Please do not stoop to the
>level of the E B-A G-T I-Y-F W-T-O-T-C Protestants, who think
>that the best way to witness is to be strident, intrusive, loud,
>insulting and overbearingly self-righteous.

(Pleading mode on)

Please!  I'm begging you!  Quit confusing religious groups, and stop
making generalizations!  I'm a Protestant!  I'm an evangelical!  I don't
believe that my way is the only way!  I'm not a "creation scientist"!  I
don't think that homosexuals should be hung by their toenails!  

If you want to discuss bible thumpers, you would be better off singling
out (and making obtuse generalizations about) Fundamentalists.  If you
compared the actions of Presbyterians or Methodists with those of Southern 
Baptists, you would think that they were different religions!

Please, prejudice is about thinking that all people of a group are the
same, so please don't write off all Protestants or all evangelicals!

(Pleading mode off.)

God.......I wish I could get ahold of all the Thomas Stories......
--
	"Fbzr enval jvagre Fhaqnlf jura gurer'f n yvggyr oberqbz, lbh fubhyq
nyjnlf pneel n tha.  Abg gb fubbg lbhefrys, ohg gb xabj rknpgyl gung lbh'er 
nyjnlf znxvat n pubvpr."
			--Yvan Jregzhyyre
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
        Jemaleddin Sasha David Cole IV - Chief of Knobbery Research
                        dlphknob@camelot.bradley.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83892
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: [lds] Gordon's question on the Nicene Creed

Gordon Banks quoted and added...

gb> In article <C50M5p.Eoz@acsu.buffalo.edu>
gb> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
gb>
gb> >
gb> >  Christians have professed for more than 1660 years the Nicene
gb> >Creed, a statement of beliefs drawn from the truths of Scripture
gb> >that was officially accepted by a council of church bishops
gb> >and leaders at Nicea in 325 A.D. Christians still recite
gb> >this creed regularly in public worship.
gb> >
gb>
gb> So prior to 325 AD there were no Christians?  Or all of them really
gb> believed the Nicean creed even before it was formulated?  Do you
gb> really believe such an absurdity?  I'm afraid you do.  

     No.
     I really don't. Honest.

     The Nicene Creed, as I mentioned above, is a brief statement of
     beliefs that are derived from Scripture. That this certain list
     did not exist earlier does not indicate that the beliefs summarized 
     in in did not exist before the formula was derived.

=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83895
From: jeffj@yang.earlham.edu (ChaOs)
Subject: Re: ALT.SEX.STORIES under Literary Critical Analysis :-)

In article <1qevbh$h7v@agate.berkeley.edu>, dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis Kriz) writes:
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm going to try to do something here, that perhaps many would
> not have thought even possible.  I want to begin the process of
> initiating a literary critical study of the pornography posted on
> alt.sex.stories, to identify the major themes and motifs present
> in the stories posted there -- opening up then the possibility of
> an objective moral evaluation of the material present there.  

First off, let me congratulate you for not posting a flame about "You sick
perverts, you are immoral, you are all going to hell.", which seems to be the
usual "religious" post found on the alt.sex.* hierarchy.  Hopefully, you won't
get flamed, either.

You will, however, be argued with.  I personally think that your project is
built on unsteady ground.

First, I do not believe that there is any way to find an "objective morality". 
Morality and value are inherently subjective - they represent the beliefs of a
person or a group of people.  They can be widely held, perhaps even
overwhelmingly held, but they are never and _can_ never be objective.

> Assumptions:
> 
> (1) A Christian bedrock assumption that all that is True, comes
> Truly from God. 
> 
> (2) Regarding alt.sex.stories.  While perhaps even from an
> objective standpoint, the majority of its material is indeed
> repugnant (you come to this conclusion quite quickly when you
> start thinking about analyzing its material like this), some of
> it reflects some fairly profound needs in people as well as some
> truths -- and deserve to be pointed out.

Second, I do not accept the assumptions that you make here.  If, as you say,
you are trying to be objective, then why accept a morality to begin with by
using the Christian Bible?  You're defeating your own purpose by doing so.
 
> In the long run, the advantage of making such a literary/moral
> analysis is that it will save band-width between Christians and
> non mutually flaming each other about the moral acceptability of
> the stuff on these (pornographic) groups.

Third, call me a pessimist, but you won't stop the flamage.  There will always
be people who pop upin alt.sex.* to tell us how sick and twisted and evil we
all are.  Just out of curiosity, do alt.sex readers show up unprovoked in the
religion groups to tell you all that you are narrow-minded, censoring,
overbearing totalitarianists?
 
> Basically, there should not be a dissonance between a "Christian"
> morality and a "non-Christian" one.  Either there is value in a
> particular work, or there is not whether one is a Christian or
> not.

Hm.  Let me provide an example.  Four people get together over dinner, to
discuss morality: you, me, a rather conservative Moslem, and a sociopath.  I
start off by saying that I think it's immoral to force people to have sex with
you.  You agree, but also say that it is immoral to have sex with someone of
your own gender.  (Just a note: I really don't know your views on
homosexuality, I am just using this as a common view of morality for the
purposes of this example.)  The Moslem says that it is immoral for women to
have their faces uncovered.

The sociopath, who has become bored, kills all three of us and eats us, but
feels no guilt because he has done nothing wrong morally in his own mind. 
                                                                         
> In support for the first assumption:
> 
> The Christian scriptures say this:

	(Evidence deleted)

I'm not going to accept your evidence for this.  You ask us to accept "The Word
of God" that everything good comes from God.  This is only a valid argument for
a person who shares your beliefs.

Still, I must say that cataloging the major themes and motifs in erotica could
be interesting for other reasons than yours, so good luck with this next part.

>                                                                        
>              **************************************
> 
> NOW THEN what are some of the major themes/motifs in the
> pornographic literature on places like alt.sex.stories?  These
> are some that I've been able to identify.  Please add/comment on
> them.
> 
> 
> Motif #1 -- THE MALE-CINDERELLA.  
> 
> In so many of the stories there is expressed a feeling of
> alienation and worthlessness on the part of the writer or
> otherwise protagonist of the story with regard to the object (the
> other person) of his/her desire. Often a story involves a
> protagonist who (on the surface) is quite average (but underneath
> usually has an enormous dick), who desires to in some way to gain
> access (in a definitely sexual way) to the other person who
> he/she confesses is far more desireable than he/she is and who
> indeed seems "to walk between the rain-drops."   

Hmmm...do I detect just a wee bit of condescence here?
                                                      
> 
> Motif #2 -- A CELEBRATION OF (INDEED PREOCCUPATION WITH) BEAUTY.
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
				not very objective. 

> The vast majority of pornographic literature deals with beauty,
> be it innocence (somehow about to be lost), grace, or simply
> physical beauty.  And generally, most people Christian or non
> will say that beauty is good. 

One could construe this to mean that beautiful people are better, or "more
good" than non-beautiful people.  I would hope that people relize that this is
not necessarily true.
                     
> 
> Motif #3 -- ONE'S DICK IS ONE'S INSTRUMENT OF REDEMPTION.  
                    ^^^^
      Might I suggest the word "penis"? It seems more in line with the tone of
your post. 
          
>      Blessed are those who are well-hung, for they shall get
>      laid. -- from what would thus be a revised Matthew 5 :-).
> 

Bravo!  I respect you and your sense of humor, sir. 

> 
> Motif #4 -- SEX AS AN EXPRESSION OF SINCERE GIVING.  
>                                                  
> There is, often enough, a clear desire on the part of the
> protagonist, to give (definitely sexual) pleasure to the object
> (person) of his/her desires.
                                                 
Yes, and this theme is usually what the better stories are about.  However,
they are not always selfish - I could point to examples in the work of Elf
Sternberg, for example.

> 
> Motif #5 -- ALT.SEX.STORIES DESCRIBES A SEX WHICH IS COMPLETELY
> REMOVED FROM THE REALM OF "TRANSMITTING LIFE"  
> 
> So removed is sex from its procreative dimension on
> alt.sex.stories, that one begins to wonder why sex even involves
> ejaculation, as in the context described in pornography it serves
> then no real purpose.  

It serves the same purpose as it does in pornographic movies: it affirms the
virility of the male involved, as well as assuring the reader that he (the
character) has orgasmed.                      

> The Whole Picture [TM] is probably very well described by the
> Catholic teaching on this: Of the husband and wife, in an act of
> total mutual self-giving in the sexual union, cooperating with
> God in opening themselves up for the transmission of new life
> (cf. Humane Vitae).  

Your Whole Picture [TM] unfortunately only applies to people who accept your
church.
         
In addition, if sex is for procreation, then

1)	Why did God make it pleasurable, so that people would want to do it,
rather than building it in as instinct?
2)	Why did God make it fallible?  Not every sexual encounter results in
pregnancy, even among Catholics.  Does this mean that they have sinned?
 
> In any case alt.sex.stories and the Catholic teaching will
> probably not see eye to eye on this for a long time.
 
Granted.

> 
> Motif #6 -- SEX USED AS AN INSTRUMENT VIOLENCE, POWER AND
> HUMILIATION.  
>                                   
> Why pornography seems to tend in that direction, I really do not
> know.  Probably volumes could be written on the relationships
> between sex and power/humiliation.  But this probably gives good
> reason why traditionally Judeo-Christianity has been so negative
> with regard to sexuality -- it seems to tend to a great moral
> morass. 

Pornography would not tend in those directions if there were not a demand for
it.  Many people have violent fantasies that they would never act out in real
life, but will think about and read about and mull over.

Later,
						Jeff                                   

-- 
JeffJ@yang.earlham.edu - Official generic .sig.  Under 4 lines, under 80
columns, no Amiga checks, no witty quotes, no maps of Australia, no asterisks,
no ASCII art, no disclaimers or anti-flame requests, and one spelling errer. 

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83897
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!

In article <sandvik-150493181533@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, 
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes...

>In article <1993Apr15.200231.10206@ra.royalroads.ca>,
>mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
>> These laws written for the Israelites...

>> Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied
>> only to God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We
>> are living in the age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable
>> by death.  There is repentance and there is salvation through our
>> Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just for a few chosen people.  Salvation
>> is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile alike. 
>
>Jews won't agree with you, Malcolm.

Which Jews KS? 

(ex. as a people, as a language, religiously, politically, or...) 

Do you mean those Jews who are God's chosen?

{And Malcolm, please, if you will, set your word wrap at 75 or less 
to avoid clutter?}

   |
-- J --
   |
   | stephen

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83899
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!


In article <sandvik-150493181533@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr15.200231.10206@ra.royalroads.ca>,
|> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
|> > These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had
|> > expressly set apart from the rest of the world.  The Israelites were a
|> > direct witness to God's existence.  To disobey God after KNOWing that God
|> > is real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately punishable.
|> > Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to 
|> > God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We are living in the
|> > age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death.  There is
|> > repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just
|> > for a few chosen people.  Salvation is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile
|> > alike.
|> 
|> Jews won't agree with you, Malcolm.
|> 
|> Cheers,
|> Kent
|> ---
|> sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

A lot of people won't agree with me.  That's their right and I respect that.
However, to the point, Jews are also covered by the saving grace of Jesus
Christ.  There are Jews who have become Christians.

This brings up another question I still have to ponder:  why is there so 
much anti-Semitism?  Why do people hate Jews?  I don't hate Jews.  I consider
them to be like anyone else, sinners we all are.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83900
From: m23364@mwunix.mitre.org (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Silence is concurance

In article <9157@blue.cis.pitt.edu> joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
}For those missing the context of this thrilling discussion between
}Jim and I, Jim wrote the following to me in e-mail after I pointed out

Hate to shatter your self image of perfection that  you appear to hold, but
your language is wrong: Jim and me.

}I pointed out that I did, in fact, agree that both Robert Weiss and
}Jim Meritt took quotes out of context.  Hence, I find it difficult to
}understand why Jim thinks I am a hypocrite.  Needless to say, I don't
}have time to reply to *every* article on t.r.m. that takes a quote
}out of context.  

Of course not - just the ones you disagree with.  Q.E.D.

}>}So, according to you, Jim, the only way to criticize one person for
}>}taking a quote out of context, without being a hypocrite, is to post a
}>}response to *every* person on t.r.m who takes a quote out of context?
}
}Jim replied by saying 
}>Did I either ask or assert that?
}
}But today we find four articles from Jim, one of which has the subject

So?  As of then, and pointing out a specific instance.  Wrongo again.

}>Is it not the case that, in the eyes of the law, when someone is aware of
}>something and has the capability of taking action and does not, that individual
}>may be held responsible for that action?
}
}Which is, of course, a complete red herring.  Taking quotes out of
}context isn't a crime.  I don't have time to read every article on
}t.r.m., and I'm certainly under no obligation to reply to them all.

So?  Check the newsgroups?

}Does "silence is concurrence" imply that Jim thinks that because I
}didn't respond to Weiss' articles I must condone Weiss' taking quotes
}out of context?  Jim doesn't want to give a direct answer to this
}question; read what he has written and decide for yourself.

Telepathy again?  You claim to know what I "want".

}But back to the context of my conversation with Jim.  Jim's next 
}gambit was to claim that he was using inductive logic when he
}concluded that I was being a hypocrite.  I challenged him to provide
}the details of that logic that led him to an incorrect conclusion.

No.  YOu asked specifically what was wrong with yours.

}Today we find another obscure article (posting it twice didn't help

Maybe to the ignorant.  I accept your classification.

}More red herrings.  Could Jim mean that he has read an uncountably large
}number of my articles?  

Do you know what "uncountably large" means?  It does not appear so.

}Could Jim mean that because I "axed" his articles,
}but not Weiss' articles, he wants to conclude inductively ...
}Well, I can't see where he is going with this.

I am not suprised.

}But I can help him with his induction.  I've written roughly 80

That does not appear to be the case.  The appearance of your "Argument"
is more like that Captain Kirk would have gotten from Mr. Spock - written
by a stagehand at Paramount.

}Think hard about this Jim.  See the pattern?  Think harder.  Run it
}through your induction engine and see what pops out.  

Of course.  You appear arrogant.  So?  I already had figured that out.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83901
From: elw@mayo.edu
Subject: Re: [lds] Gordon's question on the Nicene Creed


The Nicene Creed

WE BELIEVE in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.  He suffered and was buried, and the third day rose again according to the Scriptur





es, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father.  And he shall come again with glory to judge  both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.  And we believe in one holy and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83902
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Subject: Re: Christian meta-ethics

-*----
In article <C5Jzz7.9G7@panix.com> mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:
> Well, the whole *point* of making these the "base" commandments is that
> they *aren't* reducible to rules.  A set of rules is a moral code or a
> law code or an algorithm for acting.  Such things can be very helpful
> to individuals or societies -- but not if they are used *instead* of a
> personal involvement in and responsibility for one's actions. ...

The two commandments *are* rules; they are merely rules that are
so vague that they are practically devoid of meaning.  Michael
Siemon acknowledges this every time he writes that the resolution
of an argument over them turns on secular and cultural
assumptions that are independent of these rules.
 
> ... The Great  Commandment is, more than anything else, a call
> to act *as if you were God and accepting ultimate responsibility*
> in your every action. ...

The commandment to love your neighbor as yourself can be viewed,
in part, as reminding man that he is not God and cannot act as if
he has "ultimate responsibility." Indeed, many traditions present
an interpretation where believers are supposed to interpret
loving one's neighbor as following various other rules, and
relying on their god to make things come out right, precisely
because it would be wrong for man to assume such "ultimate
responsibility." Once again, we are confronted with good sounding
goo that means whatever the reader wants it to mean. 

> ... "Conservatives" may twist this "act as if you were God" to 
> mean "lay down rules for other people and be as nasty to them
> as possible if they don't keep YOUR rules."  They are so
> insistent (and obvious) about this that they have convinced a
> lot of people (who rightly reject the whole concept!) that such 
> idiocy IS how God acts. ...

And who is to say that this interpretation is "twisted"?  There
are many passages in the Bible that in their most straightforward
reading show the Christian god behaving in just this way.
Michael cannot refer to "base" claims or base commandments to
show that such readings are "twisted," because this divergence in
understanding occurs even in trying to interpret the "base"
claims and commandments.  In addressing conservative Christians,
Michael will necessarily draw upon secular and cultural notions
that these conservative Christians will reject.  

> But why should anyone BE looking for an ethical system, since our
> society is eager to hand us one or more no matter what we do?  It
> may be that we need a principle for the CRITIQUE of ethical systems
> -- in which case I will profer the _agapate allelou_ once again.

But these base commandments are too vague to serve as  "a
principle for the CRITIQUE of ethical systems." The meaning of
these base commandments for any believer derives from the secular
and cultural notions that the believer brings to them, from how
the believer mixes their demands with straightforward readings of
other Biblical passages, from a particular sectarian tradition,
or from some combination of these things.  These commandments
lack sufficient substance in themself to serve as a basis for
criticizing ethical systems.  What meaning they have comes from
the ethical system the believer brings to these commandments. 

> And different bodies of Christians have, from the beginning, urged
> *different* "ethical systems" (or in some cases, none).  As a result,
> it is bizarre to identify any one of these systems, however popular
> (or infamous) with Christianity.  Christianity DOES NOT HAVE A TORAH.
> It does not have a QU'RAN.  Specifically Christian scripture has very
> little, if anything, in the way of "commandments" -- so little that
> the "Christians" who desperately *want* commandments go "mining" for
> them with almost no support ... The one, single, thing in the gospels
> which Jesus specifically "gives" as "a commandment" to us is "love
> one another."

Jesus explicitly states that this summarizes Jewish law, which
would seem to bring in all of it if we properly understand what
it means to love God and love our neighbors.  There are *many*
parables and teachings the gospels attribute to Jesus that are
straightforwardly read as ethical commandments.  The Pauline
epistles are similarly full.  If it is not clear that these all
come together in a sensible understanding of ethical behavior,
the problem is *not* a lack of raw material. 

-*----
> I am a "radical" Christian *only* in that I take the gospel seriously.

No, Michael, the conservative Christians also take the gospel 
seriously.  What differentiates you is the way you interpret the
gospel.

> ... Why don't I and the (myriads of) other Christians like me
> tell you something about Christianity? ...

In a sense, the wide variety of interpretations does tell us
something about Christianity.  It tells us that the New Testament
authors left a sufficiently vague hodge-podge that it can serve
as the source text for many, vastly different beliefs about the
nature of the Christian god and about what men should and
shouldn't do. 

The irony here is that there is *nothing* in Christianity per
se that Michael can use to support the cause of lesbians and
gays.  *Every* Christian principle he turns to this cause is
effective only through the extra-Christian principles through
which Michael interprets his religion, and the homophobes apply
the *same* Christian principles, with equal justification, to
their cause.  In short, it is the extra-Christian principles that
make Michael's Christianity beneficial, and I suspect they would
be as beneficial, perhaps moreso, without being filtered by
Christian interpretation.  

Michael paints a picture of "standard American atheism" as the
rejection of the evil in many conservative Christian
interpretations of the Bible.  But I think it is even more
damaging to Christianity to note that the New Testament presents
such a vague hodge-podge of notions about the nature of God and
the nature of the good (except, of course, when it is ordered by
an interpretation that relies on extraneous principles).  Here, I
think we should apply a Christian parable, where a cold drink can
have its value and a hot drink can have its value, but the
lukewarm we should spit out. 

Russell

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83905
From: tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1993Apr20.220340.2585@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>
>armed to the teeth.  A Christian should not have to rely on physical weapons
>to defend himself.  A Christian should rely on his faith and intelligence.

Faith and intelligence tell me that when a druggie breaks into my house at
night with a knife to kill me for the $2 in my wallet, a .357 is considerably
more persuasive than having devotions with him.

-- 
Tom Albrecht

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83907
From: jmeritt@mental.MITRE.ORG (Jim Meritt - System Admin)
Subject: SATAN!!!

Here is someones "biblical" claim for the characteristics of Satan:

>This is probably the portion of Scripture that you were talking about, Isaiah 14:12-15.
>This does speak of the "morning star" which, according to you is the
>Babylonian prince.  OK, so I turn your attention to Daniel 10:12-14.  This passage
>concerns a revelation of prophecy to Daniel by the messenger from God.  Within
>this passage, the messenger from God speaks of how he fought for 3 weeks 
>against the Prince of the Persian Kingdom.  Obviously, this prince was not an earthly
>prince.  This prince of the Persian kingdom is probably one of the demons
>in Satan's hierarchy.  As such, the morning star can be the prince of Babylon w
>ho can also be Satan.  Another passage concerning Satan's fall from heaven is 
>Ezekiel 28:12-19.

And separately:

>devil chose to try to become greater than God.
>he wanted to sit on God's throne.
>when the devil was created, he was one of the most beautiful angels in heaven.

We have here three distinct claims concerning the results of the devil's
decision making, a specific desire, and a physical description.  Now, in
support (aside from the minor detail that an author seldom writes an unbiased
account of the opposition) we see:

>Isaiah 14:12-15

ISA 14:12  How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the
morning!  how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken
the nations!

ISA 14:13  For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend  into
                                              --------------------
heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit
-----------------------------------------------------
also upon the mount of the congregation,  in  the  sides  of the north:

ISA 14:14  I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I  will
be like the most High.

ISA 14:15  Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to  the  sides
of the pit.


Doesn't say sits on God's throne.  Says will exhault throne above the stars.

>Daniel 10:12-14

DAN 10:12  Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for  from the
first  day  that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to
chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard,  and  I am
come for thy words.

DAN 10:13  But the prince of the kingdom of Persia  withstood me
                    ------------------------------
one  and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes,
                                        ------------------------
came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

DAN 10:14  Now I am come to make thee understand what  shall be-
fall  thy  people  in  the latter days: for yet the vision is for
many days.


See who is being discussed?


>Ezekiel 28:12-19

EZE 28:12  Son of man, take up a lamentation  upon  the  king of
                                                     -----------
Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up
-----
the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

EZE 28:13  Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God;  every  pre-
cious  stone  was  thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the dia-
mond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the em-
erald,  and  the  carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy ta-
brets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that  thou
wast created.

EZE 28:14  Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have
set  thee  so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast
walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

EZE 28:15  Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day  that  thou
wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

EZE 28:16  By the multitude of thy merchandise they  have  filled
the  midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore
I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain  of  God:  and  I
will  destroy  thee,  O  covering  cherub,  from the midst of the
stones of fire.

EZE 28:17  Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty,  thou
hast  corrupted  thy  wisdom  by reason of thy brightness: I will
cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that  they
may behold thee.

EZE 28:18  Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of
thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will
I bring forth a fire from the midst  of  thee,  it  shall  devour
thee,  and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight
of all them that behold thee.

EZE 28:19  All they that know thee among the people shall be as-
tonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be
any more.



Anyone else to make a claim about the characteristics of the devil?


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83910
From: wmoore@ADS.COM (William Moore)
Subject: On-line copy of Book of Mormon

Can anyone provide me a ftp site where I can obtain a online version
of the Book of Mormon. Please email the internet address if possible.
--
William H. Moore      Advanced Decision Systems, Division of Booz, Allen & Hamilton
Software Engineer                     1500 Plymouth Street
Net: wmoore@ads.com               Mountain View, CA 94043-1230
                                         (415) 960-7553

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83911
From: wmoore@ADS.COM (William Moore)
Subject: on-line Book of Mormon

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: On-line copy of Book of Mormon
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: usa
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems, Mtn. View, CA (415) 960-7300
Keywords: BOM, Book of Mormon, Mormon

Can anyone provide me a ftp site where I can obtain a online version
of the Book of Mormon. Please email the internet address if possible.
--
William H. Moore      Advanced Decision Systems, Division of Booz, Allen & Hamilton
Software Engineer                     1500 Plymouth Street
Net: wmoore@ads.com               Mountain View, CA 94043-1230
                                         (415) 960-7553

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83913
From: ceci@lysator.liu.se (Cecilia Henningsson)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!

sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
...
>Anyway, I don't have anything against AMORC, I just wanted to point
>out that secret organizations are lead by human beings, and we all
>know what that means.

I had an ehum, interesting experience with the Rosicrucians, or at
least Rosicrucians of some sort last Sunday. They had advertised that
they were holding a lecture titled The Graal of the King -- the room
of the heart (which rhymes in Swedish). Out of curiosity, I went to
the lecture.

There were four people there apart from the two Rosicrucians, one
woman and two men apart from me. The Rosicrucians were male, both of
them. First one of them told us about the Rosicrucians and Lectorium
Rosicrucianum, which was founded in Harlem, NL in 1925. He read
straight from a piece of paper, which I at that point was because he
lacked experience in talking in front of people, but the other guy
read, too, and he was used to holding speeches, I could tell. The
first guy also said that the R:s are a mystical Christian order, and
that they base their teachings on the teachings of the Kathars
(English?) from the thirteenth century.

The other guy took over, reading from his piece of paper in a
fairy-tale teller's voice. What he said sounded like a load of crap to
me. Of course that might be because I am unenlightened or something.
What made me a bit suspicious, was the way they first said that we all
contained something divine, and could find our way back to divinity,
then that we couldn't become divine as the persons we are currently,
but if we worked really hard we would reach eternal bliss. Maybe I've
read too much RAW, but it sounded very much like the things he talks
about in the chapter _How to robotize people and brainwash your
friends_ in _Prometheus rising_. 

It was very interesting to watch the two Rosicrucians. The one holding
the actual lecture, obviously was top dog, and the other one seemed to
be a true believer. I got the impression that the top dog had more
distance to the faith than the true believer, that he used it to gain
power and admiration. He spoke like a fairy-tale teller, whenever he
remembered. ;)

The information brochure is at home. Should you want their address,
please e-mail me.
--Ceci

--
=====ceci@lysator.liu.se===========================================
"...men jag tycker {nd} att Emacs {r ett hyfsat OS." Lars Willfoer
 (...still, I think Emacs is a fairly good operating system.)
===================================================================

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83915
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Subject: Re: Christian meta-ethics

-*----
I wrote:
>> And who is to say that this interpretation is "twisted"?  There
>> are many passages in the Bible that in their most straightforward
>> reading show the Christian god behaving in just this way.

In article <1r622c$c17@cass.ma02.bull.com> ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis) writes:
> This requires the assumption that all interpretations are equally
> valid, that there is no way of reasonably distinguishing among
> them. I wouldn't make that assumption; I don't think it is a
> reasonable assumption. 

No.  It follows from the fact that most Christians' choice of
interpretation stems from a mix of beliefs that are influenced by
the secular ethics of their culture and that are not fully
determined by scripture.  Whether or not there is some "right"
interpretation matters not; few Christians claim the ability to
read the mind of their god.  Dave Davis should note that it was
Michael who first stated the importance of secular and cultural
influence in this thread.  I think Michael is right in this, but
regardless, it should be noted that this has *not* been a point
of contention between Michael and myself. 

I have argued -- beyond Michael's claims -- that the Christian
scriptures are open to so many interpretations -- including a
wide divergence within the Christian tradition -- that even their
most important themes are vague.  Again, it does not matter that
there is some "right" interpretation *unless* there is a way to
determine what that "right" interpretation is.  It is the lack of
an objective measure, not the presumed lack of an answer, that
puts the force behind the line I argue.

> Michael, and I, and others, read 'the Bible' with Christian
> glasses. Among the things that this should imply is that the
> NT informs the OT, even to the point of dominanting it. Some
> points in the OT (ceremonial & dietary laws) are explicitly 
> abrogated by the NT texts. ...

There are enough Christian glasses, varying over a sufficiently
broad range of color, that I can find a few that support my
example. 

>> No, Michael, the conservative Christians also take the gospel 
>> seriously.  What differentiates you is the way you interpret the
>> gospel.

> Russell Turpin's 'No' here is misplaced, not to say inappropriate.
> Michael's self-description must govern.  The equation of radical = 
> liberal, which seems implied by Russell Turpin is wrong. ...

In my opinion, what makes Michael radical is that he fully
acknowledges that Christian scripture and tradition fail to
determine the doctrines that so many branches within Christianity
hold dear.  He is willing to live and practice his religion
within this indeterminacy, and he is willing to acknowledge that
much of his understanding of things Christian is influenced by
ideas that are not purely Christian.  Those Christians I have
called conservative must also interpret, but they do not
recognize -- or at least, are unwilling to admit -- the extent and
importance of this.

> Russell Turpin (in an earlier post) had said that Michael (Michael's
> theological positions, actually) didn't tell him much about Christianity;
> Dean Simeon responds (this time gently): 'What do you mean?' More
> direct, perhaps, would have been: 'What could you possibly mean?'
> The implied rhetorical effort, to separate Michael from the tradition,
> is a failure. Michael is in the tradition. If your idea of the tradition
> doesn't include him, Change your idea of the tradition!

I recognize that Michael is part of the tradition.  But what does
it tell one about a tradition covering Origen, Aquinas, Jerry
Fallwell, and Jesse Jackson that it also includes Michael Siemon?
Not very much!

>> ... In short, it is the extra-Christian principles that make
>> Michael's Christianity beneficial, and I suspect they would
>> be as beneficial, perhaps moreso, without being filtered by
>> Christian interpretation.  

> This conclusion does not follow, even in short, from the
> argument that goes before. A surprising logical ellipsis.

I think the conclusion does follow.  The purely Christian
principles that Michael has are the ones he shares with others in
the Christian tradition or that can be derived from Christian
scripture.  These, necessarily vague, are not enough to drive his
political stances.  That one should love one's neighbor is a 
purely Christian principle.  That this means showing tolerance 
for homosexuality is *not*.

As to these political stances, they are often at odds with what
is commonly held in most of current Christendom, and so I 
suspect they could be better pressed outside it.  (On the other
hand, I can well understand the counterpoint, that these 
political stances become most influential when presented to 
those who need them most.)

-*----
> This is a theological statement worthy of Barth.
> Dr Turpin (DD) may wear the black robe of Geneva yet! :-)

Having barely survived the effort to finish in computer science, I
doubt I will attempt a more difficult field any time soon!

Russell


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83918
From: dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!



mlee@ra.royalroads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had
>expressly set apart from the rest of the world.  The Israelites were a
>direct witness to God's existence.  To disobey God after KNOWing that God
>is real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately punishable.
>Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to 
>God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We are living in the
>age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death.  There is
>repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just
>for a few chosen people.  Salvation is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile
>alike.

Sorry if this is late for the thread, but...

I thought God was supposed to be constant and never-changing.  How do
you reconcile this common Christian view with the paragraph above?

Also, while we're at it:

1. How do you reconcile "A KIND and LOVING God!!" with the
Judeo-Christian view that sin was at one time "immediately punishable
by death"?  Was killing people for sinning God's way of showing
KINDness and LOVE?

2. Is the fact the He no longer does this an admission on His part of
having made a mistake?

3. Now that we are "living in the age of grace", does this mean that
for our sins, God now damns us to eternal hell after we die, rather
than killing us immediately?  If so, is this eternal damnation an
example of "A KIND and LOVING God!!"?

Just curious.

--Dave Wood

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83919
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Jewish history question

In article <cocoaC5uG2q.KsB@netcom.com> cocoa@netcom.com writes:
>In article <1993Apr10.195513.17991@csi.uottawa.ca> 
misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
>>In article <cocoaC5797E.43y@netcom.com>, 
cocoa@netcom.com (little 'e') writes:
>[deleted]
>>> Here tis.  Someone just told me that the Old Testament books were translated
>>> into Greek a long time ago
>>   Yes, that's a famous version called The Septuagint.  It was a translation
>>made by Greek Jews.
>>> and that the originals were destroyed in a fire soon afterward.

No.

>>   I don't know what you're referring to here.  When the Jersusalem Temple was
>>destroyed, some manuscripts may have been lost, but I think our extant Hebrew
>>manuscripts are as good as our Greek ones. I don't know about any "originals".
>The person who was telling me about the Septuagint version said that the Greeks
>had a wonderful library in Alexandria that was full of manuscripts/scrolls
>and that it was burned soon after the Septuagint version was translated 
>(perhaps to conceal some changes in the different versions, or perhaps just
>as part of the typical burning of valuable things that occurs during changes
>in power groups, he/I dunno).

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.

>>> So, I was just wondering, since I imagine some Jewish people somewhere must 
>>>have had copies of the earlier Hebrew versions, is the Hebrew version of the 
>>> Old Testament very different from the Greek derived version?
>>   No.  There are a few famous discrepancies (Isaiah's prophecy about a "young
>>woman" was changed into a "virgin", which was how the New Testament writers
>>read it), but not many.

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.

>Well, perhaps this is the answer then.
>[deleted]
>>   If you go to a Jewish bookstore, you'll get a Bible translated by Jews, so
>>there will be some differences in interpretation, but the text they're 
>>translating *from* is basically the same.

The standard text used by Christians and Jews is the Masoretic Text.
Jews of course use the text in its original Hebrew, without translation.

>>   If you want to read "the original", you can buy an Interlinear Bible.  That
>>contains the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, with an English
>>translation written underneath each word.
>>   If you want a Bible with a possibly-more-original basic text, you can try
>>to find a Samaritan bible.  (Good luck!  I've never seen one.) The Samaritans 
>>(no, not the Good Samaritans) have their own version of the 5 Books of Moses.
>>They claim the Jewish bible was altered by Ezra.

Propaganda.

>Thanks for the tips.  Now I just have to find someone to teach me Samaritan :)
>Just me,
>little 'e'
>(so, is a "good Samaritan hard to find?" or "is a hard... " Oh, finish this

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83922
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Subject: Re: [lds] Birth of a Church

In article <C5x97x.1EA@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>
>"No church will admit that I am right except  the  one  with  which  I  am
>associated. This makes them witnesses against each other, and  how  can  I
>decide in such a case as this, seeing they are all unlike  the  Church  of
>Christ, as it existed in former days!" (p. 31).
>

The idea of an apostacy did not originate with Lucy Smith or Joseph
Smith or the Mormons.  The idea of a restoration was quite common
in the early 19th century USA.  Alexander Campbell, founder of the
group that now survives with the name "Disciples of Christ" preached
that the primitive church had been lost and was attempting to restore
it (although not be revelations).  Many Cambellites subsequently became
Mormons, including co-founder Sidney Rigdon.  Actually, you can find
such sentiments in many of the early protestants of the reformation,
such as Martin Luther.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon." 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83929
From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)
Subject: Re: That Kill by Sword, Must be Killed by Sword

In article <19APR199310484591@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>Now that chemical-warfare and the use of juggernauts have been
>used against innocents -- so likewise are those involved subject
>to their own judgments. The same goes for those who lead others 
>into captivity -- whether behind strands of barbed-wire, or webs 
>of deceit.
>

Yeah. Innocents. People who hoard $250K worth of high-caliber automatic weapons
and kill law-enforcement agents really fit the bill here. The only innocents
were the 20+ children who were prevented from leaving a burning building by
their self-appointed messiah-following parents. A burning STARTED by the 
Davidians.


>Such is the patience and faith of the saints.
>
>So let them continue -- for the one-who-rewards them according
>to what their works shall be -- comes quickly. 
>
>The evidence continues to mount, which all seems to follow 
>step-by-step quite logically to me. 
>
>   |
>-- J --
>   |
>   | stephen
>

Is this subject line a veiled threat against U.S. Government agents or possibly
Executive office leadership (i.e. Clinton)? I've considered you a bit of a loon,
before, Stephen, I guess this pretty much confirms it. 

Nice religion you have there.  The only ones who should be killed are those who
don't agree with us. Sheesh.


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Tom Hyatt                                  I'm a diehard Saints fan, so i've    thyat@sdf.lonestar.org                     suffered quite enough, thank you!    Arlington, TX                                                                                                                                                    Help! I'm being repressed!  -M.Python                                          -------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83931
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!

In article <1993Apr21.182606.6798@ra.royalroads.ca> 
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>The only point I'm trying to make is that those who call themselves Christian
>may not be Christian.

WOW! Are you serious! So not everyone who calls themself a Christian is
a Christian? WOW! That does make things a bit more complicated doesn't it?

>I ask that you draw your own conclusions by what they do and what they say.

That seems like very good advice, given the above revelation.

>If they are not modelled after the example of Jesus
>Christ then they are NOT Christian.

Like for example Matthew 5:14-19 right?

>If they have not repented of their sins
>and accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour then they are 
>NOT Christian.

Um, where did Jesus say that he wanted people to worship him?

>These are the only criteria to being a Christian.

So, do you adhere to the Ten Commandments?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83932
From: mikec@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Micheal Cranford)
Subject: Re: *** The list of Biblical contradictions

Jim Brown wrote :

[ deleted ]
>I feel that those who use the KJV as a basis for arguing Biblical 
>contradictions are either being intellectually dishonest (purposefully
>wanting to show the Bible in the worst light possible), or they are
>being mentally lazy and are taking the easy way out.  Either way, they
>leave the theist the option of countering with, "Well, that's just the
>KJV, that's not what my XXX version says."
[ deleted ]

  Unfortunately, it's not that simple.  The KJV is preferred by the majority
of fundamentalists (at least here).  The second part of your argument fails
as well, since that statement can be used against any version (not just the
KJV).

[ deleted ]
>I've based my argument on one of the best modern translations
>available which is based on the work of the leading Biblical scholars."
[ deleted ]

  I would not find this statement to be very useful since it is an appeal
to authority and the opposition will just claim that their authorities are
"better".  A second tact that local creationists have used is to reply "but
those scholars are atheists and cannot be believed" (they will also use this
phrase to describe any theologians that they don't agree with).

[ deleted ]
>>>/GEN 30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth
>>>/cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
[ deleted ]

  The verse being discussed clearly claims that sympathetic magic works (i.e.
placing stripped sticks in the cattle breeding grounds causes stripped and
spotted calves to be born) and should be attacked on that basis (no biologist
has ever observed this claimed correlation).


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83934
From: porta@wam.umd.edu (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

In article <1qknu0INNbhv@shelley.u.washington.edu> sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>In article <f1VMPxk@quack.kfu.com> pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>In article <bskendigC5H4o3.D5p@netcom.com> 
>>
>>Human blood sacrifice! Martyrdom of an innocent virgin! "Nailed" to a
>>wooden pole! What is this obsession with male menstruation?
>
>Christian:  washed in the blood of the lamb.
>Mithraist:  washed in the blood of the bull.
>
>If anyone in .netland is in the process of devising a new religion,
>do not use the lamb or the bull, because they have already been
>reserved.  Please choose another animal, preferably one not
>on the Endangered Species List.  
>
>

How about Cockroaches?
-- 
***************************** porta@wam.umd.edu ****************************
	What for you say you monkey when you have little fluffy tail
like rabbit, rabbit! 
                  Tazmanian Devil 

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83936
From: rnapier@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Rob Napier)
Subject: Re: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars

In article <79615@cup.portal.com> Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:
>
>
>"To all whom it may concern -
>
[constitution sacrificed to the bandwidth gods]

im glad i finally have heard exactly what the OTO is all about.  i finally
know that i can stop looking, content i the knowlege that im not interested.
it's tough enough listening to all the religions who refer to themselves as
"the One Truth".  How can i possibly accept it from a magical order?  "We have
all the Answers and will give them to those who join us (and pay dues)?"
Scary.  Besides, answers are easy.  Questions!  now that's another story...

rintaw

-- 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Rob Napier - Virginia Tech | There is no gravity, the earth sucks.          |
| rnapier@csugrad.cs.vt.edu  | All in all I'm just another Schitz In The Hall |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83937
From: syshtg@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Tom Gillman)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

rick@howtek.MV.COM (Rick Roy) writes:

>In article <1r1u5t$595@lm1.oryx.com> (alt.conspiracy,talk.religion.misc), xcpslf@oryx.com (stephen l favor) writes:
>] Koresh was killed because he wanted lots of illegal guns.

>Even if what you say is true, do you think this is a reasonable way
>to deal with people who want "lots of illegal guns"?

What makes you say that the guns were illegal?? I understand that the BD's
had a valid Class III Federal Firearms Permit, which would allow them to
have pretty much anything short of a howitzer legally.
-- 
 Tom Gillman, Systems Programmer       | "AAAAAGGGGHHHH" 
 Wells Computer Center-Ga. State Univ. |    -- Any "Classic" Star Trek Security
 (404) 651-4503 syshtg@gsusgi2.gsu.edu |       officer sometime during the show
 GSU doesn't care what I say on the Internet, why should you?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83943
From: e_p@unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
Subject: Waco information accuracy

  .
        It should be remembered that all of the first reports came from 
       the FBI, and that independent observers, i.e. the press, were not 
       allowed to get close and see things for themselves.  Official 
       communiques tend to be self-serving for the agencies that issue 
       them. 
        People in general tend to believe first reports, as these get 
       the most and the biggest headlines.  Corrections are often 
       overlooked. 
         An example is the FBI report that several of the bodies found 
       in the rubble had bullet wounds.  The local coroner, who is 
       independent of the FBI, has so far found no bullet wounds! 

.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83944
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

Brian Ceccarelli wrote (that's me):

> Kent, I am not accusing you of evil things.  Jesus is accusing you.
> And it is not only you that He is accusing.  He is accusing everyone.
> Me, you and everyone in the world is guilty.  Whether one
> sees the light or does not seen the light has nothing to do with 
> whether we do evil things.  We do them regardless.  

Kent Sandvik responds:

> Hmm, it seems that this is the core of Christianity then, you 
> have to feel guilty . . . 

I think I see where you are coming from Kent.  Jesus doesn't view
guilt like our modern venacular colors it.   

"Feelings" have nothing to do with guilt.  Feelings arise from the state of 
being guilty.  Feeling and guilt are mutally exclusive.  Feelings are a 
reaction from guilt.  Jesus is talking about the guilt state, not the 
reaction.   Let me give you an example:

Have you ever made a mistake?  Have you ever lied to someone?  Even a
little white lie?   Have you ever claimed to know something that you really 
didn't know?  Have you ever hated someone?  Have you ever been selfish?
Are you guilty of any one of these?   The answer is of course, YES.  You
are guilty.  Period.  That is it what Jesus is getting at.  No big surprise.  
Feelings do not even enter the picture.   Consider Jesus's use of the word
"guilt" as how a court uses it.

Jesus is concerned that everyone should admit that they are guilty of being
imperfect.  The Bible calls it the state that we are all sinners.  We all do
bad things.  Even the most insignficant thing that we do wrong is proof of our 
guilt that we are all sinners.     It is it in our nature to do bad things. 
We are sinners, therefore we do bad things.  Being a sinner is fact.  It is
not a pleasant fact.  But it is just a fact.  We are not perfect.   Calling us
sinners should have no more emotional charge to you than calling you a
human being.  Guilty as charged.

> and then there's this single personality that will save you from this
> universal guilt feeling.

You can handle your guilt in one of two ways:  Acknowledge you
made a mistake, learn from it, and try to not do it again--in
the meantime, not punishing yourself for it:  which is the
way Jesus wants you to handle or it.  This is the healthy way.

Or two, the destructive way:  put yourself down, slap yourself
and feel like crap, never forgive yourself, force yourself to
say a thousand Hail Marys . . . even to suicide.  This the way 
Jesus does NOT want us to deal with it.   All people fall into this 
category to some extent in their lives.

Jesus is not in the business of saving us from this guilt
feeling.  Jesus is in the business of showing us how much he
loves us despite our guilt.  Jesus knows we are guilty.  That
isn't new to him.  It is no big deal to him. He just wants you to realize 
that this sinful nature destroys the relationship between you and him.
That is what he wants you to know.  Why, because he wants to 
have your company.  You are immensely valuable to him.
Jesus wants a relationship with you, however, in our present
sinful nature, we are incapable of having this relationship.  

God is perfect.  We are not.  You cannot fit a square peg into
a round hole.  However, God has provided a way for us to
change our nature so that we can have a relationship with him.
God has provided Jesus, so that whosoever just believes in
Jesus, will have their nature changed.  The Holy Spirit will
move it.  And now divine nature is now within lives our very
being--and us and God communicate with each through his
unifying Holy Spirit.  The benefits of this are endless.  For
with the divine nature living within us, we can now see
our imperfections better.  We can now head them off at the pass.  With
the power of the Holy Spirit living in us, we now have his power
to help us overcome our shortcomings.   Because the divine nature lives 
within us, we can now understand profound Bible passages that never before
we could understand.  Because the divine nature now lives within us, we now 
have authority over demonic forces.  And lastly, because the divine 
nature now lives within us, we have eternal life--for the Holy Spirit
is eternal.

The relationship with Jesus is of the utmost importance.  Because
it is not what you do in life that qualifies you to belong to
heavenly kingdom, it is your relationship to the living God.
Remember what Jesus said at the tail end of Matthew when he
separated the "goats from the sheep".   Many people in the
last day will ask him, "Didn't I prophesy in your name and do
miracles, and do good things in your name?"   And what did Jesus say?
"Depart from me, for I never *knew* you."  That is the cornerstone of 
Christianity, Kent.  Jesus must know you as his friend.  It is your 
relationship to Jesus.  If he is your friend and you are his, you will
be counted among those who will share in his inheritance in heaven.  

> Brian, I will tell you a secret, I don't feel guilty at all,
> I do mistakes, and I regret them, however I've never had this
> huge guilt feeling hanging over my shoulder.

Good.  It shows that you have a strong self-image--that you
love yourself.  That is the second greatest commandment Jesus
taught.  If only more people could do as you do.   As I said before, 
in the common english venacular, "feeling guilty" has a
different meaning than the state of guilt.

> This all is a very clear indication that you need a certain
> personality type in order to believe and adjust to certain
> religious doctrines. And if your personality type is 
> opposite, then you are not that easily attached to a certain
> world view system.

I believe what we all need in our personalities is a lot less ego,
a lot less self-centeredness, and a lot more unconditional love.

> There are humans that subscribe to the same notion. The nice
> thing is that when you finally shake off this huge burden,
> the shoulders feel far more relaxed!

Yes.  You have stated what Jesus said.  Remember?  "Come to me,
take my yoke upon your shoulders, for my burden is light."  A yoke
is used to direct oxen to do work.  Once you have a relationship with 
Jesus, you and him share the yoke and the burdens of life.  Having 
God at your side is of great advantage.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83957
Subject: [rw] Is Robert Weiss the only orthodox Christian?
From: <LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET>


  Robert, you keep making references to "orthodox" belief, and saying things
like "it is held that..." (cf. "Kermit" thread).  On what exact body of
theology are you drawing for what you call "orthodox?"  Who is that "holds
that" Luke meant what you said he meant?  Whenever your personal interpretation
of Biblical passages is challenged, your only response seems
to be that one needs merely to "look at the Bible" in order to see the truth,
but what of those who see Biblical things differently from you?  Are we to
simply assume that you are the only one who really understands it?
  Just curious,
--
Rick Anderson  librba@BYUVM.BITNET

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83967
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: [rw] Is Robert Weiss the only orthodox Christian?

Rick Anderson writes:

> Are we to simply assume that you [referring to Robert Weiss] are the only
> one who really understands it [Biblical Scriptures]?

No.  I also understand it. I have read the Bible from cover to cover, examining
each book within, cross-comparing them, etc.  And I have come to same conclusions
as Robert Weiss.

So Rick, why not read the Bible for yourself?  It is written in plain
english.  Decide for yourself.   

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83968
From: ss@apmaths.uwo.ca (SULTAN SIAL)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick

In article <93111.195217A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET> <A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:

[stuff about Mithras deleted]

>Oh, His B-day was 25 Dec. Ahem.

I thought that Saturnalia was celebrated by the Romans at that time.  Was 
Mithras connected with this?


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83971
From: e_p@unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
Subject: Re: Burden of Proof

   .
          
          Sometimes a god-believer will maintain that atheism is itself 
       a religion.  Many postings to this group have answered that well.  
       Here's another way to answer the assertion: 
          Suppose that I DON'T believe that broken mirrors or black cats 
       bring bad luck.  Does that mean that I have a superstition? 
 .

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83972
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: To Rob Lanphier

Brian Kendig writes:

>You just don't get it, do you?

>In fact, I believe your religion is imaginary . . .

You have clearly demonstrated that you do not even know
what my religion is in order to make that assumption.

>Please offer me an argument that's more convincing than "you just
>don't believe 'cos you don't want to." 

How I can present any argument when you put your hands over your
eyes and devise new irrevelant excuses each time?  The fact remains,
you want to argue about something that you do not know anything about.
Do you not have to learn a topic first before you can reasonably debate
the topic?  

Which brings us about to the start of this thread.  You began
perverting Bible verses, interpreting them without investigation.
For if you desired to investigate, you would have changed your
tune immediately.   Thus it is clear to me.  You do not believe
what I am saying because "you don't want to" check it out.

> Everything you've said so far could apply equally to any religion
> why do you believe yours is the real one?

Then you must have also ignored every other post I have written
to you.  This would seem to go along with your character.


Brian, it doesn't offend me if you decide to reject Jesus
Christ.  I only wish you would make that decision after you
learn who Jesus is.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83974
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

In article <1r17j9$5ie@sbctri.sbc.com>, netd@susie.sbc.com () writes:
> In article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>>For those who think David Koresh didn't have a solid structure,
>>or sound Biblical backing for his hour long tape broadcast,
> 
> I don't think anyone really cares about the solid structure of his
> sermon.  It's the deaths he's responsible for that concern most people.

I assume you have evidence that he was responsible for the deaths?
 
> Koresh was a nut, okay?  

Again, I'd like to see some evidence.
 
> I'll type this very slowly so that you can understand.  He either set
> the fire himself or told his followers to do so.  Don't make him out to
> be a martyr.  He did not "get killed", he killed himself.

Once again, where's your proof? Suicide is considered a sin by Branch
Davidians.  Also, Koresh said over and over again that he was not going to
commit suicide.  Furthermore, all the cult experts said that he was not
suicidal.  David Thibedeau (sp?), one of the cult members, said that the fire
was started when one of the tanks spraying the tear gas into the facilities
knocked over a lantern.
 
> The evil was inside the compound.  

Evidence please?

> All that "thou shalt not kill" stuff.

I'd like to point out that the Bible says "Do not commit murder." The NKJ
translation mistranslates.  Self-defense was never considered murder.  The
reason why they were stockpiling weapons is because they were afraid the
government would try something.  Their fears were obviously well founded.
--Ray Cote

There's no government like no government.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83975
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

In article <1r1u5t$595@lm1.oryx.com>, xcpslf@oryx.com (stephen l favor) writes:
> : Seems to me Koresh is yet another messenger that got killed
> : for the message he carried. (Which says nothing about the 
> : character of the messenger.) I reckon we'll have to find out
> : the rest the hard way.
> : 
> 
> Koresh was killed because he wanted lots of illegal guns.

I suppose these illegal guns have been found? I suppose he was going to kill a
bunch of people with them?
--Ray Cote

There's no government like no government.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83976
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <1993Apr23.210109.21120@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>> Kent, I am not accusing you of evil things.  Jesus is accusing you.
>> And it is not only you that He is accusing.  He is accusing everyone.
>> Me, you and everyone in the world is guilty.  Whether one
>> sees the light or does not seen the light has nothing to do with 
>> whether we do evil things.  We do them regardless.  
>Have you ever made a mistake?  Have you ever lied to someone?  Even a
>little white lie?   Have you ever claimed to know something that you really 
>didn't know?  Have you ever hated someone?  Have you ever been selfish?
>Are you guilty of any one of these?   The answer is of course, YES.  You
>are guilty.  Period.  That is it what Jesus is getting at.  No big surprise.  
>Feelings do not even enter the picture.   Consider Jesus's use of the word
>"guilt" as how a court uses it.

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

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83977
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Subject: Re: The gospels, Josephus, etc and origins

In article <1993Apr21.225146.20804@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
    ...
|>       I will agree that creation should not be taught as science 
|>       IF macroevolution is not taught as science.  However, if we are
|>       teaching the wildly speculative theories of macroevolution as
|>       an explanation of origins, then equal time should be given
|>       to creation.  Neither one qualifies as science.  Create a
|>       philosophy course: Call it "Origins".
    ...
|>              ==========================================================
|>             //  Bill Rawlins            <wpr@atlanta.dg.com>        //
|>            //                          "I speak for myself only"   //
|>           ==========================================================

    Interesting idea.

    This suggestion has inspired me to post, under the title "Theories 
of Creation", a collection of various "philosophies" of creation that 
I am aware of.  Could you explain which of these theories you would
want taught, and which ones you would not?  Or, perhaps, I haven't
included a favorite theory of yours (if so, could you describe it for
me for inclusion in an updated list)?

-- 
Tom Scharle                |scharle@irishmvs
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83978
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Subject: Objectivity (was: After 2000 years...)

This discussion on "objective" seems to be falling into solipsism (Eg: the
recent challenge from Frank Dwyer, for someone to prove that he can actually
observe phenomena).  Someones even made the statement that science is
"subjective" and that even atom are "subjective." This is getting a bit silly
and the word "objective" is losing all meaning.  Lets start by remembering the
definition of "objective" which has been already presented:

  objective ADJ. 1. Of or having to do with a material object as 
    distinguished from a mental concept. 2. Having actual existence.
    3.a. Unenfluenced by emotion or personal prejudice. b. Based on
    observable phenomenon.

The Objectivity of a thing is not based on whether everyone agrees on that
thing (eg: the world is objectively round, regardless of the fact that there
exist flat earthers), but rather whether it is based observable and verifiable
phenomenon (instead of being based solely on peoples wishes, feeling, mental
processes, etc).  Thus atoms, being based on very observable and repeatable
phenomenon, are indeed considered to be objective rather than subjective. 
Even weird, high energy physics is based on observable phenomenon (even though
that observation can change the outcome).  Nor are those observable phenomenon
affected by emotion, or personal prejudice (eg: chemical reactions do not
change to the whims of different people).  Thus to say that science is not
objective (ie: objectively verifiable) is a bit silly, as that is the
point of science.  Now I will agree that science is not objectively "good;" I
will not thereby conclude though that science is not objective. 

Now some examples things which are "objective":  A D-12 tractor is larger
than the average breadbox.  Chlorophyll is green.  Seawater contains salt.
There exists ozone in the atmosphere (at least presently).  Ozone blocks 
ultraviolet light.  Ultraviolet light increases the incidents of skin Cancer.

"Good" on the other hand is a value judgement.  It doesn't seem to have an
existence apart from what we give it (unless someone can objectively show the
existence of an omnipotent entity which has defined "good").  We cannot
quantify it, touch it or collect it in any concrete sense (eg: I have a bag
full of "good").  Now we do sometimes attempt to give the word "good" an
objective meaning, e.g.  "good" has been used to denote strength, resiliency,
speed, etc.  That though, is a subjective definition, as some might not see
"strength" and etc, as necessarily "good" (eg: strength inspired by Naziism 
is not generally viewed as "good"). 

As to a morality, I cannot say that I have ever seen a morality strictly based
on verifiable observable phenomenon.  The closest I have seen is some form of
the "Golden Rule," which concludes that it is best not to deliberately piss
people off, as they will likely then involve themselves in your life, in a
manner you won't like.  This is verifiable; when you "get in someone's face,"
they will often retaliate.  Another objective fact about morality is that a
more powerful group can enforce their morality on a weaker group, and thus can
at times, ignore that form of the "Golden Rule" without fear of reprisal.  Now
as to whether this enforcing of morality is "good" or "bad," is quite
subjective.  By the way, remember that subjective does not mean that a thing
cannot be formally stated, or even commonly agreed upon; it only means that
that it is not verifiable from observable phenomena, or has a physical
existence unto itself.  Also note that I have not stated that there is no such
thing as an objective morality, or that I could not accept any such a
morality; I have simply stated that I have seen no evidence of any such
morality. 

One other thing to notice, "objective" is many times used as synonymous with
"true" and/or "absolute," and "subjective" sometimes has the connotation of
"false" and/or "relative." Tain't necessarily so.  For instance, when a
conclusion is based on objective, but insufficient evidence, then it can be
both objective and false.  As to "absolute," it is easy to note that while we
can objectively show that TNT is explosive, but that does not absolutely mean
that all TNT will explode, and thus objective is not necessarily absolute
either.  On the other hand, something subjective can also be either
"absolutist," or "true." For instance, there are some theists who are
specifically "absolutist" in their morality, even though they have only
subjective evidence to back it up.  Further, many a scientist and detective
has been motivated by subjective reasons (eg: a "gut feeling" or "hunch"), to
investigate a phenomena or situation, and gather the objective evidence
necessary to support a true hypothesis.  On the whole though, I would have to
agree that objective evidence is much more trustworthy than subjective
evidence.
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

    In starting any thesis, it seems to me, one should put forward as one's
    point of departure something incontrovertible; the expression should be
    simple and dignified.
				Diogenes

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83979
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <bskendigC5wrsM.Gyx@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>As long as we're trading secrets, let me tell y'all one: I got a
>really bad feeling in my heart back when I was a Christian.  I
>couldn't really pinpoint it, but something felt dreadfully cheap and
>wrong about the whole affair.  I had been a devout follower, even a
>Bible-banger, but eventually it started ringing terribly hollow to me.
>
>And I felt torn when I began to disagree with a lot of what the Bible
>(and my priests) told me; this was what made me finally realize that
>either I was very wrong, or else the Bible was very wrong.  And since
>I felt reasonably sure of myself, I decided to start analyzing the
>Bible very closely.  That was the catalyst to my break with my faith,
>though it was a long and difficult effort.

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.

So what is your beef against Jesus?  Be specific and point on
verses.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83980
From: Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Subject: Re: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars

Tony Alicea (ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote:
>In a previous article, shades@sorinc.cutler.com (Darrin A. Hyrup) says:
>>They [Thelema Lodge] don't have an internet address, but they do have a CIS
>>address which can be reached via uucp/internet.  It is 72105,1351 so I guess
>>that would be '72105.1351@cis.com' or something like that.
>>
>		......@compuserve.com

I've tried 72105.1351@compuserve.com

Bounced twice....  Any other guesses?

Thyagi

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83983
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (E. Elizabeth Bartley)
Subject: Re: What part of "No" don't you understand?

In article <1993Apr21.182127.23528@advtech.uswest.com>
steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = "David R. Sacco" writes:

>>Some
>>people even raised protests when we had a moment of silence for a class
>>member who had tragically died, saying this implied endorsing religion.

>Because, of course, that possibility existed.  Meaning any student who
>really gave a shit could have a moment of silence on his/her own, which
>makes more sense than forcing those who DON'T want to participate to
>have to take part.  What other reason is there for an organized "moment
>of silence"?

A "moment of silence" doesn't mean much unless *everyone*
participates.  Otherwise it's not silent, now is it?

Non-religious reasons for having a "moment of silence" for a dead
classmate: (1) to comfort the friends by showing respect to the
deceased , (2) to give the classmates a moment to grieve together, (3)
to give the friends a moment to remember their classmate *in the
context of the school*, (4) to deal with the fact that the classmate
is gone so that it's not disruptive later.

Blindly opposing everything with a flavor of religion in it is
utterly idiotic.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83985
From: geb@cs.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks)
Subject: Re: [lds] Gordon's Objections

In article <C5rp8K.Kw2@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>Gordon Banks quoted and added...
>
>gb> In article <C53L1s.D61@acsu.buffalo.edu>
>gb>  psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>gb>
>gb> >The Mormon Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer. That Jesus is God
>gb> >the Father's first born spirit child. That Jesus was begotten on earth
>gb> >through natural means, not by the Holy Ghost. That He sweat His blood
>gb> >for our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane. That His blood cannot
>gb> >cleanse from all sin. That He is now among many millions of other
>gb> >gods. That Jesus is Jehovah and the Father is Elohim (in the OT
>gb> >Jehovah and Elohim are the same). That He needed to be saved.
>gb>


It is true that Mormons believe that all spirits (including Jesus,
Lucifer, Robert Weiss) are in the same family.  It does not mean
that Jesus was created, but rather that Lucifer and Robert Weiss
were not.  I agree that this is a "heresy".  So what?  
The sweating of blood in Gethsemene is
not a basic Mormon doctrine.  Jesus did not perform the atonement
in Getheseme alone, as some anti-Mormons are trying to teach.  
As far as the "unpardonable sin" whatever that is, it is Biblical,
and not specifically Mormon.  It is also called the sin against
the Holy Ghost.  Most Bible scholars (other than conservative
ones) do not believe Jehovah and Elohim were always the same.
I'm sure you've heard of the J and the E texts?  I don't
know what you mean by "That He needed to be saved".  Jesus?
Jehovah?  Elohim?  In Mormon doctrine, Jesus was sinless,
and thus did not "need to be saved".  


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon." 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83986
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>           David Thibedeau (sp?), one of the cult members, said that the fire
>was started when one of the tanks spraying the tear gas into the facilities
>knocked over a lantern.

Sort of a "Mrs. O'Leary's" tank theory? Moooo.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83992
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: To Rob Lanphier

I wrote: 

> My hope is that Brian K. will look and will see the ramifications of the
> truck coming towards him.  My hope is that Brian will want to step out
> of the way.  My fear, though,  is that Brian will instead choose to glue himself
> to the middle of the highway, where he will certainly get run over.  But if
> he so chooses, he so chooses, and there is nothing I can do beyond that
> to change his mind.   For it is his choice.   But at this very moment,
> Brian hasn't gotten even that far.  He is still at the point where he
> does not want to look.  Sure he moves his eyeball to appease me, but his
> head will not turn around to see the entire picture.  So far he is
> satisfied with his glimpse of the mountains off in the distance. 


Kent Sandvik writes:

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

Kent, with regards to the information contained in the Bible (which
is the original context of this thread), Brian Kendig is inside a huge
wall.  Brian *IS* inside.  The Bible and the information contained therein
are outside the wall.   Brian Kendig proves this very sad fact by the
absurd things he says.  For example, "If I get through into the firey
pit, I will cease to exist."  The Bible doesn't say that.  He hasn't
a clue even to what Jesus said about hell.  That is but one example.

Now in your sense, Kent, of sensing reality--that is a different
matter.  And to you and to Brian, relativity does play a big role.
What we perceive to be true, depends on our vantage point.  Since I
have read the Bible, and Brian Kendig shows that he hasn't, he has 
a narrower perspective than mine  (at least in the respect
of knowledge of the Bible).   I am proposing to Brian, "Brian, come up here
and take a look from this vantage point."   But Brian replies, "I rather
not thank you.  I am content where I am.  Besides, the vista from up
there stinks."   And in the meanwhile, Brian ignores the facts that
he has never up there nor does he realize I had shared the same
plateau where Brian now stands.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83994
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!


In article <1r0hicINNjfj@owl.csrv.uidaho.edu>, lanph872@crow.csrv.uidaho.edu (Rob Lanphier) writes:
|> Malcolm Lee (mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca) wrote in reference to Leviticus 21:9
|> and Deuteronomy 22:20-25:
|> : These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had
|> : expressly set apart from the rest of the world.  The Israelites were a
|> : direct witness to God's existence.  To disobey God after KNOWing that God
|> : is real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately punishable.
|> : Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to 
|> : God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We are living in the
|> : age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death.  There is
|> : repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just
|> : for a few chosen people.  Salvation is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile
|> : alike.
|> 
|> Hmm, for a book that only applied to the Israelites (Deuteronomy), Jesus sure
|> quoted it a lot (Mt 4: 4,7,10).  In addition, he alludes to it in several
|> other places (Mt 19:7-8; Mk 10:3-5; Jn 5:46-47).  And, just in case it isn't
|> clear Jesus thought the Old Testament isn't obsolete, I'll repeat the
|> verse in Matthew which gets quoted on this group a lot:
|> 
|> "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have
|> not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until
|> heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke
|> of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is
|> accomplished.  Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments
|> and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of
|> heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called
|> great in the kingdom of heaven.  For I tell you that unless your
|> righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law,
|> you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."  (Mt 5:17-20 NIV, in
|> pretty red letters, so that you know it's Jesus talking)
|> 
|> This causes a serious dilemma for Christians who think the Old Testament
|> doesn't apply to them.  I think that's why Paul Harvey likes quoting it so
|> much ;).
|> 
|> Rob Lanphier
|> lanph872@uidaho.edu 

I will clarify my earlier quote.  God's laws were originally written for 
the Israelites.  Jesus changed that fact by now making the Law applicable to
all people, not just the Jews.  Gentiles could be part of the kingdom of
Heaven through the saving grace of God.  I never said that the Law was made
obsolete by Jesus.

If anything, He clarified the Law such as in that quote you made.  In the
following verses, Jesus takes several portions of the Law and expounds upon
the Law giving clearer meaning to what God intended.  If you'll notice, He
also reams into the Pharisees for mucking up the Law with their own contrived
interpretations.  They knew every letter of the Law and followed it with their
heads but not their hearts.  That is why He points out that our righteousness
must surpass that of the Pharisees in order to be accepted into the kingdom
of Heaven.  People such as the Pharisees are those who really go out of their
way to debate about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
They had become legalistic, rule-makers - religious lawyers who practiced the
letter of the Law but never really believed in it.  

I think you will agree with me that there are in today's world, a lot of
modern-day Pharisees who know the bible from end to end but do not believe
in it.  What good is head knowledge if there is nothing in the heart?

Christianity is not just a set of rules; it's a lifestyle that changes one's
perspectives and personal conduct.  And it demands obedience to God's will.
Some people can live by it, but many others cannot or will not.  That is their
choice and I have to respect it because God respects it too.

God be with you,

Malcolm Lee  :)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83995
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:

>Once again, where's your proof? Suicide is considered a sin by Branch
>Davidians.  Also, Koresh said over and over again that he was not going to
>commit suicide.  Furthermore, all the cult experts said that he was not
>suicidal.  David Thibedeau (sp?), one of the cult members, said that the fire
>was started when one of the tanks spraying the tear gas into the facilities
>knocked over a lantern.

In two places at once? Bit of a coincidence, that.

Whatever the faults the FBI had, the fact is that responsibility
for those deaths lies with Koresh.

P.
-- 
 moorcockpratchettdenislearydelasoulu2iainmbanksneworderheathersbatmanpjorourke
clive p a u l  m o l o n e y  Come, let us retract the foreskin of misconception
james trinity college dublin  and apply the wire brush of enlightenment - GeoffM
 brownbladerunnersugarcubeselectronicblaylockpowersspikeleekatebushhamcornpizza 

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83998
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!


In article <sandvik-200493235610@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr20.143754.643@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca
|> (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
|> > I understand and sympathize with your pain.  What happened in Waco was a very
|> > sad tradgedy.  Don't take it out on us Christians though.  The Branch
|> > Davidians were not an organized religion.  They were a cult led by a ego-maniac
|> > cult leader.  The Christian faith stands only on the shoulders of one man,
|> > the Lord of Lords and King of Kings, Jesus Christ.   BTW, David Koresh was NOT
|> > Jesus Christ as he claimed.
|> 
|> The interesting notion is that (I watched TV tonight) Koresh never
|> claimed officially to be Jesus Christ. His believers hoped that 
|> he would be, but he never took this standpoint himself.
|> 
|> He was more interested in breaking the seven seals of Revelation,
|> and make sure that Armageddon would start. Well it did, and 19
|> children died, and no God saved them.
|> 
|> Kent
|> ---
|> sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

And does it not say in scripture that no man knows the hour of His coming, not
even the angels in Heaven but only the Father Himself?  DK was trying to play
God by breaking the seals himself.  DK killed himself and as many of his
followers as he could.  BTW, God did save the children.  They are in Heaven,
a far better place.  How do I know?  By faith.

God be with you,

Malcolm Lee  :)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 83999
From: b.liddicott@ic.ac.uk
Subject: Re: He has risen!



Just to remark that I have heard that David Koresh has risen from 
the dead.  I dont know if it is true or not, but this is what I have
been told.  What do you guys think?

Ben L.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84004
From: Whitten@Fwva.Saic.Com (David Whitten)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick

caldwell@facman.ohsu.edu (Larry Caldwell) writes:
>There evidently was a feast of bread and wine associated with Mithras.  I
>have often wondered if Yeshua intentionally introduced this ritual to
>expand the appeal of his religion, or if it was appropriated by later
>worshipers.
>
You could argue that if you wanted, but I think a more reasonable 
argument would point out the fact that the remembrance feast was
very similar to the Pesach (Passover) meal during Seder, a very
Jewish ritual.
 
The fact that there appears to be an abuse in the early Church of
people eating too much (a very real concern with some Passover meals)
and not treating the meal with respect, shows the simplifying of the
ritual to just bread and wine to be a way of dealing with the
inherent problems of people's human nature, and trying to keep the
essentials of the remembrance aspects.
 
David (whitten@fwva.saic.com) US:(619)535-7764 [I don't speak as a company rep.]
 

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84006
From: jmeritt@mental.mitre.org
Subject: By the sword...

Deuteronmy 20:13
And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite
every male thereof with the edge of the sword

Joshua 6:21
And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, bith man and women,
young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

Joshua 10:32
And the Lord delivered Lachish into the hand of Israel, which took it on the
second day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that
were therein, according to all that he had done to Libnah


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84007
From: dcriswel@oracle.uucp (David Criswell)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

(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. 

=====================================================================
"So I become an accessory 		Dave Criswell
 And I don't have an alibi		Oracle Corporation
 To the victim on my doorstep
 Only way I can justify
 It's family business ... " Fish

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84008
From: pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

John Berryhill, Ph.D. writes

>I don't know who's next, but I hope it's people who pick their noses
>while driving.  

umm, please don't lump us all together. It's those blatant,
fundamentalist pickers that give the rest of us a bad name. Some of
us try very hard to be discreet and stay alert.

--
Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light!
Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again...
University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard.
pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84009
From: mike@inti.lbl.gov (Michael Helm)
Subject: Re: Religion and history; The real discuss

Matthew Huntbach writes:
sm[?]>a real Christian unless you're born again is a very fundamental biblical
sm[?]>conversion and regeneration are 'probably' part of some small USA-based cult

>the "born-again" tag often use it to mean very specifically
>having undergone some sort of ecstatic experience (which can in
>fact be very easily manufactured with a little psychological manipulation),
>and are often insultingly dismissive of those whose
>Christianity is a little more intellectual, is not the result

Some of these "cults", which seems like a rather dismissive term
to me, are pretty big here in the USA.  Most of them
are quite respectable & neiborly & do not resemble Branch Davidians
in the least; confusing them is a mistake.  What about "live &
let live", folks?  I'm sure we can uncover a few extremist loonies
who are Catholic -- the anti-abortion movement in the USA seems to have a
few hard cases in it, for example.

>I've often heard such people use the line "Catholics aren't
>real Christians". Indeed, anyone sending "missionaries" to
>Ireland must certainly be taking this line, for otherwise why
>would they not be content for Christianity to be maintained in
>Ireland in its traditional Catholic form?

I have to agree Matthew with this; I have certainly encountered a lot
of anti-Catholic-religion propaganda & emotion (& some bigotry) from
members of certain religious groups here.  They also practice their
missionary work with zeal among Catholics in the United States, but to
someone who is or was raised Catholic such rhetoric is pretty
off-putting.  It may work better in an environment where there's a lot
of popular anti-clericalism.

Follow-ups set elsewhere, this no longer seems very relevant to Celtic issues
to me.
-- 




Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84011
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: What we learned from the Waco wackos


	There are actually a few important things we can glean from this mess:
1)	When they start getting desperate for an answer to the question: "What's
it all about. Mr. Natural?", pinkboys will buy darn near *anything*, which
means:
2)	There's still plenty of $$$$ to be made in the False Jesus business
by enterprising SubGenii.  Just remember that:
3)	Once you've separated the pinks from their green, don't blow it all
on automatic weapons from Mexico.  Put it in a Swiss bank account.  Smile a
lot.  Have your flunkies hand out flowers in airports.  The Con will just
shrug you off as long as:
4)	You never, never, NEVER start to believe your own bulldada!  If
"David Koresh" hand't started swallowing his own "apocalypso now" crap, he'd
be working crossword puzzles in the Bahamas today instead of contributing to
the mulch layer in Waco.  This is because:
5)	When you start shooting at cops, they're likely to shoot back.  And 
most of 'em are better shots than you are.

	In short:
	- P.T. Barnum was right 
		and
	- Stupidity is self-correcting
Thus endeth the lesson.

	************************************************************
	*  	The_Doge of South St. Louis			   *
	*		Dobbs-Approved Media Conspirator(tm)	   *
	*	"One Step Beyond"  -- Sundays, 3 to 5 pm	   *
	*		88.1 FM		St. Louis Community Radio  *
	*  "You'll pay to know what you *really* think!"           *
	*			-- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs"		   *
	************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84014
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

In article <1993Apr21.093914.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>In article <1r17j9$5ie@sbctri.sbc.com>, netd@susie.sbc.com () writes:
>> In article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>>>For those who think David Koresh didn't have a solid structure,
>>>or sound Biblical backing for his hour long tape broadcast,
>> 
>> I don't think anyone really cares about the solid structure of his
>> sermon.  It's the deaths he's responsible for that concern most people.
>
>I assume you have evidence that he was responsible for the deaths?
> 
>> Koresh was a nut, okay?  
>
>Again, I'd like to see some evidence.

  Nut or not, he was clearly a liar.  He said he would surrender after
  local radio stations broadcast his message, but he didn't.  Then he
  said he would surrender after Passover, but he didn't.

  None of which excuses the gross incompetence and disregard for the
  safety of the children displayed by the feds.   As someone else
  pointed out, if it had been Chelsea Clinton in there you would 
  probably have seen more restraint.


---peter

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84015
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <2017@tecsun1.tec.army.mil> riggs@descartes.etl.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>The second question is, "What makes Gerry think that the
>Davidians' actions would have been different had another type of warrant
>been in use ?"

Just taking a guess, perhaps it was that Koresh had peaceably been served
with warrants before, and he did not shoot anyone but instead went with the
police without fighting.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84018
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

In article <1r17j9$5ie@sbctri.sbc.com>, netd@susie.sbc.com () writes...
                                                           ^^-- name?
>(stephen) writes:
>>For those who think David Koresh didn't have a solid structure,
>>or sound Biblical backing for his hour long tape broadcast,
> 
>I don't think anyone really cares about the solid structure of his
>sermon.  

Other than it tells quite a lot about the Man himself. 

>It's the deaths he's responsible for that concern most people.

Are you the spokesman for "most people?"

>>I've enclosed a partial list of the sources he cites or quotes
>>he exactly used. As a Christian sermon, it's pretty good, if not 
>>inspired.
>>
>>Though I differ in part on some of his conclusions, the argument 
>>he presents is well backed -- which is why it's taken me this long
>>to work through -- still ongoing. 
>>
>>If you thought it was rambling -- that says far more about you than
>>it does Koresh. 
> 
>You've made me curious.  What does this say about me?

That you don't recognize the Biblical commentary used.  Those in the
church know the language though, and have no such excuse.  

>>First Seal in Revelation 6, the entirety of Psalms 45, and the
>>most of Revelation 19 -- which demonstrated one of his major points 
>>about how the writings in the Prophets (including David), and in 
>>the Psalms, and in Revelation are all telling the same story when 
>>you understand how they're related (ie have the key). They largely 
>>explain each other. 
> 
>Charles Manson used revelation as well.  Do we see a pattern here?
>I wonder if Koresh liked the Beatles?

You missed the point -- which is that the Prophets, the Psalms, and 
Revelation, all together, provide a very rich view of a very special
event -- a wedding.

>Koresh was a nut, okay?  Just because he found ways for the Bible
>to backup his rantings does not make him any less of a kook.

How are you able to make such a conclusion?  Please note, that the
first part of Revelation makes it clear that the address is to those
in the church. That said, it doesn't hurt to try to see what the 
prophecies are ahead of time -- for those outside the church.

>>Seems to me Koresh is yet another messenger that got killed
>>for the message he carried. 
> 
>I'll type this very slowly so that you can understand.  He either set
>the fire himself or told his followers to do so.  Don't make him out to
>be a martyr.  He did not "get killed", he killed himself.

So you say. It should be interesting to see what the investigators 
conclude, and what the final judgments are.

>>In the mean time, we sure learned a lot about evil and corruption.
>>Are you surprised things have gotten that rotten?
>
>The evil was inside the compound.  All that "thou shalt not kill" stuff.

So much for war and government eh.

>>Oh yeah, one last point for the believers -- Philippian 2:14-19.
> 
>For the rest of us, could you please post the text?

Very glad you asked, since I goofed -- it should be Philippian 1:14-19: 
(here from NIV)

	Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord
	have been encouraged to speak the word of God more
	courageously and fearlessly.

	It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and 
	rivalry, but others out of good will. The latter do so
	in love, knowing that I am put here for the gospel. 
	The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not
	sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for
	me while I am chains. But what does it matter? 

	The important thing is that in every way, whether from
	false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because
	of this I rejoice.
	
My comment stems from the realization that we who love the Lord, are
human and imperfect. Whatever we "preach," no matter how eloquent, or
how corrupted -- is of little difference. Those who know the Master's
voice will recognize Him -- a gem-stone amidst rock. Such is also the 
lesson of the "stumblingblock." For those who have an ear to hear. 	
	
   |
-- J --
   |
   | stephen


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84019
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

In article <1993Apr21.154750.24341@maths.tcd.ie>, 
pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney) writes...

>cotera@woods.ulowell.edu (Ray Cote) writes:
>> David Thibedeau (sp?), one of the cult members, said that the fire
>>was started when one of the tanks spraying the tear gas into the 
>>facilities knocked over a lantern.
> 
>In two places at once? Bit of a coincidence, that.

Never lived out in the country I see. 4 years ago I had a place
where I had to carry in propane every month, hook the bottle up 
to copper line, to supply both the stove, and a type of water-
heater called a flash-heater. A flash heater has a pilot lamp.

Here's the point. If the Davidians had their propane tanks hooked 
up to copper (or some such) lines, run through the ceiling spaces
-- when the FBI started wrecking the place, they could easily have
ruptured the lines. Which then would start spreading out through
the overhead. And since it was a country home, it wasn't necessarily
built with non-flamable insulation. 

It's probably more plausible than anything else, that the fire started
mainly as a result of accident -- or willful negligence on the part of
the FBI, which should have known better (ie. manslaughter).

It's certain that if the tanks hadn't been used that day -- the fire
wouldn't have started.

>Whatever the faults the FBI had, the fact is that responsibility
>for those deaths lies with Koresh.

Paul, what "fact?"

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84020
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>
>So what is your beef against Jesus?

First and foremost, I honestly do not believe that Jesus was anything
more than a man who lived and died two thousand years ago.  I know
your Bible provides wonderful stories of the things he said and did,
but I simply do not believe that he still exists as an entity that has
any bearing on this universe or the lives in it, and I similarly do
not believe that the god that you worship exists or has ever existed.

Period.

I view religion in general and Christianity in specific as a 'cultural
virus' that has been passed down from generation to generation because
people are often too afraid to think for themselves and claim
responsibility for their own fate, so they brainwash themselves and
their children into believing the popular myths, and it goes on from
there.  And eventually Christianity becomes a given -- if so many
other people believe in it, it must be right, no?

I don't believe in any "life after death".  I believe that when I die,
I die, so therefore it's up to me to try to bring meaning and purpose
to my life in the meantime.  I don't believe that it's a good thing to
humble myself and view pride as a sin -- pride, in moderation, is a
constructive thing.  I see nothing at all wrong with homosexuality and
nothing inferior about women, and my priests lost a lot of my trust
when they patronizingly tried to explain the 'faults' of these
opinions to me.  I don't believe in 'loving everyone', especially
people I've never met; while I try to show respect to everyone, my
love and admiration is something not easily earned, and I do not feel
guilty about denying my respect and consideration to someone who has
abused it.

If you want me to take your religion the least bit seriously, stop
trying to show me how the Bible "makes sense".  Start trying to show
me that this Jesus person is somehow still influencing anyone's life
here on Earth.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84021
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Re: Rosicrucian Order(s) ?!


In a previous article, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) says:

>Well, it depends how you look at it. If you are interested I might
>find out what the latest status is in this legal battle.
>Kent
>
	Please do! And if you don't want to post it here, email to me
:-) I don't know how this discussion is appreciated here. I hate
'invading' newsgroups with themes of limited interest :-)

Tony


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84022
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: 24 Apr 93   God's Promise in Proverbs 15:4


	The tongue that brings healing is a
	tree of life,
	but a deceitful tongue crushes the
	spirit.

	Proverbs 15:4 (NIV)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84023
From: rjl+@pitt.edu (Richard J. Loether)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1r1et6INNh8p@ctron-news.ctron.com> king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
:
: pmy@vivaldi.acc.Virginia.EDU (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
:
:::Didn't Christ tell his disciples to arm them selves, shortly 
:::before his crusifiction? (I believe the exact quote was along the
:::lines of, "If you have [something] sell it and buy a sword.")
:
::This from a guy who preached love, deference of power to God and
::renunciation of worldly life in exchange for a life of the spirit? If
::Jesus did in fact command his disciples to arm themselves, I would
::take that as yet another reason to reject Christian doctrine, for
::whatever it's worth.

Like most religions, the doctrine has good and bad in it.  I would 
certainly reject the current implementations of the doctrine.
:
:No.  The above is a classic example of taking a scripture out of context.
:It's taken from Luke 22:36.  But note vs 37; "For I tell you that this
:which is written must be accomplished in me, namely, 'and he will be reckoned
:with lawless ones'...".  He then stated that two swords were enough
:for the group to carry to be counted as lawless.  

So having more than the politically correct number of weapons was
cause to be arresed and killed even then, huh?

:Jesus' overiding message was one of peace (turn other cheek; live by 
:sword die by sword; etc).

Yes, of course, as in Matthew 10:34-35 "Do not suppose that I have come to 
bring peace to the earth; it is not peace I have come to bring but a sword..."
:
RJL
-- 
Rich Loether          Snail mail: University of Pittsburgh     The Ideas:
EMail: rjl+@pitt.edu              Computing and Info Services      Mine,
Voice: (412) 624-6429             600 Epsilon Drive                   all
FAX  : (412) 624-6426             Pittsburgh, PA 15238                  Mine.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84024
From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

In article <C5uEED.48D@apollo.hp.com>, 
nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes...

>In article <1993Apr21.093914.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>>In article <1r17j9$5ie@sbctri.sbc.com>, netd@susie.sbc.com () writes:
>>> In article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>>>>For those who think David Koresh didn't have a solid structure,
>>>>or sound Biblical backing for his hour long tape broadcast,
>>> 
>>> I don't think anyone really cares about the solid structure of his
>>> sermon.  It's the deaths he's responsible for that concern most people.
>>
>>I assume you have evidence that he was responsible for the deaths?
>> 
>>> Koresh was a nut, okay?  
>>
>>Again, I'd like to see some evidence.
> 
>  Nut or not, he was clearly a liar.  He said he would surrender after
>  local radio stations broadcast his message, but he didn't.  Then he
>  said he would surrender after Passover, but he didn't.

The rest of the story seems to be that the agreement for the broadcast
was for prime-time, and that Koresh never even heard it played. Wasn't
even tuned in to the radio when it aired -- so no reason to come out.

If later they had given him a copy of the grossly twisted newswire 
transcript -- I'm certain Koresh would think he was at the mercy of
evil itself. 

As to coming out after Passover, wasn't that just one of the lawyer's
speculations Peter?

   |
-- J --
   |
   | stephen


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84025
From: cocoa@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Jewish history question

In article <1993Apr10.195513.17991@csi.uottawa.ca> misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
>In article <cocoaC5797E.43y@netcom.com>, cocoa@netcom.com (little 'e') writes:
>
[deleted]
>> Here tis.  Someone just told me that the Old Testament books were translated
>> into Greek a long time ago
>
>   Yes, that's a famous version called The Septuagint.  It was a translation
>made by Greek Jews.
>
>> and that the originals were destroyed in a fire soon afterward.
>
>   I don't know what you're referring to here.  When the Jersusalem Temple was
>destroyed, some manuscripts may have been lost, but I think our extant Hebrew
>manuscripts are as good as our Greek ones.  I don't know about any "originals".

The person who was telling me about the Septuagint version said that the Greeks
had a wonderful library in Alexandria that was full of manuscripts/scrolls
and that it was burned soon after the Septuagint version was translated 
(perhaps to conceal some changes in the different versions, or perhaps just
as part of the typical burning of valuable things that occurs during changes
in power groups, he/I dunno).

>> So, I was just wondering, since I imagine some Jewish people somewhere must 
>> have had copies of the earlier Hebrew versions, is the Hebrew version of the 
>> Old Testament very different from the Greek derived version?

>   No.  There are a few famous discrepancies (Isaiah's prophecy about a "young
>woman" was changed into a "virgin", which was how the New Testament writers
>read it), but not many.

Well, perhaps this is the answer then.

[deleted]
>   If you go to a Jewish bookstore, you'll get a Bible translated by Jews, so
>there will be some differences in interpretation, but the text they're 
>translating *from* is basically the same.
>
>   If you want to read "the original", you can buy an Interlinear Bible.  That
>contains the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, with an English
>translation written underneath each word.
>
>   If you want a Bible with a possibly-more-original basic text, you can try
>to find a Samaritan bible.  (Good luck!  I've never seen one.)  The Samaritans 
>(no, not the Good Samaritans) have their own version of the 5 Books of Moses.
>They claim the Jewish bible was altered by Ezra.

Thanks for the tips.  Now I just have to find someone to teach me Samaritan :)

Just me,

little 'e'

(so, is a "good Samaritan hard to find?" or "is a hard... " Oh, finish this
yourself.)

-- 
*  *  *    Chocolatier at Arms, and Castle Wetware Liason            *  *  *
*  *  *    e-mail: cocoa@netcom.com   -    voicemail: 415-337-4940   *  *  *


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84033
From: jvp4u@Virginia.EDU (Jeffery Vernon Parks)
Subject: Re: Info about New Age!

Suggestion: try "Exposing the New Age" by Douglas Groothuis.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84042
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: ABORTION and private health coverage -- letters regarding

In article <nyikos.735335582@milo.math.scarolina.edu>, nyikos@math.scarolina.edu
(Peter Nyikos) says:
>
>In <syt5br_@rpi.edu> rocker@acm.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>
>>In <1qk73q$3fj@agate.berkeley.edu> dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis Kriz)
>writes:
>
>>>If one is paying for a PRIVATE health insurance plan and DOES NOT WANT
>>>"abortion coverage" there is NO reason for that person to be COMPLELLED
>>>to pay for it.  (Just as one should not be compelled to pay for lipposuction
>>>coverage if ONE doesn't WANT that kind of coverage).
>
>>You appear to be stunningly ignorant of the underlying concept of health
>>insurance.
>
>Are you any less stunningly ignorant?  Have you ever heard of life
>insurance premiums some companies give in which nonsmokers are charged
>much smaller premiums than smokers?
>
>Not to mention auto insurance being much cheaper for women under 25 than
>for men under 25, because women on the average drive more carefully
>than most men--in fact, almost as carefully as I did before I was 25.

As many people have mentioned, there is no reason why insurers could not
offer a contract without abortion services for a different premium.
The problem is that there is no guarantee that this premium would be
lower for those who chose this type of contract.  Although you are
removing one service, that may have feedbacks into other types of covered
care which results in a net increase in actuarial costs.

For an illustrative example in the opposite direction, it may be possible
to ADD services to an insurance contract and REDUCE the premium.  If you
add preventative services and this reduces acute care use, then the total
premium may fall.

These words and thoughts are my own. * I am not bound to swear
**      **      **       **          * allegiance to the word of any
  **  **  **  **  **  **             * master. Where the storm carries
    **      **      **               * me, I put into port and make
D. Shea, PSU                         * myself at home.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84043
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!


In article <1r1ma9INNno7@owl.csrv.uidaho.edu>, lanph872@crow.csrv.uidaho.edu (Rob Lanphier) writes:
|> Malcolm Lee (mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca) wrote:
|> 
|> : Do you consider Neo-Nazis and white supremists to be Christian?  I'd hardly
|> : classify them as Christian.  Do they follow the teachings of Christ?  Love
|> : one another.  Love your neighbour as yourself.  Love your enemies.  Is Jesus
|> : Christ their Lord and Saviour?  By the persecution of Jews, they are violating
|> : all the precepts of what Christ died for.  They are in direct violation of
|> : the teachings of Christ.  Even Jesus who was crucified by the Jewish leaders
|> : of that time, loved His enemies by asking the Father for forgiveness of their
|> : sins.  I am a Christian and I bear no animosity towards Jews or any one else.
|> : The enemy is Satan, not our fellow man.
|> 
|> In Mark 16:16, Jesus is quoted as saying "Whoever believes and is baptized
|> will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."  I
|> consider most Neo-Nazis and White Supremisists to be Christians because:
|> a)  They say they are
|> b)  They feel it necessary to justify their actions with the Bible
|> 

Where does it say in the bible that Christians are supposed to persecute
Jews?  Isn't it love your enemies instead?  They may say they are "Christian"
but do their actions speak differently?  Do you believe what everyone tells
you?  I don't.  I came to believe in God by my own investigation and conclusions.
And ultimately by my own choice.  Salvation, however, was granted only through
the grace of God.

|> The Bible provides us with no clear definition of what a Christian is.  It
|> tells us what a Christian *should* do, but then it goes on to say that as
|> long as you believe, your sins will be forgiven.  

To be a Christian is to model oneself after Jesus Christ as implied by the
very name Christian.  If you say you believe in your head but do not feel in
your heart, what does that say of your belief?

|> White Supremisists and
|> Neo-Nazis may not be your brand of Christian, but by believing in Christ,
|> they are Christian.
|>

White supremists and Neo-Nazis are NOT any brand of Christian.

"If you hate your whom you can see then how can you love God whom you cannot
 see?"

What does this belief entail?  Believing in Christ and having your sins
forgiven in His name does NOT give a Christian a free licence to sin.  To
repent of a sin is to ask forgiveness of that sin and TRY NOT to do it
again.  I am a Christian, but if you lump me in with racists and accuse me
of being such, then are you not pre-judging me?  BTW, I am of Chinese racial
background and I know what it is to be part of a visible minority in this
country.  I don't think that I would be favourably looked upon by these
White supremist "Christians" as you call them.

Anyone can say what they believe, but if they don't practice what they preach,
then their belief is false.  Do you concur?
 
|> Now, for your original statement:
|> : |> : What bothers me most is why people who have no religious affiliation 
|> : |> : continue to persecute Jews?  Why this hatred of Jews?  The majority of
|> : |> : people who persecute Jews are NOT Christians (I can't speak for all 
|> : |> : Christians and there are bound to be a few who are on the anti-Semitism
|> : |> : bandwagon.)
|> 
|> You imply here that it is predominately atheists and agnostics who
|> persecute Jews.  I am hard pressed to think of even an example of Jewish
|> persecution in the hands of atheists/agnostics.

Nazis and racists in general are the ones that come to my immediate attention.
What I believe is that such people may be using the bible to mask their racial
intolerance and bigotry.  They can do as they do and hide behind Christianity
but I tell you that Jesus would have nothing to do with them.

|> About the only one that
|> comes to mind would be in the former Soviet Union, where many religious
|> people suffered some sort of persecution (not to mention many
|> atheist/agnostics who suffered persecution for believing the government
|> sucked).
|> 

No arguement there.

|>
|> Rob Lanphier
|> lanph872@uidaho.edu
|> 

The only point I'm trying to make is that those who call themselves Christian
may not be Christian.  I ask that you draw your own conclusions by what they
do and what they say.  If they are not modelled after the example of Jesus
Christ then they are NOT Christian.  If they have not repented of their sins
and accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour then they are 
NOT Christian.  These are the only criteria to being a Christian.

May God be with you,

Malcolm Lee   :)


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84047
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1r1i41$4t@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>
>Just maybe you won't be home.  Then you can come home to something 
>like this:
>
>    "Well, it's been a rough month," begins Johnnie Lawmaster.  "I
> just get laid off, and my divorce became final.  But I just wasn't
> ready for what happened this particular Monday."

[horror story about FBI ruining a guy's life for the hell of it omitted]

>So if you don't want your tea party to be held in awkward silence, make
>sure your lawyer isn't there, there's a good chap.

So, is this a real story or a work of fiction?  How about some
sources?  When, where, and in what newspaper did you get all this
from?  Or is it all hypothetical?
-- 
+------------------------+------------------------------------+
| David Charlap          | "Apple II forever" - Steve Wozniac |
| dic5340@hertz.njit.edu | "I drank what?" - Socrates         |
+------------------------+------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84048
From: kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub)
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin

In article <1993Apr15.225657.17804@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com
(Bill Rawlins) writes:
>       Since you have referred to the Messiah, I assume you are referring
>        to the New Testament.  Please detail your complaints or e-mail if
>        you don't want to post.  First-century Greek is well-known and
>        well-understood.  Have you considered Josephus, the Jewish Historian,
>        who also wrote of Jesus?  In addition, the four gospel accounts
>        are very much in harmony.  

  Bill, I find it rather remarkable that you managed to zero in on what is
probably the weakest evidence.

  What is probably the most convincing is the anti-Christian literature put out
by the Jewish councils in the second century.  There are enormous quantities of
detailed arguments against Christianity, many of the arguments still being used
today.  Despite volumes of tracts attacking Christianity, not one denies the
existance of Jesus, only of his activities.

  I find this considerably more compelling than Josephus or the harmony of the
gospels (especially considering that Matthew and Luke probably used Mark as a
source).

 |  __L__
-|-  ___  Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub
 |  | o | kv07@iastate.edu
 |/ `---' Iowa State University
/|   ___  Math Department
 |  |___| 400 Carver Hall
 |  |___| Ames, IA  50011
 J  _____

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84052
From: ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson)
Subject: Re: Christian Owned Organization list

In article <1993Apr13.025426.22532@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <47749@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> shopper@ucsd.edu writes:
>>
>>Does anyone have or know where I can find a list of christian-owned
>>corporations and companies?  One that I know of is WordPerfect.
>
>I believe that WordPerfect is actually owned by the Mormons.
Sorry, but Mormons aren't generally considered to be Christians.


>--
>=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
>=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
>="Do you have some pumps and a purse in this shade?  A perfume that whispers, =
>='please come back to me'?  I'm looking for something in Green."-Laurie Morgan=

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84053
From: bgarwood@heineken.tuc.nrao.edu (Bob Garwood)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1r7os6$hil@agate.berkeley.edu>, isaackuo@spam.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo) writes:
|> In article <C5wIA1.4Hr@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:
|> >    The FBI claims, on the basis of their intelligence reports,
|> >    that BD's had no plans to commit suecide.  They, btw, had bugged the 
|> >    place and were listening to BD's conversations till the very end.
|> >
|> >    Koresh's attorney claims that, based on some 30 hours he spent
|> >    talking to his client and others in the compound, he saw no
|> >    indication that BD's were contemplating suecide.
|> >
|> >    The survivors claim it was not a suecide.
|> 
|> It's not clear that more than one of the survivors made this claim.  It is
|> clear that at least one of the survivors made the contradictory claim that
|> BD members had started the fire.

No, this is far from clear.  We only have the word of the FBI spokepeople that
a survivor made this claim.  We have the contradictory word of the lawyers who
spoke with the survivors individually that ALL of them agreed that they did
NOT have a suicide pact and did not intentionally start the fire.  In the absense
of any more evidence, I don't see how we can decide who to believe.
Furthermore, its quite possible that there was no general suicide pact and that
some small inner circle took it upon themselves to kill everyone else.
With the state of the area now, we may never know what happened.

|> 
|> >    BD's were not contemplating suecide, and there is no reason 
|> >    to believe they committed one.
|> 
|> No reason?  How about these two:
|> 
|> 1.  Some of the survivors claimed that BD members poured fuel along the
|> 	corridors and set fire to it.  The speed at which the fire spread
|> 	is not inconsistent with this claim.

Again, we have only the word of the FBI on this claim.  The lawyers who
have also talked to the survors deny that any of them are making that claim.

|> 
|> 2.  There was certainly a fire which killed most of the people in the compound.
|> 	There is a very very good possibility that the FBI did not start this
|> 	fire.  This is a good reason to believe that the BD's did.

I will agree on your assessment as to the relative probabilities.  Its more likely
that the BD's started the fire than did the FBI.  But there is currently NO
way to decide what actually happened based on the publically available evidence
(which is nearly none).

|> 
|> 3.  Even if the BD's were not contemplating suicide, it is very possible that
|> 	David Koresh was convinced (and thus convinced the others) that this
|> 	was not suicide.  It was the fulfilment of a profecy of some sort.
|> 
|> There are three possibilities other than the BD's self destruction:
|> 
|> A.  They are not dead, but escaped via bunker,etc.  From reports of the
|> 	inadequacies of the tunnels and the bodies found, I would rate this
|> 	as highly unlikely.
|> 
|> B.  The fire was started by an FBI accident.  This is possible, but it would be
|> 	foolish of us to declare this outright until more evidence can back it.
|> 	Sure, it's possible that the armored vehicle knocked down a lantern
|> 	which started the fire (why was there a lit lantern in the middle of
|> 	the day near the edge of the complex?).  It's anecdotal evidence that
|> 	has been contradicted by other escapees.
|> 
|> C.  The fire was started on purpose by the FBI.  This has been suggested by
|> 	some on the NET, and I would rate this possibility as utterly
|> 	ludicrous.  This is what we in "sci.skeptic" would call an
|> 	"extraordinary claim" and won't bother refuting unless someone gives
|> 	any good evidence to back it up.

   D.   The fire was an started accidentally by the BDs.  I am truely amazed that
        I have heard (or read) of no one suggesting this possibility.
        With all the tear gas and the lack of electical power in the compound and
        the adults wearing gas masks, it had to have been chaotic inside.
        I can easily image someone leaving a lamp too close to something or
        accidentally dropping a lamp or knocking one over.  With the winds, it
        would have quickly gotten out of control.

|> 
|> So we are left with two reasonable possibilities.  That the fire was an FBI
|> accident and that the fire was started by the BD.  I find the latter more
|> likely based on the evidence I've seen so far.

   No, I think that D is also quite reasonable.  I personally can't really
asses any relative probablities to either of these 3 probabilities although if
forced to bet on the issue, I would probably take an accident (either FBI or
BD) over intential setting of the fire).

   I would also like to add a comment related to the reports that bodies recovered
had gunshot wounds.  The coroner was on the Today Show this morning and categorically
denied that they've reach any such conclusions.  He pointed out that under intense
heat, sufficient pressure builds up in the head that can cause it to explode and
that this can look very much like a massive gunshot wound to the head which is
quite consisted with te reports I've read and heard.

   In short, there's been almost no evidence corroborating any of the many
scenarios as to what happened on Monday.  We should remain skeptical until
more information is available.  

|> -- 
|> *Isaac Kuo (isaackuo@math.berkeley.edu)	*       ___
|> *					* _____/_o_\_____
|> *	Twinkle, twinkle, little .sig,	*(==(/_______\)==)
|> *	Keep it less than 5 lines big.	* \==\/     \/==/

-- 

Bob Garwood

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84054
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1qkj31$4c6@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <lsr6ihINNsa@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>#In article <1qjahh$mrs@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>#>Science ("the real world") has its basis in values, not the other way round, 
>#>as you would wish it.  If there is no such thing as objective value, then 
>#>science can not objectively be said to be more useful than a kick in the head.
>#>Simple theories with accurate predictions could not objectively be said
>#>to be more useful than a set of tarot cards.  You like those conclusions?
>#>I don't.

>#I think that you are changing the meaning of "values" here. Perhaps
>#it is time to backtrack and take a look at the word.

>#value n. 1. A fair equivalent or return for something, such as goods
>#or service. 2. Monetary or material worth. 3. Worth as measured in 
>#usefulness or importance; merit. 4. A principle, standard, or quality
>#considered inherently worthwhile or desirable. 5. Precise meaning, as
>#of a word. 6. An assigned or calculated numerical quantity. 7. Mus. 
>#The relative duratation of a tone or rest. 8. The relative darkness or
>#lightness of a color. 9. The distinctive quality of a speech or speech
>#sound. 

>#In context of a moral system, definition four seems to fit best. In terms
>#of scientific usage, definitions six or eight might apply. Note that
>#these definitions do not mean the same thing.

>No, I'm using definition (3), or perhaps (4) in both cases.  If there
>is no objective worth, usefulness, or importance then science has no 
>objective worth, usefulness, or importance.  If nothing is inherently
>worthwhile or desirable, then simple theories with accurate predictions
>are not inherently worthwhile or desirable. Do you see any flaws in this?

The problem is, your use of the word "objective" along with "values."
Both definitions three and four are inherently subjective, that is
they are particular to a given individual, or personal. You see,
what one person may see as worthwhile, another may see as worthless.

>If on the other hand, some things *have* objective worth, usefulness,
>or importance, it would be interesting to know what they are.

Again, your form of measurement in this sentence, that being of "worth"
is subjective. 

>#If you can provide an objective foundation for "morality" then that will
>#be a good beginning.

>I'm not willing to attempt this until someone provides an objective
>basis for the notion that science is useful, worthy, or important in
>dealing with observed facts.  Alternatively, you could try to
>demonstrate to me that science is not necessarily useful, worthy
>or important in any situation.   In other words, I need to know
>how you use the term "objective".

When I find that my usage of a word is different than the usage of
that word given by another person, I try to find a standard against
which to judge that usage. In most cases, the dictionary is the standard
I use. Here is a definiton of objective:

objective ADJ. 1. Of or having to do with a material object as 
distinguished from a mental concept. 2. Having actual existance.
3.a. Unenfluenced by emotion or personal prejudice. b. Based on
observable phenomenon.

By this definition, science does not have an objective worth, since the
phrase "objective worth" is an oxymoron. However you asked something a 
little differently this time, you asked for an objective basis for a
notion. The fact that the use of science as an intellectual tool is
responsible for changes in our world (the changes are material, and
thus "objective") would provide an objective _basis_ for an argument.
However, the conclusion arrived at from that argument (that science is 
"good") is subjective.

I think that the problem here is one of word usage. Take a little time
and read the definitions of these words: objective, subjective, worth,
value, morality, good, evil. I believe that if you think about the 
meaning of them for a while, you will have to conclude that there is no
such thing as an objective morality.

>Frank O'Dwyer                                  'I'm not hatching That'
>odwyer@sse.ie                                  from "Hens",  by Evelyn Conlon

eric

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84055
From: ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson)
Subject: Re: Christian Owned Organization list

In article <?a$@byu.edu> $stephan@sasb.byu.edu (Stephan Fassmann) writes:
>In article <1993Apr13.025426.22532@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>
>>In article <47749@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> shopper@ucsd.edu writes:
>>>
>>>Does anyone have or know where I can find a list of christian-owned
>>>corporations and companies?  One that I know of is WordPerfect.
>>
>>I believe that WordPerfect is actually owned by the Mormons.
>
>Sorry, WordPerfect is own by A mormon not the LDS Church.

Slight semantical difference.  The LDS Church does own a heck of
a lot however.  They are the largest land holder in MIssouri
(where they think Christ will appear at the second coming).

I believe they also own some large beverage company like Pepsi
(that was why they had to take caffiene off of their "forbidden
substance" list).

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84056
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

In article <bskendigC5Ku3C.6Dx@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>I've asked your god several times with all my heart to come to me.  I
>really wish I could believe in him, 'cos no matter how much confidence
>I build up on my own, the universe *is* a big place, and it would be
>so nice to know I have someone watching over me in it...

Brian K., I am pleased with your honesty.  And to be honest as well, I
believe you have not asked my god to come to you.  Why do I say this?
Because by the things you write on the net, and the manner with which
you write them, you show me that you made up your own god and are
attempting to pass him off as the real thing.  I got news for you.
Yours doesn't at all sound like mine.  Your god doesn't come to you
because your god doesn't exist.

>I've gone into this with an open mind.  I've layed my beliefs aside
>from time to time when I've had doubt, and I've prayed to see what
>good that would do.  I don't see what more I can do to open myself to
>your god, short of just deciding to believe for no good reason.  And
>if I decide to believe for no good reason, why not believe in some
>other god?  Zeus seems like a pretty cool candidate...

I am sorry Brian, but when I read your postings, I do not see an open mind.
What I do see is misunderstanding, lack of knowledge, arrogance and mockery.

>Please tell me what more I can do while still remaining true to myself.

Be true to yourself then.  Have an open mind.  And so end the mockery.  Gain 
knowledge of the real God.  Put your presumptions aside.  Read the
Bible and know that there is, truly is, a reason for everything and
there exists a God that has so much love for you that the depth of it goes beyond
our shallow worldly experience.  A person who commits himself  
to seeking God, will find God.  Jesus stands at your door and knocks.  But a
person who half-heartedly opens the Bible, or opens it with purpose to find 
something to mock, will find, learn and see nothing.  The only thing one
will gain with that attitude is folly.

Be careful to not jump the gun, for at first glance, there are many passages
in the Bible that will seem bizarre and absurd.  Be assured that even
though they seem alien at first, be confident that they are not.
Be assured that beyond your present comprehension, there lies such
deep reasons that once you see them, you will indeed be satisfied. 
I will personally guarantee that one.  As Jesus put it, "You will never
be thirsty again.  Your cup will even flow over."


From King Solomon (970 B.C. to 930 B.C.):

    "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter;
     to search out a matter is the glory of kings."


Jesus says in John 6:44 & 55:

   "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him."


And in John 3:16:

   "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,
   that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal
   life."


You are included in "whosoever".  And I also pray that the Father is
drawing you, which it seems He is doing else you wouldn't be posting
to talk.religion.misc.  Remember Brian, you could be a St. Paul in the
making.  Paul not only mocked Christians as you do, but also had pleasure
stoning them.  Yet God showed him mercy, saved him, and Paul became
on of the most celebrated men in the history of God's church.

You see Brian, I myself better be careful and not judge you, because
you could indeed be the next Paul.  For with the fervor that you attack
Christians,  one day you might find yourself one, and like Paul,
proclaim the good news of Jesus with that very same fervor or more.

Or you could be the next Peter.  What Jesus said to Peter, Jesus would 
probably say to you: "Satan would surely like to have you."  Why so?
Because Peter was hard-headed, cynical and demonstrated great
moments of stupidity, but once Peter committed himself to a task
he did with full heart.  Peter was the only apostle to have the
faith to walk on water as Jesus did.

You asked "Why not believe in Zeus?"  Zeus didn't offer eternal life.
You got nothing to gain by believing in Zeus.

-------------------------------
Brian Ceccarelli
brian@gamma1.lpl.arizona.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84057
From: justinf@cco.caltech.edu (Justin Fang)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1993Apr23.144934.10462@asl.dl.nec.com>,
duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy) wrote:
 
> In article <C5wI5n.19v@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com> max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) writes:

["it" is Big Bang]
> You sound absolutely convinced! Tell me how long did it last, what color
> was it?

Since you asked... from the Big Bang to the formation of atoms is about
10E11 seconds. As for the "color": bright. Very very bright. 

>It must be so exciting to know for sure.

I don't. I believe the current theory of cosmology because it is fairly
well supported by observational evidence (not as well supported as, say
evolution or relativity, but that's another matter). You're the one who
proposes unquestioningly accepting religious dogma as fact (apologies if
you're not actually a creationist).

>By the way, it seems as
> though there is a fine line between "postulating new miracles" and postulating
> new theories.

The line is broader than you think. Theories are supported by evidence.
Miracles are supported by someone's say-so.

> +----------------------------------------------------------+
> | Joe Duffy                          duffy@asl.dl.nec.com  |
> | NEC America, Inc.                                        |
> | Advanced Switching Laboratory                            |

Justin Fang (justinf@cco.caltech.edu)
                               This space intentionally left blank.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84058
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: Ancient references to Christianity (was: Albert Sabin)

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             cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
                                              
Nobody can explain everything to anybody.  G.K.Chesterton

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84059
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?


[Note the "Followup-To" redirect(s) to alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc.]

In article <C5sqyA.F7v@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, tbrent@bank.ecn.purdue.edu
(Timothy J Brent) said in response to P.VASILION:

> But then, I don't pack heavy weaponry with intent to use it.  You
> don't really think he should have been allowed to keep that stuff do
> you?  If so, tell me where you live so I can be sure to steer well
> clear.  The public also has rights, and they should be placed above
> those of the individual.  Go ahead, call me a commie, but you'd be
> singing a different tune if I exercised my right to rape your
> daughter.  He broke the law, he was a threat to society, they did
> there job - simple.

(1) You have no evidence that David Koresh or his followers were
"packing" that heavy weaponry with any intent to use for other that
recreational and self-defense purposes.

(2) Your statement that "the public also has rights" is correct only is
parsed as "the individuals who comprise the public also have rights."
There is no separate rights-bearing entity known as "the public".

(3) Since the "rights of the public" of which you spoke are in fact only
rights of individuals, the statement that the rights of the public
should be placed above the rights of the individual has no meaning.

(4) You have artificially created an illusionary conflict of
individuals' rights when you speak of "my right to rape your daughter."
No person has the right to rape another person, therefore there is no
conflict.

(5) How do you define "society?"  Do you hold that this "society" is a
rights-bearing entity which is separate from any individual people?  How
do you define a "threat to society?"  To what extent do you believe that
a person loses his rights when he is declared (by whom?) to be such a
threat?

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84060
From: dmu5391@hertz.njit.edu (David Utidjian Eng.Sci.)
Subject: Re: The fact of the theory

Jim and Andy both have it incorrect I believe:

The *facts* are what is there, the processes that exist in the
present or the physical evidence of the processes having occured
in the past. These *facts* exist with or without a theory.

The *theory* tries and explains the *facts* and how they relate
to the rest of the physical universe in a manner that is both
coherent and useful, that it can be used to make predictions.

The *facts* of gravity, evolution, electromagnetic radiation,
relativity, atoms will exist and behave in the way in which they
behave regardless of whether we have a theory to try and explain
how they interact... or even why.

A theory never really becomes a fact... but a theory can predict
the existence of a previously unknown fact, and if we find this
fact as the theory predicted we say the *theory* is *supported*
by the *facts*. A theory is a mental construct, a speculation, 
a model.  If it is a good model, it may be useful.

In science a theory is something that is supported by the 
evidence, considerable evidence, sometimes *all* of the evidence.
A *hypothesis* is a new fledgling theory because there is not
yet enough evidence to support it.  When a new hypothesis 
is proposed to replace an existing theory, it must explain
*all* of the facts that the current theory explains and at least
some of the facts that the current theory could not and/or
predict new facts.

It is so simple.... I'm surprised that this subject gets
beat to death about once a month. A quick glance in a dictionary
would clear up 99% of the confusion and bandwidth in this
newsgroup.  Then we could talk about really important things
like, why do men have nipples?

-David Utidjian-
utidjian@remarque.berkeley.edu



-

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84061
From: mikec@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Micheal Cranford)
Subject: Evolution as Fact and Theory

In article <30187@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:
[ deleted ]
>What is the fact of evolution?  There is a difference between calling evolution
>a fact and talking about the theory of evolution providing facts (I happen to
>think the latter is more accurate).
[ deleted ]

  Evolution is both fact and theory.  The THEORY of evolution represents the
scientific attempt to explain the FACT of evolution.  The theory of evolution
does not provide facts; it explains facts.  It can be safely assumed that ALL
scientific theories neither provide nor become facts but rather EXPLAIN facts.
I recommend that you do some appropriate reading in general science.  A good
starting point with regard to evolution for the layman would be "Evolution as
Fact and Theory" in "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes" [pp 253-262] by Stephen Jay
Gould.  There is a great deal of other useful information in this publication.


  UUCP:  uunet!tektronix!sail!mikec  or                  M.Cranford
         uunet!tektronix!sail.labs.tek.com!mikec         Principal Troll
  ARPA:  mikec%sail.LABS.TEK.COM@RELAY.CS.NET            Resident Skeptic
  CSNet: mikec@sail.LABS.TEK.COM                         TekLabs, Tektronix


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84062
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Subject: History & texts (was: Ancient references to Christianity)

-*----
In article <C5ztJu.FKx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
> 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?

Far from being "tossed out," the gospels are taken, almost
universally, as the primary source of information about Jesus.
I am curious as to whom Mike Cobb is referring.  Who "tosses out"
the New Testament?  Undoubtedly a few *naive* atheists do this,
but the phrasing of the question above seems to suggest that Cobb
ascribes this more broadly.

Perhaps the question that gets more to the heart of the matter is
why, except for some *naive* believers (who, unfortunately, far
outnumber nonbelievers, both naive and critical), are the gospels
*not* taken as "gospel truth" that faithfully records just what
happened two thousand years ago?  This has an easy answer, and
the answer has *nothing* to do with miracles: no text is taken
this way by a critical reader.

There is a myth among some naive believers that one takes a text,
measures it by some set of criteria, and then either confirms the
text as "historically valid" or "tosses out" the text.  I suspect
this myth comes from the way history is presented in primary and
secondary school, where certain texts are vested with authority,
and from writers such as Josh McDowell who pretend to present
historical arguments along these lines for their religious
program.  In fact, most texts used in primary and secondary
school history classes ought to be tossed out, even the better
such texts should not be treated as authoritatively as descibed
above, and Josh McDowell would not know a historical argument if
it bit him on the keister twice.

Let me present the barest outlines of a different view of texts
and their use in studying history.  First, all texts are
historically valid.  ALL texts.  Or to put this another way, I
have never seen a notion of "historical validity" that makes any
sense when applied to a text.  Second, no text should be read as
telling the "gospel truth" about historical events, in the way
that many students are wont to read history texts in primary and
secondary school.  NO text.  (This includes your favorite
author's history of whatever.)

Every text is a historical fact.  Every text was written by some
person (or some group of people) for some purpose.  Hence, every
text can serve as historical evidence.  The question is: what can
we learn from a text?  Of what interesting things (if any) does
the text provide evidence?

The diaries of the followers of the Maharishi, formerly of
Oregon, are historical evidence.  The gospels are historical
evidence.  The letters of the officers who participated in the 
vampire inquests in Eastern Europe are historical evidence.  The
modern American history textbooks that whitewash "great American
figures" are historical evidence.  These are all historical
evidence of various things.  They are *not* much evidence at all
that the Maharishi, formerly of Oregon, could levitate; that
Jesus was resurrected; that vampires exist; or that "great
American figures" are as squeaky clean as we learned in school.
They are better evidence that some people "saw" the Maharishi,
late of Oregon, levitate; that some of the early Christians
thought Jesus was resurrected; that many people in Eastern Europe
"saw" vampires return from the grave; and that we still have an
educational system that largely prefers to spread myth rather
than teach history.

How does one draw causal connections and infer what a piece of
historical evidence -- text or otherwise -- evinces?  This is a
very complex question that has no easily summarized answer.
There are many books on the subject or various parts of the
subject.  I enjoy David Hackett Fischer's "Historian's Fallacies"
as a good antidote to the uncritical way in which it is so easy
to read texts present history.  It's relatively cheap.  It's easy
to read.  Give it a try.

Russell


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84063
From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
Subject: Ceci's "rosicrucian" adventure :-)


Hello Ceci:

     My name is Tony and I have a few comments on your "rosicrucian"
adventure. I hereby state that I am not claiming or denying membership in
any Order, fraternity etc. with or without the word "Rosicrucian" in the 
name of the organization. I only claim having done some "homework" :-)

     This is intended as a friendly article and if at times it seems
different, it's my lack of writing skills showing, nothing else. Heck,
English may be my second language! (And then again maybe not by now :-)

     I proceed:
>
>I had an ehum, interesting experience with the Rosicrucians, or at
>least Rosicrucians of some sort last Sunday.
>
     Let's start with the name "Rosicrucian". I took me a long time to come
to the conclusion that there is a difference between a *member* of a
"rosicrucian" body and BEING *a* ROSICRUCIAN. So when you say that you met
some 'rosicrucians' you mean "members of a group that calls themselves
rosicrucian". At least that is what your observation suggests :-)

     I'd prefer if you would have stated up front that it was the Lectorium
Rosicrucianum, only because they may be confused, by some readers of this
newsgroup, with the Rosicrucian Order AMORC based (the USA Jurisdiction) in
San Jose, CA; this being the RC org with the most members (last time I
looked). Of course, "most members" does not *necessarily* mean "best".

     Anyway, the Lectorium Rosicrucianum claims they
descend (at least in part) from what was the "Gold-und-Rosenkreuz" (Golden
and Rosy Cross), from the 18th century. There were two "Golden and Rosy
Cross", the first (chronologically) more alchemical, the second with
Masonic tinges, but their history is the subject of a complete chapter :-).

     "You'll have to trust me" when I tell you that if that
lecture/class/whatever had been presented by AMORC, it is unlikely that you
would have had the same impression, i.e., you'd probably have had a
positive impression more likely than a negative one, IMHO. 

>The first guy also said that the R:s are a mystical Christian order, and
>that they base their teachings on the teachings of the Kathars
>(English?) from the thirteenth century.
>
     Again, instead of R:s, it should be "Lectorium Rosicrucianum" :-). It
is curious to know that 3 other RC 'orders' (in the USA) claim to be *non-
sectarian*.

     The Cathars were a 'heretic' christian sect that directly challenged
the 'authority' of the medieval catholic church. They flourished during the
12th century, century which saw the religious zeal expressed in the
crusades and also the growing disillusion with the catholic church and the
worldly ways of its clerics. It was largely in response to the church's
unseemly pomp and splendor that Catharism took root, first in northern
Italy, then throughout the south of France.


>What made me a bit suspicious, was the way they first said that we all
>contained something divine, and could find our way back to divinity,
>then that we couldn't become divine as the persons we are currently,
>but if we worked really hard we would reach eternal bliss.

     I don't see nothing *fundamentally* wrong with "us containing
something divine"... And yes I don't like phrases like "eternal bliss"
either! :-)

>How to robotize people and brainwash...
>
     For a moment I thought you were referring to Madison Ave :-)
(Madison avenue in New York City is where the most influential (read
$$$) *commercial* advertising is produced here in the USA :-)

Peace,

Tony


BTW, I have read the intro letters of the LRC which they will mail you free
of charge.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84064
From: perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: Burden of Proof

In article <1993Apr21.182030.888@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
> The default condition, in the absence of a preponderance of
>evidence either way, is that the proposition or assertion is undecidable.
>And the person who takes the undecidable position and says that he/she
>simply disbelieves that the proposition is true, is the only one who
>holds no burden of proof.  This is why the so-called "weak atheist"
>position is virtually unassailable -- not because it stands on a firm
>foundation of logical argument, but because it's proponents simply
>disbelieve in the existence of God(s) and therefore they hold no burden
>of proof.  When you don't assert anything, you don't have to prove
>anything.  That's where weak atheism draws its strength.  But its
>strength is also its Achilles' heel.  Without assertions/axioms, one
>has no foundation upon which to build.  As a philosophy, it's virtually
>worthless.  IMO, of course.

Yes, as a philosophy weak atheism is worthless.  This is true in
exactly the same sense that as a philosophy Christians' disbelief in
Zeus is worthless.  Atheists construct their personal philosophies
from many different sources, building non-god-based ideas in the same
way as Christians build non-Zeus-based ideas of thunderbolts.
Atheists no more *base* their philosophy on atheism than Christians
base theirs on the nonexistence of Zeus.

The "weak atheist" position is logically extremely assailable -- any
logical demonstration of the existence of a god completely destroys it
as soon as the demonstration is made in the presence of a given weak
atheist.  Atheists in this newsgroup are barraged regularly with
attempts to provide such a logical demonstration, and they all fail
miserably.  In fact, most of the people around here who claim the
"strong (as opposed to mathematical) atheist" position do so on this
basis: not only do we not believe in a god, but also all the arguments
presented in favor of particular gods have to date proven unsound;
therefore, one can say that those gods as argued by those arguments do
not exist.  This doesn't apply to such philosophers' gods as are
defined to be logically undemonstrable, but these are not the gods of
popular religion, and the coherence of such claims is quite
questionable. 
-- 
Jim Perry   perry@dsinc.com   Decision Support, Inc., Matthews NC
These are my opinions.  For a nominal fee, they can be yours.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84065
From: mikec@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Micheal Cranford)
Subject: the nature of light

In article <30185@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:
[ deleted ]
>Take light as another example.  There are two theories: particle and
>wave.  Each one fails to predict the behavior of light as some point.
>So which is it: particle or wave?
[ deleted ]

  Your information on this topic is very much out of date.  Quantum Electro-
dynamics (QED - which considers light to be particles) has been experimentally
verified to about 14 decimal digits of precision under ALL tested conditions.
I'm afraid that this case, at least in the physics community, has been decided.
Laymen should consult "QED - The Strange Theory of Light and Matter" by Richard
P. Feynman and for the more technically minded there's "The Feynman Lectures on
Physics" by Feynman, Leighton and Sands (an excellent 3 volumes).  Case closed.


  UUCP:  uunet!tektronix!sail!mikec  or                  M.Cranford
         uunet!tektronix!sail.labs.tek.com!mikec         Principal Troll
  ARPA:  mikec%sail.LABS.TEK.COM@RELAY.CS.NET            Resident Skeptic
  CSNet: mikec@sail.LABS.TEK.COM                         TekLabs, Tektronix


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84066
From: rgv9488@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Hail Stan!


    I found this on the net at my college. It sounds pretty good to me. What do
    you folks think?

    >This are the tenets of Stan as handed down and set within the Holy Book 
    >of Stan.
    >
    >1: Thou shalt not spill thine drinks or waste thine food, for all that 
    >is is sacred, and to waste is the denizen of Luc, the Infidel. All who 
    >waste today shall have not tomorrow.
    >
    >2: Thou shalt pay heed to those who know the higher calling of Stan so
    >that they may teach you the way, and that thou shalt become one with
    >Stan and the universe shall be in your hands.
    >
    >3: Thou shalt honor thy loved ones and cherish those near you, for they
    >are the true path to happiness, and happiness is a devine gift of thy
    >lord Stan.
    >
    >4: Stan is the one true God and shall be taken before all others so
    >that the false gods will know that he is the one, and all who oppose
    >him shall forever be banished to the form of the sheep and be sent to
    >the flocks of Luc for all eternity.
    >
    >5: The word is the law, and the law is the word. The word is within
    >thine own heart, follow the path and be true to thine own self and thou
    >shalt be blessed by Stan, thy lord and saviour.
    >    
    >6: Thou shalt honor the faiths of others, for it is their choice to
    >follow this path, and do not think less of others for being of a
    >different faith, yet even in the face of these false gods, do not
    >waiver in thine faith in Stan, and hope that the unbeliever will see
    >the light that is Stan.
    >
    >7: Thou shalt not wrong others for being different, for Stan cherishes
    >the different, and holds freedom in the highest regard, for to do less
    >would be to fall in with Luc, the Infidel, for Stan does not control,
    >he merely guides, and lets the choice lie within thine own heart.
    >
    >8: Thou shalt know that thy lord Stan has many names and is called
    >differently by many people, but know also that Stan is the true name,
    >and all those of the faith shall know that Stan is God and God is Stan.
    >
    >9: Thou shalt be to the world what thou art to thineself, for to be
    >false to others is to be false to yourself. Thy lord Stan asks not that
    >you be like him, he asks only that you be like yourself for that is all
    >you were ever meant to be.
    >
    >10: Thou shalt not kill the innocent nor spill blood unnecessarily, for
    >those who are deserving of death shall be dealt with by Stan and sent
    >for all eternity to the flocks of Luc, and those who harm the children 
    >of Stan, being born of Woman, shall be judged as the sheep of
    >Luc and spend all of time within his flocks.
    >
    >These commandments are the words of Stan. Heed them and he shall be
    >happy, and if thy lord Stan is happy, his happiness shall be passed
    >down to his followers.
    >
    >Hail Stan!

   It seems like a pretty good set of tenets to me.

				-=V=-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I like kittens... | E-Mail:                    | Robert Voss            | DIE!!
Especially with   | rgv9488@ultb.isc.rit.edu   | 25 Andrews Memorial Dr | DIE!!
a side order of   | RGV9488@RITVAX.ISC.RIT.EDU | CPU# 01479             | DIE!!
french fries...   | RGV9488@RITVAX.BITNET      | Rochester NY 14623     | DIE!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------| DIE!!
    I AM DARKNESS ETERNAL! CALL ME! MY PHONE NUMBER IS (716) 475-4197   | DIE!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84067
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1993Apr16.173720.19151@scic.intel.com> sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth J. Bradley) writes:

>In article <C5L14I.JJ3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>>Why isn't this falsifiable? I.E. There is no God, the world has existed forever
>>and had no starting point. ?
>
>How does one falsify God's existance?  This, again, is a belief, not a scien-
>tific premise.  The original thread referred specifically to "scientific
>creationism".  This means whatever theory or theories you propose must be
>able to be judged by the scientific method.  This is in contrast to
>purely philosophical arguments.

	If given a definite definition of "God", it is sometimes possible to 
falsify the existance of that God. 
	But, when one refuses to give an immutable definition, one can not.

--- 

        " Whatever promises that have been made can than be broken. "

        John Laws, a man without the honor to keep his given word.



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84069
From: bill@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Bill Jefferys)
Subject: Why did they behave as they did (Waco--reading suggestion)

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

Bill

-- 
If you meet the Buddha on the net, put him in your kill file
	--Robert Firth

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84070
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: DID HE REALLY RISE???


/(emery)
/The one single historic event that has had the biggest impact on the
/world over the centuries is the resurrection of Jesus.  

This is hardly possible, as the majority of people in the world were
born, lived their life, and died, without ever knowing anything about
Christ.  The majority of the rest of the world have decided that he 
is not who Emery thinks he is.



/(emery)
/Why were the writers of the New Testament documents so convinced that
/Jesus really did rise from the dead?
/We have four gospel accounts.  

I am leaving out all "proofs" of Emery's which rely on quoting the
bible as proof.  Circular reasoning, etc.  There have been occasions
already stated many times for later generations of Xtians to change,
edit, or otherwise alter the bible to fit their political gospel.
And if we accept the bible as true just because the bible says it
is true, then (to be fair) we have to do the same to the Bhagavad-Gita
and the Koran, both of which contradict the bible.

Enough said.



/(emery)
/Yet we have no reason to believe these disciples to be immoral and dishonest.
/We have no historic information that would lead us to the conclusion that
/these people were not God-fearing people who sincerely and whole-heartedly
/believed that the resurrection of their Lord Jesus was a real event.
/And for what gain would they lie?  To make a stand at that time meant 
/persecution, imprisonment, and perhaps even death.

Again, this is only the biblical account and there is no independent proof
of any of this happening.  It just isn't there.

Besides, simply being sincere or willing to die for your faith does not
make your faith correct.  There are Muslims dying in Bosnia right now;
does the fact that they are willing to die for Islam mean that Islam is
the correct religion?




(emery)
/History bears out the persecution of Christians.  Roman historian, Cornelius 
/Tacitus, Govenor of Asia, in A.D. 112, writing of Nero's reign, alluded to 
/the torture of Christians in Rome:


All you have proven is that these people were tortured for their faith.  That
does not prove that their faith is true or correct; it just means that they
were sincere in their beliefs. 

Being willing to die for what you believe doesn't make your belief the truth.
It's not that easy.  And minority religions have always suffered torture;
Muslims suffer torture and harassment in India and Bosnia today.  All religions
are harassed in China today.  You haven't proven anything so far.



/(emery)
/With all the suffering and persecution that it meant to be a believer, it
/would be quite probable that at least one of those in the supposed conspiracy
/would come forward and confess that the whole thing was a big hoax.  

Not if they didn't believe that it was a hoax.  


/(emery)
/Yet not one did.  It seems rather reasonable that the disciples did not make
/up the resurrection but sincerely believed that Jesus had actually risen
/from the dead; especially in light of the sufferings that came upon those
/who believed.

The followers of Muhammad firmly believed in the miracles that the Koran
says Muhammad performed.  They were attacked and slaughtered for their
beliefs.  They didn't denounce Muhammad or Islam.  If you are correct,
then that means Islam is the true faith.

You see how stupid your proofs are?  

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84071
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: JUDAS, CRUCIFIXION, TYRE, Etc...


(Frank DeCenso)
> But how? It's evident from the texts in Ezek 26-28 that God isn't concerned
> about buildings or structures - God is concerned about people.  The people and
> leadership (Ezek 28) never did return as a city.  Others may have come later
> and built a city, but the people and leadership that God prophesied about in
> Ezek 26-28 were never rebuilt as a city of people and leaders. 


How incredibly fucking stupid.  Of *course* the text is referring to the city
itself (buildings, bricks, mortar, etc.)  Otherwise it makes no sense to
refer to the future of Tyre as being reduced to nothing but a _place_ to spread 
fishing nets.

Is there any twisting of text or semantic game that you *won't* do to preserve 
your faith from admission of error, DeCenso?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84072
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: JUDAS, CRUCIFIXION, TYRE, Etc...



/(Frank DeCenso)
/>
/>I need to prioritize things in my life, and this board is not all that important
/>to me.  

Of course it is.  It forms a very big part of your self-respect.  You come onto 
the board, thinking you're some sort of apologeticist for your faith, and you
routinely get roasted over a grill for stupid theories and unfounded assumptions.




/(Frank DeCenso)
/This board will have
/>to wait until (if ever) I can organize my life to fit it in.  I tried dropping
/>out, but Sieferman coerced me to come back.  He won't this time.

I doubt that Sieferman has anything to do with you dropping out.  

It's probably closer to the truth to say that you don't have the cards to 
play in this game (because you insist on playing from a losing hand), and you're
finally realizing it.  You will lurk on the board, and keep 
quiet for a while, looking for an area where you are *certain* that you 
are correct, and then we'll see you pop back in again.  Of course, you then
will say that you have merely returned because your life is now "in order".

But we'll know better.




Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84073
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <bskendigC5L782.JM5@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>John 12:24-26: "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat
>falls onto the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it
>produces much grain.
>  "He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in
>this world will keep it for eternal life.
>  "If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there My
>servant will be also.  If anyone serves Me, him My Father will honor."
>
>Why would I want an eternal life if I hate this one?

Again, you missed Jesus's point.  If you read the surrounding passages
you would understand what Jesus means by "life in the world."  But
as is, you bumbled around, asserted your standard axiom that the Bible is bunk,
and came up with the wrong idea.  Also, you do not know exactly
what Jesus means by eternal life.  

Brian K., do you expect to jump in the middle of the quantum mechanics
book and understand Hermite polynomials having not read the surrounding
material?  Why do you such with the Bible?  For an idea what Jesus
means by the world, look up references to it in your concordance.  For
a good description, the whole Book of Ecclesiastes is game.  For 
eternal life, check out John 17:3, John 3:15-16.  You will find that
eternal life is quite different than what you think.  Eternal life
starts NOW--an infinitely high quality of life living in fellowship
with God.


>In short: even if your deity *does* exist, that doesn't automatically
>mean that I would worship it.  I am content to live my own life, and
>fend for myself, so when I die, I can be proud of the fact that no
>matter where I end up, it will be because of *my* actions and *my* choices.
>
>If your god decides to toss me into a flaming pit for this, then so be
>it.  I would much rather just cease to exist.  But if your god wants
>my respect and my obedience, then it had better earn these; and if it
>does, then they will be very strong and true.

If my diety exists, you would not just cease to exist.  Jesus talks of
hell in Luke 16:19-31.  


>You've got to understand my point-of-view: I see Christians spouting
>Bible verse all the time as if it were some sort of magic spell that
>will level all opposition.  Truth is, it's not.  Robert has never
>demonstrated that he actually understands what the verses imply; he
>just rattles them off day by day.  Some brazenly fly in the face of
>common sense and reality, and I point these out where I can.


The truth is, is that it is not some sort of magic spell.  The truth
is is that you do not understand it, and enjoy not understanding it.

>Christanity is a very nice belief set around a very nice book. 


Wrong again.  Christianity is supposed to be relationship.  You
do not even know what Christianity is and you are arguing against
it.

>And in my opinion, you're bumbling about blindly making up entities
>where there aren't any, and depriving yourself of a true understanding
>and enjoyment of your life.  As long as you keep your beliefs to
>yourself, I'll keep my beliefs to myself -- but as soon as you start
>waving them around, expect me to toss in my opinions, too.

Just as I make up such places as Jericho, Jerusalem, Babylon, Corinth,
Ephesus, Susa, and such kings as Nebuchanezzar, David, Solomon,
Sennacherib, Herod, Pontius Pilate . . . .   But I guess then
that you treat Abraham Lincoln as a myth like you do Odin and Zeus.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84074
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Matthew MacIntyre at the National University of Senegal)
Subject: Re: Gilligan's island, den of iniquity

beb@pt.com (Bruce Buck) writes:
: In article <1993Apr13.011033.23123@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Matthew MacIntyre at the National University of Senegal) writes:
: >: >> Gilligan = Sloth
: >: >> Skipper = Anger
: >: >> Thurston Howell III = Greed
: >: >> Lovey Howell = Gluttony
: >: >> Ginger = Lust
: >: >> Professor = Pride
: >: >> Mary Ann = Envy
: >
: >Assorted Monkeys= Secular Humanism
: 
: Assorted Headhunters - Godless, Heathen Savagery
: Russian Agent who looks like Gilligan - Godless Communism
: Japanese Sailor - Godless Barbarism
: Walter Pigeon - Godless Bird Turd
: The Mosquitos (Bingo, Bango, Bongo, Irving) - Godless Rock'n'Roll
: Harold Heckuba (Phil Silvers) - Hollywood Hedonism
: John McGiver - Butterfly flicking
: Tonga, the Fake Apeman - Deceit, Lust
: Eva Grubb - Deceit, lust

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84075
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!


In article <sandvik-210493230542@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr21.145336.5912@ra.royalroads.ca>,
|> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
|> > And does it not say in scripture that no man knows the hour of His coming, not
|> > even the angels in Heaven but only the Father Himself?  DK was trying to play
|> > God by breaking the seals himself.  DK killed himself and as many of his
|> > followers as he could.  BTW, God did save the children.  They are in Heaven,
|> > a far better place.  How do I know?  By faith.
|> 
|> It seems faith is the only tool available for emotional purposes
|> due to the tragedy. As such it maybe fills a need, however I'm
|> getting tired to see children dying in pain in Sudan due to lack
|> of food, and assuming that God takes these sufferers to heaven
|> after a painful death.
|> 

If the children are not being fed, whose fault is that?  You and I
have plenty of food on our tables while others starve.  Why is that?
God gave us this earth to manage.  I don't think we're doing a very
good job of it.  The only consolation I have for those suffering
children is that they will be received into the kingdom of Heaven
where they will never thirst and never hunger again.

Peace be with you,

Malcolm Lee  :)

|>
|> Cheers,
|> Kent
|> ---
|> sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84076
From: kde@boi.hp.com (Keith Emmen)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

tbrent@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:
: 
: Probably not.  But then, I don't pack heavy weaponry with intent to use it.
: You don't really think he should have been allowed to keep that stuff do 
: you?  If so, tell me where you live so I can be sure to steer well clear.

I understand that they had the neccessary licenses and permits to own
automatic weapons.  

: The public also has rights, and they should be placed above those of the
: individual.  Go ahead, call me a commie, but you'd be singing a different
: tune if I exercised my right to rape your daughter.  He broke the law, he
: was a threat to society, they did there job - simple.

I haven't seen any proof (or even evidence) that the BD's had broken the
law.  If you have proof (or evidence), let's hear it.  "The FBI said so" is
NOT evidence.

:  
: I'll support them all (except no. 2)

I guess there will always be people who wish to be peasants.  The politicians
prefer unarmed peasants

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84077
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Koresh Doctrine -- 4 of 4

In article <C5yy8I.EBn@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>
>In article <1993Apr23.171256.5541@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu(The_Doge) writes:
>
>|>
>|>	Deleted: vast quantities of carefully-annoted spew from "David Koresh"
>|>	I don't know about the rest of you, but I think Mr. Tice needs a hobby.
>
>He has one. He spent last summer telling everyone who doubted the word
>of the great Perot that they were bigotted perot-bashers, right up to the
>moment he chickened out on them. He then kept quiet for a bit and then
>came back when Perot re-entered.
>
	This seems appropriate, somehow...>:-)>
>
>
[....]
>Then there is the rumour that Loresh in fact survived the fire in a secret
>hideyhole and rose again on the third day only to be spirited away by
>FBI agents and disposed of in order to prevent a cult following.
>
	Hah!  I have it on the very *best* authority (mine) that Koresh is
whooping it up in a time-share condo in Dallas with Elvis, JFK, and (of course)
J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, who also owns the place and everything else in Texas.
	Look for "koresh" sightings in the Weekly World News and National
Enquirer in the coming months.
	************************************************************
	*  	The_Doge of South St. Louis			   *
	*		Dobbs-Approved Media Conspirator(tm)	   *
	*	"One Step Beyond"  -- Sundays, 3 to 5 pm	   *
	*		88.1 FM		St. Louis Community Radio  *
	*  "You'll pay to know what you *really* think!"           *
	*			-- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs"		   *
	************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84078
Subject: Re: Rawlins debunks creationism
From: rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota)

In article <30151@ursa.bear.com>, halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:
>In article <C5snCL.J8o@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>
>>Evolution, as I have said before, is theory _and_ fact.  It is exactly
>>the same amount of each as the existence of atoms and the existence of
>>gravity.  If you accept the existence of atoms and gravity as fact,
>>then you should also accept the existence of evolution as fact.
>>
>>-- 
>>--Andy
>
>I don't accept atoms or gravity as fact either.  They are extremely useful
>mathematical models to describe physical observations we can make.
>Other posters have aptly explained the atomic model.  Gravity, too, is
>very much a theory; no gravity waves have even been detected, but we
>have a very useful model that describes much of the behavior on
>objects by this thing we _call_ gravity.  Gravity, however, is _not_ 
>a fact.  It is a theoretical model used to talk about how objects 
>behave in our physical environment.  Newton thought gravity was a
>simple vector force; Einstein a wave. Both are very useful models that 
>have no religious overtones or requirements of faith, unless of course you 
>want to demand that it is a factual physical entity described exactly 
>the way the theory now formulated talks about it.  That takes a great 
>leap of faith, which, of course, is what religion takes.  Evolution
>is no different.
>
>-- 
> jim halat         halat@bear.com     

Are you serious?!!!  Here's an exercise next time you are in the barnyard. 
Take *your* model and hold it directly above a fresh cowpie.  Then release the
model.  You will observe that on its own *your* model will assume a trajectory
earthward and come to rest exactly where it belongs.  Watch out for splatters,
particularly if you are wearing shorts when you perform this experiment.

Rich Fox, Anthro, Usouthdakota

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84079
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

jasons@atlastele.com (Jason Smith) writes:
>bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>= 
>= And I felt torn when I began to disagree with a lot of what the Bible
>= (and my priests) told me; 
>
>Did it start getting a little uncomfortable?  Did your style start feeling a
>bit cramped?

Yes, that's exactly what I felt.  My heart just felt that what I was
being taught was *wrong* -- a basically good message, but framed in
errors.  I could not with a clear conscience accept that women were
somehow not equal to men, that homosexuals are "guilty" of their
lifestyle, that pride in one's work is a bad thing, that Jesus died
for me -- I don't want ANYBODY to die for me, especially as an
impersonal act where the person can't possibly even *know* me well
enough to really know if I'm worth dying for or not.

I was never able to accept the bit about Jesus's death being a good
thing.  If that means that I'm just not comprehending a basic message
of Christianity, then so be it.  Maybe I'm just not compatible with
Christianity.  I just refuse to follow rules blindly, and since I
can't even convince myself that your god even EXISTS in the way you
describe it, I've got to just follow my own conscience in these matters.

>I know how that goes.  Knowing I couldn't and didn't want to 
>live up to those impossibleand rather incovenient rules are what kept me
>outside, too.  

Don't think that my morals are shoddy or nonexistent just because I
don't believe in your god.  I will not steal, and I will not murder --
not because I fear divine repudiation, but because these just *aren't*
in my character.  You may think there's nothing keeping me from just
running around on a murdering spree, stealing things when I'm able,
insulting people for the heck of it, because I'm not answerable to
anyone; but you'd be wrong.  I'm answerable to myself.  A life like
that would be a cheap life; I happen to want to earn respect in myself.

>'Till I met the Man, that is.

My initial break with Christianity came after a lot of soul-searching
and a lot of wondering why I could no longer feel the 'presence' of
God with me.  I finally decided that I had once "felt" this presence
just as I had "felt" my mighty teddy bear beside me when I was a
little tyke, protecting me from the monsters under the bed -- that I
had believed in God just as I had believed in the teddy bear, as
something of an emotional crutch to protect me from perceived dangers.

Since then, I've never abandoned the possibility that maybe your
supernatural trinity does exist.  But there are a few times when, in
my darkened room by my bed, I have set aside everything I believe for
a moment and called out to whatever's out there, because I want to
know the truth even if it means abandoning everything I know.  And I
have not yet received an answer.

>= Only when I truly listened to myself, body and soul, did I realize
>= that I could no longer honestly keep up the charade of being
>= Christian.  There is a higher truth in the universe, and Christianity
>= just ain't it.
>
>Any suggestions on what (or who or where) it might be, and why?

Nope.  It may well be unknowable.  Scientists have suggested that the
universe may be finite and wrap around on itself (the three-dimensional
universe may be mapped onto a four-dimensional supersphere in the same
way you can map a two-dimensional plane onto a three-dimensional
sphere; see _Sphereland_, the sequel to _Flatland_, for more thoughts
on this).  Our entire universe might just be an electron in a four-
dimensional universe, which in turn may only be an insignificant speck
in a universe above that, and so on and so forth until the variables
become too much for us to even speculate on.

That is, there's no possible way for us to know exactly how we came to
be, so there's no reason at all to believe that your God exists nor
had anything to do with it.

>"OK," you may say. "So now, if I'm just being good, am I doing good enough?"
>
>That's for you to answer.  If you feel you're doing fine, then go ahead and
>ignore us foolish little Christians.  We can present what we've seen and
>experienced (providing our witness), but it isn't up to us to make that seed
>sprout.  

Christians have provided me with nothing except quotes from your holy
book, and all sorts of tactics to try to get me to believe: guilt
trips, insinuations that I'm without morals, arguments from disbelief
("how can you possibly believe that God *doesn't* exist?"), and so
forth.  All I'm asking is for you to convince me.  I want to be convinced,
but it's not going to be easy.

>So much as you don't like what we're "selling", there just may be someone
>out there that can identify with it.  Methinks you could give us all a 
>lesson in tolerance and back off.

Having had years upon years of contact with your religion from both
the inside and the outside, I view it as harmful in many ways.  It
preys on people who want to find meaning in their lives, and once it's
got these people, it teaches them to have pity (and sometimes starkly
intolerant) of others who do not share these views.  Maybe you'll say
that your religion doesn't teach that -- but I've got to judge
Christianity from the Christians I know.

I feel that it is entirely possible and good to have faith in one's
self, and to be a positive influence on society for no better reason
than that.

So I hope that my words in this newsgroup will at least make some
people think.  I want Christians to realize that there are perfectly
valid lifestyles and opinions that have nothing to do with their deity
whatsoever, and I want people who are considering Christianity to
realize that Christianity does not hold the sole key to a happy,
fulfilled life.

I have known some very nice Christians who have done some very nice
things.  I think what sets these people apart from the general masses
is that they recognize that their religious beliefs may be wrong, and
they know the weaknesses of their religion, yet they still decide to
believe, but they keep their beliefs to themselves and do not think
any less of people who don't agree with them.

>Obviously, the debate on the veracity and reliability of the Source of the
>Christian's faith is far from conclusive, notwithstanding how vehemently we
>propose otherwise.

Precisely my point.  You've still not given me a reason to be a
Christian instead of a Buddhist or a Moslem...

>= The nice thing about religion, if you lose yourself deeply enough in
>= it, is that eventually you'll be able to feel justified in most
>= anything you want to do.
>
>Y'know your right.  Fortunately for everyone around me, I'm not religious.  
>I'm a Christian.

... just as the Moslems aren't religious, and the Buddhists aren't
religious.  Who *is* religious, then?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84080
From: huston@access.digex.com (Herb Huston)
Subject: Re: The fact of the theory

In article <1993Apr24.141736.17526@njitgw.njit.edu> dmu5391@hertz.njit.edu (David Utidjian Eng.Sci.) writes:
}It is so simple.... I'm surprised that this subject gets
}beat to death about once a month. A quick glance in a dictionary
}would clear up 99% of the confusion and bandwidth in this
}newsgroup.

Reading Stephen Jay Gould's essay "Evolution as Fact and Theory" wouldn't
hurt, either.  It appears in _Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes_.

}            Then we could talk about really important things
}like, why do men have nipples?

See Gould's "Male Nipples and Clitoral Ripples" in _Bully for Brontosaurus_.

Gee, this is easy.

-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.com

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84081
From: kde@boi.hp.com (Keith Emmen)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

xcpslf@oryx.com (stephen l favor) writes:
: : Seems to me Koresh is yet another messenger that got killed
: : for the message he carried. (Which says nothing about the 
: : character of the messenger.) I reckon we'll have to find out
: : the rest the hard way.
: : 
: 
: Koresh was killed because he wanted lots of illegal guns.

I haven't heard of ANY illegal guns being found.  He was accused
of not paying taxes on LEGAL guns.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84082
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: What RIGHT ?


In article <1993Apr22.133142.23772@ifi.uio.no>, joakimr@ifi.uio.no (Joakim Ruud) writes:
|> 
|> Recently, I've asked myself a rather interesting question: What RIGHT does
|> god have on our lives (always assuming there is a god, of course...!) ??
|> 

He is God.

|> In his infinite wisdom, he made it perfectly clear that if we don't live
|> according to his rules, we will burn in hell. Well, with what RIGHT can god
|> make that desicion? 

He is God.

|> Let's say, for the sake of argument, that god creates every
|> one of us (directly or indirectly, it doesn't matter.). What then happens, is
|> that he first creates us, and then turns us lose. Well, I didn't ask to be
|> created. 
|>

God granted you the gift of life whether you were sinner or saint.
 
|> Let's make an analogue. If a scientist creates a unique living creature (which
|> has happened, it was even patented...!!!), does he then have the right to
|> expect it to behave in a certain matter, or die...?
|>

The scientist creates the living creature to examine it, poke and prod it and
learn about its behaviour.  He will kill it if it becomes a threat.  For
example, let's say the scientist creates a Tyrannosaurus Rex and it breaks
free of its confines and starts devouring the population.  The scientist
would not hesitate in killing it.

God creates us to be His loving companions.  He knows whether we are true in 
our love for Him or not.  And He lets us know the consequences of rejecting Him.
God cannot abide by sin.  By rejecting God, a person becomes an enemy of God,
one that must be killed by Him.  Note:  I say that God and God alone is
worthy to be Judge, Jury and Executioner.  We are not called to carry out
such duties because we are not worthy.
 
|> Who is god to impose its rules on us ? Who can tell if god is REALLY so
|> righteous as god likes us to believe? Are all christians a flock of sheep,
|> unable to do otherwise that follow the rest? 
|>

God is God.  Who are we to question the Creator?  If you doubt God's doing
in certain situations, do you claim to know a better solution?  Would you
be playing the role of God?
 
|> Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
|> 
|> I just want to point out that this is not sarcasm, I mean it.
|> 
|> 		 	How should one deal with a man who is convinced that
|> 		 	he is acting according to God's will, and who there-
|>      Jokke		fore believes that he is doing you a favour by
|> 		 	stabbing you in the back?
|>  
|> 							-Voltaire
|> 

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84083
From: "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: History & texts (was: Ancient references to Christianity)

>DATE:   24 Apr 1993 11:53:48 -0500
>FROM:   Russell Turpin <turpin@cs.utexas.edu>
>
>
>The diaries of the followers of the Maharishi, formerly of
>Oregon, are historical evidence.  

Are you confusing Bhagwan Rajneesh (sp?) with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
here by any chance?  I think Bhagwan was in Oregon with all the Rolls
Royces.  Maharishi Mahesh Yogi founded Transcendental Meditation and
does the yogic flying stuff.  Bhagwan's group was a communal, free sex
kind of thing.  I think they both had beards, though.




Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84084
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!


In article <1993Apr22.203851.3081@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com>, bittrolff@evans.enet.dec.com () writes:
|> 
|> In article <1993Apr20.143754.643@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
|> 
|> |>BTW, David Koresh was NOT
|> |>Jesus Christ as he claimed.
|> 
|> How can you tell for sure? Three days haven't passed yet. 
|>

Well, where is he?  Another false Messiah shot down in flames.

Matthew 24:4
   "Watch out that no one deceives you.  For many will come in my
    name, claiming, 'I am the Christ', and will deceive many."

Matthew 24:23
   "At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!'
    or 'There he is!' do not believe it.  For false Christs and 
    false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles
    to deceive even the elect - if that were possible.  See, I have
    told you ahead of time."

Do we listen?  Sadly, not all of us do.

Peace be with you, and condolences to the families of those lost at
Waco.

Malcolm Lee  
 
|> --
|> Steve Bittrolff
|> 
|> The previous is my opinion, and is shared by any reasonably intelligent person.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84085
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?


In article <2855@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM>, tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr20.220340.2585@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
|> >
|> >armed to the teeth.  A Christian should not have to rely on physical weapons
|> >to defend himself.  A Christian should rely on his faith and intelligence.
|> 
|> Faith and intelligence tell me that when a druggie breaks into my house at
|> night with a knife to kill me for the $2 in my wallet, a .357 is considerably
|> more persuasive than having devotions with him.
|> 
|> -- 
|> Tom Albrecht

Give him the $2, leave the house and call the police.  That's what I would
do.  I will not kill to protect mere possessions.

Peace be with you,

Malcolm Lee  :)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84086
From: kde@boi.hp.com (Keith Emmen)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
: 
:   Nut or not, he was clearly a liar.  He said he would surrender after
:   local radio stations broadcast his message, but he didn't.  Then he
:   said he would surrender after Passover, but he didn't.
: 

The FBI said he would surrender.  We don't KNOW what he said.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84087
From: Pegasus@aaa.uoregon.edu (Pegasus)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick

In article <JOSHUA.93Apr20190924@bailey.cpac.washington.edu>,
joshua@cpac.washington.edu (Joshua Geller) wrote:
> 

> I would really appreciate if when someone brought something like
> this up they didn't back out when someone asked for details.
> josh

EXCUSE ME!
I am -NOT TRYING TO BACK OUT- Josh, Maybe you should try to make an
informed responce when your are trying to pack, and your references are
PACKED!  and someone responses like you did. (NO GRIN).
Pegasus

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84091
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Laws of God (was Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!)


In article <1993Apr23.142414.20665@sei.cmu.edu>, dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood) writes:
|> 
|> mlee@ra.royalroads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
|> >These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had
|> >expressly set apart from the rest of the world.  The Israelites were a
|> >direct witness to God's existence.  To disobey God after KNOWing that God
|> >is real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately punishable.
|> >Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to 
|> >God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We are living in the
|> >age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death.  There is
|> >repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just
|> >for a few chosen people.  Salvation is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile
|> >alike.
|> 
|> Sorry if this is late for the thread, but...
|> 
|> I thought God was supposed to be constant and never-changing.  How do
|> you reconcile this common Christian view with the paragraph above?
|>

God never changes.  He still loves us.  Sending Jesus was one of His
attempts to reconcile with mankind.  The nature of God has not changed.

|> 
|> Also, while we're at it:
|> 
|> 1. How do you reconcile "A KIND and LOVING God!!" with the
|> Judeo-Christian view that sin was at one time "immediately punishable
|> by death"?  Was killing people for sinning God's way of showing
|> KINDness and LOVE?
|>

Sinning in the face of God was punishable by immediate death.  There are
several OT passages to back this up.  God is God.  He cannot tolerate
the prescence of sin in His midst.  And the Israelites knew this!  And
still, some of them chose to disobey and were destroyed.  Were these
people KIND and LOVing themselves?  God gave them every break He could
but in the end, He really had no choice in the matter.  Seeing as how
we were failing to achieve salvation on our own, He sent His Son to die
for us - to be the ultimate sin offering.  Now we live in the age of
grace.


|> 
|> 2. Is the fact the He no longer does this an admission on His part of
|> having made a mistake?
|>

He sent His Son as a consolation to us, out of love.
 
|> 3. Now that we are "living in the age of grace", does this mean that
|> for our sins, God now damns us to eternal hell after we die, rather
|> than killing us immediately?  If so, is this eternal damnation an
|> example of "A KIND and LOVING God!!"?
|>

Hey, let's be fair for a moment here.  KIND and LOVING does not mean
a free ride.  There is an amount of give and take as in any relationship.
Parents are supposed to be kind and loving but does that mean that 
children can do whatever they want?  NOT!  Part of being a parent means
administering punishment when the child is at fault.  Part of being a 
parent means giving instruction.  God tests us through the trial of
life such that we may grow stronger.  He teaches what is right and 
what is wrong.  The consequences of our actions are made clear to us,
be it Heaven or be it Hell.  If God did not follow through with what
He has warned us about, He would not be a very good parent.

In parenting, if a parent issues a warning but does not follow through
with it, the children will not take that parent's words very seriously.
God does the same by telling us who have ears to hear what to do and
what not to do.  By life's trials, we see the folly of doing our own
will rather than His.  He warns us about the consequences of rejecting
Him when it comes time for Judgement.  Do we follow Him?

I will.

Peace be with you,

Malcolm Lee  :)

 
|> Just curious.
|> 
|> --Dave Wood

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84092
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!


In article <f2jjowk@quack.kfu.com>, pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
|>
|> So, do you adhere to the Ten Commandments?
|>

Jesus did and so do I.

Peace be with you,

Malcolm Lee  :)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84096
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <24APR199302290235@utarlg.uta.edu>, b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
> In article <1993Apr21.190441.4282@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, 
> f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes...
> 
>>In article <1993Apr21.164554.1@ccsua.ctstateu.edu>, 
>>parys@ccsua.ctstateu.edu writes:
>>> I told some friends of mine two weeks ago that Koresh was dead.  
>>> The FBI and the BATF could not let a man like that live. He was 
>>> a testimonial to their stupidity and lies.    
>>> 
>>	[...deleted...]
>> 
>>Unfortunately, I think you've got it figured pretty well.  I also ask
>>myself the question "Why did they plan for so many months.  Why was
>>this so important to them?  What was the government really up to?
>>Why did they seal the warrant?  Were they after Koresh or were they 
>>after the first and second amendments, among others?
> 
> Allow me to play devils advocate a moment JG:

Didn't expect to find you in the Devil's role, Stephen, but these are
the times that try men's souls.
> 
> 	o  What was called many months of *planning* was probably
> 	   the intelligence collecting: paperwork and interviews.
> 
Nine months, as I understand it.  No doubt this accounts for a 
significant amount of the time as government efficiency in spending
our tax dollars would certainly seek its absolute minimum in such
an event.  But my gut instinct says there is more at hand.  It took
some careful preplanning to demonize D.K. to such an extent.  The
attack meshes well with more restrictive gun control legislation
that seems to be the agenda of the day.  It also fits a pattern of
increased government interference in personal religious beliefs.
[Randy Weaver is now on trial].

> 	o  It's important to them because it justifies budgets.
>
No quarrel here.  The BIG BANG theory is always apt at appropriation
time.  They just don't have to possess a single motive.
 
> 	o  The warrant was sealed to keep from jeopardizing the 
> 	   the government's case.

I certainly think publication of the warrant undermines the government's
case since it makes no claims of illegal action.  Therefore the federal
judge had reason to seal it.  But I am reminded of Senator Frank Church's
remark that "secrecy is the trademark of a totalitarian government."
There is rarely sufficient motive to seal a warrant in a nation of
free people.
> 
> 	o  There was probably no one actually exercising oversite.
> 	   Instead, a system of bureaucratic rules has been set 
> 	   up for such incidents. Like computer programs -- these
> 	   have to be debugged periodically. Especially when used
> 	   in fringe areas. (cf. the "hostage rescue" program).
> 	   Therefore -- NO ONE WAS IN CHARGE. And no one can 
> 	   reasonably be held responsible. 

How can I argue with irrefutable logic?  I have long suspected that
the government has become a mindless machine and now you go and
confirm my worst fears!  Has it become a BEAST that is programmed
simply to say "Kiss my toe and you get your piece of the pie?"
I suspect bugs in the program arise when agents or those who love
this critter have independent thoughts.
 
> 	o  What they were after, generally speaking, is protecting
> 	   their jobs, budgets, and paychecks.

And watching Terminator II.
> 
> 
>>> We waited 444 days for our hostages to come home from Iran.  We gave these
>>> people 51 days.  
>>> 
>    186 died at the Alamo.  86 died that day in Waco.    

Yes, 186 seeds for a new Republic.  And 86 for...?
> 					
>    Rev. 11:9 ...And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and
>              nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an
>              half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put
>              in graves.               
> 
>    Why no burial?  Is is that the bodies of the Witnesses will be said
>    to be property of the state?  Or just a typical bureaucratic delay?
> 
    Rev. 11:10...And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice
		over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one
		to another; because these two prophets tormented them
		that dwelt on the earth.

Stephen, have you sensed that some have been rejoicing lately....?


>       |
>    -- J --      		
>       |
>       | stephen 
> 
> 
-- 
 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
 Joe Gaut                    |   In the super-state, it really does not
 <f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> |   matter at all what actually happened.
     Remember the Alamo      |   Truth is what the government chooses to 
       Remember Waco         |   tell you.  Justice is what it wants to happen.
                                        --Jim Garrison, New Orleans, La.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84097
From: battin@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu (Laurence Gene Battin)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <24APR199302290235@utarlg.uta.edu>, stephen (b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu) wrote:
> In article <1993Apr21.190441.4282@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, 
> f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes...

> >In article <1993Apr21.164554.1@ccsua.ctstateu.edu>, 
> >parys@ccsua.ctstateu.edu writes:
> >> I told some friends of mine two weeks ago that Koresh was dead.  
> >> The FBI and the BATF could not let a man like that live. He was 
> >> a testimonial to their stupidity and lies.    
> >> 
> >	[...deleted...]
> > 
> >Unfortunately, I think you've got it figured pretty well.  I also ask
> >myself the question "Why did they plan for so many months.  Why was
> >this so important to them?  What was the government really up to?
> >Why did they seal the warrant?  Were they after Koresh or were they 
> >after the first and second amendments, among others?

> Allow me to play devils advocate a moment JG:

> 	o  What was called many months of *planning* was probably
> 	   the intelligence collecting: paperwork and interviews.

> 	o  It's important to them because it justifies budgets.

> 	o  The warrant was sealed to keep from jeopardizing the 
> 	   the government's case.

> 	o  There was probably no one actually exercising oversite.
> 	   Instead, a system of bureaucratic rules has been set 
> 	   up for such incidents. Like computer programs -- these
> 	   have to be debugged periodically. Especially when used
> 	   in fringe areas. (cf. the "hostage rescue" program).
> 	   Therefore -- NO ONE WAS IN CHARGE. And no one can 
> 	   reasonably be held responsible. 

Baloney.  Either the programmer or the people who decided to let their
actions be governed by the program are clearly at fault.  If you neglect
to do maintenance on your car, and the steering goes out, you _are_
responsible for the death of all those kids on the sidewalk your car
subsequently drives over "on its own".

Gene Battin
battin@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu
no .sig yet

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84098
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (E. Elizabeth Bartley)
Subject: Re: What part of "No" don't you understand?

In article <1rbh3n$hav@kyle.eitech.com>
ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1993Apr24.002509.4017@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>A "moment of silence" doesn't mean much unless *everyone*
>>participates.  Otherwise it's not silent, now is it?

>>Non-religious reasons for having a "moment of silence" for a dead
>>classmate: (1) to comfort the friends by showing respect to the
>>deceased , (2) to give the classmates a moment to grieve together, (3)
>>to give the friends a moment to remember their classmate *in the
>>context of the school*, (4) to deal with the fact that the classmate
>>is gone so that it's not disruptive later.

>Yeah, all well and good. The fact is, though, that the pro-school
>prayer types have tried to use a moment of silence as a way
>to get prayer back. At my high school for instance, our dear
>principal ended the moment of silence with "Amen."

I can certainly see opposing the "Amen" -- but that doesn't require 
opposing a moment of silence.

>I'll back off when they do.

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.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84099
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?

hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:


>In article <wcscps.735321331@cunews>, wcscps@superior.carleton.ca (Mike Richardson) writes:

>[Lots of good points re Mormons in the US]

>The founding fathers of the US were hardly great on religious freedoms. At
>least one history I have read formed the opinion that they left for the
>US not to practice religious freedom but to practice religious intolerance.

Bzzt. Thank you for playing.

You're confusing the puritans/pilgrims with the founding fathers.
Difference of ~150 years and a much different culture...


>Phill Hallam-Baker
--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84100
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Re: Why did they behave as they did (Waco--reading suggestion)

How come noone mentions Eric Hoffer when talking about 
fanatic behavior anymore?


--
Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff.
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84101
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1993Apr20.142356.456@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>
>In article <C5rLps.Fr5@world.std.com>, jhallen@world.std.com (Joseph H Allen) writes:
>|> In article <1qvk8sINN9vo@clem.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
>|> 
>|> It was interesting to watch the 700 club today.  Pat Robertson said that the
>|> "Branch Dividians had met the firey end for worshipping their false god." He
>|> also said that this was a terrible tragedy and that the FBI really blew it.
>
>I don't necessarily agree with Pat Robertson.  Every one will be placed before
>the judgement seat eventually and judged on what we have done or failed to do
>on this earth.  God allows people to choose who and what they want to worship.

I'm sorry, but He does not!  Ever read the FIRST commandment?

>Worship of money is one of the greatest religions in this country.

You mean, false religion!

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84105
From: V2110A@VM.TEMPLE.EDU (Richard Hoenes)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <cjkC5sy5G.Ko4@netcom.com>
cjk@netcom.com writes:
 
>This was obviously a lot different than the ordinary FBI adventure.
>
>I believe that the Federal officers had a conflict of interests here.
>
>Throught out the whole affair, it seamed to me that they were chiefly
>concerned with saving face rather than saving lifes.  Its true that
>The BD were resisting arrest and that they should have surrendered
>when they first realized that these where federal officers.  But they
>didn`t.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by 'saving face' unless you are confusing
the FBI with the BATF who are the ones who were in charge of the
original search warrant.
 
>But when they didn`t, the FBI should not have treated as a hostage
>situation, it wasn't.
>
>I think  more discussions, possible independant negotiators, and
>family intervention should have been used.
>
Independant Negotiators? What was there to negotiate? Any sort of plea
bargin has to be brought to the court, the negotiators can't negotiate
charges or sentences. FBI negotitators did make a deal for the
Dividians to come out. Koresh showed he was not negotiating in good
faith and there is no reason to believe independent negotiators
would have done any better.
 
Richard

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84106
From: parys@ccsua.ctstateu.edu
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

I told some friends of mine two weeks ago that Koresh was dead.  The FBI and
the BATF could not let a man like that live.  He was a testimonial to their
stupidity and lies.    

Now before everyone gets crazy with me, let me say that Koresh was crazy as 
a bed bug, but out government was crazier...and they lied to us.

They told us compound had been under survaillance for quite some time.  Yet, 
whoever was watching the place failed to see that Koresh went jogging and into
town on a regular basis.  Everyone in the area claimed to have seen him and 
wondered why they didn't pick him up then.  There are two possible answers.
First, they didn't see him.  What kind of survaillance is that?  Second, they
didn't care.  They wanted a confrontation.  They wanted publicity and they got
it.

After the first battle, they told us that they did not know he knew they were
coming.  They also said it would have been foolish to go in knowing that.
Well, we know now that they intercepted the informants call and went in anyway.

Did they explore all of the possibilities for ending the seige?  According to
them they did, but according to the Hartford Courant, the woman that raised
Koresh (His Grandmother) was not allowed to go in and see him.                 
 The FBI agent who she spoke with was Bob Ricks and according to the paper he
said:

"A lot of people think if you just talk to them logically they will come out.
His grandmother raised Vernon Howell; (Koresh's Real name)  she didn't raise
David Koresh."

Someone who raises you and loves you does not speak to you strickly on a
logical level.  There is also an emotional level on which they can reach you.

Here's another one.  All during this operation the FBI has been claiming that
they feared a mass suicide and that is one of the reasons that something must
be done.  Now they claim they never thought he would do it?

I knew they were going to do something when they started talking about how
much money this was costing.  That was the start of the "Justification" part
part of the plan.  That's when I knew it would come soon.

But, back to the plan.  It is considered "Cruel and Unusal Punishment" to
execute criminals in the minds of many people, but look at what's acceptable.

They knew the parents (adults) had gas masks.  They did not know, or were not
sure, if the children had them.  So the plan was to pour the gas into the 
compound.  The mothers, seeing what the gas was doing to their children were
supposed to run out and that would only leave the men to deal with.

I spent two years in the army and like everyother veteran I went through CBR
(Chemical, Biological Radiological) warfare training.  Part of that training
is going into a room filled with the same stuff that the children were
subjected to.  To make the stuff really interesting the gas also has a chemical 
agent that irritates the skin.  You think its on fire.

I have no doubts the children would become hysterical.  Its not the kind of
thing you never want to do again.  This was the plan, the final solution.

We waited 444 days for our hostages to come home from Iran.  We gave these
people 51 days.  

I stated on several occasions that there was absolutely nothing in this whole
thing that the government could point to as a success.  Well, FBI agent Ricks
changed my mind.  Again a newclip from the Hartford Courant:

"And while expressing regret at the loss of life, he suggested that the
operation had been at least a modified success because not a single federal
shot had been fired and not a single federal agent had been hurt."

It took 17 dead children to get us that new definition of success.

One more thought.  The government claimed that they believed he had automatic
weapons on the premises. 
                                                      
        HE HAD A LICENSE FOR THE 50 CALIBER MACHINE GUN!

THEY KNEW DAMN WELL HE HAD ONE. THEY ALSO KNEW HE HAD IT LEGALLY!

Still, without the element of surprise they sent in agents to get him.
For all of this my President takes full responsibility.  What a guy!
I hope he gets it.
















 














In article <exuptr.1431.0@exu.ericsson.se>, exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor, The Sounding Board) writes:
> In article <11974@prijat.cs.uofs.edu> bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
> 
>>Before you go absolving the BATF & FBI of all blame in this incident, you should
>>probably be aware of two important facts.
>>1.  There is no such thing as non-toxic tear gas.  Tear gas is non-breathable
>>    remaining in it's presence will cause nausea and vomiting, followed eventually
>>    by siezures and death.  Did the FBI know the physical health of all the people
>>    they exposed??  Any potential heart problems among the B-D's??
> 
> No doubt it is dangerous stuff when concentrated.
> 
>>2.  Have you ever seen a tear gas canister??  Tear gas is produced by burning a
>>    chemical in the can.  The fumes produced are tear gas.  The canister has a 
>>    warning printed on the side of it.  "Contact with flamable material can result
>>    in fire."  Now, how many of these canisters did they throw inside a building 
>>    they admited was a fire-trap??
> 
> None.  They used non-incindiary methods, which means they produced the gas 
> outside the building and pumped it in via the tanks.
> 
> ---
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  ---------Visit the SOUNDING BOARD BBS +1 214 596 2915, a Wildcat! BBS-------
> 
>  ObDis: All opinions are specifically disclaimed. No one is responsible.
> 
>     Patrick Taylor, Ericsson Network Systems  THX-1138
>     exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                    "Don't let the .se fool you"

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84113
From: spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <C5stEL.K0E@boi.hp.com> dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews) writes:
>>Dear Brother Bill,
>>
>>One way or another -- so much for patience. Too bad you couldn't just 
>>wait. Was the prospect of God's Message just too much to take?
>
>  So do you want the president to specifically order each and every activity
>of the FBI, or what?  And how willing are you to blame Reagan and Bush,
>directly, for the incidents that took place in the War on Drugs in their
>administration?  Are you going to blame Bush for the fact that Weaver's wife,
>infant, son were killed?  It happened while he was president.

... or consider the thousands in Central America killed by those brave
CIA/NSC sponsored "Freedom Fighters."

Thus far, Slick Willie is a piker.

							spl

-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
San Diego Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UC San Diego/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"My other car is a car, too."
                 - Bumper strip seen on I-805

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84120
From: susan_soric@upubs.uchicago.edu (Susan Soric)
Subject: Wanted: Moltmann's God in Creation

I'm greatly in need of Jurgen
Moltmann's book God in Creation:
An Ecological Doctrine of Creation.

If you have a copy you're willing to
part with, I'd love to hear from you
soon.  You may call me at 312-702-
8367 or e-mail me.

Thanks.

==========================================================================================
Susan Soric
Independent agent
susan_soric@upubs.uchicago.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84121
From: isaackuo@skippy.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <GERRY.93Apr21132149@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>No, a no-knock warrant is in clear violation of the 4th amendment.
>Okay, what about the fact that they were tipped off - they shouldn't
>have opened fire - right?  WRONG!  Think about this: I am a drug
>dealer and my competition wants to do away with me. They call me and
>tell me that the Feds are on their way with a no-knock warrant. So,
>being moronic sheep we wait, with our guns holstered. Now, instead of
>the Feds, in comes my competition, and we're history.  The only
>acceptable answer to a no-knock warrant is blazing guns!  I may sound
>paranoid, but our government is out of control, and killing a few
>federal officers make knock some sense back into it.

Hmm.  The police strategy of bursting in with weapons drawn, clearly marked as
officers and yelling "Police" repeatedly.  This is used every day to bust drug
houses.  The idea is to awe the suspects into submission with surprise and
display of firepowere in order to avoid a gun fight.  As for not knocking, it's
a sad necessity in many cases since the suspects will attempt to escape or even
fight.  Usually this strategy works; if it didn't, then it wouldn't be used so
commonly, now would it?

Whether or not it was appropriate to use this strategy on the BD is not my
point, since I don't think any of us have enough information to make a clear
judgement on this issue.

I merely point out that it IS a valid strategy which is used every day.
Furthermore, we don't know of any substitute strategy capable of apprehending
potentially dangerous and armed suspects.  Do you suggest that the police
always knock with guns holstered and never arrest any suspects until they have
been allowed to inspect the officers's badges?  Just what should the police do
when apprehending potentially dangerous and armed suspects?  How far can they
reasonably go to identiy themselves?  What do you suggest they can do which
can't be faked by the "competition"?

Even if you've got deadly enemies who may pretend to be cops, that's not an
excuse to murder police.  In the case of the BD's, there was almost definitely
at most the paranoid delusion of deadly enimies who would pretend to be cops.
-- 
*Isaac Kuo (isaackuo@math.berkeley.edu)	*       ___
*					* _____/_o_\_____
*	Twinkle, twinkle, little .sig,	*(==(/_______\)==)
*	Keep it less than 5 lines big.	* \==\/     \/==/

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84122
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Subject: Re: ABORTION and private health coverage -- letters regarding


<DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
| For an illustrative example in the opposite direction, it may be possible
| to ADD services to an insurance contract and REDUCE the premium.  If you
| add preventative services and this reduces acute care use, then the total
| premium may fall.

Women who are known not to want abortion services, for example,
might be judged to be more likely to require prenatal care &
coverage for childbirth... which can be an order of magnitude
more expensive than abortion. 

This topic should really be restricted to talk.abortion, which
exists to relieve t.r.m & t.p.m of abortion flamage.  

---
C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
"In Melbourne, Fla., meanwhile, anti-abortion marchers rallied to 
celebrate the death of Dr. David Gunn.  "Praise God!" they shouted."
	      (NY Daily News, Fri. March 12, p. 20)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84123
From: lanphi872@moscow.uidaho.edu (Rob Lanphier)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!

Malcolm Lee (mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca) wrote:
: I will clarify my earlier quote.  God's laws were originally written for 
: the Israelites.  Jesus changed that fact by now making the Law applicable to
: all people, not just the Jews.  Gentiles could be part of the kingdom of
: Heaven through the saving grace of God.  I never said that the Law was made
: obsolete by Jesus.

Just for reference, here's the earlier quote:
Malcolm Lee (mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca) wrote in reference to Leviticus 21:9
and Deuteronomy 22:20-25:
: These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had
: expressly set apart from the rest of the world.  The Israelites were a
: direct witness to God's existence.  To disobey God after KNOWing that God
: is real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately
: punishable.
: Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to
: God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We are living in
: the age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death.  There
: is repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.  And
: not just for a few chosen people.  Salvation is available to everyone, Jew
: and Gentile alike.

These are two conflicting statements.  To say one is a clarification of the
other is a breach of logic.  I don't mind people shifting their position on
an issue.  It irritates me when it is said under the premise that no change
was made.  What about Deuteronomy 22:20-25?  Is it wrong now?  Did Jesus
change that?

: If anything, He clarified the Law such as in that quote you made.  In the
: following verses, Jesus takes several portions of the Law and expounds upon
: the Law giving clearer meaning to what God intended.

Sure he does this.  However, he doesn't address the notion of stoning
non-virgin brides, because this needs no clarification.  Are you going to
deny that Deuteronomy 22:20-25 is not patently clear in its intent?

: I think you will agree with me that there are in today's world, a lot of
: modern-day Pharisees who know the bible from end to end but do not believe
: in it.  What good is head knowledge if there is nothing in the heart?

I'll agree that there is a lot of modern day Pharisees that know the Bible
from end to end and don't believe in it.  Depending on how they use this
knowledge, they can be scary.  They can argue any position they desire, and
back it up with selected parts of the Bible.  Such Pharisees include David
Koresh and Adolph Hitler.  I will qualify this by saying *I don't know* if
they actually believed what they were preaching, but the ends certainly
made the means look frightening.

However, just as scary are those that don't know much of the Bible, but
believe every word.  In fact, this is probably scarier, since there are far
more of these people, from what I've seen.  In addition, they are very easy
to manipulate by the aforementioned Pharisees, since they don't know enough
to debate with these people.

: Christianity is not just a set of rules; it's a lifestyle that changes one's
: perspectives and personal conduct.  And it demands obedience to God's will.

No, it demands obedience to a book.  If God came down and personally told
me how I should behave, then I would say that I would be doing God's will
by doing it.  However, if preachers, pastors, and evangelists tell me to
obey the will of a book written by people who have been dead for close to
two millenia (even longer for the OT), even if I follow everything in it
with my heart, I could scarcely be honest with myself by saying I'm doing
the will of God.

: Some people can live by it, but many others cannot or will not.  That is
: their choice and I have to respect it because God respects it too.

Well, if God respects it so much, how come there is talk in the Bible about
eternal damnation for non-believers?  I see little respect eminating from
the god of the Bible.  I see a selfish and spiteful god.

: God be with you,

Not yours, thanks ;)

: Malcolm Lee  :)

Rob Lanphier
lanphi872@snake.cs.uidaho.edu
lanph872@uidaho.edu

And for the curious, here is my earlier post:
> Hmm, for a book that only applied to the Israelites (Deuteronomy), Jesus sure
> quoted it a lot (Mt 4: 4,7,10).  In addition, he alludes to it in several
> other places (Mt 19:7-8; Mk 10:3-5; Jn 5:46-47).  And, just in case it isn't
> clear Jesus thought the Old Testament isn't obsolete, I'll repeat the
> verse in Matthew which gets quoted on this group a lot:
> 
> "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have
> not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until
> heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke
> of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is
> accomplished.  Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments
> and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of
> heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called
> great in the kingdom of heaven.  For I tell you that unless your
> righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law,
> you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."  (Mt 5:17-20 NIV, in
> pretty red letters, so that you know it's Jesus talking)
 
> This causes a serious dilemma for Christians who think the Old Testament
> doesn't apply to them.  I think that's why Paul Harvey likes quoting it so
> much ;).

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84124
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <C5soDA.3L8@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:
>Ken Arromdee writes
>>>Did they not know that these men were federal officers?
>>Do you know what a "no-knock search" is?
>Yes, but tell me how you think your question answers my question. If
>the BDs didn't know immediately that they were dealing with feds
>(uniform apparel, insignia), they must have figured it out in pretty
>short order. Why did they keep fighting? They seemed awfully ready
>for having been attacked "without warning". 

Oh, bloody sorry old chap, why didn't you tell me you were a federale?
Tough luck, eh? What's that? You say you're not dead yet?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84125
From: tims@megatek.com (Tim Scott)
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.taoism

In article <79899@cup.portal.com> Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:


I would like to add my support for a misc.taoism discussion group.
I applaud the enthusiam shown by the person posting <79899@cup.portal.com> 
"Thyagi@cup.portal.com" (I read in alt.magick), but I differ
with him/her in believing that at least some minimal parameters 
should be agreed upon.

Thyagi wrote:

> I recommend that the depth of generality, indeed, of AMBIGUITY, in this
> newsgroup (misc.taoism) be maximized.  Calling the Tradition old or new
> is rather unnecessary, and only leads to foolish squabbles.  There is no
> doubt that Nature is a splendid teacher, whether she appears in the words
> spoken by a tree or by a stream, a microbe or a star.  Let us not limit
> 'misc.taoism' to 'philosophy'.  

But if we don't limit it to *something*, the discussion degenerates into
a big amorphous glob. 

Other questions Thyagi proposes are:

> 1) What is this 'actual process of reality'?
> 2) Why is Taoism based upon an assumption?
> 3) Why does this assumption concern knowledge and what can be known?
> 4) What is the value of not knowing?
> 5) What is 'a Tao'?  What does it mean to be 'Tao'd'?

It seems to me that these questions more properly fall into the
category of "general metaphysics". I would prefer any misc.taoism
to deal more closely with topics and works more closely associated
with at least "semi-orthodox" Taoism: with established classic works 
definitely included and works like Mantak Chia's argued about! 

I think "neo-Taoism" should be excluded or get its own group (what I
mean by this is "Humpty-Dumpty Taoism", in which Taoism means whatever 
a poster says it means.) This "alt.taoism" could also be a refuge 
for debates about what "Taoism *REALLY* means" or speculations on sexual
alchemy, etc..

e.g. (from Thyagi again):
> Taoism does what the hell it wants, I tell you.
> Taoism doesn't exist.  'Taoism' is no more real that 'Tao'.  Decide, now.
> Real or not real?  Exist or not-exist?  When shall we be certain

Kent gloomily predicts (quoting from Thyagi's article):

> However most traffic in 
> the group will likely concern the philosophical, secular taoism
> averred by Alan Watts and Niels Bohr, and yogic taoism as it pertains
> to medical, sexual and martial techniques.

I think that discussions of this nature are not completely out of
place. What's happening is that that the term "Taoism" is becoming
completely polluted and trivialized like the words "magic", "Alchemy", 
"Zen," etc., by writers appropriating the word to mean whatever they 
want. This is seen by the spate of new age books entitled "The
Tao of" this, that, and everything else. (With respect to some exceptions
like the books by Jou, Tsung-Hwa.)

Any other comments/ideas? I look forward to seeing them. On balance,
I say let misc.taoism rip and let the chips fall where they may. If
it just gets filled up with college freshmen asking about the
Tao of Sex then it will have been a failure and people will post to
these groups just as they do now.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim P. Scott sending from: Megatek Corporation    (619)455-5590 ext.2610
9645 Scranton Rd. San Diego, CA 92121-3782 USA        FAX: (619)453-7603
Internet: tims@megatek.com [or] ...uunet!megatek!tims 

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84127
From: ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: What part of "No" don't you understand?

In article <1993Apr24.214843.10940@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1rbh3n$hav@kyle.eitech.com>
>ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <1993Apr24.002509.4017@midway.uchicago.edu>
>>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>>A "moment of silence" doesn't mean much unless *everyone*
>>>participates.  Otherwise it's not silent, now is it?
>
>>>Non-religious reasons for having a "moment of silence" for a dead
>>>classmate: (1) to comfort the friends by showing respect to the
>>>deceased , (2) to give the classmates a moment to grieve together, (3)
>>>to give the friends a moment to remember their classmate *in the
>>>context of the school*, (4) to deal with the fact that the classmate
>>>is gone so that it's not disruptive later.
>
>>Yeah, all well and good. The fact is, though, that the pro-school
>>prayer types have tried to use a moment of silence as a way
>>to get prayer back. At my high school for instance, our dear
>>principal ended the moment of silence with "Amen."
>I can certainly see opposing the "Amen" -- but that doesn't require 
>opposing a moment of silence.
I see it as the camel's nose.

>>I'll back off when they do.
>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.
I'm willing to take my chances on winning the whole thing, personally.
-Ekr


-- 
Eric Rescorla                                     ekr@eitech.com
        "What we've got here is failure to communicate."
        

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84128
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Subject: Re: What RIGHT ?

In article <1993Apr24.171130.8975@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:

>In article <1993Apr22.133142.23772@ifi.uio.no>, joakimr@ifi.uio.no (Joakim Ruud) writes:

>|> Recently, I've asked myself a rather interesting question: What RIGHT does
>|> god have on our lives (always assuming there is a god, of course...!) ??


>He is God.

In other words, the right of might.

>|> In his infinite wisdom, he made it perfectly clear that if we don't live
>|> according to his rules, we will burn in hell. Well, with what RIGHT can god
>|> make that desicion? 

>He is God.

In other words, the right of might.

>|> Let's say, for the sake of argument, that god creates every
>|> one of us (directly or indirectly, it doesn't matter.). What then happens, is
>|> that he first creates us, and then turns us lose. Well, I didn't ask to be
>|> created. 


>God granted you the gift of life whether you were sinner or saint.

In other words, he can do it, he did it, and your in no position to
argue about it.
 
>|> Let's make an analogue. If a scientist creates a unique living creature (which
>|> has happened, it was even patented...!!!), does he then have the right to
>|> expect it to behave in a certain matter, or die...?


>The scientist creates the living creature to examine it, poke and prod it and
>learn about its behaviour.  He will kill it if it becomes a threat.  For
>example, let's say the scientist creates a Tyrannosaurus Rex and it breaks
>free of its confines and starts devouring the population.  The scientist
>would not hesitate in killing it.

>God creates us to be His loving companions.  He knows whether we are true in 
>our love for Him or not.  And He lets us know the consequences of rejecting Him.
>God cannot abide by sin.  By rejecting God, a person becomes an enemy of God,
>one that must be killed by Him.  Note:  I say that God and God alone is
>worthy to be Judge, Jury and Executioner.  We are not called to carry out
>such duties because we are not worthy.
 
In other words, you better do what this God wants you to do, or else!

>|> Who is god to impose its rules on us ? Who can tell if god is REALLY so
>|> righteous as god likes us to believe? Are all christians a flock of sheep,
>|> unable to do otherwise that follow the rest? 


>God is God.  Who are we to question the Creator?  If you doubt God's doing
>in certain situations, do you claim to know a better solution?  Would you
>be playing the role of God?

In other words, its his game, he made the rules, and if you know whats
good for you you'll play his game his way.



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84129
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: What is a Christian? was Re: Davidians and compassion

In article <1993Apr21.211707.7828@ra.royalroads.ca> 
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>In article <f2dutxH@quack.kfu.com>, pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>|> In article <1993Apr20.144825.756@ra.royalroads.ca> 
>|> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>|> >If one does not follow the teachings of Christ, he is NOT Christian.  
>|> >Too easy?  
>|> That would exclude most self-proclaimed "Christians." 
>|> Do you follow the Ten Commandments?
>As a matter of fact, yes I do or at least I strive to.  I will not
>be so proud as to boast that my faith is 100%.  I am still human
>and imperfect and therefore, liable to sin.  Thankfully, there is
>opportunity for repentence and forgiveness.
>God be with you, Malcolm Lee  :)

It sounds like you're modifying your definition of Christian to anyone
who *strives* to follow the teachings of Christ. Do I read you
correctly? And just what constitutes *strive*? Did Jesus say this and
define just what "striving" means? Can you give an example of striving 
that is insufficient to qualify one as a Christian and thus condemns one 
to eternal damnation in fiery torture? Do you self-proclaim yourself a
Christian and if so on what basis?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84130
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion

In article <sandvik-190493200420@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>So we have this highly Christian religious order that put fire
>on their house, killing most of the people inside.
>
>I'm not that annoyed about the adults, they knew supposedly what
>they were doing, and it's their own actions.
>
>What I mostly are angry about is the fact that the people inside,
>including mothers, let the children suffer and die during awful
>conditions.
>
>If this is considered religious following to the end, I'm proud
>that I don't follow such fanatical and non-compassionate religions.
>
>You might want to die for whatever purpose, but please spare
>the innocent young ones that has nothing to do with this all.
>
>I have a hard time just now understanding that Christianity
>knows about the word compassion. Christians, do you think 
>the actions today would produce a good picture of your 
>religion?
>
>
>Kent
>
>---
>sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.


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

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84131
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?

In article <93109.211935ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET> ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET (Casper C. Knies) writes:
>
>Please allow me to explain myself.  In 1838, the governor of Missouri,
>..............
>
>
>Casper C. Knies              isscck@byuvm.bitnet
>Brigham Young University     isscck@vm.byu.edu
>UCS Computer Facilities


Capser, before you deceive everone into thinking that the latter-day
saints have undergone undue persecution through the years for just
believing in their religion, perhaps you would like to tell us all what
happened in the Mountain Meadow Massacres and all the killings that were
done under the Blood Atonement Doctrine, at the command of Brigham Young?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84132
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Subject: Re: Info about New Age!

In article <1qvnu9$a8a@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> hawk@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu writes:
>Greetings!  Could anybody here give me any information about New Age religion?
>About the history, the teachings, ...???  Or may be suggestions what books I 
>should read in order to get those info?  Any help would be greatly appreciated.


Contact:   WATCHMAN FELLOWSHIP
           P.O. Box 171194
           Holladay, UT 84117-1194

Ask for their book:  The New Age and Space Age Heresies
                     The New Age In Our Schools

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84133
From: agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose)
Subject: Re: [rw] Is Robert Weiss the only orthodox Christian?

In article <93111.074840LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET> LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET writes:
>
>  Robert, you keep making references to "orthodox" belief, and saying things
>like "it is held that..." (cf. "Kermit" thread).  On what exact body of
>theology are you drawing for what you call "orthodox?"  Who is that "holds
>that" Luke meant what you said he meant?  Whenever your personal interpretation
>of Biblical passages is challenged, your only response seems
>to be that one needs merely to "look at the Bible" in order to see the truth,
>but what of those who see Biblical things differently from you?  Are we to
>simply assume that you are the only one who really understands it?
>  Just curious,
>--
>Rick Anderson  librba@BYUVM.BITNET


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.

Therefore, when people like Joseph Smith come along with a vision and
thinks he can undo centuries of a doctrine that is supported by the
Bible, people consider him a cult.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84134
From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion

sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>In article <1993Apr20.143400.569@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca
>(Malcolm Lee) wrote:
>> Do you judge all Christians by the acts of those who would call
>> themselves Christian and yet are not?  The BD's contradicted scripture
>> in their actions.  They were NOT Christian.  Simple as that.  Perhaps
>> you have read too much into what the media has portrayed.  Ask any
>> true-believing Christian and you will find that they will deny any
>> association with the BD's.  Even the 7th Day Adventists have denied any
>> further ties with this cult, which was what they were.

>Well, if they were Satanists, or followers of an obscure religion,
>then I would be sure that Christians would in unison condemn and 
>make this to a show case.

You might be sure, but you would also be wrong.

>And does not this show the dangers with religion -- in order 
>word a mind virus that will make mothers capable of letting
>their small children burn to ashes while they scream?

I suspect the answer to this question is the same as the answer to,
"Do not the actions of the likes of Stalin show the dangers of
atheism?"


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84135
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: commandments I (the basics)

Why should anyone (check: let's restrict this to Christians, why do *we*)
want to find "commandments" in the books regarded as scripture?  What's
going on? I will pass on psychologizing answers (whether dismissive or more
open) as not the kind of issue to deal with here -- the question is what is
the *theological* point involved?  And it has been quoted "at" me often
enough by those who don't believe I take it seriously, that Jesus (is said
to have) said, "If you love me, you will obey my commands."  [John 14:15]

I am, like any Christian, the slave of Christ, and it is my will that I
should do as He wills me to do.  I am (also, or instead) His younger brother,
but still under His direction, though we both call God "Abba."  Christians,
therefore, will try to find what it is that their Lord commands them, and
discovering it will feel obligated to do it, or to confess their failure.
Readers here may set aside the theologizing jargon (such as "slaves of
Christ") -- the point is that adherents of a religion *will* read the texts
(whether classified as "inspired" or not) that are held up as models, in an
effort to find application to their own situations.  This practice ranges
from "devotional" reading of sermons and the like to the exegesis of canon-
ical scripture as "the Word of God."  And at the highest pitch, this leads
to a question of whether we *can* find in inspired scripture something that
can act as "absolute" guidance for our actions.

The problem is in finding out just *what* it is our Lord commands.  I am
going to set aside for this essay one major direction in which Christians
have looked for these commands, namely Christian tradition.  That is not
because *I* reject tradition, but because my primary audience in this essay
is Protestants, who deny tradition a determinative value, in favor of the
witness of Scripture.  The question I want to deal with is, WHAT commandments
can we find from our Lord in Scripture?  And that turns out to be a hard
question.  [ If any of my Protestant Inquisitors would *like* to turn the
discussion to the authority of tradition, I can accomodate them :-), unlike
*most* Protestants, Episcopalians admit claims from a) Scripture b) Reason
and c) Tradition on roughly equal standing. ]

Earlier in John than my quote above, we read [John 13:34] "I give you a new 
commandment: love one another."  This is the ONLY place in the NT where
Christians are given an explicit commandment, with the context commenting
on its imperative mode pronouncement by Jesus.  At the same meal [so we
*readers* infer, since it is *not* in John, but in the Synoptics] Jesus
says, "Take this [bread]; this is my body."  [Mark 14:22, cf. Matthew 26:26,
Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24]  The mode is imperative (Greek _labete_),
and hence this, too, is a "commandment."

In *both* cases we have to *infer* that the command is directed to a wider
circle than the immediate collocation of disciples -- because we judge the
evangelist's point in mentioning it (with the disciples by then mostly or
entirely dead) is that *we* are expected to follow this as a commandment
from our Lord.  In the case of communion, Paul's mention (at least; this
is probably true of the evangelists also) implies an ongoing ritual liturgy
in which these words operate to "bind" Christians to the original command
to his disciples, as a continuing commandment to the Christian community.

I am entirely comfortable with this inference, but I *must* point out that
it is THERE, between us and the occasion on which Jesus spoke the command.
I take it as a clear inference, at the very least the EVANGELIST'S notion,
that *all* Christians are called to love one another, in Jesus' command
directed at the disciples.  But I have to call attention to the inference.
The command CANNOT apply to me without the generalization from the specific
context of its statement to my own context as a "disciple" of Christ.

All reading of scripture has to make such inferences, to get any sense out
of the text whatsoever.  This is a general problem in reading these texts
-- we cannot read them at all without our *own* understanding of our native
languages in which we (normally) read the (translated) texts, and without
*some* appreciation of the original context (and at points, the original
languages, when English misleads us.) I am going to presume, in what follows,
that we have the *general* problem of how to read scripture under control
[ I don't *really* think this is true, but it will suffice for my current
purposes. ]  I will address ONLY the issues that arise when we have already
coped with the understanding of a 2000 year old text from another world
than the one we live in.  Questions at THAT level only introduce MORE reser-
vations about the commandments issue than will be found stipulating that we
can read the texts as the original audience might have done.

Among the reasons we have for seeing John's _agapate allelou_ as a *general*
commandment (not merely an instruction by Jesus to this disciples on that
one occasion), and one linking it to the Synoptic "Great Commandment" is
that we have criticism, from Jesus, about limiting our love to those whom
we congenially associate with.  In Matthew 5:43ff we read, "You have learnt
how it was said: 'You must love your neighbor' and hate your enemy.  But I
say to you: love your enemies."  In fact, the Leviticus context quoted
does NOT say 'hate your enemy' -- it is merely the common human presumption.
(And Leviticus is at pains to say that the "love" should extend to strangers
amongst the people of Israel.)  Luke, in expanding on this same Q context,
goes on to have Jesus say. "Even sinners love those who love them." [6:27]
All of this suggests [quite strongly, I'd say :-)] that *limiting* the
scope of the "new commandment" is not quite what Jesus has in mind.  In
short, inference *leads me* to generalizing the actual text to a command
that is "in force" on Christians, and with objects not limited to other
Christians.

Trickier than the _agapate allelou_ or Institution of communion, there is
the case of the "Great Commission" where (Matthew 10, Mark 6) the Twelve
are sent out to evangelize, "Proclaim that the kingdom of heaven is close
at hand."  The verb is imperative (_ke:russete_), but the context is rather
specific to the Twelve, and there are further specifiers (as in "Do not
turn your steps to pagan territory, and do not enter any Samaritan town"
-- the Lukan parallels are even more specific to Jesus' final journey to
Jerusalem) which make it harder to see this generalizing to all Christians
than the previous examples.  That hasn't prevented Christians from MAKING
such an inference; what I have to call attention to is that such inference
is NOT justified in the text, nor (unlike the first two cases I cite) by
the rhetoric of the evangelist urged on the reader.  Still, Paul seems to
have felt obliged to "proclaim that the kingdom of heaven is close at hand"
even (contrary to Jesus' instructions to the 12 :-)) to the gentiles, to
the ends of the earth.  So, Christians after him have also taken this as
a "commandment" in the sense of John 14:15.  Do I "accept" this?  I don't
know.  It is surely rather speculative.  But you see how the ripples of
inference spread out from the text that is the pretext -- Christians (may)
infer a general commandment, applicable to all, from what is presented in
the gospels as a specific occasion.  I do not (necessarily) object to this
kind of generalization -- but I *insist* that people who make it *must*
have an understanding that they are *reasoning* (at some considerable
length) from what we actually *have* in scripture.  There are *assumptions*
involved in this reasoning, and *these* are *not* themselves scriptural
(though people will do their best to "justify" their assumptions by OTHER
references to scripture -- which simply adds MORE inference into the mix!)

Let's move on to the "Great Commandment" -- that we should love God with
our whole hearts and minds and souls.  This is, perhaps, the Synoptic
"equivalent" of John's _agapate allelou_.  And yet,  it is not PRESENTED
as a commandment, in our texts.  Rather, the context is controversy with
the Pharisees.  To cite Matthew [22:34ff]

	"But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees
	they got together and, to disconcert him, one of them put a question,
	"Master, which is the greatest commandment of the Law?"

It is by no means obvious here (though I accept it as such) that Jesus'
answer is meant to be a commandment *to Christians*.  He is answering a
polemic from his enemies.  [ Mark's account, in  12:28-34 casts the answer
in a far more positive light as (so the "scribe" in this version says)
"far more important than any holocaust (I need to point out that this word
originates in the context of animal sacrifice; forget the Nazis for this)
or sacrifice."  Luke is intermediate -- he has a lawyer posing the question
"to disconcert" Jesus, and gets the Good Samarian parable for his pains
[ Luke 10:25-37 ].  The contexts here are so confusingly various that one
could be forgiven for drawing *no* inferences :-)  In *no* account is this
said as if it were obviously to be taken as a commandment binding on
Christians -- though I think it an entirely reasonable conclusion in each
case that Jesus thinks it to be so.  The point is that our mental gears
HAVE to grind a cycle or so to get to any conclusion from all of this about
what WE are commanded to do, by Jesus.  And all of this is contingent on
our understanding the point of Jesus' use of the Torah in the (all quite
different) gospel accounts, and the application of such a context to *us*.

The different contexts among the Synoptics are curious.  It should be noted
that ONLY in Luke do we get the "fixing" of this command by the parable of
the Good Samaritan.  We may look for an analogous *intent* in Matthew, where
7:12 gives the "Golden Rule" as "the meaning of the Law and the Prophets"
(and where we may also hear an echo of Hillel saying the same, a generation
before Jesus.)  If we make these associations (which I think are entirely
reasonable), we are -- again -- indulging in inference.  The texts do not
*explicitly* support us; rather, we *read* the texts as having this kind of
inter-relationship.  Current literary theory calls this "intertextuality."

My discussion of why the _agapate allelou_ "has" to apply beyond the 
community of the disciples, and beyound the circle of Christian believers,
applies again here, to buttress a conclusion that this *is* (despite the
presentation not saying so explicitly) a "commandment" to Christians.
Few Christians would disagree with my conclusions -- but I *must* point
out that they *are* conclusions, they *depend* on rather elaborate chains
of reasoning that are simply NOT present in the texts, themselves.

The contextual problem keeps coming up, more and more severely as we look at
those sayings of Jesus that are NOT so universally taken by Christians as 
commandments.  And we get some really hard cases.  Take divorce.  Mark is 
pretty clear, "The man who divorces his wife and marries another is guilty
of adultery against her."  [ 10:11, cf. Luke 16:18 ] -- except that Matthew
has an escape clause [ "except in the case of fornication", 5:31 ]. This
seems to be a rather clear "commandment" (whether or not we take Matthew's
reservation); and some Christians, to this day, take it so.  But some don't,
at least in practice.  This is rather peculiar; it is not as if Jesus were
not explicit about this (whereas He says nothing at all about some of the
things people gnash their teeth over.)  How is it possible, if the commands
of Christ are clear, that Matthew can so disagree with the other evangelists
of the synoptic tradition?

I'm going to continue this examination, into ever-murkier waters, but this
is enough to start with.  The theme is: "finding commandments in scripture
is an exercise in inference; our inferences are informed by OUR assumptions,
that is, our own cultural biases."  I have, so far, identified a very few
"commandments" that are generally accepted by all Christians -- and yet in
these, already, some of the difficulties start to surface.  It is these
difficulties I want to discuss in my next essay on this topic.  The divorce
commandment already strikes at some of the difficulties: I see almost no
evidence that the people who are so eager to find commandments to condemn
*me* with, spend any time at all writing nasty screeds to soc.couples or
misc.legal about the horrors or viciousness of divorce, or demanding that
US law refuse to allow it, or refuse "unrepentant divorcees" places in
their churches.  [ That is not to say that divorce *doesn't* enter into 
consideration in general -- it is most definitely a matter of concern, in
even the most "liberal" church circles.  For example, a (wildly) liberal
Episcopalian priest of my aqauintence, in a (wildly) liberal diocese, has
recommended to a couple who approached him to marry them that they have a
"private" secular ceremony before a judge, so that the "public" ceremony
he celebrated need not go through an agonizing "examination" by officials
who would just as soon NOT take on this role of interpreting the commands
we are faced with as Christians.  This, in a church that was effectively
CREATED by a famous divorce! ]
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84136
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: What part of "No" don't you understand?

In <1rbh3n$hav@kyle.eitech.com> ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>At my high school for instance, our dear
>principal ended the moment of silence with "Amen."

An extremely good example of "circumstantial evidence!"
Every time these right-wing control-freaks start spouting
about prayer in schools, I get this nagging commentary
from the Sermon on the Mount [Matt: 6:5-6] "And when you
pray, do not imitate the hypocrites: they love to say their
prayers standing up in the synagogues and at the street
corners for people to see them.  I tell you solemnly, they
have had their reward.  But when you pray, go to your
private room and, when you have shut your door, pray to
your Father who is in that secret place."

But no. THEY want PUBLIC prayers, the better to manipulate
children.  "Amen" indeed.

>When the pro-school-prayer types stop trying to sneak religion
>in, I'll stop opposing everything that even looks remotely
>like religion, thank you.

I hope you don't mind if I say "amen" to this? :-)
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84137
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: 25 Apr 93   God's Promise in Psalm 56:4



	In God,
	whose word I praise,
	in God I trust;
	I will not be afraid.
	What can mortal man do to me?

	Psalm 56:4 (NIV)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84138
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Christians above the Law? was Clarification of pe

In article <1993Apr21.234159.1206@ualr.edu> 
NUNNALLY@acs.harding.edu (John Nunnally) writes:
>> When are we going to hear a Christian answer to this question? 
>> In paraphrase: 
>> On what or whose authority do Christians proclaim that they
>> are above the Law and above the Prophets (7 major and 12 minor) and not 
>> accountable to the Ten Commandments of which Jesus clearly spoke His opinion 
>> in Matthew 5:14-19? What is the source of this pseudo-doctrine? Who is
>> the pseudo-teacher? Who is the Great Deceiver?
>OK, here's at least one Christian's answer:
>Jesus was a JEW, not a Christian.  In this context Matthew 5:14-19 makes
>sense.  Matt 5:17 "Do not think that I [Jesus] came to abolish the Law or
>the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill."  Jesus lived
>under the Jewish law.  However, He was the culmination of the promises
>of the Prophets.  He came to *fulfill* the prophecies and fully obey
>God's purposes.
>Verse 18 says "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass
>away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law,
>until all is accomplished."  The key to this verse IMHO is the last 
>phrase.  Jesus, as the fulfillment of the law, "accomplished" what the 
>Law was supposed to accomplish.  

Jesus did not say that he was the fulfillment of the Law, and, unless
I'm mistaken, heaven and earth have not yet passed away. Am I mistaken?
And, even assuming that one can just gloss over that portion of the word
of Jesus, do you really think that "all is accomplished?"

>Verse 19:  "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments,
>and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven;
>but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the
>kingdom of heaven."  Taken in the context of Jesus teaching Jewish 
>people about living lives under the law, this makes sense.

Then why didn't Jesus say "Any Jew who annuls ..." in v. 19? Are you
saying that all of Jesus' recorded words mean nothing to Gentiles? Are
you really saying that Jesus only spoke for and to the Jews? Jesus
didn't mention your name, does that mean he wasn't speaking to you? When
you read the words of Jesus, do you think he is speaking to someone
other than you?

>In general, it appears that Jesus is responding to some criticism he 
>must have received about "doing away with the Law."  That was not 
>Jesus' intent at all.

You said above that Jesus was the "fulfillment" of the Law. Are you
saying that does not mean "doing away with the Law"?

>He had come to earth to live the Law as it 
>should be lived and fulfill the promises made by God to his 
>people all the way back to Eve [Gen 3:15-The serpent will bruise your 
>heel, but *He* will bruise his head.]

Gen3:15(JPS) I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between
your offspring and hers; they shall strike at your head, and you shall
strike at their heel.

Gen3:15(NRSV) I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your
offspring and hers; he will strike your head, and you will strike his
heel."

Gen3:15(KJV) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and
between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt
bruise his heel.

Looks like your translation has taken a few liberties with the Word?

>Jesus appeared to be "doing away with the Law" 
>because he did not honor the traditions of men as 
>equal to the Law of God.  He regularly locked horns with the religious 
>leaders of the day because he would not conform to *their* rules, only 
>God's Law.
>In the Matthew passage Jesus is defending his dedication to the Law 
>and defending himself against his accusors.  Almost the entire Sermon 
>on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) is dedicated to helping the Jewish people 
>understand the true intent of the Law, sweeping away the clutter which 
>had been introduced by the Pharasees and their traditions.

Only "helping the Jewish people?"

>In Galatians 3:23-26, Paul describes the relationship of Jesus to the 
>Law in this way:
>[23] But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being 
>shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.  [24] Therefore 
>the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be 
>justified by faith.  [25]  But now that faith has come, we are no 
>longer under a tutor.  [26] For you are all sons of God through faith 
>in Christ Jesus.
>I believe this says that after Christ was revealed, the Law had 
>served it's purpose, i.e. "our tutor to lead us to Christ," and
>now, "we are no longer under a tutor."  The law has been "fulfilled" 
>as Christ said he would do.

You are using your interpretation of Paul as an argument against the
clear words of Jesus?

>God, the author of the old Law, and the Christ/Man, Jesus, are the same
>personality.  Therefore, the old Law and the new Testament (the "last
>will and testament" of Jesus) are based on the same moral principles. 
>It makes sense that many of the principles in the old Law are
>re-expressed in Christianity. 

"Re-expressed?" Care to define that a bit better?

>On the other hand, now that the Law has fulfilled it's purpose and 

What? Are heaven and earth gone away? Where did they go? Is all
accomplished, for example Revelations? Explain please.

>Christians relate to God through Christ, not the Law, it also makes 
>sense that new practices and new symbolisms were established to 
>represent the "mysteries" of this new relationship.  i.e. Baptism 
>representing Christ's death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-8),
>The Lord's supper as a memorial to His sacrifice (I Cor. 11:26), and
>Sunday as a day of worship commemorating His resurrection (Matt 28:1ff,
>Acts 20:7)

Again, your interpretation of Paul versus the clear word of Jesus. Do
you see any problems here? When did heaven and earth go away? When was
all accomplished?

>OK, That's one Christian's explanation.  I don't claim to have all
>these issues completely settled even in my own mind and I welcome
>other Christians to offer other alternatives.
>Please excuse the long posting.  Thanks for your interest if you have read 
>this far...

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84139
From: hexham@acs.ucalgary.ca (Irving Hexham)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

	Would someone be kind enought to document the exact
nature of the evidence against the BD's without reference to
hearsay or newsreports. I would also like to know more about
their past record etc. but again based on solid not media
reports. 

	My reason for asking for such evidence is that last night
on Larry King Live a so-called "cult-expert" was interviewed from
Australia who claimed that it was his evidence which led to the
original raid. This admission, if true, raises the nasty
possibility that the Government acted in good faith, which I
believe they did, on faulty evidence. It also raises the
possibility that other self proclaimed cult experts were advising
them and giving ver poor advice.

	A few years ago Anson Shupe and David Bromley published
STRANGE GODS: THE GREAT AMERICAN CULT SCARE (Beacon, Boston, 1981
- and THE NEW VIGILANTES: ANTI-CULTISTS AND NEW RELIGIONS -Sage,
Beverly Hills, 1980. Both books suggested the possibility of
tragic results if self-proclaimed cult experts were ever taken
seriously. Perhaps their diagnosis of the anit-cult movement
needs investigating in light of the Waco tragedy.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84140
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: What part of "No" don't you understand?

In <1993Apr24.214843.10940@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu
(E. Elizabeth Bartley) writes:

>I can certainly see opposing the "Amen" -- but that doesn't require 
>opposing a moment of silence.

If the ONLY people proposing a "moment of silence" are doing so as a
sham to sneak in prayers, then it MUST be opposed.  What the HELL have
prayers to do with public schooling?  [I ask this question as a devout
Christian.]

>>I'll back off when they do.

>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.

Their kids can bloody-well pray any God-damned time they WANT to.  And
nothing, on heaven or earth, in government or the principal's office,
can prevent or in any other way deal with their doing so.  *Especially*
if the prayer is silent (as bursting out into the "Shema Yisrael" or
some other prayer *might* be construed as disruptive if audible :-))
No one ever prevented ME from praying in public school!  They hardly
even prevented me from masturbating in study hall.

I should have thought better of someone posting from a UChicago address.
How can you manage to say such nonsense without shame?

Muslim students might have a complaint, if they are prevented from setting
out their rugs and doing the proper ablutions before prayer at the times
specified in the Qu'ran.  Jews would probably like the opportunity to daven
with tefillim and whatever else *they* require, at *their* appropriate times.
I do not see THEM complaining (though Muslims and Jews have a case that no
Christian I have ever heard has been able to make.)

The "Christian" insistence on a PUBLIC, UNIVERSAL, ENFORCED "moment of
prayer^H^H^H^H^H^Hsilence" is nothing but the Inquisition "naturalized"
into the American context.  It is offensive to the Gospel of Christ.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84141
From: mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon)
Subject: Re: What part of "No" don't you understand?

In <1993Apr24.214843.10940@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu
(E. Elizabeth Bartley) writes:

>I can certainly see opposing the "Amen" -- but that doesn't require 
>opposing a moment of silence.

I already responded to this on one dimension, but afterthoughts cause
me to make another, independent reply.  The problem with a "moment of
silence" is that it is NOT an even-handed way of "allowing" for religion
amongst students in the public schools.  As I noted before, Muslims need
more than a moment of silence in order to perform the prayers they are
required by Muhammad to do.  And (at least Orthodox) Jewish prayer also
has requirements that are not addressed by this.

There is, in fact, a highly selective BIAS towards Christian prayer in
this "moment of silence" shit.  And that is especially bizarre in that
Christian prayer DOESN'T NEED this stuff -- a Christain may pray totally
incognito AT ANY TIME (to some extent, this is true of Muslims and Jews
as well -- what I intend in my first paragraph is that there *are* some
characteristic forms of prayer in *these* religions which DO need special
times and/or behavior, which cannot be undertaken without an observer 
being able taking note of it.)

A Christian may pray, at ANY time -- silently and without any trace of
his activity being evident to others.  That may or may not be true of the
other religious traditions amongst us: certainly, these tend to have SOME
forms of prayer that WOULD evidence differences from American/Protestant
"mainstream" religion.

All that a "moment of silence" does is to allow THAT ONE tradition which
doesn't NEED it, to have a "special" place set aside in the public schools.
There is NOTHING in Christian prayer that requires public forms, or rugs,
or phylacteries, or anything else at all visible to the outside world.  A
Christian student MAY (and probably does) pray at innumerable times during
the day, without anyone else knowing it.  [That may also be true of non-
Christians -- I am not claimng otherwise].  In the "moment of silence" it
would STILL be difficult for the Jews to gather and daven, for the Muslims
to do their ablutions and find qiblah to Mecca and engage in the prescribed
forms.  But *of course* Christians can do *their* thing -- and therefore,
the provision is nothing but a disguised attempt to encourage just that.

Luckily, there *is* a strong Jewish presence in this country (and I, as
a Christian, revere some of the Jewish teachers I had in public schools),
and a growing Muslim presence as well.  I can only hope that the political
forces consequent on this will PREVENT the imposition of Christian forms
on non-Christians.

As far as I can see (as a Christian) there is NOTHING in this "moment of
silence" campaign but an attempt to use PUBLIC social pressure to FORCE
children to adhere to a pattern that is biased towards Christianity.  And
as a Christian, I *must* protest such coercion.  For what it's worth, I
suspect that the coercion is not really targeted at the non-Christians --
it is yet another case of FAILURE amongst Christian parents in "making"
their children prayerful, so that they want the public schools to teach
what THEY cannot manage to teach, despite having all the opportunity in
the world to do so.

If you have taught your children to pray, they do NOT need a moment of
silence in school.  If you have NOT managed to teach them, the moment
will only embarrass you.  Give it up.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
mls@panix.com			Most High, all of you; nevertheless
    - or -			you shall die like men, and fall
mls@ulysses.att..com		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84142
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

Jesus:

>     "This is the verdict:  Light has come into the world, but
>     men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds
>     are evil.  Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will
>     not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be 
>     exposed."

Kent Sandvik says:

>It seems we are dealing with a black-and-white interpretation.
>Brian, are you subtly accusing me of evil things because I never
>saw the light? However, this is even more confusing because
>I even admit that I don't like the situation where I'm not 
>informed.

Black and white.  A spade is a spade.  There is no hidden
agenda behind this, so stop trying to look for one.   It is an
easy and as straight forward as it reads.

Kent, I am not accusing you of evil things.  Jesus is accusing you.
And it is not only you that He is accusing.  He is accusing everyone.
Me, you and everyone in the world is guilty.  Whether one
sees the light or does not seen the light has nothing to do with 
whether we do evil things.  We do them regardless.  

Jesus uses the word "men".  I am included.  Jesus is not soloing you out.
Jesus is making a general statement about out the sad state of man.
Christians are not immuned from doing evil things.  A Christian 
is just a person in whom the Holy Spirit indwells.  A Christian 
can see the evil he is doing--because his evil has been brought
out into the light.  Jesus is not saying that just because evil has been
exposed, that the Christian will stop doing evil.  If you haven't
seen Jesus's light, your evil deeds simply haven't been
exposed to the His light.  You may shed some light on your
own.  Your human spirit shines at perhaps 1 candela.  But the
Holy Spirit shines at a Megacandela.  The Holy Spirit can
shine light into places inside us where we didn't even know
existed. 

So do you see Jesus's point?  Christians are not perfect.  Nonchristians
are not perfect.  Nonchristians do not want to come into the
Light of Jesus because they will see all the problems in their lives,
and they will not like the sight.  It is an ugly thing to see how far
we have fallen from Jesus's perspective.  Do you think you want to
know how really ignorant you are?  Do you think Brian Kendig wants
to know?  Do you think I want to know?  Ego verses the truth,
which do you choose?

>I'm watching the news about a man who saw the light, and made
>sure that the 19 children burned to death as part of his insight
>into the light. I don't think the world is that simple. And if 
>you act in such ways when you are enlighted, then I'm a happy
>man and I pray I will never receive such 'light'.

And I watched Koresh too, an imposter who thought he saw the light, 
who made sure that the 19 children burned to death, sadly, as part
of his delusion.  It is even sadder that the people who
died with him chose to die with them, and that ignorance was
their downfall to death. 

And Kent, don't you bury yourself underneath a rock with an
excuse like bringing up Koresh--as if Koresh actually had truth in him.
David Koresh was no light and no excuse for
you to stay away from the real Jesus Christ.  David Koresh, who
claimed to be Jesus, was a fraud.  It was obvious.  David Koresh
was born in America. Jesus was born in Bethlehem.  Koresh wasn't
even a good imposter having missed an obvious point as that.

Jesus warned of such imposters in the end-times.  David
Koresh wasn't anything new to Jesus.  Jesus told us to be
aware of imposters 2000 years ago.  

So the next time an imposter makes a scene and claims to
be Jesus.  Ask the obvious.  Where were you born?  Was your
mother's name Mary?  If the Branch Davidians asked that
simple question, they would have labeled Koresh a liar
right from the start.  The wouldn't have followed Koresh.
They wouldn't have died.  But look what happened.  Their
ignorance cost them their lives.  Their choice to be ignorant
cost them a lot.

Kent, since you studied the Bible under Lutheranism, do you
not remember what tactic Satan used to try to tempt Jesus?  
Did not Satan quote the Bible out of context?  Do you
remember what tactic the serpent of Genesis used to tempt
Eve?  Did he not misquote God?  What Satan used on Eve and succeeded, 
was the same ploy he tried on Jesus.  But in Jesus's case,
Jesus rebuked Satan back with the Bible _in_ context.  It
didn't work with Jesus.  

Does what Satan did to Eve in the Garden and what Satan
tried to do with Jesus in the desert remind you of what
Koresh did to his followers?  Who did Koresh emulate?
Who was Koresh's teacher?  Koresh did to his followers what
Satan did to Eve.  Did not Koresh kill his followersr?  Did
not Satan cause Adam and Eve to die as well?  Did not
the cult followers believe Koresh even though they knew
the real Christ was born in Bethlehem?   Did not Eve
choose to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil despite knowing that it would cause her death?  God
held them all responsible--deceiver and the rebeller.  None 
of them had an excuse.  

As opposed to the Branch Davidians, we have a second chance.
Follow Jesus and he will escort us to the path of eternal life.
Don't follow Jesus, and you stand condemned already, for like
the Branch Davidian complex, your house is already on fire.
Satan, Adam and Eve have already set it ablaze.   It is just
a slow burn, but it is burning nevertheless.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84143
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?


In a previous article, spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont) says:

>... or consider the thousands in Central America killed by those brave
>CIA/NSC sponsored "Freedom Fighters."
>
>Thus far, Slick Willie is a piker.


      ONLY if you weight Americans equal to SAlvadorans.

      I don't.




Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84144
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?


In article <9601@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, rjl+@pitt.edu (Richard J. Loether) writes:
|> 
|> Yes, of course, as in Matthew 10:34-35 "Do not suppose that I have come to 
|> bring peace to the earth; it is not peace I have come to bring but a sword..."
|> :

Remember the armor of God?  The sword that Christians wield is the
Word of God, the Bible.

God be with you,

Malcolm Lee  :)


|> RJL
|> -- 
|> Rich Loether          Snail mail: University of Pittsburgh     The Ideas:
|> EMail: rjl+@pitt.edu              Computing and Info Services      Mine,
|> Voice: (412) 624-6429             600 Epsilon Drive                   all
|> FAX  : (412) 624-6426             Pittsburgh, PA 15238                  Mine.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84145
From: <A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick


In article <ss.113@apmaths.uwo.ca>, ss@apmaths.uwo.ca (SULTAN SIAL) says:
>
>In article <93111.195217A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET> <A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>
>[stuff about Mithras deleted]
>
>>Oh, His B-day was 25 Dec. Ahem.
>
>I thought that Saturnalia was celebrated by the Romans at that time.  Was
>Mithras connected with this?
>

I also heard the Romans had a large Solar festival on this day because this
day, about 3 days after the Winter Solstice, was when you could notice a
change in the shadows and be sure that the Sun was indeed returning. In fact,
I remember the latin phrase Natalis Solis Invicti (sp!) associated here.

I can't say for certain when Saturnalia was, since I can't locate my Master
Holiday List. I think it was 2 weeks or so however.


-------
CHARLES HOPE   A54SI@CUNYVM   A54SI@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
GOVERNMENT BY REPORTERS...MEDIA-OCRACY.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84146
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion


In article <f2dutxH@quack.kfu.com>, pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
|> In article <1993Apr20.144825.756@ra.royalroads.ca> 
|> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
|> >If one does not follow the teachings of Christ, he is NOT Christian.  
|> >Too easy?  
|> 
|> That would exclude most self-proclaimed "Christians." 
|> Do you follow the Ten Commandments?

As a matter of fact, yes I do or at least I strive to.  I will not
be so proud as to boast that my faith is 100%.  I am still human
and imperfect and therefore, liable to sin.  Thankfully, there is
opportunity for repentence and forgiveness.

God be with you,

Malcolm Lee  :)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84147
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?
From: "Casper C. Knies" <ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET>


Isaac Kuo (saackuo@spam.berkeley.edu) writes:

#In article <93109.231733ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET> "Casper C. Knies" <ISSCCK@BYUVM#.B
#>Gedaliah Friedenberg (friedenb@maple.egr.msu.edu) writes:
#>As a Latter-day Saint, I found John's statement *not at all* ludicrous...
#>
#>Please allow me to explain myself.  In 1838, the governor of Missouri,
#>governor Boggs, issued his so-called "Mormon extermination order."  The
#>only crime ("illegal activity") the Latter-day Saints had committed, was
#>their religious affiliation, their anti-slave stance (Missouri still
#>allowed slave practices), and their growing numbers/influence in Missouri.
#>
#>I guess the Mormons "got what they deserved," because they refused to bow
#>to the will of (corrupt and evil) secular authorities. This "disobedience"
#>brought upon them persecution, murder, and finally forced expulsion from
#>their lands and settlements...
#
#It is significant to remember that these secular positions were held by
#"average" people, and that at the time, almost all Americans were pretty
#homogeonously Christian. It was largely the mainstream Christian's disgust
#at such practices as polygamy which resulted in their irrational hatred.

True, but that is exactly the "problem": the Mormon extermination order
was issued not just by a Christian, it was ALLOWED under the Constitution
of the United States, which was instituted precisely to prevent incidents
like this "order" from occurring in the first place...  As I indicated in
an earlier posting, your "irrational hatred" is clearly evidenced by
individuals like Robert Weiss (who could have been Gov. Boggs' Lieutenant;
he would have fitted right in, drewling et al), and seems a modern-day
occurrence, based on results (slander, persecution, misrepresentation,
lies, denying Mormons representation in their own user group, etc. etc.

In intent and purpose, what really has changed?

#The situation is not entirely different today.  Many irrational feelings
#and beliefs are justified through religion.  I don't think most of them
#are started because of religion, but religion certainly helps justify and
#perpetuate prejudices and practices by providing a neat justification
#which discourages critical thought.

True, as evidenced by numerous examples, as I am sure you're aware.

#>In any regard, Mormon history alone indicates that secular authorities (and
#>I don't even discuss how Uthan's were suckered into allowing part of their
#>lands in becoming nerve-gas and atomic bomb testing grounds...) is far from
#>being trusted or righteous.  Have things really changed for the better?  I
#>may be a born cynic, but I have NO reason whatsoever that such has been the
#>case. In the early 1980s, I believe, the late President Kimball (lds church
#>leader) strongly protested federal attempts to locate the MX-"Peace Keeper"
#>missile maze from being built in Utah (yet another "inspired" decision from
#secular authorities).  Fortunately, his opposition was influential enough
#for the feds to back off.
#
#Do you mean that the "secular authorities" are some continuous group of
#people with the common and uninterrupted goal of harrassing/eradicating the
#Mormons?  Do you honestly believe that the main reason for using Utah for
#nuclear testing etc.. was to "get them thar Mormons"?  And what about the
#majority of Uthan's who aren't Mormons?  You seem to be searching for enemy
 ^^^^^^^^
(Correction: the majority of Utahn's ARE Mormon (60-70% I believe, up to a
 100% in many cities and settlements throughout the Western states.)

#conspiracies.  It is paranoid to believe that everything that affects you
#badly must have been done primarily for that purpose.

What I mean is that secular authorities are to be watched, as we believe
that Satan has been given some power and dominion over the earth to divert
truth, judgment, and justice.  In addition, we believe that the adversary
has power to influence the unjust and idolatrous (greed for money would be
a good example) in order to bring about persecution, war, oppression, and
evil combinations.  As an intelligent being, don't you suppose that the
destroyer would yield his influence foremost on those with political power?

As far as Utah is concerned, what I pointed out were some horrible examples
of environmental nightmares imposed upon by secular authorities, which have
brought death, disease, (i.e. the "downwinders") and environmental contami-
nation.  I am hardly "paranoid," I am just not "expecting" too much from a
secular government that may not share our values and faith, and which indeed
(as Gov. Boggs et al.) may be out to harm and destroy us.  As a matter of
fact, prophecies in my church indicate that in future years, (global)
persecution against Mormons will so increase in intensity and scope, that
(paraphrasing) "all those who wish to escape persecution and murder must
flee to Zion."  Zion (the "pure in heart") will be re-established in those
days, and it AIN'T our current secular authorities who will rule over it...

#>...  David Koresh did NOT pose a great
#>threat to the federal authorities or the security of this nation, and with
#>John, I too wonder who or what's next...
#
#I personally feel that we should try to stop anyone who is a threat to the
#life of even one person.  Sure, he did not pose a threat to the security of
#this nation.  But he did pose a threat to the lives of his followers.  That
#much is definite.

Hmmm.  "definite" by whom?  --Until such has been established beyond reason-
able doubt, this alleged "threat" may have been less than the "threat"
imposed upon him and his followers by the BATF and FBI...

#>Who killed who?  What constitutional right did the ATF officers have to
#>invade upon private land and to force themselves into the compound?
#>What REALLY caused the "murder" of the little children?  Could it be that
#>the ATF/FBI presence has any bearing upon the events?  How would you
#>interpret the Mt. Masada events?  --Blame the Jews?  (What the heck did
#>the Romans do there anyway?  What business did the ATF/FBI has in Waco,
#>Texas???)  The Branch Davidians NEVER posed any threat to society.
#
#This is like asking who REALLY caused the deaths of the Israeli Olympic
#team in 1976?  In that case, the police botched the job as well.  But to
#lay a heavier burden on them than the terrorists would be a terrible
#mistake.  I think the same sort of reasoning applies in this case.
#Certainly, if David Koresh chose any peaceful option, the ATF and FBI
#would have complied.  The responsibility is more his than the authorities.

Come now, at issue is in how much the authorities escalated an otherwise
peaceful stand-off: "let's get it over with, and "force" David Koresh to
come out???"  --By gassing them???  Were they naive, or what?  They played
right into the hands of an apocalyptic-thinking individual (he had prepared
his people for this eventuality for years), and not *one* firetruck or plan
was in place to deal with this scenario???  I feel that the authorities
had "some" responsibility to protect their own citizens, even if they were
religious zealots, and guilty of ... not paying a $200 gun license???
(Has the BATF become an extension of the local tax-collectors?)

#>David Koresh, no doubt, will be described as the "evil" guy (by the
#>executioners), while the actions of all those "valiant and brave" officers
#
#Characterizing the ATF/FBI as executioners is inaccurate and unfair.  In
#order to be an executioner, the least one must have done is have the intent
#to kill.

Que?? --Intrusion into private property with semi's, loaded with life
ammunition, isn't that implicit "intent (or at least "prepared") to kill"?
I ask you, would the BATF warrant stand up in a civil court of justice?
I do not mind if criminals (such as dangerous drug lords) are brought to
justice, but escalating events to the point of allowing to, if not compli-
city with, the destruction of a people?

#--
#*Isaac Kuo (isaackuo@math.berkeley.edu)                   *        _____
#*"How lucky you English are to find the toilet so amusing.* ______//_o_\\__
#* For us, it is a mundane and functional item.  For you,  *(==(/___________
#* the basis of an entire culture!" Manfred von Richtofen  * \==\/         \


Casper C. Knies              isscck@byuvm.bitnet
Brigham Young University     isscck@vm.byu.edu
UCS Computer Facilities

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84148
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?
From: <ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET>


Dan Sorenson (viking@iastate.edu) writes:

#In <mcclaryC5snpq.KB1@netcom.com> mcclary@netcom.com (Michael McClary)
#writes:
#        Just thought I'd clear up a few of the murky areas...
#
#>Actually, after surviving being driven out of Nauvoo, and later Carthage,
#>the Mormons DID fortify Utah.  They still arm themselves to "defend the
#>faith", and stockpile food as well.  They have been involved in quite a
#>lot of illegal activity - including multiple (and often underage) wives
#>for the leaders - a practice still in vogue with some splinters of their
#>sect.  The parallels between Koresh and Joseph Smith are striking.
#                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^

By "they," you mean the leaders of the lds church?  I grant you that when
Joseph Smith was still alive, plenty of "accusations" were filed, most of
which had little bearing with reality, as evidenced by various verdicts.
I have studied lds history for 15 years now, and I have yet to see prove
that the lds leadership was involved, in quote: "illegal activities."
Plural marriage, yes, but your charge of "underage" wives sounds like it
could have originated from a tabloid, and discredits the high moral
standards which characterized these leaders and families, unlike, as it
appears, those of David Koresh.

#        Joseph Smith started the sect.  After he and his brother Hyram
#were murdered in a Nauvoo, Il. jail cell, church membership split over
#who to follow.  Initially, Smith was considered a prophet (just like
#Mohammed, a rather interesting parallel considering Muslims consider
#Christ to be a prophet the same as Jews, I'm led to understand.  Make
#no mistake, this was no messiah we're talking about in Smith).  The

And neither did he claim he was.  As the church reflects the moral
aptitude of its leaders (and especially those of Joseph Smith), I have
nothing but the highest respect for this inspired man, whose only "crime"
was that he refused to deny that he had seen a vision...  Many have tried
to explain the "Smith phenomenon" away, but the bold presence of an 8.5
million member strong church stands as a witness that Joseph Smith's
testimony had enough resilience and power to carry on the message.

#thought at the time was that the gift of prophecy was to be handed
#down father to son.  After Joseph Smith died, his son was only
#entering his teens.  Brigham Young and a few others claimed to have
#been bequeathed the gift and leadership prior to his death.  The
#Council of Twelve, the Church governing body, wasn't of much help
#here, and this basic conflict is still a wedge between the sects.
#Brigham Young took his followers to Salt Lake.  The rest waited
#for Smith Jr. to grow up enough to assume leadership.  The other
#claimants to the leadership were soon ignored, like Mike Dukakis. ;-)

"The rest" were apostates and excommunicated members of the Church,
while the great majority of the membership, the Twelve, and the various
auxiliary organizations, chose to accept Brigham Young as the new
prophet and leader of the Church.  If you knew your lds scriptures and
doctrine, you would have known that Brigham Young was the FIRST in
line to fill the prophet Joseph Smith's vacancy: he was the senior
apostle in the Quorum, and various comments made by Joseph indicated
that it was Brigham who would lead the latter-day exodus to the West.

Other rightful "heirs" were either dead (Hyrum Smith) or excommunicated
(Oliver Cowdery), and while persecutions abounded and intensified,
Joseph Smith had already given orders to look for a new place, an empty
land beyond the boundaries of the United States (at that time).  This
"Rekhabite" principle (pseudographia) was well understood and antipated
by the great majority of lds faithful, and was not questioned by them.

Granted, a couple of "do-it-yourselfers" stayed behind, unwilling to
sacrifice and to undertake the perilous journey to the unknown, but
this also was necessary to separate the tares from the wheat.  The
church benefitted from this purification process: they became even
more unified and willing to carry out their mission to the world.

#        Both sects practiced the "1-year food stockpile" doctrine,
#and this being frontier and farming country most carried or at
#least owned weapons.  There is little evidence that they were a
#militaristic sect, given that they tended to move on rather than
#face large-scale opposition.  Brigham Young, having suffered a
#great deal getting to Salt Lake, seems to have been quite
#justified in making military training a good thing.  Remember,
#this was far beyond where even the US Army went, and these people
#had nobody to turn to save themselves.
#
#        Just a little context to put this all in perspective.

BTW, since when is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (one of
the largest denominations in the country) a "sect"???  It didn't "splinter"
from any other religion, as did say, the Southern Baptists or Methodists.

#>So what did the Mormons get?  It seems that J. Edgar Hoover was very
#>impressed with the way they kept secrets.  (They're pledged to defend
#>secrets with their lives and atone for sin with blood.  Many actually
#>do - even to the point of suicide.)

What a balloney.  Suicide is sinful and against the law of God.  I am
not comfortable with this alleged "cosiness" with Mammon: I assure you
that *many* among us reject this attitude categorically.  Period.  Our
ONLY true allegiance is to our God and to the leaders which He has
appointed to represent Him.  In any regard, to read this TRASH (about
suicide and "atone for sins with blood") is yet another insulting
misrepresentation of what my church believes in and stands for...

#
#        The RLDS, the Reorganized LDS, are friendly rivals of the LDS
#and delight in telling stories about them, which generates quick retorts
#from the LDS members and everybody has a grand time.  At no time have
#I ever even heard this hinted at.  I'm taking it with a salt block.

Make it a really big salt mountain with a glacier on top.

#>  So he hired virtually no one but
#>Mormons, until the FBI was almost exclusively staffed by members of the
#>Church of Later Day Saints.  Though J. Edgar is finally gone, the FBI
#>personnel (especially the field agents) are still heavily Mormon.
#>I have often wondered how this might affect the FBI's treatment
#>of religious organizations a Mormon would consider heretical.

Preposterous.  Even if this were true (reliable data, please), I
am convinced that those officers would perform to the highest codes
of honor and conduct (that's why they were selected for in the
first place, remember?).  Besides, one of our Articles of Faith
STRONGLY states the principle of freedom of religion, and that all
people are free to worship "*how*, *where*, or *what* they may."

#        If it's true, there would be little affect.  LDS and RLDS
#philosophy is that all other religions have strayed from the true
#Church as set down by Jesus, but that God will judge each on his
#own merits.  In addition, the RLDS also contend (and the LDS may
#as well) that ignorance of the True Way (tm) is an excuse.  You
#can only be condemned if you had been tought the way and rejected
#it.  In short, LDS and RLDS suffer everybody from Lutherans to
#Buddhists, secure in the knowledge that though they are wrong they
#will not be penalized for ignorance.  It is more likely that Hoover
#liked them because of their rather strict upbringings which forbade
#alcohol, tobacco, hot drink (like coffee or tea), and the like.
#These people are the "salt of the Earth" and as such are more
#easily made to follow orders and have few vices to be used against them.

A good explanation, I can accept that.  You are right that lds people
are sometimes a little too cosy with Mammon's "orders" (the late
president Kimball, for example, was an exception with his strong
opposition of the selection of the MX "Peace Keeper" missile maze
in Utah).

#        That's my somewhat educated guess, anyway.  Both sects have
#splinter groups that don't mirror the masses, but these are small
#and rare, and hardly worth noting their common ancestry.
#
#        None of this has any relevance to guns, though.  When a
#man's religion is used to deny him the right of self-protection with
#the weapons suitable for the job, he'll find an ally in me.
#
#< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
#<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
#<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
#<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >


Casper C. Knies              isscck@byuvm.bitnet
Brigham Young University     isscck@vm.byu.edu
UCS Computer Facilities

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84149
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <1993Apr21.164554.1@ccsua.ctstateu.edu>, parys@ccsua.ctstateu.edu writes:
> I told some friends of mine two weeks ago that Koresh was dead.  The FBI and
> the BATF could not let a man like that live.  He was a testimonial to their
> stupidity and lies.    
> 
	[...deleted...]

Unfortunately, I think you've got it figured pretty well.  I also ask
myself the question "Why did they plan for so many months.  Why was
this so important to them?  What was the government really up to?
Why did they seal the warrant?  Were they after Koresh or were they after      
the first and second amendments, among others?

> 
> We waited 444 days for our hostages to come home from Iran.  We gave these
> people 51 days.  
> 
-- 
 *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
 Joe Gaut                    |   In the super-state, it really does not
 <f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> |   matter at all what actually happened.
     Remember the Alamo      |   Truth is what the government chooses to 
       Remember Waco         |   tell you.  Justice is what it wants to happen.
                                        --Jim Garrison, New Orleans, La.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84150
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <bskendigC5rCBG.Azp@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>They used a tank to knock a hole in the wall, and they released
>non-toxic, non-flammable tear gas into the building.

How do you know? Were you there?

While obviously Koresh was a nut case, the (typical) inability of the
government/media to get its story straight is quite disturbing. On
tuesday night, NBC news reported that the FBI did not know the place
was burning down until they saw black smoke billowing from the
building. The next day, FBI agents were insisting that they saw Davidians
setting the fire. The FBI was also adamantly denying that it was possible
their battery of the compound's wallks could have accidentally set the
blaze, while also saying they hadnt been able to do much investigating
of the site because it was still too hot. So how did they KNOW they
didnt accidentally set the fire.

Sounds like the FBI just burned the place to the ground to destroy
evidence to me.


--
Legalize Freedom

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84151
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <sandvik-190493200323@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>I'm mostly angry why the Davidians didn't spare the children the
>awful suffering. See my other posting, I'm in a bad temper.

Well, dozens of children left the compound between the original BATF assualt
and the FBI assault 7 weeks later. So if Koresh really wanted to kill
children, why did he let so many go?


--
Legalize Freedom

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84152
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: That Kill by Sword, Must be Killed by Sword

In article <sandvik-190493201048@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>
>So are you happy now when 70+ people, including innocent kids,
>died today?

No, and Im especially unhappy that these 70+ people died in an assault
on private property with government armored vehicles.

I am also unhappy (or actually, very suspicious) that the FBI was dismissing
out of hand any chances that they might have accidentally set the blaze 
themselves. I mean, I guess we are just supposed to believe that
ramming modified tanks into the walls of a building and injecting
toxic gases into the building are just routine procedures, no WAY
anything could go wrong.


--
Legalize Freedom

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84153
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <visser.735284180@convex.convex.com> visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:

>	Please get an explaination of exactly what this "non-toxic" tear
>gas was and what the delivery system was.  I refuse to believe any 
>explaination provided by the FBI/ATF without lots of facts.
>
>	I do not believe that there is such a thing as "non-toxic" tear
>gas.
>

You are correct. See today's (4/21) Washington Post. The gas the
FBI used is most certainly fatal in high concentrations. Of course,
non-toxic tear gas is an oxymoron; the whole point of tear gas is
that it is toxic, and its toxic effects cause people to seek
fresh air.

--
Legalize Freedom

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84156
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick
From: <A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>

In article <ss.113@apmaths.uwo.ca>, ss@apmaths.uwo.ca (SULTAN SIAL) says:
>
>In article <93111.195217A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET> <A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>
>[stuff about Mithras deleted]
>
>>Oh, His B-day was 25 Dec. Ahem.
>
>I thought that Saturnalia was celebrated by the Romans at that time.  Was
>Mithras connected with this?
>

Rome was under attack by barbarians, they sent for advice to some Oracle,
and she said Worship Cybele and you'll be saved. They did, they were.

Cybele was the quintessential wiccan goddess, there was Her and her son &
lover, Attis. Yucky idea if you ask me. OK the book says she was Phrygian,
from the neolithic matriarchal society Catal Huyuk (Turkey). Worshipped 1st
as Black Stone (that Kaaba in Mecca ring a bell maybe????) Carried to Rome
in 205BC to save them from Hannibal.

It gets more interesting. Romans called her Great Mother (Magna Mater),
could be the reason why so many of those Mary statues in Europe are black,
prob. IS connected to that Ka'aba they've got in Mecca, 3rd cent. AD She was
supreme Goddess in Lyons, France . . . Attis was castrated and formed into
a pine tree . . . she should be worshiped on 25 Mar . . . in Rome it was
an ecstatic cult, her priests wore drag, worked themselves up in dance and
castrated themselves in order to initiate to her, lived their lives as women.
They wore make up and jewelry and the whole bit.

Wow.

Only other such primitive transsexualism I know of goes on in India (where
else?) where they do that castration thing under some meditation maybe, I
forget by now...there's a book on that.)

Of course, that excepts that weird Russian / Romanian 18th cent. Xian cult
that did all kinds of self-castration too, I forget their name.
-------
CHARLES HOPE   A54SI@CUNYVM   A54SI@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
GOVERNMENT BY REPORTERS...MEDIA-OCRACY.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84157
From: edmahood@infoserv.com (Ed Mahood, Jr.)
Subject: Re: Greek myth and the Bible

In <Pegasus-130393124328@fp1-dialin-7.uoregon.edu>, Pegasus@AAA.UOregon.EDU (Laurie EWBrandt)  wrote:
> 
> [irrelevant inserts from previous postings deleted]
> 
> A definiation from a text book used as part of an introductory course in
> social anthorpology "The term myth designates traditionally based, dramatic
> narratives on themes that emphasize the nature of humankind's relationship
> to nature and to the supernatural. ...  legends are ususally defined as
> tales concerning other times and places that do not give the same extensive
> emphasis to supernatural themes. Legends, more often than myths, are retold
> purely as entertainment." from Peter B. Hammand's .An introduction to
> Cutural and Social Anthropology. second ed Macmillion page 387. This makes
> the Bible a Fibber Magee's closet, over stuffed with a little bit of every
> thing gleened by a wandering people.
> Pegasus 

     Now doesn't this sound a lot like the "colorful (or otherwise) story 
     from antiquity that somehow tries to (or does) explain natural pheno-
     mena"?  I think I hear what you're saying, but I'm not convinced that
     I know what you mean.  The possibility exists that what _looks_ like
     "myth" on the surface may be after all much more than "just" a story.
     
      

     * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

     ed mahood, jr.  < edmahood@infoserv.com >

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84158
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Hitler - pagan or Christian? (Was: Martin Luther...)

In article <9c9e02703ak901@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> 
czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes:
>In article <93074.033230KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET> KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
>>The Irish have their version of the swastica called St. Brigid's cross.
>There's also the three-legged symbol of the Isle of Man.

The three-legged symbol is a bit different, there is a word for them but
I can't recall it, tri something, trieskalon?, don't know. These have
more to do with the triple goddess in her three phases as reflected in
females: girl-woman-crone.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84159
From: cutter@gloster.via.mind.org (cutter)
Subject: Re: That Kill by Sword, Must be Killed by Sword

sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> 
> And I find is extremely discusting to talk about politically
> incorrect actions, and forget the actual tragedy. Think,
> imagine your eight month old son dying in flames...
> 
> Kent
> ---
> sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

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


---------------------------------------------------------------------
cutter@gloster.via.mind.org (chris)     All jobs are easy 
                                     to the person who
                                     doesn't have to do them.
                                               Holt's law

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84164
From: merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93 God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>In article <bskendigC5Ku3C.6Dx@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>>I've asked your god several times with all my heart to come to me...

>Brian K., I am pleased with your honesty.  And to be honest as well, I
>believe you have not asked my god to come to you.  Why do I say this?

Because that would contradict your religious beliefs; therefore,
you feel more comfortable simply accusing his sincerity, so you will
not have to critically examine your religious beliefs.

---
Merlyn LeRoy

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84165
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: 17 Apr 93   God's Promise in Luke 11:28


	But he said,
	Yea rather,
	blessed are they
	that hear the word of God,
	and keep it.

	Luke 11:28

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84169
From: jeffjc@cs.mcgill.ca (Jeffrey CHANCE)
Subject: Peace Run '93


                     Welcome to the Peace Run

                     You're invited to join in
                     a Global Relay Run... and
                     help light the Way.



                     ----  Why the Peace Run  ----

There's a new spirit in the Nineties: a spirit of oneness, a growing
belief in the possibility of true global peace.

The goal of the Sri Chinmoy Oneness-Home Peace Run is simple: to
bring this spirit forward in a concrete way, to transform it into
a reality in their own lives.

Every other year, thousands of men, women and children from more
than 70 nations - passing a flaming Peace Torch from hand to hand -
join together in a relay run that virtually circles the globe.
Transcending political and cultural boundaries, they go from
nation to nation - across mountains, jungles and deserts - carrying
the message of brotherhood to all humankind.

Each person who holds or runs with the Peace Torch lights a path
for those who follow. Each time the Peace Torch changes hands, the
flame of oneness burns a little brighter - until one day it will
shine in the hearts and minds of every individual on earth.


		    ----  Making History  ----

The three Peace Runs since 1987 have achieved some historic break-
throughs: in the Middle East, a landmark run crossed the Egyptian-
Israeli border; in Europe, a precedent-setting run linked Eastern
and Western Europe with Russia; in the United States, Mexico and
Canada, entire cities were dedicated to the cause of world peace;
and in Poland, the Peace Torch was blessed by Pope John Paul II.


		 ----  Speaking as One: World  ----
             ----  Leaders, Celebrities - and You  ----

The Peace Run has won the support of leaders the world over -
Presidents, Prime Ministers, religious leaders, sports figures and
entertainment personalities.

Its message has spread to a half billion people though newspaper
reports, magazine articles and radio and TV broadcasts, including
specials on PBS, MTV and NBC's Today Show.

> "I am happy to support your Peace Run for justice, peace and
reconciliation. The world must know that God wants us to live
amicably as brothers and sisters, members of one family, the human
family, God's family."  - Archbishop Desmond Tutu,
			  Nobel Peace Prize Winner


		   ----  How It All Works  ----

Peace Run 1993 started with a five-borrough relay in New York
City on Saturday April 17, converging at various points to lead
up to the opening ceremony outside the United Nations Dag
Hammarskjold Building. There, runners from around the world
were gathered for the fourth lighting of the Peace Torch.

From there, Peace Torches are now being transported to over
seventy countries for a series of concurrent international or
cross-country relay runs including the United States, Canada,
Japan, Australia, Russia and Eastern and Western Europe. Smaller
runs will take place in the Philippines, Mexico, Israel, South
America, Egypt and elsewhere in Africa. Distance to be covered:
31,000 miles.

>"The Peace Run wil do much to inspire the hearts and stimulate
the minds of those who support, participate in, witness, or hear
about the event."  - Carl Lewis,
                     Six-Time Olympic Gold Medalist


                  ----  Who's Behind It  ----

The Peace Run is sponsored by the Sri Chinmoy Marathon Team, an
international running organization that believes sports can be a
powerful instrument for promoting world peace. Each year the Team
puts on hundreds of athletic events, including several world-class
ultramarathons, marathons and triathlons, in dozens of countries.

The Peace Run itself is inspired by the global peace ambassador
Sri Chinmoy, who has written and lectured extensively on peace,
offered hundreds of free peace concerts and met with countless
world figures to advance the cause of international harmony.

The Run is managed by Peace Runs International, a non-profit
organization based in the United States.


               ----  Take a Step For Peace  ----

The Peace Runs in 1987, 1989 and 1991 attracted nearly half a
million participants. We're expecting even more people to join
Peace Run '93.

You can also join the Run - carrying the Peace Torch a few steps,
a few blocks or a few miles. Or you can come out and cheer the
runners as they carry the Torch through your community.

You can also join local celebrities and government officials in
one of the thousands of welcoming ceremonies scheduled along the
70-nation route.

Your inner support is important too. If you're a runner, each time
you go out, you can dedicate your run to the cause of world peace.


		 ----  The Next Step is Yours  ----
		 ----  Make It One For Peace  ----


For information contact:
Peace Runs International
161-44 Normal Road
Jamaica, NY 11432 USA
tel. 718/291-6637  Fax: 718/291-6978

Peace Run Canada
2456 Agricola Street
Halifax, Nova Scotia  B3K 4C2
tel. 902/425-1174  Fax: 902/420-0773

or for the phone number or address of
a Peace Run office in your town or country,
reply to this message by e-mail.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84170
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin
From: rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota)

In article <1quim9INNem8@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
>
>
>rfox@charlie.usd.edu writes:
>
>>Bill, I have taken the time to explain that biblical scholars consider the
>>Josephus reference to be an early Christian insert.  By biblical
>scholar I mean
>>an expert who, in the course of his or her research, is willing to let
>the
>>chips fall where they may.  This excludes literalists, who may
>otherwise be
>>defined as biblical apologists.  They find what they want to find. 
>They are
>>not trustworthy by scholarly standards (and others).
>
>I've seen this claim about the "Josephus insert" flying around the
>net too often to continue to ignore it.  Perhaps it's true.  Was
>there only one Josephus manuscipt?  If there were, say, 100 copies,
>the forger would have to put his insert into all of them.  By the
>same token, since Josephus was a historian, why are biblical scholars
>raising the flag?  Historical scholars , I would think, would have
>a better handle on these ancient secular documents.  Can you give 
>researchers documents (page numbers, etc)?
>
>Jack

I became aware of the claim years ago.  So I decided to check it out, on my
own.  But, then, that was in BN times (Before Net).  So, here are some 
references.  See Robin Lane Fox's _The unauthorized version_, (p.284) where 
Lane Fox writes, "... the one passage which appears to [comment on Jesus' 
career] is agreed to be a Christian addition."

In my Re:Albert Sabin response (C5u7sJ.391@sunfish.usd.edu) to Jim Lippard (21
April 93), I noted that consensus is typically indicated subtly as in Elaine 
Pagel's _The gnostic gospels_ (p.85), to wit:  "A comment *attributed* to
Josephus reports ... [emphasis mine]".  Scholars sometimes do not even mention
the two Josephus entries, another subtlety reflecting consensus.

So far as I can deduce, today's consensus is built on at least three things: 
1) the long passage is way out of context, 2) Origen did not know about the
long passage, and 3) the short and long passages are contradictory. 
I don't know the references wherein the arguments which led to consensus are
orginally developed (does anyone?).

Biblical scholars as I defined them include theologians and historians.  The
former, like the latter, incorporate historical, social, technological and
ideological contexts as well as theology.  So the distinction is blurred.  I 
didn't elaborate on that.  Sorry.  (In turn, historians are compelled to
incorporate theology).

Can't say about the number of copies.  These were, however, BG times (Before 
Gutenburg).  A hundred first editions seems exceedingly high; counting on one 
hand seems more reasonable.  Perhaps those mss. without the long insert (if any,
because anything is possible) have been destroyed.  Such a practice is 
certainly not foreign to religions.  Anyway, all we have are mss. which have 
the two entries.  Lippart (in the message noted above) talks about an Arabic 
ms.  But here the ms. date is critical.

:-)

Rich Fox, Anthro, Usouthdakota

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84174
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Abortion

In <18275.459.uupcb@ozonehole.com> anthony.landreneau@ozonehole.com (Anthony Landreneau)  writes:
>To: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
>From: anthony.landreneau@ozonehole.com
>
>LM>>  >>The rape has passed, there is nothing that will ever take that away.
>LM>>
>LM>>LM>True.  But forcing her to remain pregnant continues the violation of
>LM>>LM>her body for another 9 months.  I see this as being unbelievably cruel.
>LM>>
>LM>>Life is not a "violation".
>
>LM>But forcing someone to harbor that life in their body *is* a violation.
>
>Letting a mother force a child from her body, in order to end that
>childs life is the ultimate violation.

I happen to take the violation of a person much more seriously than the
"violation" of a mindless clump of cells smaller than my thumb.

Your mileage may vary.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84175
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: What we can learn from the Waco wackos


	There are actually a few important things we can glean from this mess:
1)	When they start getting desperate for an answer to the question: "What's
it all about. Mr. Natural?", pinkboys will buy darn near *anything*, which
means:
2)	There's still plenty of $$$$ to be made in the False Jesus business
by enterprising SubGenii.  Just remember that:
3)	Once you've separated the pinks from their green, don't blow it all
on automatic weapons from Mexico.  Put it in a Swiss bank account.  Smile a
lot.  Have your flunkies hand out flowers in airports.  The Con will just
shrug you off as long as:
4)	You never, never, NEVER start to believe your own bulldada!  If
"David Koresh" hand't started swallowing his own "apocalypso now" crap, he'd
be working crossword puzzles in the Bahamas today instead of contributing to
the mulch layer in Waco.  This is because:
5)	When you start shooting at cops, they're likely to shoot back.  And 
most of 'em are better shots than you are.

	In short:
	- P.T. Barnum was right 
		and
	- Stupidity is self-correcting
Thus endeth the lesson.

	************************************************************
	*  	The_Doge of South St. Louis			   *
	*		Dobbs-Approved Media Conspirator(tm)	   *
	*	"One Step Beyond"  -- Sundays, 3 to 5 pm	   *
	*		88.1 FM		St. Louis Community Radio  *
	*  "You'll pay to know what you *really* think!"           *
	*			-- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs"		   *
	************************************************************



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84178
From: jwmorris@netcom.com (John W. Morris)
Subject: Re: What RIGHT ?


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

 Careful there, you make God out to be some spoiled little deity that when
he can't have his way takes his ball and goes home.

Now that you mention it....

Naw... Can't be right, makes sense. 
-- 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| John Morris                                    jwmorris@netcom.com |
| San Diego, CA                    I have no opinion, but if I did...|
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84182
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!

In article <1993Apr21.141714.5576@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:

[Jesus' comments about how Christians have to follow the OT deleted...]

>I will clarify my earlier quote.  God's laws were originally written for 
>the Israelites.  Jesus changed that fact by now making the Law applicable to
>all people, not just the Jews.  Gentiles could be part of the kingdom of
>Heaven through the saving grace of God.  I never said that the Law was made
>obsolete by Jesus.

Exodus 31:12-17.  How many people have you put to death for working on
the Sabbath?

>If anything, He clarified the Law such as in that quote you made.  In the
>following verses, Jesus takes several portions of the Law and expounds upon
>the Law giving clearer meaning to what God intended.  If you'll notice, He
>also reams into the Pharisees for mucking up the Law with their own contrived
>interpretations.  They knew every letter of the Law and followed it with their
>heads but not their hearts.  That is why He points out that our righteousness
>must surpass that of the Pharisees in order to be accepted into the kingdom
>of Heaven.  People such as the Pharisees are those who really go out of their
>way to debate about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
>They had become legalistic, rule-makers - religious lawyers who practiced the
>letter of the Law but never really believed in it.  

Leviticus 17:10.  How as that medium-rare steak last night?

>I think you will agree with me that there are in today's world, a lot of
>modern-day Pharisees who know the bible from end to end but do not believe
>in it.  What good is head knowledge if there is nothing in the heart?

Leviticus 19:19.  What did you wear to work friday?

>Christianity is not just a set of rules; it's a lifestyle that changes one's
>perspectives and personal conduct.  And it demands obedience to God's will.

Deutromony 18:1.  I can you can now justify discrimination.

>Some people can live by it, but many others cannot or will not.  That is their
>choice and I have to respect it because God respects it too.

Right.

>God be with you,

She is.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=                 "Because I'm the Daddy.  That's why."                       =

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84183
From: caldwell@facman.ohsu.edu (Larry Caldwell)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick

In response to: Whitten@Fwva.Saic.Com (David Whitten):

I wrote:

>>There evidently was a feast of bread and wine associated with Mithras.  I
>>have often wondered if Yeshua intentionally introduced this ritual to
>>expand the appeal of his religion, or if it was appropriated by later
>>worshipers.

And you responded:

>You could argue that if you wanted, but I think a more reasonable 
>argument would point out the fact that the remembrance feast was
>very similar to the Pesach (Passover) meal during Seder, a very
>Jewish ritual.

Of course.  The feast WAS the Seder, and the accounts of it are very clear
on this point.

The difference is the connection between the bread and wine and the body
and blood of god.  This is an old association of the Tammuz/Osiris/Mithras
line, and not really related to Judaism.  In any case, I didn't really
intend to argue the point.  I saw a possible association and pointed it
out, but I haven't the foggiest notion what really happened.

-- 
-- Larry Caldwell  caldwell@ohsu.edu  CompuServe 72210,2273
Oregon Health Sciences University.  (503) 494-2232

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84184
From: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)
Subject: Re: Burden of Proof

In article <1993Apr21.182030.888@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:
>Actually, both are positive arguments.  ("Positive" may not be the best
>description here due to possible misunderstanding, but it's the term you
>used.)  Positive arguments/assertions can be both affirmative (i.e. God 
>exists) and negative (i.e. God does not exist).  Both carry an equal 
>burden of proof because they are both asserting that a certain idea
>is true.  The default condition, in the absence of a preponderance of
>evidence either way, is that the proposition or assertion is undecidable.
>And the person who takes the undecidable position and says that he/she
>simply disbelieves that the proposition is true, is the only one who
>holds no burden of proof.  This is why the so-called "weak atheist"
>position is virtually unassailable -- not because it stands on a firm
>foundation of logical argument, but because it's proponents simply
>disbelieve in the existence of God(s) and therefore they hold no burden
>of proof.  When you don't assert anything, you don't have to prove
>anything.  That's where weak atheism draws its strength.  But its
>strength is also its Achilles' heel.  Without assertions/axioms, one
>has no foundation upon which to build.  As a philosophy, it's virtually
>worthless.  IMO, of course.

	So, if I were to assert that there are no thousand year old 
invisible pink unicorns* residing in my walls, I need to support this with 
evidence? I think the _lack_ of evidence shall suffice.


	* Who happen to like listening to satanic messages found in playing 
Beethoven's 45th symphony backwards.
---

        "FBI officials said cult leader David Koresh may have 
         forced followers to remain as flames closed in. Koresh's 
         armed guard may have injected as many as 24 children with 
         poison to quiet them."

        -
        
        "And God saw everything he had made, and, behold, in was very 
         good."

         Genesis 1:31


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84185
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: The fact of the theory

In article <C5u6p5.5nx@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:

[...stuff deleted...]

Andy-- I think we do agree, given your clarification of how we were 
each using the terms fact and theory.  I'll only add that I
think perhaps I feel more strongly about separating them,
though your usage is quite valid.

>Note that the fact of evolution is still a theory.  In other words, it
>could, theoretically, still be falsified and rejected.  But since it's
>so predictive, and so consistently supported by evidence, it seems
>pointless to explicitly try to falsify it anymore.

I'll add here that any falsification or rejection does not in any way
reduce its current usefulness.  So long as it accurately predicts or 
describes things we can observe.

Not to be a pain in the ass, but is there any reason you don't
just say _the theory of evolution_ rather than the _fact of evolution
is still a theory_.  I'm asking because this whole thread got started
because I was bothered by a post that referred to _the fact of evolution_,
basically leaving off the phrase _is still a theory_.  Without a 
clarification, like the one you just gave, just saying _the fact of
evolution_ has a very different meaning to me.
>
>[description of atomic theory, and alternative theories of gravity, deleted]
>>Both are very useful models that 
>>have no religious overtones or requirements of faith, unless of course you 
>>want to demand that it is a factual physical entity described exactly 
>>the way the theory now formulated talks about it.
>
>Here is where you fail to make an important distinction.  You have
>shoehorned the _facts_ of the _existence_ of gravity and atoms and
>evolution into one category with the _theories_ which have been
>proposed to explain the _mechanisms_.  The existence of these things
>is so predictive as to be considered fact.  The mechanisms, on the
>other hand, are still worth discussing.  

I'm not sure I agree here.  Again, it may be because I feel stronger
about separating terms.  I was trying to say that the _theories_
proposed to explain the _mechanisms_ and the _mechanisms_ themselves
are the only realities here.  It is the existence of mechanisms, not 
the things themselves, that are so predictive as to be considered 
fact (as you would say).  There aren't really little planetary particle 
systems called atoms out there.  Or I should say, and more to my original 
point, it would be a leap of faith to say there are, because we observe only 
the mechanisms.  There is no need to _believe_ there are _actually_
atoms out there as we have decided to think about them.  It's enough
to discuss the mechanisms.  At any rate, I'm not sure I am being 
any clearer than before, but I thought it was worth a shot.

The bottom line, though, is I think we agree on two fundamental ideas:

   1. --evolution is a theory supported by observational evidence (my way)
      --the fact of evolution is a theory supported by observational
        evidence (your way)

   2. --creation is just an opinion.  If a theist wants to call it
        a theory then he can.  I won't:  it has no supporting evidence 
	and it neither predicts nor supports any observations that can
        be made.  With no mechanisms to talk about, there really isn't
	much to say.

Do you agree?

-- 
 jim halat         halat@bear.com     
bear-stearns       --whatever doesn't kill you will only serve to annoy you--
   nyc             i speak only for myself





Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84186
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1r3qab$o1v@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <930421.102525.9Y9.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>#frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>#> In article <930420.100544.6n0.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew
>#> <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>#> #This is complete nonsense.  Relativism means saying that there is no absolut
>#> #standard of morality; it does NOT mean saying that all standards of morality
>#> #are equally good.
>#> 
>#> Presumably this means that some moral systems are better than others?
>#> How so?  How do you manage this without an objective frame of reference?
>#

Either Frank O'Dwyer or mathew said:

[...stiff deleted...]

>#Which goes faster, a bullet or a snail?  How come you can answer that when
>#Einstein proved that there isn't an objective frame of reference?

[...stiff deleted...]

Speed is a quantifiable measure resulting from a set of methods that
will result in the same value measured no matter the reference.  A 
bullet with zero velocity sitting on a table on a train moving 60mph
will be moving at a speed of

        (a) 0mph to someone on the train.
        (b) 60mph to someone stationary next to the train.

The reference frame makes the speed relative.  But what's interesting
here is that every person on the train will see a stationary bullet.
Every person off, a bullet moving 60mph.  

I know of no train where all the people on it, every time it is
filled, will see a moral problem in exactly the same way.

-- 
 jim halat         halat@bear.com     
bear-stearns       --whatever doesn't kill you will only serve to annoy you--
   nyc             i speak only for myself





Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84187
From: david@terminus.ericsson.se (David Bold)
Subject: No News Is Bad News

I'm having trouble receiving News at the moment due to an overloaded
News server. I think that I can post out reasonably quickly, though.

I'm in a couple of threads at the moment which may be pending replies.
If anyone wants a reply from me over something I've posted then I
suggest sending an e-mail copy of the point to me so that I can reply by
News.

This is one way to shut me up!!

Cheers,

David.

---
On religion:

"Oh, where is the sea?", the fishes cried,
As they swam its clearness through.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84188
From: kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: Food For Thought On Tyre


There has been a lot of discussion about Tyre.  In sum, Ezekiel prophesied
that the place would be mashed and never rebuilt; as there are a lot of
people living there, it would appear that Ezekiel was not literally correct.

This doesn't bother me at all, because I understand the language Ezekiel used
differently than do so-called Biblical literalists.  For example, it sometimes
happens that someone says "My grandson is the cutest baby!" and then turns
around and sees the granddaughter and says "Oh!  Isn't she the cutest thing!?"

This person is not literally claiming to have lined up all the babies in the
world according to cuteness and discovered his own grandchildren tied for
first.  Rather, he is trying to express his emotions using words that are very
object-oriented.  Because this example is one that is common to many people,
nobody misunderstands the intent of the statements; the Bible, however, is
often at the mercy of people who assume that everything within must be exactly
literally true.  For those people, the existence of Tyre is a problem; for me,
it is not.


Turning to the latest person trying to defend Ezekiel, we read this from
John E King:

> The prophesy clearly implies that people would still be living in the
> area[.]

No, it implies nothing of the kind.  If you had nothing but the prophecy from
Ezekiel, and you were told you interpret it literally, you would never say
"Oh, he means that there will be houses and businesses and plants and stuff
like that."  You would read "I will make you a bare rock" and "You will never
be rebuilt", and you'd conclude that Tyre would be a bare rock.  The only way
to get from `fishing nets' to `houses and buildings and a medium-large
population' is if you KNOW that all that latter stuff is there.

In other words, your answer means that Ezekiel misled everybody who read the
prophecy at the time it was written.  There is no way that, given a literal
reading, they could read this passage and conclude "medium-size city".

You seem to feel that "Never be rebuilt" means "be rebuilt" -- maybe so, but
it is hardly a `clear implication'.


Mr King also writes:

> So far I've seen stated figurers ranging from 15,000 to 22,000.
> Let's assume the latter one is correct.  By modern standards
> we are talking about a one-horse town.

Well, no.  That's only a bit less than the population of Annapolis, where I'm
from.  You know, the Naval Acadamy, the state capital, George Washington
resigned his commission in the statehouse?  Annapolis may not be New York, but
it's at least a two-horse town.

But supposing 22,000 people is a "small town" -- it's still 22,000 people
MORE than Ezekiel predicted.


And you've said nothing about the other problem.  In chapter 26, Ezekiel
predicts that Nebuchadnezzar will will destroy Tyre and loot all their
valuables.  However, Nebuchadnezzar did NOT destroy Tyre, and in chapter 29
Ezekiel even quotes God as saying "he and his army got no reward from the
campaign he led against Tyre."

Let's ignore Alexander for a moment, and just pay attention to chapter 26.
Ezekiel says N. would destroy Tyre, and N. did NOT destroy Tyre.  Ezekiel says
that N. would plunder their valuables, but N. did NOT plunder their valuables.

Regardless of what you think about Tyre _now_, the fact is that N. died before
the place was destroyed.  Ezekiel said N. was going to do it, and N. did not.

 *

This post is, of course, pointless.  Inerrantists have an amazing ability
to rewrite the Bible as needed to fit whatever they want it to say.

For example, I expect Mr King to respond to the comments about Ezekiel 26
by pulling some "clear implications" out of hat.

When Ezekiel said that N. would "demolish your towers", that clearly implied
that the walls would still be standing so people would know where the towers
used to be.  And when Ezekiel said that N. would "demolish your fine houses
and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea", that clearly implied
that N. would never set foot on the island.  And when Ezekiel wrote that N.
would "build a ramp up to your walls", that clearly implies that N. would
spend 13 years stomping around on the mainland and never get close to the
walls.

See?  A few "clear implications" that are totally contrary to the text, and
you can reconcile anything you want.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
"[Do] You know why I'm the enabler?  Because you demand it!" -- Cliff Claven

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84189
From: watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson)
Subject: Re: Koresh Doctrine -- 4 of 4

Question for those of you who seem to be fundamentalists (Stephen
Tice, the Cotera, Joe Gaut, et al)(apologies if I've mislabelled any
of you, I've only started reading t.r.m since the BD disaster.  But I
know the Cotera is a fundy) and are defending Koresh and his beliefs
as an example of True Christianity under persecution from the the Big
Bad Secular State: what is your opinion of his reported sexual habits?
If the reports are accurate, what IYO does this say about the quality of
his Christianity?  Or are the allegations just part of the Big
Cover-Up?

(I remain deliberately neutral on the cause of the fire: I wouldn't
put it past Koresh to have torched the place himself.  On the other
hand, if the propane-tank-accident story is correct, I wouldn't put it
past the FBI to try to cover its ass by claiming Koresh did it.  I
hope your government does a VERY thorough investigation of the whole
debacle, and I'll be disappointed if a few heads don't roll.  The
authorities seem to have botched the original raid, and in the matter
of the fire, are guilty of either serious misjudgement, or reckless
endangerment.)
--
| Steve Watson a.k.a. watson@sce.carleton.ca === Carleton University, Ontario |
|  this->opinion = My.opinion;  assert (this->opinion != CarletonU.opinion);  |
"Somebody touched me / Making everything new / Burned through my life / Like a
 bolt from the blue / Somebody touched me / I know it was you" - Bruce Cockburn

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84190
From: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Subject: Re: Societal basis for morality

In article <merlyn.735422443@digibd> merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>Prayer in school is legal; what is illegal is telling children
>what to pray, or not to pray.  Many people confuse "you can't
>tell kids that they ought to pray now" with "kids aren't allowed
>to pray", possibly because so few kids do so without being told.

Or perhaps it's because they think that all governmental bodies should be in
the business of suppressing all beliefs other than their own, or else they're
some sort of Satanic Humanist Conspiracy.

It's the old "if you're not for us you're against us" bit.

-EMP

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84192
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: To Rob Lanphier

You just don't get it, do you?

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>
>Me:  "Brian K, please step aside before you get run over." 
>BK:  "There is no truck."
>Me:  "Turn around at look."
>BK:  "No."
>Me:  "Look!  You will be healthier if you do take a look at
>     the oncoming truck."
>BK:  "No. Explain to me why trucks exist."
>Me:  "Turn around or you will run over."
>BK:  "No. I won't because I like hiking and tomorrow is Tuesday."
>Me:  "You blind fool!  Why do you choose ignorance? You have nothing
>      to lose if you look.  But if do not look, you will certainly lose your life."
>      I do not want to see you squashed all over the road.
>BK:  "It is my life to lose.  I rather not look.
>      Besides, a truck running over me will not harm me."
>      And by the way, I really have an open mind."

I think the discussion is more like this...

Me: [ happily picking daisies by the side of the road ]
BC: [ dancing on the double yellow broken line ]
    "Come on out and play on the highway!"
Me: "Why?"
BC: "The highway was put here for people to be on.  We must work towards
     fulfilling its purpose."
Me: "But --"
BC: "Look, the highway has been here for several generations.  Look, I
     have a story about how it was actually created by a divine being!
     And several people actually saw Elvis bless it!"
Me: "But --"
BC: "Look, are you going to come out here, or not?"
Me: "But --"
BC: "You probably think that picking daisies is fun.  Well, you're wrong."
Me: "Where in blazes did you get this silly idea that you're supposed to
     be playing on the highway?  You'll get yourself killed!"
BC: "Better to be killed on the highway than to live an empty life off
     of it.  Besides, you're just asking pointless questions.  You know
     you really want to be playing on the highway too; you're just
     denying it."
Me: "If you want to get run over, then fine, but I'd much rather enjoy
     the daisies, if you please."
BC: "Why do you shun me like this?  The Creator of the Highway will flatten
     you with a steamroller if you don't see the light and come join me!"
Me: "Well, if he's gonna be THAT way about it, maybe I want to get as
     far from the highway as I can..."
BC: [ incoherent but quite familiar righteous sputtering ]

Brian C., don't you see?  I do not believe that your god is:

	(a) real, or even

	(b) beneficial.

In fact, I believe your religion is imaginary and, carried to
extremes, harmful.  I would like to help you see its shortcomings, and
perhaps someday finally become strong enough to see it for what it is:
an elaborate lie, kept alive by the elite priesthood to keep the
masses properly submissive to their influences.

Please offer me an argument that's more convincing than "you just
don't believe 'cos you don't want to."  Everything you've said so far
could apply equally to any religion -- why do you believe yours is the
real one?

(Note that saying "it's the only one that promises eternal life" or
something like that isn't an answer to my question, unless you show
that (a) no other religion promises eternal life and (b) it is
unarguably true that eternal life must be a reality.)

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84193
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1r3570$hkv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
|> In article <1r2ls3$8mo@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> #|> 
|> #|> #This is quite different from saying "Employing force on other people
|> #|> #is immoral, period.   Unfortunately, from time to time we are obliged
|> #|> #to do this immoral thing for reasons of self-preservation, and so
|> #|> #we have to bear the moral consequences of that.
|> #|> 
|> #|> Since both statements, to all intents and purposes, say effectively
|> #|> the same thing, 
|> #
|> #Are you serious?  Two statements, one of which says that use of force
|> #in the given situation is moral, and the other of which says it is
|> #not moral "say effectively the same thing?"
|> 
|> Yes, when you tag on the "Unfortunately, ...", then to all intents and
|> purposes you are saying the same thing.

Then delete the "unfortunately".   Now tell me that the two statement
say effectively the same thing.

And to save everyone a couple of trips round this loop, please notice
that we are only obliged to use force to preserve self.   We can choose
*not* to preserve self, which is the point of pacifism.

|> 
|> #Would you say this of any two statements, one saying "X is moral" and
|> #the other saying "X is immoral?"   How would you decided when two 
|> #statements "X is moral" "X is immoral" actually conflict, and when
|> #they "say effectively the same thing".
|> 
|> What they prescribe that one should do is a pretty good indicator.

And in this case they don't prescribe the same things, so.....

|> 
|> #|>                  and lead one to do precisely the same thing, then 
|> #|> either both statements are doublespeak, or none.
|> #
|> #They might lead you to do the same thing, but the difference is what
|> #motivates pacifism so they obviously don't lead pacifists to to the
|> #same thing.
|> 
|> That's not true.  You could formulate a pragmatic belief in minimum 
|> force and still be a pacifist.  If the minimum is 0, great  - but one is
|> always trying to get as close to 0 force as possible under that belief.
|> Not the same as 'force is immoral, period', but still tending to pacifism.

If you don't think the use of force is immoral, why minimise its use?

jon.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84194
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1993Apr21.141259.12012@st-andrews.ac.uk>, nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson) writes:
|> In article <1r2m21$8mo@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >In article <1993Apr19.151902.21216@st-andrews.ac.uk>, nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson) writes:
> >Just as well, then, that I'm not claiming that my own moral system is
> >absolute.
> >
> >jon.
> >
> >[list of references stretching from here to Alpha Centauri deleted.]
>
> Jon-
>
> [and I thought to impress with my references!]
>
> Ok, so you don't claim to have an absolute moral system.  Do you claim
> to have an objective one?  I'll assume your answer is "yes," apologies
> if not.

I've just spent two solid months arguing that no such thing as an
objective moral system exists.

jon.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84195
Subject: Re: Christians above the Law? was Clarification of pe
From: NUNNALLY@acs.harding.edu (John Nunnally)

> When are we going to hear a Christian answer to this question? 
> 
> In paraphrase: 
> 
> On what or whose authority do Christians proclaim that they
> are above the Law and above the Prophets (7 major and 12 minor) and not 
> accountable to the Ten Commandments of which Jesus clearly spoke His opinion 
> in Matthew 5:14-19? What is the source of this pseudo-doctrine? Who is
> the pseudo-teacher? Who is the Great Deceiver?

OK, here's at least one Christian's answer:

Jesus was a JEW, not a Christian.  In this context Matthew 5:14-19 makes
sense.  Matt 5:17 "Do not think that I [Jesus] came to abolish the Law or
the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill."  Jesus lived
under the Jewish law.  However, He was the culmination of the promises
of the Prophets.  He came to *fulfill* the prophecies and fully obey
God's purposes.

Verse 18 says "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass
away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law,
until all is accomplished."  The key to this verse IMHO is the last 
phrase.  Jesus, as the fulfillment of the law, "accomplished" what the 
Law was supposed to accomplish.  

Verse 19:  "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments,
and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven;
but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the
kingdom of heaven."  Taken in the context of Jesus teaching Jewish 
people about living lives under the law, this makes sense.

In general, it appears that Jesus is responding to some criticism he 
must have received about "doing away with the Law."  That was not 
Jesus' intent at all.  He had come to earth to live the Law as it 
should be lived and fulfill the promises made by God to his 
people all the way back to Eve [Gen 3:15-The serpent will bruise your 
heel, but *He* will bruise his head.]  Jesus appeared to be "doing 
away with the Law" because he did not honor the traditions of men as 
equal to the Law of God.  He regularly locked horns with the religious 
leaders of the day because he would not conform to *their* rules, only 
God's Law.

In the Matthew passage Jesus is defending his dedication to the Law 
and defending himself against his accusors.  Almost the entire Sermon 
on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) is dedicated to helping the Jewish people 
understand the true intent of the Law, sweeping away the clutter which 
had been introduced by the Pharasees and their traditions.

In Galatians 3:23-26, Paul describes the relationship of Jesus to the 
Law in this way:

[23] But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being 
shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.  [24] Therefore 
the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be 
justified by faith.  [25]  But now that faith has come, we are no 
longer under a tutor.  [26] For you are all sons of God through faith 
in Christ Jesus.

I believe this says that after Christ was revealed, the Law had 
served it's purpose, i.e. "our tutor to lead us to Christ," and
now, "we are no longer under a tutor."  The law has been "fulfilled" 
as Christ said he would do.

God, the author of the old Law, and the Christ/Man, Jesus, are the same
personality.  Therefore, the old Law and the new Testament (the "last
will and testament" of Jesus) are based on the same moral principles. 
It makes sense that many of the principles in the old Law are
re-expressed in Christianity. 

On the other hand, now that the Law has fulfilled it's purpose and 
Christians relate to God through Christ, not the Law, it also makes 
sense that new practices and new symbolisms were established to 
represent the "mysteries" of this new relationship.  i.e. Baptism 
representing Christ's death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-8),
The Lord's supper as a memorial to His sacrifice (I Cor. 11:26), and
Sunday as a day of worship commemorating His resurrection (Matt 28:1ff,
Acts 20:7)

OK, That's one Christian's explanation.  I don't claim to have all
these issues completely settled even in my own mind and I welcome
other Christians to offer other alternatives.

Please excuse the long posting.  Thanks for your interest if you have read 
this far...

John Nunnally
Nunnally@acs.Harding.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84196
Subject: Re: ALT.SEX.STORIES under Literary Critical Analy
From: NUNNALLY@acs.harding.edu (John Nunnally)

In <sandvik-170493170457@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com writes:

> In article <1qevbh$h7v@agate.berkeley.edu>, dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis
> Kriz) wrote:
> > I'm going to try to do something here, that perhaps many would
> > not have thought even possible.  I want to begin the process of
> > initiating a literary critical study of the pornography posted on
> > alt.sex.stories, to identify the major themes and motifs present
> > in the stories posted there -- opening up then the possibility of
> > an objective moral evaluation of the material present there.  
> 
> Dennis, I'm astounded. I didn't know you were interested to even
> study such filth as alt.sex.stories provide...
> 
> Cheers,
> Kent
> ---
> sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

"Finally, brethern, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is
right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute,
if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your
mind dwell on these things."  Phil. 4:8.

More cheers,
John
Nunnally@acs.Harding.edu


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84197
From: royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)
Subject: Re: That Kill by Sword, Must be Killed by Sword

In article <sandvik-210493014635@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <C5tCz8.4z9@rbdc.wsnc.org>, royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)
>wrote:
>> In article <20APR199306173611@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>> >In article <sandvik-190493201048@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, 
>> >sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes...
>> ...
>> >>So are you happy now when 70+ people, including innocent kids,
>> >>died today?
>> 
>> 	It's amazing how everyone automatically blames one side or the other.
>> 	One thing for sure:  Koresh will have no chance to defend himself
>> 	against the statements (lacking in fact or COurt sponsored verification)
>> 	made  by agents who participated in the situation that killed him.
>
>Frankly speaking I don't care who started this whole show. I just 
>feel sad about the children that were trapped, and had to die
>for a case that didn't have any reason whatsoever. All Mr. 
>Koresh could have done would have been to release these 19
>children. 

	COuld he?  And the first three that died, when guns ablazing in came
	the BATF and FBI?

	I imagine I would have some trouble giving up my children to
	someone who had just shot -- what -- two of them?

	NB:  It takes two sets of guns in a situation like this.

>
>Yes, I put the blame on Koresh and similar fanatical religious
>leaders that think more about their cause than about keeping

	Fanatical:  those whowill not tolerate another's way of life
	Religious:  Based on emotional, internal, or otherwise
		lacking in commonly defined _scientific_ basis,
		including legal ones, such as this old saw:

			Innocent untilproven guilty

		not
			Innocent until presumed guilty

	Who is the fanatic?  Note who is dead; this usually bespeaks
	a fair bit for the idea that the OTHER side also had lethal
	weapons, used fatally.

		They are dead:  the children.
			At best Koresh was an asshole and the government
			criminally negligent in its hadni\ling of the case.

			At worst, Koresh and his followers were
				innocent
				not brainwashed
				guilty of illegal arms possession
					(as yet unproven)
				and murderedd
				along with 25 children
			They cannot speak for themselves
			Members of the (surviving, alive, and not burned
				to death) BATF/FBI can, and are
				inappropriately
				to the public eye
				outside the bounds of their legal authorities
					read the charter:
					the Constitution specifies that
					the COURTS convict, while the
					enforcement arm INVESTIGATES,
					and that the evidence involved
					shuld not be disseminated in a
					way to harm or injure a party
					involved prior to that action;
					its called slander or libel
					(even where factually true butthen
					distoted or disseminated with intent
					to harm
				for the purpose of covering their butts

			because the bottom line is:
				they SAID they wanted the kids to get out
					alive
				and theFBI, the BATF, Ms. Reno, the Prez,
					and EVERYBODY ELSE IN THIS

						SICK
						SELFSERVING
						GROUP OF UPRIGHT ANIMALS
					that used to be a freedom loving
					peaceful country called

						America:  look up the name,
						it might surprise you
				has turned the "point the finger of blame"
				on the OTHER guy.
			
				and LET THOSE KIDS DIE.

				Note well:  they lived 51 days; they only
				died when attacked by outside force.

			SPock's World, Diane Duane:

				The spear in the heart of another
				is the spear in your own ....

		ALL of us are responsible.

		Iam; you are.  The question is not whether, but how:

			Guess what:  you get to make up your own mind
			on that.

>children out from the war zone. I'm not ashamed of this statement.

	Who created the war zone?  You should be ashamed of bypassing that.
	It's the same damned (Literally) comment made by the folks in
	the former Yugoslavia to justify Ethnic Cleansing:

		"Gee, they had the guns, all they had to do was surrender".

>
>To justify other means does not eliminate the fact that children
>died for a cause that they should not have been part of. 

	Whose "cause" did they die for?  The one where they lived,
	peacibly, to all known purposes (until proven in COurt,
	folks!), or the Cuase of Righteous Government SafeGuarding 
	The Freedom Of The CHildren

		Who are now dead.


	AgainI say:

		I do NOT know who did what
		I was NOT there.
		The FBI leaders show moral SICKness trying to
			convict in the press ahead of schedule
		And you should look over your shoulder,

		becuase if there is anything my ruminations that
		actually  sets onto real fact of what happened

			and I do not know that; I am defending
			people who ahving been burned to death cannot
			speak for themselves

		you may, in 22-5 years, find that the concept in our
		Court system  has gone from

			Due Processss

		to

			Due Profit

		and the BATF come to collect their fair share of the tax
		on the value of your house if you rented it for income

			which is going down now, folks.
			Read Bankruptcy 1995
				Its accurate in figures
				and it bypasses the greedy
					businessman and
					mankers who have
				taken profit from the corruption
				of our govbernment.

			Look to where the money went, folks.

			You  got $10 for medicare that paid a doctor for
			$00.50 worth of medicine.

				This is the customaryprofitmargin
				to businessmen for goernment entitlements.

	Who wll own the land of the cult now?  Note well:  it WAS nonproift,
	religious, and nontaxable.  Large tract of land .... hmmm.

	Use your brains, folks:  it happened Germany, and it can happen
	here.
			4.3 trillion (admitted) and counting....
>
>Kent

royc.

>---
>sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84198
From: royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <bskendigC5rCBG.Azp@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:
>>
>>	They cut off the water, there were no fire trucks present
>
>They refused to bring in fire equipment for fear that the firemen
>would be shot at.
>
>>and the FBI/ATF go blasting holes into the builing and firing gas munitions.
>
>They used a tank to knock a hole in the wall, and they released
>non-toxic, non-flammable tear gas into the building.

	Take a second look at "non-toxic, non-flammable":

		MACE (sold tothe public) is supposedly nontoxic.
		Whatthey do not tell you is that if you get mace directly
		on the linings of the lungs (such as a direct snort to
		the face) above certain quantities, it reacts similarly
		to a mustard gas inhalation.

			I know:  my father and grandfather were exposed
			to poison gas in WWI and WWII; Dad went through
			the side effects of any WEAPON, including those
			"non-toxic" aerosols.

		WHat the label ACTUALLY means is ::

			usually, it wont kill you
			it may give you permanent CSS asthsma
			but that's better than blowing a hole in your
				head ...

		ALL aerosols are flammable IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH OXYGEN
		AND HIT IT WITH THE RIGHT IGNITER.  SOme of the most
		non-flammable substances known will BOOM or SEARFLAME
		if you hit it with the right combo.


		Let's take one:  a trash can fire.  Makes black smoke;
		already burned right?  Can't go boom, right?  Wrong.

		Suck that smoke (made up of paper that has carbonized,
		or burned about 35% of the fuel in it) into an air
		conditioning return, mix with about 5:1 air, and light
		a match.  200 feet of conduit is about the same, when
		filled with that smoke mixture, as oh, say 200 pounds TNT

			THAT is why the fire codes say NO OPEN CEILING
			TILES IN BUILDINGS.  Because 3-5 stories of
			a building have blown OUT by "nonflammable _smoke_"

	So:
		Take a little "nonflammable aerosol"
		Mix with gasoline or kerosene fumes

			NO electricity, remeber?  A bit of heating
			on the WACO plains?  Boil water to drink
			since the water was cut off?

		liberally mix and allow to settle for 1-4 hours

		Fumes vent down into the bus underground, and the Davidians
		move the children UPSTAIRS to a saferoom (they had one,
		armor plated, remember?) to BREATH, because kids get sick
		and die from tear gas.

		and along comes a tracer, a spark, what have you:

			everyone burns to death.

Try thinking before opening mouth: it may not have happened the
way the Gmen say it did.

>
>-- 
>_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
>/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
>_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
>  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
> /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84199
From: royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <C5tByD.6zD@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
...
>Hang on you missed the point entirely, they are protesting the lack of
>water because it DEPRIVED Koresh of his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to prove
>his DIVINITY by WALKING on it.

	You can tell, folks, when the man has run out of reason:
	attack the man's beliefs (in legal terminology, argument
	ad hominem:  attack the man, not what he did that has yet to
	be proven illegal)>

>
>
>|>>and the FBI/ATF go blasting holes into the builing and firing gas munitions.
>|>
>|>They used a tank to knock a hole in the wall, and they released
>|>non-toxic, non-flammable tear gas into the building.
>
>You can tell that the gas did not burn because dispite the fact that


	WRONGo.  Remember the fire movie a couple of years ago?
	"Backdraft"?  The scene in the factory with propane gas
	coming out of pipes and gasoline all over the floor,
	with a 750 degree flame front overhead?

		Note that it did not flash all at once?

	Fires ignite and burn unpredictably.
	Gases (like tear gas) mix and distribute unevenly.
		And flash unevenly.

	You are not a fire analyst.  You cannnot tell.
		(NB:  Neither am I.  And I cannot tell
		Nor is the FBI spokesman
		Nor is Reno
		Maybe we all should shut up and get a
			forensics analysis first.

>the building was full of it there was no flash of gas flame.

	Yes,. there was a flash:  in one room, just pumped full of it.,

>
>
>
>Phill Hallam-Baker

royc

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84200
From: royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <1qvv7u$kc1@morrow.stanford.edu> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:
...
>	I think that the consensus will become that FBI/ATF muffed it,
>not merely because they walked into an ambush on Feb 28, and Koresh
>got his prophesy today, against their stated intentions, but because
>they played right into polarizing the situation and not diffusing
>it.
>
>	Koresh had set up all the conditions of a classic cult
>confrontation and had stated publically what the outcome would become.

	Before or after his kids were shot?

>The government upped the ante and parcipitated the conclusion today.
>It does seem that the fires were set from within the compound by the
>members of the group and not caused by the CS gas or the way it was
>delivered. Let the subsequent investigation shed light on that. Suppose

	Then why make the comment?

>that the government had used pyrotechnics and started the fire. The
>Dividians still had the decision to stay or leave. They never intended

	As did the Jews against the Nazis in WW II:  do what I say or die.

>to leave.
>
>>The building burns, almost everyone dies.  It probably doesn't bother
>>you much, but it bothers many other people.....most of whom dont believe
>>particularly in Koresh or his message.


	ALl humans, I hope.

>
>	Yes, the finger pointing has begun.
>
>>	Four ATF agents and 90 branch Davidians are now dead because of
>>crazy tactics on the part of the ATF and FBI.
>
>	Yeah, they blew it. They were being too "rational" in a
>situation that was not your ordianry criminal game. They haven't learned
>that much from Jonestown, or The Move House, or the SLA shootout.

	Or perhaps they have:  kill first, blame the dead ones,
	destroy all the evidence.

>

royc

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84201
From: royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <C5s9CK.2Bt@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>  who would be alive today if they had been released back when we were

	The word "released" is loaded:  until convicted in CXOurt,
	my children are my own.

	WHen the Feds use this type of loaded logic, you cannot win:
		1)  we accuse you
		2) we shoot a couple of your kids
		3)  we blame you for those shots
		4) we harrass you for 51 days
		5) we tell you to come out or die
		6) we gas you
		7) you burn to death
		8)  we blame you (prior to trial) for all of it
>  debating this a few weeks ago.
>
>
>---peter
>
>
>
>
>



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84202
From: royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <keng.735334134@tunfaire> keng@den.mmc.com (Ken Garrido) writes:

[lotsa stuff taken out]

Bottom line: due process was not served.  No peaceful attempt to serve
a warrant occurred.

Think on that.

royc


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84203
From: royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <C5srEw.FCG@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tbrent@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:
...
>Give me a break!  What fireman should have to deal with a blaze like that
>AND get shot at at the same time.

	Nearly all of them.  Witness LA>  Firemen are among our real
	heroes most of the time.  I wonder when they were actually
	aasked to come, or if they found out about the fire over the
	TV ....


	Shot at by whom?  prove it!

>
>These people were breaking the law.  I agree these weren't the best tactics,

	When "law" replaces "justice" the system is dying or dead.
	Note that we had a small revolution 216 years ago on this
	point.

>they probably should have backed off, pulled the perimeter way back, and let
>them sit there with no media attention until they decided to come out.  The 
>only other alternative I see would have been to send in a couple of special
>forces guys to capture or assassinate Koresh.  But remember, these fruit-

	Or perhaps just wait.
	Or maybeeven send in a few agents who are Christian to
		sit down and pray outside the line?  Try affinity
		rather than subversion?


>loops were putting their lives on the lines voluntarily.  Why should 

	Chuckle.  SO would you if someone points a gun at you.
	At that point you can die or live; and if living means
	stayng in a building to keep badge carrying nuts off your
	kids, I suspect you might as well.

BOTH sides were wrong.

>law-abiding citizens have to put themselves in any more danger than necessary
>when dealing with a nut?  Look at the man who jumped out of his Bradley to
>grab a flaming women who was running back into the building.  Yeah, I would
>have to say they were trying to save those people.  I don't think I would 
>risk my life that much to save someone that stupid that obviously didn't
>even want to be saved.

	Try again:  go see the movie Sophie's CHoice.
	Grow up.

>
>-Tim

royc

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84204
From: salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)
Subject: Re: Ancient references to Christianity (was: Albert Sabin)

In article <C5ztJu.FKx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>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?

	It is not tossed out as a source, but would it be regarded as
unbiased and independant? 


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84205
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <1993Apr22.213142.6964@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> 
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>And we do not end perfect either.  We are never perfect.  Can you name
>one person, young or old, past or present, that you deem perfect? 

Krishna.

BG10:20(Miller) I am the self abiding in the heart of all creatures; I am
their beginning, their middle, and their end.
BG10:32(Miller) I am the beginning, the middle, and the end of
creations, Arjuna; of sciences, I am the science of the self; I am the
dispute of orators.
BG10:41(Miller) Whatever is powerful, lucid, splendid, or invulnerable
has its source in a fragment of my brilliance. (42) What use is so much
knowledge to you, Arjuna? I stand sustaining this entire world with a
fragment of my being.
BG11:32(Miller) I am time grown old ...

I can provide more names of perfect people should just one be insufficient.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84206
From: ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (David Ash)
Subject: Theory on David Koresh 

My theory is that Koresh was seriously wounded in the initial gunbattle
and died on Day 9 of the siege.  On Day 11 of the siege he rose from the
dead and periodically appeared to his followers and the FBI over the
next 40 days.  Living with someone who's risen from the dead isn't easy,
as Timmy Baterman's father in *Pet*Sematary* could attest, so after 40
days they did what Baterman did--shot themselves and burned the place
to the ground.

Consistent with the facts, isn't it?  Did anyone actually *see* Koresh
between Day 9 and Day 11?
-- 
David W. Ash               | "What profits a man if he keeps his eternal soul
ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu |  when he could have lived life to the full and
HOME: (415) 853-6860       |  been forgiven at the end of it all anyway?"
                           |         --David Merritt, a.k.a. THE RED SHARK

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84207
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

Brian Kendig says:

> And since I felt reasonably sure of myself, I decided to start analyzing the
> Bible very closely.  That was the catalyst to my break with my faith,
> though it was a long and difficult effort.

Brian Kendig also declares:

> "Christ" means "chosen", the person chosen to fulfill the prophesies
> of the Old Testament and bring about a new age of hope and spiritual
> growth for mankind.

"Christ" is Greek for "Messiah".  "Messiah" means "Annointed One".
"Annoint" means "to rub with oil, i.e. to anoint; by impl. to
consecrate"     The major prophet Daniel uses the word "Messiah"
in Daniel chapter 9.

How "closely" did you analyze the Bible?  Looks as if you didn't
get past the first word.   So was the catalyst to break your faith the
"priests" who interpreted the Bible for you?   Did you ever do what
the Bereans did to Paul's teachings in Acts 17?  

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84208
From: trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre)
Subject: Theists And Objectivity

Can a theist be truly objective?  Can he be impartial
     when questioning the truth of his scriptures, or
     will he assume the superstition of his parents
     when questioning? 

I've often found it to be the case that the theist
     will stick to some kind of superstition when
     wondering about God and his scriptures.  I've
     seen it in the Christian, the Jew, the Muslim,
     and the other theists alike.  All assume that
     their mothers and fathers were right in the
     aspect that a god exists, and with that belief
     search for their god.
     
Occasionally, the theist may switch religions or
     aspects of the same religion, but overall the
     majority keep to the belief that some "Creator"
     was behind the universe's existence.  I've
     known Muslims who were once Christians and vice
     versa, I've known Christians who were once
     Jewish and vice versa, and I've even known
     Christians who become Hindu.  Yet, throughout
     their transition from one faith to another,
     they've kept this belief in some form of higher
     "being."  Why?
     
It usually all has to do with how the child is
     brought up.  From the time he is born, the
     theist is brought up with the notion of the
     "truth" of some kind of scripture-- the Bible,
     the Torah, the Qur'an, & etc.  He is told
     of this wondrous God who wrote (or inspired)
     the scripture, of the prophets talked about in
     the scripture, of the miracles performed, & etc.
     He is also told that to question this (as
     children are apt to do) is a sin, a crime
     against God, and to lose belief in the scrip-
     ture's truth is to damn one's soul to Hell.
     Thus, by the time he is able to read the
     scripture for himself, the belief in its "truth"
     is so ingrained in his mind it all seems a
     matter of course.
     
But it doesn't stop there.  Once the child is able
     to read for himself, there is an endeavor to
     inculcate the child the "right" readings of
     scripture, to concentrate more on the pleasant
     readings, to gloss over the worse ones, and to
     explain away the unexplainable with "mystery."
     Circular arguments, "self-evdent" facts and
     "truths," unreasoning belief, and fear of
     hell is the meat of religion the child must eat
     of every day.  To doubt, of course, means wrath
     of some sort, and the child must learn to put
     away his brain when the matter concerns God.
     All of this has some considerable effect on the
     child, so that when he becomes an adult, the 
     superstitions he's been taught are nearly
     impossible to remove.
     
All of this leads me to ask whether the theist can
     truly be objective when questioning God, Hell,
     Heaven, the angels, souls, and all of the rest.
     Can he, for a moment, put aside this notion that
     God *does* exist and look at everything from
     a unbiased point of view?  Obviously, most
     theists can somewhat, especially when presented
     with "mythical gods" (Homeric, Roman, Egyptian,
     & etc.).  But can they put aside the assumption
     of God's existence and question it impartially?
     
Stephen

    _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/       _/    * Atheist
   _/        _/    _/   _/ _/ _/ _/     * Libertarian
  _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/   _/  _/      * Pro-individuality
       _/  _/     _/  _/       _/       * Pro-responsibility
_/_/_/_/  _/      _/ _/       _/ Jr.    * and all that jazz...



-- 

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84209
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: 22 Apr 93   God's Promise in Psalm 34:5


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

	Psalm 34:5

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84210
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: Re: [rw] Is Robert Weiss the only orthodox Christian?

In article <93111.074840LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET>, LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET writes...

Rick Anderson writes:

ra>   Robert, you keep making references to "orthodox" belief, and saying
ra> things like "it is held that..." (cf. "Kermit" thread).  On what
ra> exact body of theology are you drawing for what you call "orthodox?"

     "Orthodox" is a compound word. It comes from 'orthos' (straight, true, 
     right) and from 'doxa' (opinion, doctrine, teaching). I use orthodox to 
     refer to 'right teaching.' Right teaching is derived from letting God 
     speak to us through the Bible. This can be from reading simple truths 
     in the Scriptures and by using the Bible to interpret the Bible.

ra> Who is that "holds that" Luke meant what you said he meant?

     I think that it is apparent from reading the Scriptures that are
     pertinent.

     Luke 23:43 records Christ's promise to the repentant thief who hung on
     an adjacent cross: "Truly I say to you, today you will be with Me in
     paradise." But was it not until later that Christ rose from the dead
     and ascended to heaven? If Christ Himself was not in heaven until
     Sunday, how could the repentant thief have been there with Him? The
     answer lies in the location of "paradise" when Jesus died.

     Apparently paradise was not exalted to heaven until Easter Day.

     Jesus refers to it in the middle of the story of the rich man and 
     Lazarus as "Abraham's Bosom," to which the godly beggar Lazarus was
     carried by the angels after his decease (Luke 16:19-31).  Thus
     "Abraham's Bosom" referred to the place where the souls of the redeemed
     waited till the day of Christ's Resurrection.

     It was not yet lifted to heaven but it may well have been a section of 
     hades (Hebrew: Sheol), reserved for believers who had died in the faith
     but would not be admitted into the glorious presence of God in heaven
     until the price of redemption had actually been paid on Calvary; or
     even that none would precede the presence of Jesus back to glory with
     the Father.

     Doubtless it was the infernal paradise that the souls of Jesus and the
     repentant thief repaired after they each died on Friday afternoon. But
     on Sunday, after the risen Christ had first appeared to Mary Magdalene
     (John 20:17) and her two companions (Matthew 28:9), presumably He then
     took up with Him to glory all the inhabitants of infernal paradise
     (including Abraham, Lazarus, and the repentant thief). We read in
     Ephesians 4:8 concerning Christ: "Ascending on high, He led captivity
     captive; He gave gifts unto men." Verse 9 continues: "But what does `He
     ascended' mean but that He also descended to the lowest parts of the
     earth?" -i.e., to hades. Verse 10 adds: "He who descended is the same
     as He who ascended above all the heavens." Presumably He led the whole
     band of liberated captives from hades (i.e., the whole population of
     preresurrection paradise) up to the glory of heaven.

ra> Whenever your personal interpretation of Biblical passages is
ra> challenged, your only response seems to be that one needs merely to
ra> "look at the Bible" in order to see the truth, but what of those who
ra> see Biblical things differently from you?

     I think that this characterization is faulty. Whenever my 'personal 
     interpretation' is questioned, I usually give a reason.

     As for those that see things differently, please, put forward where
     there is a valid difference, and we can discuss it. 

     I seem to be seeing from you the notion that any difference in how one 
     views the Bible is somehow legitimate, except, or course, for the stuff 
     that I glean from it. Put forward a contrary view and perhaps we can 
     have a discussion on that topic. But to decry something that I put 
     forward, without putting forward something else to discuss, and to 
     dismiss what I put forward while giving credence to other alleged views
     that have yet to be put forward is simply being contentious.

ra> Are we to simply assume that you are the only one who really
ra> understands it?

     If you believe that something that I have drawn from Scripture is 
     wrong, then please, show me from Scripture where it is wrong.  Simply 
     stating that there are other views is not a proof. Show it to me from 
     Scripture and then we can go on.


=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84211
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <1993Apr21.231552.24869@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:
> Kent, I am not accusing you of evil things.  Jesus is accusing you.
> And it is not only you that He is accusing.  He is accusing everyone.
> Me, you and everyone in the world is guilty.  Whether one
> sees the light or does not seen the light has nothing to do with 
> whether we do evil things.  We do them regardless.  

Hmm, it seems that this is the core of Christianity then, you 
have to feel guilty, and then there's this single personality
that will save you from this universal guilt feeling.

Brian, I will tell you a secret, I don't feel guilty at all,
I do mistakes, and I regret them, however I've never had this
huge guilt feeling hanging over my shoulder.

If things happen wrong, I will try to learn from the mistakes
and go on.

This all is a very clear indication that you need a certain
personality type in order to believe and adjust to certain
religious doctrines. And if your personality type is 
opposite, then you are not that easily attached to a certain
world view system.

> So do you see Jesus's point?  Christians are not perfect.  Nonchristians
> are not perfect.  Nonchristians do not want to come into the
> Light of Jesus because they will see all the problems in their lives,
> and they will not like the sight.  It is an ugly thing to see how far
> we have fallen from Jesus's perspective.  Do you think you want to
> know how really ignorant you are?  Do you think Brian Kendig wants
> to know?  Do you think I want to know?  Ego verses the truth,
> which do you choose?

All I know is that I don't know everything. And frankly speaking
I don't care, life is fun anyway. I recognize that I'm not 
perfect, but that does not hinder me from have a healthy
and inspiring life.

There are humans that subscribe to the same notion. The nice
thing is that when you finally shake off this huge burden,
the shoulders feel far more relaxed!

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84212
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: To Rob Lanphier

In article <1993Apr22.003024.25620@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:
> My hope is that Brian will look and will see the ramifications of the
> truck coming towards him.  My hope is that Brian will want to step out
> of the way.  My fear, though,  is that Brian will instead choose to glue himself
> to the middle of the highway, where he will certainly get run over.  But if
> he so chooses, he so chooses, and there is nothing I can do beyond that
> to change his mind.   For it is his choice.   But at this very moment,
> Brian hasn't gotten even that far.  He is still at the point where he
> does not want to look.  Sure he moves his eyeball to appease me, but his
> head will not turn around to see the entire picture.  So far he is
> satisfied with his glimpse of the mountains off in the distance. 


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

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84213
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!

In article <1993Apr21.141714.5576@ra.royalroads.ca>,
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
> |> "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have
> |> not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until


> I will clarify my earlier quote.  God's laws were originally written for 
> the Israelites.  Jesus changed that fact by now making the Law applicable to
> all people, not just the Jews.  Gentiles could be part of the kingdom of
> Heaven through the saving grace of God.  I never said that the Law was made
> obsolete by Jesus.

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

Cheers,
Kent

---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84214
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!

In article <1993Apr21.145336.5912@ra.royalroads.ca>,
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
> And does it not say in scripture that no man knows the hour of His coming, not
> even the angels in Heaven but only the Father Himself?  DK was trying to play
> God by breaking the seals himself.  DK killed himself and as many of his
> followers as he could.  BTW, God did save the children.  They are in Heaven,
> a far better place.  How do I know?  By faith.

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

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84215
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: The Universe and Black Holes, was Re: 2000 years.....

kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:

>  Let's say that we drop a marble into the black hole.  It races, ever faster,
>towards the even horizon.  But, thanks to the curving of space caused by the
>excessive gravity, as the object approaches the event horizon it has further to
>travel.  Integrating the curve gives a time to reach the event horizon of . . .
>infinity.  So the math says that nothing can enter a black hole.

This is not correct.  The event horizon is not the "center" of the black
hole but merely the distance at which the escape velocity is equal to the
speed of light.  That is, the event horizon is a finite radius...

keith

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84216
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: The Universe and Black Holes, was Re: 2000 years.....

salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) writes:

>Is this Zeno's Paradox?

No.  Zeno's paradox is resolved by showing that integration or an infinite
series of decreasing terms can sum to a finite result.

>Nothing can get out of a black hole because
>the escape velocity is the speed of light. I don't know how time dialation
>can prevent matter spiraling in from getting to the event horizon. Can any-
>one explain how matter gets in.

Well, suppose a probe emitting radiation at a constant frequency was
sent towards a black hole.  As it got closer to the event horizon, the
red shift would keep increasing.  The period would get longer and longer,
but it would never stop.  An observer would not observe the probe actually
reaching the event horizon.  The detected energy from the probe would keep
decreasing, but it wouldn't vanish.  Exp(-t) never quite reaches zero.

I guess the above probably doesn't make things any more clear, but hopefully
you will get the general idea maybe.

keith

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84217
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <204l02tO40sf01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
=>I don't necessarily agree with Pat Robertson.  Every one will be placed before
=>the judgement seat eventually and judged on what we have done or failed to do
=>on this earth.  God allows people to choose who and what they want to worship.
=
=I'm sorry, but He does not!  Ever read the FIRST commandment?

I have.  Apparently you haven't.  The first commandment doesn't appear to
forbid worshipping other gods.  Yahweh's got to be at the top of the totem
pole, though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84218
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1rdlsf$vi@agate.berkeley.edu>, isaackuo@skippy.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo) writes:
=Hmm.  The police strategy of bursting in with weapons drawn, clearly marked as
=officers and yelling "Police" repeatedly.  This is used every day to bust drug
=houses.  The idea is to awe the suspects into submission with surprise and
=display of firepowere in order to avoid a gun fight.  As for not knocking, it's
=a sad necessity in many cases since the suspects will attempt to escape or even
=fight.  Usually this strategy works; if it didn't, then it wouldn't be used so
=commonly, now would it?

How often is it used when the convoy carrying the brigade is visible for miles
before it reaches the place that's to be searched?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84219
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Subject: Re: Another assertion about macroevolution

In article <1993Apr21.215709.16433@rambo.atlanta.dg.com> wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:

>     Macroevolution has not been observed in action.  Chris Colby's example(s)
>     of speciation (with all due respect to Chris) in the plant example
>     he gave do not consitute macroevolution.  Put another
>     way, there are an incredibly huge number of events necessary to bring
>     non-life to homo sapiens.  How many have we DIRECTLY observed?

Special creation has not been observed in action. Bill Rawlin's
assertions that man was created in his present form do not count 
as creation. Put another way, there are an incredible amount of
species of the planet. How many species have we DIRECTLY observed
being created by a god or gods?

>            //  Bill Rawlins            <wpr@atlanta.dg.com>        //


Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84220
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Subject: Re: The gospels, Josephus, etc and origins

In article <1993Apr21.225146.20804@rambo.atlanta.dg.com> wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:

>       The macroevolutionary tree is full of holes.  (Please show me a few
>        intermediate forms between reptile and bird.)

Are you so ignorant that you have never heard of _Archaeopteryx_?

>            //  Bill Rawlins            <wpr@atlanta.dg.com>        //

The special creation "theory" is nothing but holes. Please show me a
species poofed into existence by your god. I have never seen this.

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84221
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Subject: Re: Branch Athiests Cult (was Rawlins debunks creationism)


    Please excuse the length of this post, but for personal reasons, 
I must go on at some length.

In article <1r9dd7INNqfk@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
|> 
|> scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle) writes:
|> 
|> >   For your information, I checked the Library of Congress catalog,
|> >and they list the following books by Francis Hitching:
|> 
|> 
|> I believe I've just discovered an anthopological parallel.  In my many
|> "discussions" with the fundies, their main tactic is to discredit
|> my sources.  They shrilly bleat:
|> 
|>      "Barclay's claims are bogus; McKenzie's arguements are a sham,
|> Oehler position is specious, Jouon's ideas are fiction, Darby is a
|> fraud, Howard is a counterfeit, Rotherham's claims are vapid."
|> 
|> Ahha...Now with the Branch Athiests zealots we have the following:
|> 
|>      "Hitching`s claims are bogus, Gorman argument's are a sham,
|> Jastrow's position is specious, Stanley's ideas are fiction, Durant
|> is a fraud, Thorpe is a counterfeit, Hoyle's claims are vapid."
|> 
|> Are we witnessing the founding of a new major religion.... or has
|> it really been there all along?!
    [...more deleted...]

    Perhaps it would be instructive to see what my original post had
to say:

In article <1993Apr22.121931.2533@news.nd.edu>, scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle) writes:
|> In article <1r4dglINNkv2@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
|> |> 
|> |> 
|> |> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
|> |> 
|> |> 
|> |> 
|> |> >  Neither I, nor Webster's has ever heard of Francis Hitchings.  Who is he? 
|> |> >Please do not answer with "A well known evolutionist" or some other such
|> |> >informationless phrase.
|> |> 
|> |> He is a paleontologist and author of "The Neck of the Giraffe".  The
|> |> quote was taken from pg. 103.
|> |> 
|> |> Jack
|> 
|>     For your information, I checked the Library of Congress catalog,
|> and they list the following books by Francis Hitching:
|> 
|>     Earth Magic
|> 
|>     The Neck of the Giraffe, or Where Darwin Went Wrong
|> 
|>     Pendulum: the Psi Connection
|> 
|>     The World Atlas of Mysteries
     [followed by my signature]

    I was extremely careful in this posting not to say anything which
was not factual.  I made no judgement about Hitching or the quality of 
the quotation attributed to him.  I have not read any of the books 
listed (although I did glimpse briefly at "Earth Magic", I saw nothing 
that I would care to comment on).  It was solely in response to an
inquiry by Warren about Hitching, and your assertion that he is a
paleontologist.  I do not know whether he is or is not a paleontologist.
I do not claim to know anything about him, except this listing of his
publications.

    However, I get the decided impression that I am being included
among the "Branch Atheists" on the basis of this post.  If that 
impression is mistaken, please let me know.  Otherwise, I should let
you know that the implications are very offensive to me, and I 
would certainly appreciate a clarification of your posting.

-- 
Tom Scharle                |scharle@irishmvs
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84222
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Subject: Re: What part of "No" don't you understand?

In <C60y12.E9J@panix.com> mls@panix.com (Michael Siemon) writes:

>In <1993Apr24.214843.10940@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu
>(E. Elizabeth Bartley) writes:

>>I can certainly see opposing the "Amen" -- but that doesn't require 
>>opposing a moment of silence.

>If the ONLY people proposing a "moment of silence" are doing so as a
>sham to sneak in prayers, then it MUST be opposed.  What the HELL have
>prayers to do with public schooling?  [I ask this question as a devout
>Christian.]

   Uh oh, Michael; you typed "hell" and capitalized it to boot! Now
Peter Nyikos will explain that you're not a real Christian!

>>>I'll back off when they do.

>>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.

>Their kids can bloody-well pray any God-damned time they WANT to.  And
>nothing, on heaven or earth, in government or the principal's office,
>can prevent or in any other way deal with their doing so.  *Especially*
>if the prayer is silent (as bursting out into the "Shema Yisrael" or
>some other prayer *might* be construed as disruptive if audible :-))
>No one ever prevented ME from praying in public school!  They hardly
>even prevented me from masturbating in study hall.

BZZT! Sorry Michael--the Nyikos Inquisition pointed out that I was
hell-bound after one mildly scurrilous pun on "revealing oneself."
Admitting to masturbation--well, I'm just shocked!

                                                                mp

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84223
From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Tieing Abortion to Health Reform -- Is Clinton Nuts?

exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor, The Sounding Board) writes:

>In article <C5tE71.7CM@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:

>Read the whole thing.  There's some pretty hot stuff in here...

Apparently you *didn't* read the whole thing.  You continue to miss the point.

>>skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:

>>>parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:

[deletions]

>[soapbox on]

>If it's ok to pay for legal procedures with gov't money, then let's get the 
>government to pay for counselling that provides abortion alternatives.  
>Let's get the government to pay for adoption fees.  Let's get the government 
>to pay for all the things that make abortion "necessary".  Why not?  They 
>are certainly legal procedures.

Counselling that only provides alternatives to abortion would be just as
biased as counselling that only provides *abortion* information.  How about
providing counselling that will give a woman help in finding what *she* is
comfortable with.

Your adoption-funding idea may be a good one.  Any idea if it is feasable?


>The only way hell is involved is that it is going to be a good skiing resort 
>before I give in to paying for abortions.  I believe it is wrong, and I 
>won't pay for it without a gripe.  I'm not for making them unlawful; I'd 
>rather spend money on saving lives than a bunch of investigations and court 
>hearings and all this other CRAP we are spending our time on. 

>You know who's really cleaning up on all this abortion stuff?  Lawyers.  I 
>say let's pass laws to make adoption cheaper, easier, and infinitely more 
>supportive of the birth mother.  Let's eradicate the stigma, reduce the 
>cost, pay the price for life.

Making adoption easier on the birth-mother may help reduce abortion, but
it will *not* eliminate the need for it.  Abortion is not done just because
the mother can't care for the child and doesn't feel good about giving it
to strangers.  Abortion is done because the mother can not afford the
*pregnancy*.

>[soapbox off]


>>A person has a right to do anything that does not interfere with the rights
>>of another person.  

>Cool enough.  You'll have more trouble defining the terms in that statement 
>than getting people to agree to it.  For example, I perceive I have a right 
>not to participate in what I feel is murder.  I don't think the government 
>should, either.  On the other hand, since we are having trouble proving that 
>it is murder, there is no right to stop someone from doing it if they so 
>choose, either by legal means or harassment.  Of course, persuasion is 
>allowed, but watch that line between persuasive and harassing.

>>The second part is a definition of a person.  A simplistic explanation is
>>that a "person" is a member of society.  Most normal adult human beings are
>>good examples of "people".  Most children over two years old are "people" as
>>well.  The simple way of determining this is that you can have a conversation
>>with them.  It is actually more complicated than that, but I have no desire
>>to spend the time it would take to explain it to you.  Read the thread "Why
>>is bodily autonomy so important?" for more explanation and justification.

>But why is your definition authoritative enough for the whoe US?  Surely
>you can understand there are other definitions with equal "right" of 
>consideration?

Then please justify why being "human" automatically makes something valuable.
And why that includes the unborn.


>>>>If the government refused
>>>>to fun abortions (due to the qualms of a minority of the population) then
>>>>it would then have to pay *far more* in the delivery of babies whose
>>>>mothers wanted an abortion, but could not afford one, and now that baby
>>>>will also require care for 18 years.

>True.  That needs to be fixed.  It is part of the problem.  If Clinton has a 
>medical program to get underway, let him address this, too.  It is cheaper 
>in the long run to save lives; later they will be productive members of 
>society.  At least, if his plan works...

No, they are not guaranteed to become productive members of society.  Even
if they do that is *MANY YEARS* in the future--until which they are a burden
on someone, or society.  There is also the matter of the mother.  Forcing
her to carry a pregnancy to term at a critical time in her life could prevent
her from being a productive member of society.

>>Actually, I was refering to the minority that objects to abortion, not
>>those who object to federal funding.  I admit I did not say it very
>>clearly, and apologize for that.


>>>>To refuse to fund abortions [...] is to remove that choice from some
>>>>women, *and* add the additional burden to society for no reason.

>No.  This is really flawed logic.  It would be like me saying "I was born 
>with a disfigured face and I want cosmetic repair.  It is 
>discriminatory that I cannot make that choice, and so you must pay for it."  

>That a person has a right to make a choice does not imply legally or 
>otherwise that someone else should Foot the Bill [sic] for that choice.

Ok, look.  It's like this.  We *are* footing the bill.  Maybe they will
take choice A.  Maybe they will take choice B.  Maybe they will take choice
C.  They can't afford any *one* of them.  If they take choice A we'd have
to pay them, say $5.  If they take choice B it would cost us $20.  If they
take choice C it will cost us $20 now and a hell of a lot more for the next
18 years.  Which one sounds the most realistic for us to be willing to pay
for?  Now some people happen not to like choice A.  Other people happen
not to like choice C (paying for it, that is).  C has been around and paid
for for years.  Even though it means we spend a lot of money, we can't in
conscience refuse to pay for it.  Now A has been around and is perfectly
legal, but it hasn't been funded in the past.  Now A is going to be funded
but some people object.  They don't like the idea of their tax money going
to pay for choice A.  So we could refuse to fund A at all.  Then those
women who can't afford any of those choices will be forced to take choice
B or C, which will cost *all of us* more money.  Most of us don't see any
reason at all why *more money* should be spent to the effect of *removing
personal choice* from some women.  The alternative is to fund A if that is
what the mother chooses.  We will also still fund B and even C if *that*
is what the mother chooses.  However, some women will certainly choose A,
and that will then save us $15 we otherwise would have had to spend.  Your
"taxes" are not being raised to fund a choice you object, they are being
*lowered* because we will fund a choice that is *legal*, despite your
objections to it.  (Actually, your taxes are not really going to go down,
as I'm sure you would point out.  But the amount that is saved in that
area can help out in another--like our massive debt.)


>>If you disagree then give us some "reasons".  Given that abortion is
>>*LEGAL* and the right to abortion is supported by the majority of the
>>population ...
>>...it is not justifiable to refuse abortions to women who can not afford
>>them, who will simply require even greater funds for the delivery you
>>would force upon them.  I refuse to pay *more taxes* to remove choice
>>from those women just because you object to a legal medical procedure.

>WHAT?

>I say objection to the procedure is irrelevant.  Uncle Bill doesn't pay for 
>breast augmentation, facelifts, etc...  Why abortions?  It's elective 
>surgery!  

Those other procedures you mention only cost money.  There is no savings
in other procedures that would be required down the road without them.
(In fact, there could be additional costs down the road *because* of them.)
This is quite different from the case of abortion.

>As for your argument, you are enticing a young girl to kill a baby by making 
>it affordable and refusing to make the alternative affordable too, SO YOU 
>ARE JUST AS GUILTY OF REMOVING A CHOICE BY WITHHOLDING FUNDS!  Think about 
>it.  A poor girl is pregnant and abortions are federally funded, what's she 
>gonna do.  What choice have YOUR PLANS given her.  Your kind of double-
>talk really makes me ill.

This is bullshit.  We are *not* refusing "to make the alternative affordable
too".  If we refused to pay for the more expensive choice of birth, *then*
your statement would make sense.  But that is not the case, so it doesn't.
If Clinton tried to block funding for pre-natal care and delivery (or left
it out of his health-care plan), I would certainly object.  I would also be
quite surprised.


>"Pro-choice".  Ha!  Pro-Abortion really fits in your case.

Yes, but probably not your definition of it, or for the reasons you think.

>If you're gonna fund one choice, you have to fund them all, at the very 
>least.

YOU STUPID FUCK!  *WE DO* want to fund *all* the choices.  *YOU* are the
one who wants to *NOT* fund all the choices.

>        IMHO if we fund the adoption choice right, (meaning not just 
>throwing money at it but cutting costs, esp. legal costs) we won't need 
>abortion anymore.

Your humble opinion is still wrong.  Even with easy adoption, there is still
the fact that pregnancy takes several months.  Months in which a young woman
could need to be getting an education.  (like finishing High School, entering
college, finishing college, getting a job...things that are much harder to
do if you have to "take a break" for a few months...things that have a massive
impact on her future productivity.)


>>have a "right to life".  A fetus is not a person.  You can not have a
>>conversation with them.  

>Ah.  Let's kill the mentally incompetant as well.  Or how about people we 
>just don't like, since we can't have a conversation with them...

You *can* have a conversation with the "mentally incompetant".  And even
though *you* personally may refuse to have a conversation with "people
you just don't like", it is still *possible* for others to have a conversation
with them.  It is *not* possible for *anyone* to have a conversation with
a fetus.

>>They are not biologically independent.  

>Nor was my son at the age of 6 weeks.  He was breastfed, and would not take
>a bottle.  Just what does "biologically independent" mean?  I'll be happy to 
>punch any definition full of loopholes.

He was still biologically independent.  At least to the same extent you are
now.  He consumed nutrients and digested them in the normal manner.  He
breathed his own air.  A fetus on the other hand, gets it's nutrients already
digested by the mother.  It gets its oxygen from the mother as well.  That
is not biologically independent.

>>Their
>>awareness is questionable.  

>Aha! You admit it is questionable.  Yet you are willing to kill it, even if 
>it *may* be very aware.  I suggest you re-think your viewpoint.

Awareness is only *part* of what makes a "member of society".  It is the
minimal conceivable requirement, yet many people seem to think that something
without awareness could still be important enough to justify the suffereing
of a true member of society.  I keep asking, but I still haven't seen a real
justification for why the life of a non-sentient creature should be worth the
suffering of a sentient being.  (I haven't read every response on the threads
I've been asking on, yet, so we'll see if I see one later.)

>>They have no experiences in the "real world" to make up a personality.

>This is also true of quite a few Unix programmers.  So what.  :-D

Anyone who can program in UNIX has a lot of experiences in the real world.

-Rob

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84224
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.taoism

In article <1993Apr21.172806.679@megatek.com> tims@megatek.com writes:

>> Let us not limit
>> 'misc.taoism' to 'philosophy'.  
>
>But if we don't limit it to *something*, the discussion degenerates into
>a big amorphous glob. 

Hmm...are you a Taoist?  Imposing limits *does* do something useful...it gives
you something to go beyond.

>It seems to me that these questions more properly fall into the
>category of "general metaphysics". I would prefer any misc.taoism
>to deal more closely with topics and works more closely associated
>with at least "semi-orthodox" Taoism: with established classic works 
>definitely included and works like Mantak Chia's argued about! 

I tend to be a bit critical of any stratification of Taoism.  I especially
tend to frown on any suggestion that "orthodoxy" or "classics" have any
special place in Tao.

>I think "neo-Taoism" should be excluded or get its own group (what I
>mean by this is "Humpty-Dumpty Taoism", in which Taoism means whatever 
>a poster says it means.) This "alt.taoism" could also be a refuge 
>for debates about what "Taoism *REALLY* means" or speculations on sexual
>alchemy, etc..

So rather than debate what "Taoism *REALLY* means" you are suggesting that
we take someone else's word for it and work thusly?  I'd rather not, thank
you.

>What's happening is that that the term "Taoism" is becoming
>completely polluted and trivialized like the words "magic", "Alchemy", 
>"Zen," etc., by writers appropriating the word to mean whatever they 
>want. This is seen by the spate of new age books entitled "The
>Tao of" this, that, and everything else.

Whereas you, of course, have a clear idea of what the word means?  Can
you tell the Tao? :-)

>Any other comments/ideas? I look forward to seeing them. On balance,
>I say let misc.taoism rip and let the chips fall where they may.

Wonderful idea.

>it just gets filled up with college freshmen asking about the
>Tao of Sex then it will have been a failure and people will post to
>these groups just as they do now.

Only if you choose to define failure in that way.  Or to define it at all.



-- 
I believe in the flesh and the appetites,
Seeing hearing and feeling are miracles,
	and each part and tag of me is a miracle.
	                               -- Walt Whitman

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84225
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <C5yMIr.FnE@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>You said everyone in the world.  That means *everyone* in the world, including
>children that are not old enough to speak, let alone tell lies.  If Jesus
>says "everyone", you cannot support that by referring to a group of people
>somewhat smaller than "everyone".

That's right.  Everyone.  Even infants who cannot speak as yet.  Even
a little child will rebelliously stick his finger in a light socket.
Even a little child will not want his diaper changed.  Even a little
child will fight nap-time.

So far as Jesus saying "everyone":  

    A certain ruler asked Jesus, "Good teacher, what must I do to
    inherit eternal life?"

    "Why do you call me good?"  Jesus answered.  "No one is good--
    except God alone."

Ken, the book of Romans states that we are born sinners.  We do
not grow into being a sinner.  We sin because we are sinners.  The
common mistake, even in Christian circles, is to think the reverse
true.    So for as surely as you grew to look like you parents,
you not only inherited their appearance, but also their sin nature.
It goes with being human.
 
Even though a new-born is innocent as can be, his sinful nature
will surely manifest itself more explicity as he gets older.  For
as surely as he grows hair on his head and teeth within his mouth,
he will show the signs of his innate sin by rebelling
against mommy and daddy with that loud proclamation "No."
  

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84226
From: rocker@acm.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: ABORTION and private health coverage -- letters regarding

In <1qk73q$3fj@agate.berkeley.edu> dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis Kriz) writes:

>If one is paying for a PRIVATE health insurance plan and DOES NOT WANT
>"abortion coverage" there is NO reason for that person to be COMPLELLED
>to pay for it.  (Just as one should not be compelled to pay for lipposuction
>coverage if ONE doesn't WANT that kind of coverage).

You appear to be stunningly ignorant of the underlying concept of health
insurance.

>dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu

                          -rocker

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84227
From: <A54SI@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick


What an exciting thread (finally!)

Mitra is Sanskrit for Friend, as such He started out as an avatar of Lord Visnu
 mentioned first in the Vedas. Later he seems to have risen to chief prominence
 worshipped by the Persians. Associated with the Sun but NOT the Sun, he is
 the lord of contract honor and obedience, therefore naturally worshipped by
 soldiers. He was ordered by the Sun to slay the bull of heaven and He reluct-
 antly agreed because of His obligation...the blood of that bull spilled and
 grew all earth life...then Mitra and the Sun sat down to eat.

Worship of Lord Mitra ended in Persia with the ascension of the Zoroastrians.

Hundreds of years later He was rediscovered and thrown into the Official Roman
 Pantheon (tm) for some semi-tricky reason, I forget why. But all references of
 Him ended abruptly when He was stricken from same, so apparently His worship
 was some sort of vehicle for advancement in the bureaucracy, like membership
 in the Communist Party was in the Soviet Bloc. The sociology of religion in
 ancient times is fascinating!

Oh, His B-day was 25 Dec. Ahem.

I am not sure if the mystery cult really lasted after His was booted from the
 Roman Imperial God Roster or what. It contained mostly soldiers, with 7 levels
 of initiation. They worshipped underground in caverns in pews. The bull horns
 in those temples were for scaring away or impaling evil spirits, I'm not sure
 that they had Mithraic significance or not.

I don't know that the ritual meal was of a cannibalistic nature as is the
 Christian masses. But eating deities goes way back to Old Kingdom Egypt.

Someone mentioned bullfighting. Did Mithraists sacrifice bulls? I forget. More
 likely, for a religious source, might be the shower of bull's blood enjoyed
 by the worshippers of Cybele on the Day of Blood? Cybele worship extended all
 throughout even up to France bigtime.
-------
CHARLES HOPE   A54SI@CUNYVM   A54SI@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
GOVERNMENT BY REPORTERS...MEDIA-OCRACY.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84228
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1r59i4$e81@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
#In article <1r3570$hkv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
#|> In article <1r2ls3$8mo@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
#|> #|> 
#|> #|> #This is quite different from saying "Employing force on other people
#|> #|> #is immoral, period.   Unfortunately, from time to time we are obliged
#|> #|> #to do this immoral thing for reasons of self-preservation, and so
#|> #|> #we have to bear the moral consequences of that.
#|> #|> 
#|> #|> Since both statements, to all intents and purposes, say effectively
#|> #|> the same thing, 
#|> #
#|> #Are you serious?  Two statements, one of which says that use of force
#|> #in the given situation is moral, and the other of which says it is
#|> #not moral "say effectively the same thing?"
#|> 
#|> Yes, when you tag on the "Unfortunately, ...", then to all intents and
#|> purposes you are saying the same thing.
#
#Then delete the "unfortunately".   Now tell me that the two statement
#say effectively the same thing.
#
#And to save everyone a couple of trips round this loop, please notice
#that we are only obliged to use force to preserve self.   We can choose
#*not* to preserve self, which is the point of pacifism.

O.K., got you.  I concede your point, though the word "obliged" strongly
implies that one must sometimes use force.  A further rephrasing would
give you the distinction you mention, however.  If I have you right, a pacifist
would not even go on to say, "unfortunately,etc."

#|> #Would you say this of any two statements, one saying "X is moral" and
#|> #the other saying "X is immoral?"   How would you decided when two 
#|> #statements "X is moral" "X is immoral" actually conflict, and when
#|> #they "say effectively the same thing".
#|> 
#|> What they prescribe that one should do is a pretty good indicator.
#
#And in this case they don't prescribe the same things, so.....

Yes, fair enough, though why confuse things by saying that "one is 
somtimes obliged" if the real meaning is that "one is never obliged".

#|> #|>                  and lead one to do precisely the same thing, then 
#|> #|> either both statements are doublespeak, or none.
#|> #
#|> #They might lead you to do the same thing, but the difference is what
#|> #motivates pacifism so they obviously don't lead pacifists to to the
#|> #same thing.
#|> 
#|> That's not true.  You could formulate a pragmatic belief in minimum 
#|> force and still be a pacifist.  If the minimum is 0, great  - but one is
#|> always trying to get as close to 0 force as possible under that belief.
#|> Not the same as 'force is immoral, period', but still tending to pacifism.
#
#If you don't think the use of force is immoral, why minimise its use?

If you don't think that it is "immoral, period.".   
-- 
Frank O'Dwyer                                  'I'm not hatching That'
odwyer@sse.ie                                  from "Hens",  by Evelyn Conlon

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84229
From: walsha@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (I don't know who discovered water, but it wasn't no fish - Marshall McCluhan)
Subject: waco conflagration - precedents?


burning yourself alive seems a rough way to go, given the waco bunch
had other choices.

but it reminded me of the russian old-believers who, thinking the
antichrist was coming in 1666, grew frantic when Peter the Great 
started westernizing Russia and reforming the Russian Church a few
years later. They locked themselves in their churches and burned
themselves alive by the thousands. 

are there other cases of apocalypse-obsessed christians resorting
to self-imolation? is there a history of precedents?

   andrew.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84230
From: ekr@squick.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1r3le9$mlj@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <1r22qp$4sk@squick.eitech.com> ekr@squick.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>#In article <1r0m89$r0o@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>#>In article <1qvu33$jk3@kyle.eitech.com> ekr@kyle.eitech.com (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>#>#>If almost all people agree that the sun exists (in the usual, uncritical sense),
>#>#>and almost all people agree that  a deal is bad,  it's a reasonable 
>#>#>conclusion that the sun really does exist, and that the deal really is bad.
>#>#I disagree completely. Until rather recently, most people did not
>#>#believe in evolution or the possibility of the atom bomb. Popular
>#>#opinion is notoriously wrong about matters of fact.
>#>True, but nevertheless the basis of all "matters of fact" is overwhelming
>#>popular opinion, and some overwhelming popular opinion *is* fact ("the
>#>sun shines").  If it were not so, physics would be a personal matter,
>#>assumed to be different for each of us.  There would be YourGravity and
>#>MyGravity and no theoretical framework to encompass them and predict
>#>both.  
>#This is simply complete nonsense. The basis for 'matters of fact' is,
>#if any class of opinion, the majority of INFORMED popular opinion
>#for some value of informed. I would really hate to base my knowledge
>#of, for instance, QM on what the overwhelming popular opinion is.
>The *basis*, Eric, is people peering at the world and saying what
>they see.  I'm talking about uninterpreted facts - observations.  _People_
>do those.  Agreement on some observations is a prerequisite for a theory
>that is more than personal.
Yes, that's true, but you have to be clear exactly what is
an uninterpreted observation. It's pretty low level stuff.
'The sun shines' is already a LOT higher level than that. We
can agree that 'I perceive brightness' perhaps.

>#>Now I take an experience of good/evil to be every bit as raw a fact as an
>#>experience of pain, or vision.
>#That might seem like a good first pass guess, but it turns out to
>#be a pretty cruddy way to look at things, because we all seem to
>#have rather different opinions (experiences) about what is good
>#and evil, while we seem to be able to agree on what the meter says.
>You're not comparing apples with apples.  If we all look at the same meter,
>we'll agree.  If we're all in the same situation, that's when we'll
>agree on fundamental values, if at all.  People who say that nobody agrees on
>values to the same extent that they agree on trivial observations seem
>to be unaware of the extent of agreement on either.
Huh? What do you mean 'all in the same situation?' Let's take me
and Dennis Kriz as examples. We're in pretty different situations,
but I think we can agree as to whether it's day or night. I don't
think we can agree as to whether or not abortion is morally
acceptable. Yet we are certainly in the same difference of
situations with respect to each other. Looks like weasel-words
to me, Frank. 

>#I don't see that it's any evidence at all.
>#As I point out above, I'm really not interested very much in
>#what the popular opinion is. I'm prepared to trust--to some extent--
>#the popular opinion about direct matters of physical observation
>#because by and large they accord with my own. However, if everyone
>#else said the dial read 1.5 and it looked like a 3 to me, I would
>#hope that I would believe myself. I.e. believing other people about
>#these matters seems to have a reasonable probability of predicting
>#what I would believe if I observed myself, but the possibility exists
>#that it is not. Since I know from observation that others disagree
>#with me about what is good, I believe I can discount popular opinion
>#about 'good' from the beginning as a predictor of my opinion.
>#I would say that the fact that it seems almost impossible to get
>#people to agree on what is good in a really large number of situations
>#is probably the best evidence that objective morality is bogus, actually.
>Firstly, if everyone else said the dial was 1.5 and I saw 3, I'd check
>my lens prescription.
That's up to you, I guess.

>  Secondly, your observation that people
>disagree shows nothing - people may be looking at different things,
>by virtue of being in different situations.  If I look at an elephant, I'll 
>see an elephant.  That doesn't imply that you will see an elephant if you 
>look at an iguana.
This 'different situations' stuff is pretty confusing, Frank. How
do we decide if we are in the same situation? You mind explaining?

>    Thirdly, I question your assumption that when
>people disagree about how to achieve fundamental or secondary goals, that 
>they therefore do not have the same fundamental goals (that seems to be the 
>disagreement you refer to).
Huh? I don't think so. I think that people disagree about
fundamental goals.

-Ekr

-- 
Eric Rescorla                                     ekr@eitech.com
             Would you buy used code from this man?
        

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84231
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin
From: rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota)

In article <1r7houINNop9@titan.ucs.umass.edu>, cma@titan.ucs.umass.edu (COLIN MA) writes:
>I just started reading this newsgroup and haven't been following the
>thread. I'm just curious:  How did this thread get started with
>"Albert Sabin" and changed into something else?  What was it about
>Sabin that initiated a religious discussion?
>
>Colin

Its just variation within a thread.  The variation at times has been so great
that speciation has occurred.  So Albert Sabin is the common ancestor of
several threads, some of which have themselves speciated.  On a separate topic,
I subscribed to t.o. just recently.  Albert Sabin existed at that time, so I
have no clue as to its origins.  Maybe the abiogenesists have an answer.  I
might also point out that evolution is aimless.  Thus why Albert 
Sabin evolved into a religious discussion is probably unexplainable.

Rich Fox, Anthro, Usouthdakota

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84232
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: Branch Athiests Cult (was Rawlins debunks creationism)

In article <1r9dd7INNqfk@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
>scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle) writes:
>>  For your information, I checked the Library of Congress catalog,
>>and they list the following books by Francis Hitching:
>
>I believe I've just discovered an anthopological parallel.  In my many
>"discussions" with the fundies, their main tactic is to discredit
>my sources.  They shrilly bleat:
[..]

Possibly the parallel just stems from your tending to use bad sources...
Anyway, don't you think that similarity is rather shallow?  You're only
looking at the surface, at the way of argumentation.  
And now you should perhaps go a little deeper and try to find the difference,
for example, find out whether you can find real science done by Hitching.
If you can't, will you then admit that your attempt at quoting an authority
has backfired?

--
thomas kettenring, 3 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Johannes Scotus Eriugena, the greatest European philosopher of the 9th century,
said that if reason and authority conflict, reason should be given preference.
And if that doesn't sound reasonable to you, you'll just have to accept it...

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84233
From: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <C5v6rB.37F@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>I've seen referrences to "Creation vs Evolution" several times in a.a
>and I have question. Is either point of view derived from direct
>observation; can either be scientific? I wonder if the whole
>controversy is more concerned with the consequences of the "Truth"
>rather than the truth itself. 
>Both sides seem to hold to a philosophical outcome, and I can't help
>wondering which came first. As I've pointed out elsewhere, my view of
>human nature makes me believe that there is no way of knowing
>anyhthing objectively - all knowledge is inherently subjective. So, in
>the context of a.a, would you take a stand based on what you actually
>know to be true or on what you want to be true and how can you tell
>the difference?

Translation of the above paragraph:
"I am uninformed about the evidence for evolution.  Please send me the
talk.origins FAQs on the subject."

--
thomas kettenring, 3 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Johannes Scotus Eriugena, the greatest European philosopher of the 9th century,
said that if reason and authority conflict, reason should be given preference.
And if that doesn't sound reasonable to you, you'll just have to accept it...

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84234
From: Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Theists And Objectivity

trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
> Can a theist be truly objective?  Can he be impartial
>      when questioning the truth of his scriptures, or
>      will he assume the superstition of his parents
>      when questioning? 

I think that if a theist were truly objective and throws out the notion that
God definitely exists and starts from scratch to prove to themselves that
the scriptures are the whole truth then that person would no longer be a
theist. 

> It usually all has to do with how the child is
>      brought up.  From the time he is born, the
>      theist is brought up with the notion of the
>      "truth" of some kind of scripture-- the Bible,
>      the Torah, the Qur'an, & etc.  He is told
>      of this wondrous God who wrote (or inspired)
>      the scripture, of the prophets talked about in
>      the scripture, of the miracles performed, & etc.
>      He is also told that to question this (as
>      children are apt to do) is a sin, a crime
>      against God, and to lose belief in the scrip-
>      ture's truth is to damn one's soul to Hell.
>      Thus, by the time he is able to read the
>      scripture for himself, the belief in its "truth"
>      is so ingrained in his mind it all seems a
>      matter of course.

You're missing something here.  There are people who convert from
non-theism to theism after being brought up in a non-theist household.  (I
don't have any statistics as to how many though.  That would be an
interesting thing to know.)  I think that religion is a crutch.  People are
naturally afraid of the unknown and the unexplainable.  People don't want
to believe that when they die, they are dead, finished.  That there is
nothing else after that.  And so religion is kind of a nice fantasy.
Religion also describes things we don't know about the universe (things
science has not yet described) and it also gives people a feeling of
security... that if they just do this one thing and everything will be ok.
That they are being watched over by a higher power and its minions.  This
has a very high psychological attraction for quite a few people and these
people are willing to put up with a few discrepancies and holes in their
belief system for what it gains them.  This is why I think it's kind of
useless to try too hard to convert theists to atheism.  They are happy with
their fantasy and they feel that other people will be happy with it too
(they can't accept the fact that there are people who would rather accept
the harsh reality that they are running from).

Anyway, I'm getting kind of carried away here.  But my point is that theism
doesn't have to be ingrained into a child's mindset for that person to grow
up as a theist (although this happens far too often).  Theism is designed
to have its own attractions.

> 
>     _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/       _/    * Atheist
>    _/        _/    _/   _/ _/ _/ _/     * Libertarian
>   _/_/_/_/  _/_/_/_/   _/   _/  _/      * Pro-individuality
>        _/  _/     _/  _/       _/       * Pro-responsibility
> _/_/_/_/  _/      _/ _/       _/ Jr.    * and all that jazz...

Nanci
.........................................................................
If you know (and are SURE of) the author of this quote, please send me
email (nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu):
If you are one in a million, then there are 7 and a half of you in NYC.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84235
From: nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is oxymoron

In article <a5kB3B1w165w@anarky.tch.org> melchar@anarky.tch.org (Melchar) writes:
>
>      It took someone THIS long to figure that out?

What is "aluminium siding"?  I keep seeing references to it.  Something to do
with railway lines, perhaps?

E-mail reply please, I'll never find it otherwise.

-Norman

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84236
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Christians above the Law? was Clarification of pe

In article <C61Kow.E4z@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
>>Jesus was a JEW, not a Christian.

If a Christian means someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus, it is safe
to say that Jesus was a Christian.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84237
From: towfiq@justice.UUCP (Mark Towfiq)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

>>>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 1993 06:30:24 GMT, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU
>>>>> (Frank Crary) said:

pmy@vivaldi.acc.Virginia.EDU (Pete Yadlowsky) writes:

pmy> ...Anyway, I've often wondered what business followers of Christ
pmy> would have with weapons.

fc> Didn't Christ tell his disciples to arm them selves, shortly
fc> before his crusifiction? (I believe the exact quote was along the
fc> lines of, "If you have [something] sell it and buy a sword.")

  "If you have a purse" it was.

fc> Certainly, Christ said,

fc> "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to
fc> send peace but the sword.  For I am come to set a man at variance
fc> against his father, and the daugher against her mother..."

fc> [Matthew 10 34-35]

  Yes, He said this, but the sword that Jesus brought was the sword of
the Word of God, which divides between those that believe, and those
who do not, even right down a family.

Mark
--
Mark TOWFIQ | Business/Urgent: towfiq@Microdyne.COM  +1 508 392 9953 (fax 9962)
	      Other:   towfiq@Justice.Medford.MA.US  +1 617 488 2818

"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens" -- Baha'u'llah

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84238
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <1993Apr25.194144.8358@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>Even though a new-born is innocent as can be, his sinful nature
>will surely manifest itself more explicity as he gets older.

Ah, so you admit newborns are innocent?  Then you cannot say _everyone_ is a
sinner.

About the only way top get out of this one is to claim that a newborn is a
sinner despite having not committed any sins, which is rather odd.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84239
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: Ancient references to Christianity (was: Albert Sabin)

In <1ren9a$94q@morrow.stanford.edu> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) 
writes:

>In article <C5ztJu.FKx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike 
Cobb) writes:
>>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?

> It is not tossed out as a source, but would it be regarded as
>unbiased and independant? 

This brings up another something I have never understood.  I asked this once
before and got a few interesting responses, but somehow didn't seem satisfied.
Why would the NT NOT be considered a good source.  This might be a 
literary/historical question, but when I studied history I always looked for 
firsthand original sources to write my papers.  If the topic was on Mr. X, I 
looked to see if Mr. X wrote anything about it.  If the topic was on a group, 
look for the group, etc.  If the topic is on Mr. X, and Mr. X did not write 
anything about it, (barring the theistic response about the Bible being 
divinely inspired which I can't adequately argue), wouldn't we look for people
who ate, worked, walked, talked, etc. with him?  If someone was at an event 
wouldn't they be a better "reporter" than someone who heard about it second 
hand?  I guess isn't firsthand better than second hand.  I know, there is bias,
and winners writing history, but doesn't the principle of firsthand being best
still apply?

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             cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
                                              
Nobody can explain everything to anybody.  G.K.Chesterton

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84240
From: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: Burden of Proof

[ NOTE: talk.origins removed from crossposting, as this had no business
  going there in the first place. ]

In <1r4b59$7hg@aurora.engr.LaTech.edu> ray@engr.LaTech.edu writes:

> If I make a statement, "That God exists, loves me, etc." but in no way
> insist that you believe it, does that place a burden of proof upon me.

      No, but you're not achieving anything either. If you don't want to
argue the point you're stating, why do you bother stating it?

> If you insist that God doesn't exist, does that place a burden of proof 
> upon you?

      No. Read the (alt.atheism) FAQ to find out why.

> I give no proofs, I only give testimony to my beliefs.

      Well enough; if I feel interested, I might even listen.

> I will respond to proofs that you attempt to disprove my beliefs.

      I won't; the task is impossible, and I don't have to do it in the
first place. Why should I even bother to change or disprove your beliefs?

      - Mats "Strong apatheist?" Andtbacka

-- 
  Disclaimer?   "It's great to be young and insane!"

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84241
From: bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan)
Subject: Re: [rw] Is Robert Weiss the only orthodox Christian?

In article <1993Apr23.170101.19708@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
   So Rick, why not read the Bible for yourself?  It is written in plain
   english.  Decide for yourself.   

It?  That would imply the singular, yet there are many _translations_
of the Bible, many of which differ in choice of wording and hence can
lead to different _interpretations_.  BTW have you also read the
Koran, Vedas ... etc., plain English translations are available.
Decide for yourself.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84242
From: bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <1993Apr22.213142.6964@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
   To you, it shouldn't matter if you do evil things or good things.  It is
   all meaningless in the end anyway.  So go rob a bank.  Go tell someone
   you dislike that he is a dirty rotten slime bag.  What's restraining you?

Generally, reciprocation.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84243
From: bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan)
Subject: Re: To Rob Lanphier

In article <1993Apr23.225933.22683@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
   Brian, it doesn't offend me if you decide to reject Jesus
   Christ.  I only wish you would make that decision after you
   learn who Jesus is.

Have you rejected Buddha?  If you have, did you really learn who
Buddha is before making the decision?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84244
From: bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion

In article <1e9e02bm40FM01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
   Surely you are not equating David Koresh with Christianity? The two are
   not comparable.

Er, why not?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84245
From: Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Subject: Cybele and Transgender/sexualism

930425 

Charles Hope writes:

Rome was under attack by barbarians, they sent for advice to some Oracle,
and she said Worship Cybele and you'll be saved. They did, they were.

Cybele was the quintessential wiccan goddess, there was Her and her son &
lover, Attis. Yucky idea if you ask me. OK the book says she was Phrygian,
from the neolithic matriarchal society Catal Huyuk (Turkey). Worshipped 1st
as Black Stone (that Kaaba in Mecca ring a bell maybe????) Carried to Rome
in 205BC to save them from Hannibal.


Response:

Is there some relation between the name 'Cybele' and the phenemenon of the
'sibyl'?  Your paragraph above seems to indicate there might be.

My understanding is that Islam was founded on the remains of a goddess
cult or two.  Many Muslims would not like to hear that. ;>


You:

It gets more interesting. Romans called her Great Mother (Magna Mater),
could be the reason why so many of those Mary statues in Europe are black,
prob. IS connected to that Ka'aba they've got in Mecca, 3rd cent. AD She was
supreme Goddess in Lyons, France . . . Attis was castrated and formed into
a pine tree . . . she should be worshiped on 25 Mar . . . in Rome it was
an ecstatic cult, her priests wore drag, worked themselves up in dance and
castrated themselves in order to initiate to her, lived their lives as women.
They wore make up and jewelry and the whole bit.

Only other such primitive transsexualism I know of goes on in India (where
else?) where they do that castration thing under some meditation maybe, I
forget by now...there's a book on that.)

Of course, that excepts that weird Russian / Romanian 18th cent. Xian cult
that did all kinds of self-castration too, I forget their name.


Response:

I'd love to get details or references on any of the above.  My own exploration
of this issue has only extended to a brief examination of the Zuni 'berdache'.
_The Zuni Man-Woman_, by Will Roscoe, University of New Mexico Press, 1991
probably has some interesting things to say about them.  I've yet to
procure it.

Any details or references on:

Ecstatic cults in Rome, India, Russia/Romania (Christian too?) which
exhibit any type of transsexualism or transvestitism, male OR female
(though I expect mostly the former will be found ;>).


Thanks for your interesting posts, Charles. :>


    |                                                      WILL
  \ | /                                                    LOVE
  \\|//    !!          !! 
__\\|//__    \{}}}{{{}/
____|___________|@@|      "Come as you like shall be the whole of the Law."
                |  |                                   - The Abyss
Thyagi         /    \ 
NagaSiva      |(*)(*)|     Thyagi@HouseofKAos.Abyss.com
              \^^^^^^/            House of KAoS
               -^^^^-             871 Ironwood Dr.
                 ~~               San Jose, CA 95125-2815
'Fr.Nigris' on Divination Web
                Telnet seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu 9393

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84246
From: ab4z@Virginia.EDU ("Andi Beyer")
Subject: Re: Ancient references to Christianity (was: Albert Sabin)

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

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84247
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Waco information accuracy

In article <1r9mflINNak4@crcnis1.unl.edu>, e_p@unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
wrote:
>          An example is the FBI report that several of the bodies found 
>        in the rubble had bullet wounds.  The local coroner, who is 
>        independent of the FBI, has so far found no bullet wounds! 

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

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84248
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <1993Apr23.210109.21120@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:
> > Hmm, it seems that this is the core of Christianity then, you 
> > have to feel guilty . . . 
> 
> I think I see where you are coming from Kent.  Jesus doesn't view
> guilt like our modern venacular colors it.   
> 
> "Feelings" have nothing to do with guilt.  Feelings arise from the state of 
> being guilty.  Feeling and guilt are mutally exclusive.  Feelings are a 
> reaction from guilt.  Jesus is talking about the guilt state, not the 
> reaction.   Let me give you an example:
> 
> Have you ever made a mistake?  Have you ever lied to someone?  Even a
> little white lie?   Have you ever claimed to know something that you really 
> didn't know?  Have you ever hated someone?  Have you ever been selfish?
> Are you guilty of any one of these?   The answer is of course, YES.  You
> are guilty.  Period.  That is it what Jesus is getting at.  No big surprise.  
> Feelings do not even enter the picture.   Consider Jesus's use of the word
> "guilt" as how a court uses it.

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

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84249
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <1993Apr25.190040.8071@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:
> "Christ" is Greek for "Messiah".  "Messiah" means "Annointed One".
> "Annoint" means "to rub with oil, i.e. to anoint; by impl. to
> consecrate"     The major prophet Daniel uses the word "Messiah"
> in Daniel chapter 9.
> 
> How "closely" did you analyze the Bible?  Looks as if you didn't
> get past the first word.   So was the catalyst to break your faith the
> "priests" who interpreted the Bible for you?   Did you ever do what
> the Bereans did to Paul's teachings in Acts 17?  

Brian, does all this mean that you have to be well versed in ancient
Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic in order to understand the core of
Christianity? I hope you are not Catholic, because my Christian
upbringing was based on the teachings of Luther, and the one of
the core messages was basically that you don't need to know latin
in order to learn about salvation.

BTW, your statement would also eliminate about 99.5% of all the Christians
in the world, as well.

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84250
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <1993Apr25.194144.8358@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:
> In article <C5yMIr.FnE@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> >You said everyone in the world.  That means *everyone* in the world, including
> >children that are not old enough to speak, let alone tell lies.  If Jesus
> >says "everyone", you cannot support that by referring to a group of people
> >somewhat smaller than "everyone".
 
> That's right.  Everyone.  Even infants who cannot speak as yet.  Even
> a little child will rebelliously stick his finger in a light socket.
> Even a little child will not want his diaper changed.  Even a little
> child will fight nap-time.

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

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84251
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <C62Ar1.LDt@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu
(Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> 
> In article <1993Apr25.194144.8358@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
> >Even though a new-born is innocent as can be, his sinful nature
> >will surely manifest itself more explicity as he gets older.
> 
> Ah, so you admit newborns are innocent?  Then you cannot say _everyone_ is a
> sinner.
> 
> About the only way top get out of this one is to claim that a newborn is a
> sinner despite having not committed any sins, which is rather odd.

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

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84252
From: ddavis@cass.ma02.bull.com (Dave Davis)
Subject: Re: Christian meta-ethics

Russell Turpin, as is his wont, has raised some interesting issues 
in his struggle with the Christian texts and the Christians. 
Unfortunately, he seems to be hoping for simplicity where it is 
not available. The lukewarm stew he detects may well be an inevitable 
result of the divine mixing himself up with a bunch of losers such 
as humanity. 

Also unfortunately (perhaps) I have a deadline in two weeks, the 
responsibility for which prevents me, in good conscience, 
from writing a more considered response and fully entering the
fray, as it were. 

Let me then say what I can, briefly.

-----

>The two commandments *are* rules; they are merely rules that are
>so vague that they are practically devoid of meaning.  

This point, for the net.browsers who also still read books, is
pursued throughly in Kaufmann, Critique_of_Religion_and_Philosophy.

>The commandment to love your neighbor as yourself can be viewed,
>in part, as reminding man that he is not God and cannot act as if
>he has "ultimate responsibility." 

This is a theological statement worthy of Barth.
Dr Turpin (DD) may wear the black robe of Geneva yet! :-)

>Indeed, many traditions present
>an interpretation where believers are supposed to interpret
>loving one's neighbor as following various other rules, and
>relying on their god to make things come out right, precisely
>because it would be wrong for man to assume such "ultimate
>responsibility." Once again, we are confronted with good sounding
>goo that means whatever the reader wants it to mean. 

This requires the assumption that all interpretations are
equally valid, that there is no way of reasonably distinguishing
among them. I wouldn't make that assumption; I don't think it is
a reasonable assumption. 

>And who is to say that this interpretation is "twisted"?  There
>are many passages in the Bible that in their most straightforward
>reading show the Christian god behaving in just this way.

Michael, and I, and others, read 'the Bible' with Christian
glasses. Among the things that this should imply is that the
NT informs the OT, even to the point of dominanting it. Some
points in the OT (ceremonial & dietary laws) are explicitly 
abrogated by the NT texts. To drive Russell Turpin's point with
adequacy, one needs to begin with NT texts (probably from Matthew,
and probably about damnation) (Just trying to help :-) )

This part is, I discover, what most moves me to post:

mls> I am a "radical" Christian *only* in that I take the gospel seriously.

>No, Michael, the conservative Christians also take the gospel 
>seriously.  What differentiates you is the way you interpret the
>gospel.

Russell Turpin's 'No' here is misplaced, not to say inappropriate.
Michael's self-description much govern.  The equation of radical = liberal, 
which seems implied by Russell Turpin  is wrong.  Radical conservatives are 
possible (if sadly lacking in numbers at present). Thomas Merton
was a radical, even though conservative in some ways. St Francis
was a radical, similarly. How many examples are needed?

mls> ... Why don't I and the (myriads of) other Christians like me
mls> tell you something about Christianity? ...

Michael's question gets to a heart of the matter (Klingons have
two hearts, so my metaphor is not mixed, just extraterrestrial :-) )
Russell Turpin (in an earlier post) had said that Michael (Michael's
theological positions, actually) didn't tell him much about Christianity;
Dean Simeon responds (this time gently): 'What do you mean?' More
direct, perhaps, would have been: 'What could you possibly mean?'
The implied rhetorical effort, to separate Michael from the 
tradition, is a failure. Michael is in the tradition. If your idea
of the tradition doesn't include him, Change your idea of the tradition!

>The irony here is that there is *nothing* in Christianity per
>se that Michael can use to support the cause of lesbians and
>gays.  

How can one answer this while staying on the more general issue?
I'm on the other side of the interpretive fence (from Michael)
on this issue, yet '*nothing*' is a hideous overstatement.

One verse is enough to refute it; I'll offer two, from
Paul (of all people):

'In Jesus Christ there is neither male nor female...'(Galatians 3:28
{I don't quote single verses as a rule, and I don't carry 
them in my head}) and '*Nothing* shall separate us from the glory of God...' 
(roughly, from Romans). [If Russell would promise to convert based
on these or any other verses,  I'd promise to get the full context
for any that he requires :-) :-)]

>In short, it is the extra-Christian principles that
>make Michael's Christianity beneficial, and I suspect they would
>be as beneficial, perhaps moreso, without being filtered by
>Christian interpretation.  

This conclusion does not follow, even in short, from the
argument that goes before. A surprising logical ellipsis.

Dave Davis, ddavis@ma30.bull.com
These are my opinions & activities alone

QOTD:

"Wild beasts trapped in their cages are not so fierce
 as are the Christians to each other."
					Julian the Apostate, c.361


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84253
From: f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Subject: Re: Koresh Doctrine -- 4 of 4

In article <watson.735759766@mariner.sce.carleton.ca>, watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson) writes:
> Question for those of you who seem to be fundamentalists (Stephen
> Tice, the Cotera, Joe Gaut, et al)(apologies if I've mislabelled any
> of you, I've only started reading t.r.m since the BD disaster.  But I
> know the Cotera is a fundy) and are defending Koresh and his beliefs
> as an example of True Christianity under persecution from the the Big
> Bad Secular State: what is your opinion of his reported sexual habits?
> If the reports are accurate, what IYO does this say about the quality of
> his Christianity?  Or are the allegations just part of the Big
> Cover-Up?

Thank you, Steve.  It is refreshing to have someone accuse me of being
a Christian.  I only hope enough evidence can be garnered to get a
conviction.  I am not certain what you mean by the "fundy" part as the
term fundamentalist has a wide variety of uses.  If you refer to
those who actually believe Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God and
wish to follow in his way, then I plead guilty.  But what does it
matter what I think.  The Roman circus is over.  The lions have been
satisfied -- for now.  The Emperor, after the long and gruelling
struggle, sensed the crowd was tiring and gave thumbs down.

With respect to my previous comments about David Koresh, I urge you
to re-examine my previous posts.  I believe you mistakenly assume
that defense of Koresh' right to his own personal beliefs and his
right to express them to others implies agreement with Koresh'
theology.  Actually I understand little about the details of Branch-
Davidian teachings and regret so many are hung-up on that aspect
of the tragic events of the past few days.

Nor do I think Koresh' sex life should be of any interest to the
federal government.  Of course Hillary says he had been molesting
infants so it must be true even though such allegations do not
fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government; they are
state and local matters and have been thoroughly reviewed at the
local level by proper authorities with no successful charge having
ever been levied against him.  Under American law, he was innocent
as Americans are presumed innocent until proven guilty.  At least
that's how it is suppposed to be.  But he was demonized and propa-
gandized against by a powerful machine to have him appear as a
lustful beast and therefore deserving of every ill the fates might
bring upon him.  

But evidence trickles in that the twenty-one children, who left the
building in the early days of the siege,  were carefully examined
by qualified authorities for evidence of physical or sexual abuse
and none was found.  DeGuerin, one of the attorneys who met with
Davidians several times before the conflagration, reported that
the children seemed well adjusted and showed no sign of abuse.

Ultimately, Steve, what I think about the heart of David Koresh
is quite unimportant.  Today he is in the benevolent hands of a
most wise and merciful judge who will one day surely judge us all.
So I withhold any judgment of David Koresh and defer to the One
who has all knowledge.  Meanwhile, let's clean up the mess left
on earth and keep this from happening again by sending a strong
message to the government to respect the inalienable rights of the
people it serves.

--Joe Gaut

> 
> (I remain deliberately neutral on the cause of the fire: I wouldn't
> put it past Koresh to have torched the place himself.  On the other
> hand, if the propane-tank-accident story is correct, I wouldn't put it
> past the FBI to try to cover its ass by claiming Koresh did it.  I
> hope your government does a VERY thorough investigation of the whole
> debacle, and I'll be disappointed if a few heads don't roll.  The
> authorities seem to have botched the original raid, and in the matter
> of the fire, are guilty of either serious misjudgement, or reckless
> endangerment.)
> --
> | Steve Watson a.k.a. watson@sce.carleton.ca === Carleton University, Ontario |
> |  this->opinion = My.opinion;  assert (this->opinion != CarletonU.opinion);  |
> "Somebody touched me / Making everything new / Burned through my life / Like a
>  bolt from the blue / Somebody touched me / I know it was you" - Bruce Cockburn

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84254
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> Specifically, I'd like to know what relativism concludes when two
> people grotesquely disagree.  Is it:
> 
> (a) Both are right
> 
> (b) One of them is wrong, and sometimes (though perhaps rarely) we have a 
>     pretty good idea who it is
> 
> (c) One of them is wrong, but we never have any information as to who, so
>     we make our best guess if we really must make a decision.
> 
> (d) The idea of a "right" moral judgement is meaningless (implying that
>      whether peace is better than war, e.g., is a meaningless question,
>      and need not be discussed for it has no correct answer)
> 
> (e) Something else.  A short, positive assertion would be nice.

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


mathew

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84255
From: tph@susie.sbc.com (Timothy P. Henrion)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

In article <1993Apr21.093914.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>In article <1r17j9$5ie@sbctri.sbc.com>, netd@susie.sbc.com () writes:
>> In article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>>>For those who think David Koresh didn't have a solid structure,
>>>or sound Biblical backing for his hour long tape broadcast,
>> 
>> I don't think anyone really cares about the solid structure of his
>> sermon.  It's the deaths he's responsible for that concern most people.
>
>I assume you have evidence that he was responsible for the deaths?

Only my common sense.  The fire was caused by either Koresh and his
followers or by the FBI/ATF/CIA/KGB/and maybe the Harper Valley PTA.  Since
you are throwing around the evidence arguement, I'll throw it back.  Can
you prove any government agency did it?  (Please don't resort to "they 
covered it up so that proves they did it" or any wild theories about how
the government agencies intentionally started the fire.  The key words
are proof and evidence.)
proves they did it"

>
>> All that "thou shalt not kill" stuff.
>
>I'd like to point out that the Bible says "Do not commit murder." The NKJ
>translation mistranslates.  Self-defense was never considered murder.  The

Please explain how Koresh was defending himself from those children who
burned.  

-- 
  Tim Henrion              Southwestern Bell Technology Resources
  thenrion@sbctri.sbc.com       

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84256
From: popec@brewich.hou.tx.us (Pope Charles)
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick

caldwell@facman.ohsu.edu (Larry Caldwell) writes:

> kosinski@us.oracle.com (Kevin Osinski) writes:
> 
> >I recall reading in Michael (?) Rutherford's novel "Sarum" a scene in
> >which the son of a Roman nobleman living in Britain takes part in a
> >secret ceremony involving a bull.  He stands naked in a pit covered
> >with some sort of scaffolding while assistants coax a bull to stand on
> >the scaffolding.  They then fatally stab the bull, which douses the
> >worshipper in the pit with blood.  This is supposedly some sort of
> >rite of passage for members of the bull cult.  I wonder if this is
> >related to the Mithras cult?
> >
> >I don't know where Rutherford got his information for this chapter.
> >The book is historical fiction, and most of the general events which
> >take place are largely based on historical accounts.
> 
> There is a rite like this described in Joseph Campbell's
> _Occidental_Mythology_.  He also described levels of initiation, I think
> 6?  I don't know where Campbell got his info, but I remember thinking he
> was being a little eclectic.
> 
> >I also wonder what if any connection there is between the ancient bull
> >cults and the current practice of bullfighting popular in some
> >Mediterranean cultures.
> 
> Quite a bit.  If you haven't read Campbell, give him a try.  
> 
> -- 
> -- Larry Caldwell  caldwell@ohsu.edu  CompuServe 72210,2273
> Oregon Health Sciences University.  (503) 494-2232


Yes.  I cannot remeber which works I read about this in, as it was many 
years ago.  This ritual was called The Tarobaullum I believe, (The 
spelling may be off).

Pope Charles

------------------
popec@brewich.hou.tx.us (Pope Charles)
Origin: The Brewers' Witch BBS -- Houston, TX -- +1 713 272 7350

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84257
From: popec@brewich.hou.tx.us (Pope Charles)
Subject: Re: Freemasonry and the Southern Baptist Convention

lowell@locus.com (Lowell Morrison) writes:

> In article <1qv82l$oj2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony
> >
> >
> >     With the Southern Baptist Convention convening this June to consider
> >the charges that Freemasonry is incompatible with christianity, I thought
> >the following quotes by Mr. James Holly, the Anti-Masonic Flag Carrier,
> >would amuse you all...
> >
> >
> >     The following passages are exact quotes from "The Southern 
> >Baptist Convention and Freemasonry" by James L. Holly, M.D., President
> >of Mission and Ministry To Men, Inc., 550 N 10th St., Beaumont, TX 
> >77706. 
> > 
> <much drivel deleted>
> >     "Jesus Christ never commanded toleration as a motive for His 
> >disciples, and toleration is the antithesis of the Christian message."
> >Page 30. 
> > 
> >     "The central dynamic of the Freemason drive for world unity 
> >through fraternity, liberty and equality is toleration. This is seen 
> >in the writings of the 'great' writers of Freemasonry". Page 31. 
> <more drivel deleted>
> >     I hope you all had a good laugh! I know *I* did! <g>,
> >
> >
> >Tony   
> A Laugh?  Tony, this religeous bigot scares the shit out of me, and that
> any one bothers to listen to him causes me to have grave doubts about the
> future of just about anything.  Shades of the Branch Davidians, Jim Jones,
> and Charlie Manson.
> 
> --Uncle Wolf
> --Member Highland Lodge 748 F&AM (Grand Lodge of California)
> --Babtized a Southern Babtist
> --And one who has beliefs beyond the teachings of either.
> 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 


Not to worry.  The Masons have been demonized and harrassed by almost 
every major Xian church there is.  For centuries now.  And still they 
stand.  They wil withstand the miserable Southern Boobtists, I am sure.
They may even pick up a little support as people start to listen to the 
Boobtists and realize that subtracting the obvious lies and claims of 
Satanism that the Masons sound pretty good by comparison.  One thing is 
known.  A sizable proportion of Southern Babtists are Masons!  And the 
Masons have already fired back in their own magazines against the 
Boobtist Witch-hunt.
  Since the Consrervatives have already been a divisive element with 
their war on Boobtist moderates and liberals, they may now start in on 
their Mason/Boobtist brothers and hasten their own downfall as more and 
more Southern Boobtists realize their church can't stand being run by a 
handful of clowns looking for holy civil wars and purity tests and drop 
'em out of the leadership positions they have taken over.
  So as far as I am concerned, the louder, ruder, and more outrageous 
an Anti-Masonic Crusade these old goats mount, the better.

Pop some pocorn and get a center row seat.  The circus is about to begin.
And, Oh Look!  HERE COME THE CLOWNS!


Pope Charles    Slack!

------------------
popec@brewich.hou.tx.us (Pope Charles)
Origin: The Brewers' Witch BBS -- Houston, TX -- +1 713 272 7350

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84258
From: joakimr@ifi.uio.no (Joakim Ruud)
Subject: Re: The Universe and Black Holes, was Re: 2000 years.....


In article <1r4cvpINNkv2@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:
> 
> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
> 
> > Let's say that we drop a marble into the black hole.  It races, ever faster,
> >towards the even horizon.  But, thanks to the curving of space caused by the
> >excessive gravity, as the object approaches the event horizon it has
> further to
> >travel.  Integrating the curve gives a time to reach the event horizon
> of . . .
> >infinity.  So the math says that nothing can enter a black hole.

Isn't that just a variation of the "Achilles & the turtle" paradox, which
states that achilles could never possibly overtake a turtle?

		 	How should one deal with a man who is convinced that
		 	he is acting according to God's will, and who there-
     Jokke		fore believes that he is doing you a favour by
		 	stabbing you in the back?
 
							-Voltaire

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84259
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: After 2000 posts, can we say that this thread is dead?

unfortunately not


--
Legalize Freedom

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84260
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: That Kill by Sword, Must be Killed by Sword

In article <sandvik-210493225738@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <C5uvvD.GDD@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) wrote:
>> I am also unhappy (or actually, very suspicious) that the FBI was dismissing
>> out of hand any chances that they might have accidentally set the blaze 
>> themselves. I mean, I guess we are just supposed to believe that
>> ramming modified tanks into the walls of a building and injecting
>> toxic gases into the building are just routine procedures, no WAY
>> anything could go wrong.
>
>My core point was, and still is, that 19 children died, and Mr.
>Koresh could just have opened the door and asked the children to
>go out before all this happened. You might blaim FBI, ATF,
>President Clinton, Satan, Pepsi Coke or anything else, but
>you can't avoid the fact that one single action would have 
>saved small children from a dreadful and painful death.

1) Well, Mr Koresh allowed other children and adults to leave the compound
during the course of the siege; why didnt these children leave then?
I dont know myself, and certainly havent heard any answers on this here.

2) Yes, one simple non-action, ie NOT attacking the compound with
modified tanks, would have prevented this tragedy. I bet you blamed
the MOVE people for the deaths that occurred in adjacent row
houses in Philadelphia, not the government which dropped the
firebomb, right?


--
Legalize Freedom

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84261
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <sandvik-210493213823@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
#Frank, unless you didn't realize it, you are just now involved
#in a debate where we have various opinions, and each entity
#has its own frame where the opinion is expressed. I think I 
#don't need to state the dreadful r-word.

So, it's _sometimes_ correct to say that morality is objective, or what?
After all, I could hardly be wrong, without dragging in the o-word.
For your part, when you say that relativism is true, that's just
your opinion.  Why do folk get so heated then, if a belief in relativism
is merely a matter of taste?  (to be fair, _you_ have been very calm,
I get the impression that's because you don't care about notions of
objectivity in any flavour.  Right?)

-- 
Frank O'Dwyer                                  'I'm not hatching That'
odwyer@sse.ie                                  from "Hens",  by Evelyn Conlon

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84262
From: kaamran@sun14.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca ()
Subject: What was Koresh's messsage?

Dear netters

I am wondering about the accident of Koresh. I have heard different 
explanations.
Without any explanation about your opinions and believes,
 please kindly tell me:

     1)- What was Koresh talking about?. (Or  what was his message)
     2)- What was the main reason that Government went in war with
             Koresh?
(Some say that due to Tax payment, ....)

Thanks in advance for your historical explanation.

Kaamran

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84263
From: bcash@crchh410.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Are atoms real? (was Re: After 2000 years blah blah blah)

Petri and Mathew,

Your discusion on the "reality" of atoms is interesting, but it
would seem that you are verging on the question "Is anything real":
that is, since observation is not 100% reliable, how can we say
that anything is "real".  I don't think this was the intention
of the original question, since you now define-out the word
"real" so that nothing can meet its criteria.
Just a thought.

Brian /-|-\

PS  Rainbows and Shadows are "real": they are not objects, they
are phenomenon.  An interesting question would be if atoms
are objects (classical) or phenomenon (neo-quantum) or what?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84264
From: joakimr@ifi.uio.no (Joakim Ruud)
Subject: What RIGHT ?


Recently, I've asked myself a rather interesting question: What RIGHT does
god have on our lives (always assuming there is a god, of course...!) ??

In his infinite wisdom, he made it perfectly clear that if we don't live
according to his rules, we will burn in hell. Well, with what RIGHT can god
make that desicion? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that god creates every
one of us (directly or indirectly, it doesn't matter.). What then happens, is
that he first creates us, and then turns us lose. Well, I didn't ask to be
created. 

Let's make an analogue. If a scientist creates a unique living creature (which
has happened, it was even patented...!!!), does he then have the right to
expect it to behave in a certain matter, or die...?

Who is god to impose its rules on us ? Who can tell if god is REALLY so
righteous as god likes us to believe? Are all christians a flock of sheep,
unable to do otherwise that follow the rest? 

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I just want to point out that this is not sarcasm, I mean it.

		 	How should one deal with a man who is convinced that
		 	he is acting according to God's will, and who there-
     Jokke		fore believes that he is doing you a favour by
		 	stabbing you in the back?
 
							-Voltaire


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84265
From: Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Subject: Re: Ceci's "rosicrucian" adventure :-)

930425

Tony Alicia writes:

Let's start with the name "Rosicrucian". I took me a long time to come
to the conclusion that there is a difference between a *member* of a
"rosicrucian" body and BEING *a* ROSICRUCIAN. So when you say that you met
some 'rosicrucians' you mean "members of a group that calls themselves
rosicrucian". At least that is what your observation suggests :-)


Response:

This makes much sense to me.  This is also true of most religions.
There is a difference between being a *member* of a group of people
who call themselves 'Hindus' or 'Christians' or 'Pagans' and actually
*BEING* any of these.  The social groups tend to make very important
requirements about not belonging to other 'religions'.  I find that
the ideal described by the holy texts of most religions can be
interpreted in very similar ways so that one could presume that
'mysticism' is the core of every religion and Huxley's 'Perennial
Philosophy' is the Great Secret Core of all mystical trads. :>


Tony:

I'd prefer if you would have stated up front that it was the Lectorium
Rosicrucianum, only because they may be confused, by some readers of this
newsgroup, with the Rosicrucian Order AMORC based (the USA Jurisdiction) in
San Jose, CA; this being the RC org with the most members (last time I
looked). Of course, "most members" does not *necessarily* mean "best".


Response:

Certainly true.  I didn't know there WERE any groups which called themselves
'Rosicrucians' that didn't associate with AMORC.  Sure, I've heard all the
hubbub about the Golden Dawn and Rosae Crucis in relation to all these
Western esoteric groups, but hadn't heard about other 'Rosicrucians'.
I'll admit my bias.  I live in San Jose. :>


Tony:

"You'll have to trust me" when I tell you that if that
lecture/class/whatever had been presented by AMORC, it is unlikely that you
would have had the same impression, i.e., you'd probably have had a
positive impression more likely than a negative one, IMHO. 


Response:

This may be slightly off.  I've met some of these Rosicrucians and have
a couple friends in AMORC.  The stories I've heard and the slight contact
I've had with them does not give me the hope that I'd be received with
any kind of warm welcome.  I still like to think that most people who
are involved with stratified relationships (monogamy, religion, etc.)
are in DEEP pain and hope to heal it within such a 'cast'.


Tony:

     
It is curious to know that 3 other RC 'orders' (in the USA) claim to be *non-
sectarian*.


Response:

I'd like to know at least the addresses of the 'other orders' which call 
themselves 'Rosicrucians' and especially those which are 'nonsectarian'.
Is this 'nonsectarian' like the Masons, who require that a member 'believe
in God by his/her definition'?

     
     
Tony:

I don't see nothing *fundamentally* wrong with "us containing
something divine"... And yes I don't like phrases like "eternal bliss"
either! :-)


Response:

Let alone us *BEING* something divine. ;>


Tony:

BTW, I have read the intro letters of the LRC which they will mail you free
of charge.


Response:

Addresses, phone numbers of groups?  I'm into networking.  Thanks.


    |                                                      WILL
  \ | /                                                    LOVE
  \\|//    !!          !! 
__\\|//__    \{}}}{{{}/
____|___________|@@|      "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
                |  |                                   - Albert Einstein
Thyagi         /    \ 
NagaSiva      |(*)(*)|     Thyagi@HouseofKAos.Abyss.com
              \^^^^^^/            House of KAoS
               -^^^^-             871 Ironwood Dr.
                 ~~               San Jose, CA 95125-2815
'Fr.Nigris' on Divination Web
                Telnet seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu 9393

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84266
Subject: Re: [rw] Is Robert Weiss the only orthodox Christian?
From: <LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET>

In article <C5vGyD.H7s@acsu.buffalo.edu>, psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert
Weiss) says:
>
>     "Orthodox" is a compound word. It comes from 'orthos' (straight, true,
>     right) and from 'doxa' (opinion, doctrine, teaching). I use orthodox to
>     refer to 'right teaching.' Right teaching is derived from letting God
>     speak to us through the Bible. This can be from reading simple truths
>     in the Scriptures and by using the Bible to interpret the Bible.

  Thanks for the etymology lesson, but I actually know what "orthodox" means.
You're avoiding my question, however, which was: From what body of theology
does your version of orthodoxy come?  You seem to simply be saying that
whatever *you* understand the Bible to say is "orthodox."

>ra> Who is that "holds that" Luke meant what you said he meant?
>
>     I think that it is apparent from reading the Scriptures that are
>     pertinent.

  You are obviously mistaken, since many, many people have read the Bible and
many do not agree with you on this point.  Once again, Robert, is your
interpretation the only "correct" or "orthodox" one?

>ra> Whenever your personal interpretation of Biblical passages is
>ra> challenged, your only response seems to be that one needs merely to
>ra> "look at the Bible" in order to see the truth, but what of those who
>ra> see Biblical things differently from you?
>

>     I seem to be seeing from you the notion that any difference in how one
>     views the Bible is somehow legitimate, except, or course, for the stuff
>     that I glean from it. Put forward a contrary view and perhaps we can
>     have a discussion on that topic. But to decry something that I put
>     forward, without putting forward something else to discuss, and to
>     dismiss what I put forward while giving credence to other alleged views
>     that have yet to be put forward is simply being contentious.

   This whole string began as a response to your attacks on Mormonism; no one
is attacking your personal beliefs, only your tendency to present them as
"orthodoxy."  I don't much care *what* you believe about the Bible; just don't
present you personal understanding as the only "orthodox" one.

>
>ra> Are we to simply assume that you are the only one who really
>ra> understands it?
>
>     If you believe that something that I have drawn from Scripture is
>     wrong, then please, show me from Scripture where it is wrong.  Simply
>     stating that there are other views is not a proof. Show it to me from
>     Scripture and then we can go on.

   I have never attacked your specific beliefs -- that's *your* approach,
remember?
    Stating that other people who depend solely on the Bible have other views
is indeed proof that the Bible can be interpreted many ways, which has been
my whole point all along.  The specifics of your belief are your business;
just don't pretend that they are anything more than your personal
intepretation, and be careful about crying "heresy" based on your private
belief system.

>=============================
>Robert Weiss
>psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

--
Rick Anderson  librba@BYUVM.BITNET

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84267
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> In article <930421.102525.9Y9.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew 
> <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> #frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> #> Presumably this means that some moral systems are better than others?
> #> How so?  How do you manage this without an objective frame of reference?
> #
> #Which goes faster, a bullet or a snail?  How come you can answer that when
> #Einstein proved that there isn't an objective frame of reference?
> 
> Not that Einstein "proved" anything,

Oh, yes he did.  You may not agree with his premises, and what he proved may
not apply to "reality" (if such a thing exists), but he certainly proved
something.

>                                        but you can't answer it, and your 
> answer be in general true.

Got it in one.  Similarly, a moral relativist will not judge one moral system
to be better than another in every possible circumstance.  This does not,
however, preclude him from judging one moral system to be better than another
in a specific set of circumstances.  Nor does it preclude a set of moral
relativists from collectively judging a moral system, from some set of
circumstances which they all agree they are in.

>                             And even that statement assumes an
> objective reality independent of our beliefs about it.

Eh?  Could you explain this?  Which "that statement" are you talking about?

> #> And what weasel word do you use to describe that frame of reference, if
> #> it isn't an objective reality for values?
> #
> #I'm sorry, I can't parse "an objective reality for values".  Could you try
> #again?
> 
> s/an objective reality for values/some values are real even in the face
> of disagreement/

I still don't quite see what you're trying to say.  I assume by "values" you
mean moral values, yes?  In which case, what do you mean by "real"?  What is
a "real" moral value, as opposed to an unreal one?

> If you are saying that some moral systems are better than others, in
> your opinion, then all you get is infinite regress.

Sorry, but in what way is it an infinite regress?  It looks extremely finite
to me.

>                                                    What you do not get
> is any justification for saying that the moral system of the terrorist
> is inferior to that of the man of peace.

Sorry, but that's not so.  I can provide a justification for asserting that
the moral system of the terrorist is inferior to that of the man of peace.  I
just can't provide a justification which works in all possible circumstances.

Similarly, I can provide a justification for asserting that bullets move
faster than snails.  That justification won't hold in all possible frames of
reference, but it will hold in almost all the frames of reference I am ever
likely to be in.

>                                      Your saying it does not
> make it so,  and that's according to your premise, not mine.

I don't think I agree with this.  My saying it *does* make it so *from my
point of view* and according to *my premises*, unless the argument is invalid.
It may indeed not make it so from your point of view, but I never claimed
that it did.  In fact, I don't even claim that you exist enough to have a
point of view.


mathew

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84268
From: cutter@gloster.via.mind.org (cutter)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
> >
> >One way or another -- so much for patience. Too bad you couldn't just 
> >wait. Was the prospect of God's Message just too much to take?
> 
> So you believe that David Koresh really is Jesus Christ?
> 

You know, everybody scoffed at that guy they hung up on a cross too.
He claimed also to be the son of God; and it took almost two thousand 
years to forget what he preached.

	Love thy neighbor as thyself.


Anybody else wonder if those two guys setting the fires were 'agent 
provacateurs.'


---------------------------------------------------------------------
cutter@gloster.via.mind.org (chris)     All jobs are easy 
                                     to the person who
                                     doesn't have to do them.
                                               Holt's law

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84269
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: [rw] Is Robert Weiss the only orthodox Christian?

In article <1993Apr23.170101.19708@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:
> No.  I also understand it. I have read the Bible from cover to cover, examining
> each book within, cross-comparing them, etc.  And I have come to same conclusions
> as Robert Weiss.
> 
> So Rick, why not read the Bible for yourself?  It is written in plain
> english.  Decide for yourself.   

I'm curious to know if Christians ever read books based on critique
on the religion, classical text such as "Age of Reason" by Paine,
or "The Myth Maker" by Jacobi. Sometimes it is good to know your
enemy, and if you want to do serious research you have to understand
both sides, and not solely the one and only right one.

Cheers,
Kent

---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84270
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: To Rob Lanphier

In article <1993Apr23.181843.20224@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:
> Kent, with regards to the information contained in the Bible (which
> is the original context of this thread), Brian Kendig is inside a huge
> wall.  Brian *IS* inside.  The Bible and the information contained therein
> are outside the wall.   Brian Kendig proves this very sad fact by the
> absurd things he says.  For example, "If I get through into the firey
> pit, I will cease to exist."  The Bible doesn't say that.  He hasn't
> a clue even to what Jesus said about hell.  That is but one example.

Looking at your discussion I would say that you both operate
from your own reference frame. There's no inside and no outside,
there are just two polarized views. As for statements inside the
Bible, things are still not that clear, we don't have any indications
for instance why Jobs was placed in the Old Testament, one of the 
few books that actually talks about Satan. Jobs is very much out
of line with the rest of the OT books, and there's a chance that
someone added this book later into the group of OT scriptures.

> Now in your sense, Kent, of sensing reality--that is a different
> matter.  And to you and to Brian, relativity does play a big role.
> What we perceive to be true, depends on our vantage point.  Since I
> have read the Bible, and Brian Kendig shows that he hasn't, he has 
> a narrower perspective than mine  (at least in the respect
> of knowledge of the Bible).   I am proposing to Brian, "Brian, come up here
> and take a look from this vantage point."   But Brian replies, "I rather
> not thank you.  I am content where I am.  Besides, the vista from up
> there stinks."   And in the meanwhile, Brian ignores the facts that
> he has never up there nor does he realize I had shared the same
> plateau where Brian now stands.

This operates the other way around as well. You have to understand
the mind of an atheist, agnostic, or as in my case, a radical
relativist. If you don't understand the underlying concepts, it is 
pretty hard to continue with a dialogue. I'm not a perfect Christian,
however about 20+ years of Christian teaching should have provided
me with a pretty good picture of the Christian mind frame.

Cheers,
Kent

---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84271
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion

In article <1e9e02bm40FM01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, agr00@ccc.amdahl.com
(Anthony G Rose) wrote:
> >I have a hard time just now understanding that Christianity
> >knows about the word compassion. Christians, do you think 
> >the actions today would produce a good picture of your 
> >religion?

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

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

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84272
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!

In article <1993Apr24.165727.8899@ra.royalroads.ca>,
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
> In article <sandvik-210493230542@sandvik-kent.apple.com>, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
> |> It seems faith is the only tool available for emotional purposes
> |> due to the tragedy. As such it maybe fills a need, however I'm
> |> getting tired to see children dying in pain in Sudan due to lack
> |> of food, and assuming that God takes these sufferers to heaven
> |> after a painful death.
> |> 
> 
> If the children are not being fed, whose fault is that?  You and I
> have plenty of food on our tables while others starve.  Why is that?
> God gave us this earth to manage.  I don't think we're doing a very
> good job of it.  The only consolation I have for those suffering
> children is that they will be received into the kingdom of Heaven
> where they will never thirst and never hunger again.

I agree with your points, and I'm glad to hear that you subscribe
to the notion of secular humanism, humans helping humans instead
of hoping for a possible deux ex machina solution!

As for faith, you could always use such constructs to dampen
your anger or sorrow.

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84273
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <2855@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM>,
tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) wrote:
> In article <1993Apr20.220340.2585@ra.royalroads.ca> mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
> >armed to the teeth.  A Christian should not have to rely on physical weapons
> >to defend himself.  A Christian should rely on his faith and intelligence.
 
> Faith and intelligence tell me that when a druggie breaks into my house at
> night with a knife to kill me for the $2 in my wallet, a .357 is considerably
> more persuasive than having devotions with him.

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

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84274
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Christians above the Law? was Clarification of pe

In article <C62AIG.L62@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu
(Ken Arromdee) wrote:
> In article <C61Kow.E4z@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe) writes:
> >>Jesus was a JEW, not a Christian.
 
> If a Christian means someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus, it is safe
> to say that Jesus was a Christian.

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

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84275
From: cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl)
Subject: Re: Burden of Proof

In article <1r4b59$7hg@aurora.engr.LaTech.edu>, ray@engr.LaTech.edu (Bill Ray) writes:
********NOTE: FOLLOWUPS go to alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins!

[deleted]
> If I make a statement, "That God exists, loves me, etc." but in no way
> insist that you believe it, does that place a burden of proof upon me.
> If you insist that God doesn't exist, does that place a burden of proof 
> upon you?  I give no proofs, I only give testimony to my beliefs.  I will
> respond to proofs that you attempt to disprove my beliefs.

If you say X statement and give it the authority of fact, I will respond
by asking you why. You aren't obligated to say anything, but if your
intent is to convince me that X statement is true, then yes, the burden
of proof is upon you. 

If you are merely giving testimony to your beliefs, then you are an egotist.
Why would I care?

To surmise, the burden of proof is upon you if you wish us to believe that
what you say is true.

Chris Faehl
cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84276
From: cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs)
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?




>Capser, before you deceive everone into thinking that the latter-day
>saints have undergone undue persecution through the years for just
>believing in their religion, perhaps you would like to tell us all what
>happened in the Mountain Meadow Massacres and all the killings that were
>done under the Blood Atonement Doctrine, at the command of Brigham Young?

Why don't you tell us, Tony?  I'm sure what you THINK you know adds up to a
lot more than what Casper has.

Doesn't it frustrate you to consider how many intelligent, thoughtful 
people you have prepared for the Mormon missionaries with your rant?  The
more you talk, the better we look.  Nothing makes the truth look better
than a background of falsehood.

Sic 'em, Tony!
-- 
------------ John W. Redelfs, cj195@cleveland.freenet.edu -------------
--------- All my opinions are tentative pending further data. ---------

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84277
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:

>Someone in the government actually believed Koresh knew the "seven
>seals of the apocalypse", and ordered the invasion so that they'd all
>be dead and unable to talk about them in public.

Everything we need to know about the seven seals is already
in the bible.  There is no "knowledge" of the seals that
Koresh could have.

Unless the FBI were to kill all publishers of the bible, it
would seem the story of the seven seals would be bound to
leak out.

Assuming for the moment that the FBI believed in the bible and 
were afraid of the seven seals, then they would also know
that God is the one who has to open the seals, not some
little prophet like Koresh.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84278
From: cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John W. Redelfs)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?



>...in other words faith in a .357 is far stronger than faith in a 
>God providing a miracle for his followers. Interesting. Now, if 
>David Korresh was God, why couldn't he use lightning instead of 
>semi-automatic rifles? It seems even he didn't trust in himself.
>
>Cheers,
>Kent
>---
>sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

In the hands of a defender, a .357 _is_ a miracle from God.  He helps those 
who help themselves.  Or haven't you ever heard that one before?
-- 
------------ John W. Redelfs, cj195@cleveland.freenet.edu -------------
--------- All my opinions are tentative pending further data. ---------

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84279
From: MORIARTY@NDSUVM1.BITNET
Subject: Re: New Religion Forming -- Sign Up

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

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84280
From: ins559n@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Andrew Bulhak)
Subject: Re: New Religion Forming -- Sign Up

Jim Kasprzak (kasprj@isaac.its.rpi.edu) wrote:
: In article <=4z5wqc@rpi.edu>, weinss@rs6101.ecs.rpi.edu (Stephen Andrew Weinstein) writes:
: |> Let me begin by saying I think this is the world's first religion to use
: |> the net as its major recruitment medium.  Therefore, even if this
: |> religion does not take off, its founding members will be very important
: |> historically as this method of soliciting membership will eventually become 
: |> common.
:  
:  So what is Kibology? Chopped liver?

Kibo Himself summed it up by saying "Kibology is not just a religion, it is
also a candy mint ... and a floor wax." I personally think that it is more
like Spam Clear.
:   
:  You really should check out alt.religion.kibology, as Kibo's religion is 
: slightly older than yours, makes more sense and has more slack.

Yes! Why send money to B0B when Kibo will pay you to worship him. (Funny, he
doesn't seem to have paid me...)

: ------------------------------------------------------------------
:      __  Live from Capitaland, heart of the Empire State...
:  ___/  | Jim Kasprzak, computer operator @ RPI, Troy, NY, USA
: /____ *|   "I understand the causes, and sympathize your motivations,
:      \_| But all the details of this war are just your self-infatuation." 
:       ====  e-mail: kasprj@rpi.edu or kasprzak@mts.rpi.edu 

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Andrew Bulhak	     |                                              |
|  acb@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | David Koresh fried for your sins.            | 
|  Monash Uni, Clayton,      |                                              |
|  Victoria, Australia       |                                              |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84281
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Ancient references to Christianity (was: Albert Sabin)

In article <C5ztJu.FKx@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
|>
|> Why is the NT tossed out as info on Jesus.  

It isn't.   It's usually treated as being about as reliable as
any other single, uncorroborated source of information about
a person for whom there is no other evidence.

|> I realize it is normally tossed out because it contains 
|> miracles, but what are the other reasons?

What do you mean when you say it contains mirables.    I just
opened mine and not a damned thing happened.   Is there some
special way to do this?

jon.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84282
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: Ancient references to Christianity (was: Albert Sabin)

In article <C62B7n.6B4@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
|> In <1ren9a$94q@morrow.stanford.edu> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem) 
|> writes:
|> 
|> >In article <C5ztJu.FKx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike 
|> Cobb) writes:
|> >>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?
|> 
|> > It is not tossed out as a source, but would it be regarded as
|> >unbiased and independant? 
|> 
|> This brings up another something I have never understood.  I asked this once
|> before and got a few interesting responses, but somehow didn't seem satisfied.
|> Why would the NT NOT be considered a good source.

Contradicting itself on facts, for example.

jon.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84283
From: rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mr. Nice Guy)
Subject: No-knock, was Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

 isaackuo@skippy.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo) states in reply to deleted
article about no-knock searches, arrests


>Hmm.  The police strategy of bursting in with weapons drawn, clearly
>marked as officers and yelling "Police" repeatedly.  This is used every
>day to bust drug houses.  The idea is to awe the suspects into
>submission with surprise and display of firepowere in order to avoid a
>gun fight.  As for not knocking, it's a sad necessity in many cases
>since the suspects will attempt to escape or even fight.  Usually this
>strategy works; if it didn't, then it wouldn't be used so commonly, now
>would it?

In general no-knock raids are to preserve evidence, like drugs,
which can be flushed down the toilet.  They are not the standard way
to arrest a violent felon like a bank robber.  If there is no need to
search or preserve evidence they will just surround the dwelling and
order the suspect to come out with her hands up.  If the suspect does
not come out tear gas will be used.


comment on the BD omitted


>I merely point out that it IS a valid strategy which is used every day.
>Furthermore, we don't know of any substitute strategy capable of
>apprehending potentially dangerous and armed suspects.  Do you suggest

It is not a method to apprehend criminals.

>that the police always knock with guns holstered and never arrest any
>suspects until they have been allowed to inspect the officers's badges?
>Just what should the police do when apprehending potentially dangerous
>and armed suspects? How far can they reasonably go to identity
>themselves? What do you suggest they can do which can't be faked by the
>"competition"?

It is a very dangerous method to obtain evidence that might be
destroyed if a warrant is served in the normal way.  It is the most
dangerous way to arrest anyone.  The cops are charging into a room
and they don't know what is in it.  It is much safer to surround the
place and announce yourself.


>Even if you've got deadly enemies who may pretend to be cops, that's
>not an excuse to murder police.  In the case of the BD's, there was
>almost definitely at most the paranoid delusion of deadly enimies who
>would pretend to be cops.

Cops are not cops _until_ they identify themselves as police officers.


Most drug dealers and professional criminals are aware of the
likelihood of arrest but they also know how the system works.  If they
are arrested they call their lawyer, post bail and hope for a plea
bargain.  If they pull a gun and shoot a cop during a raid they will
be charged with first degree murder if they survive the raid.  Drug
dealers have guns for protection from their customers and other
criminals, not to shoot cops.  Cops are shot on no-knock drug raids
because the criminals aren't aware that they are cops.

No-knock raids on homes occupied by non-criminals are more likely to
end in disaster.  Mom and Pop citizen _KNOW_ that they have not
committed any crime, they KNOW that anyone breaking into their house
cannot be a cop because they have done nothing wrong.  If they have
the means to defend themselves they may because they KNOW that the
housebreakers are criminals not cops.  Cops and homeowners may die.

The first reports from Waco stated that the ATF had a warrant to
search for illegal weapons and also an arrest warrant if the illegal
weapons were found.  In this case the no-knock warrant was not called
for.  It is difficult to flush a gun down the toilet.  The ATF could
have surrounded the compound.  A marked police car could have driven
up to the entrance and uniformed officers could have knocked and
served the warrant usual way.  It this had happened and and Koresh
refused the warrant or drove the cops off at gun point then most of
the t.p.g folks would have kept quiet.

--
Rod Anderson  N0NZO         | "I do not think the United States government
Boulder, CO                 | is responsible for the fact that a bunch of
rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu      | fanatics decided to kill themselves"
satellite  N0NZO on ao-16   |        Slick Willie the Compassionate

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84284
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: History & texts (was: Ancient references to Christianity)

In article <2944756297.1.p00261@psilink.com>, "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:
|> >DATE:   24 Apr 1993 11:53:48 -0500
|> >FROM:   Russell Turpin <turpin@cs.utexas.edu>
|> >
|> >
|> >The diaries of the followers of the Maharishi, formerly of
|> >Oregon, are historical evidence.  
|> 
|> Are you confusing Bhagwan Rajneesh (sp?) with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
|> here by any chance?  I think Bhagwan was in Oregon with all the Rolls
|> Royces.  Maharishi Mahesh Yogi founded Transcendental Meditation and
|> does the yogic flying stuff.  Bhagwan's group was a communal, free sex
|> kind of thing.  I think they both had beards, though.

I think we should just let Bhagwans be Bhagwans.

jon.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84285
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Koresh Doctrine -- 4 of 4

In article <1993Apr23.221525.4323@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>,
f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu wrote:
> Well, Stephen's annotated study of David Koresh's sermon
> doesn't bother me.  It's probable that a careful review of
> what Stephen has done with obvious expenditure of thoughtful
> effort would provide additional insight into David and his love
> for God [May his soul rest in peace.]   And whether or
> not we agree with various points of theology therein, a review
> would likely provide significant insight into our own love
> for God.  One thing that seems apparent from even a cursory
> reading of Koresh's message is that he was not the 'looney
> tunes' portrayed in the FBI filtered press reports on him
> but was quite possibly the friendly, likeable person his
> attorney reported him to be.

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

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84286
From: ACUS10@WACCVM.SPS.MOT.COM (Mark Fuller)
Subject: Re: [rw] is Robert Weiss the only Orthodox Christian

In article <93111.074840LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET> LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET writes:
>
>  Robert, you keep making references to "orthodox" belief, and saying things
>like "it is held that..." (cf. "Kermit" thread).  On what exact body of
>theology are you drawing for what you call "orthodox?"  Who is that "holds
>that" Luke meant what you said he meant?  Whenever your personal interpretation
>of Biblical passages is challenged, your only response seems
>to be that one needs merely to "look at the Bible" in order to see the truth,
>but what of those who see Biblical things differently from you?  Are we to
>simply assume that you are the only one who really understands it?

Rick, I think we can safely say, 1) Robert is not the only person
who understands the Bible, and 2), the leadership of the LDS church
historicly never has.  Let's consider some "personal interpretations"
and see how much trust we should put in "Orthodox Mormonism", which
could never be confused with Orthodox Christianity.

        In one of his attacks on Christians, the Mormon Apostle Bruce R.
McConkie said they "thrash around in...darkness in trying to identify
Elohim and Jehovah and to show their relationship to the promised
Messiah." He also said Christians are wrong to believe "that Jehovah is
the Supreme Deity [God the Father]," and that Christ "came into
mortality" as His "Only Begotten" Son. McConkie then stated what Mormons
believe today to be the truth about the matter. He said that "Elohim is
the Father" and "Jehovah is the Son."

  "Being thus aware of how far astray the religious intellectualists
  have gone in defining their three-in-one God, it comes as no surprise
  to learn that they thrash around in the same darkness in trying to
  identify Elohim and Jehovah and to show their relationship to the
  promised Messiah. Some sectarians even believe that Jehovah is the
  Supreme Deity whose Son came into mortality as the Only Begotten. As
  with their concept that God is a Spirit, this misinformation about the
  Gods of Heaven is untrue. The fact is, and it too is attested by Holy
  Writ, that Elohim is the Father, and that Jehovah is the Son who was
  born into mortality as the Lord Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah.
  (Promised Messiah, p. 100)

        Notice that McConkie said the Christians are as wrong about
their "three-in-one God" and their belief that "God is a Spirit" as they
are in their understanding of who "Elohim" and "Jehovah" are. Before
examining McConkie's attack and its validity, we shall read a few more
statements by McConkie and other Mormon sources concerning the words
"Elohim" and "Jehovah." McConkie stated:

  "...the chief designation of Christ that has been preserved for us in
  the Old Testament, as that ancient work is now published, is the
  exalted name-title Jehovah. (Promised Messiah, p. 367)

  "_Elohim_, plural word though it is, is also used as the exalted
  name-title of God the Eternal Father, a usage that connotes his
  supremacy and omnipotence, he being God above all Gods. (Mormon
  Doctrine, p. 224)

        Agreeing with McConkie on the question of who "Elohim" and
"Jehovah" are, the Apostle James E. Talmage stated:

  "_Elohim_, as understood and used in the restored Church of Jesus
  Christ, is the name-title of God the Eternal Father, whose firstborn
  Son in the spirit is _Jehovah_ -- the Only Begotten in the flesh,
  Jesus Christ. (Jesus the Christ, p. 38)

        "A Doctrinal Exposition by The First Presidency and the Twelve"
apostles of the Mormon Church states that "God the Eternal Father...[is]
designate[d] by the exalted name-title 'Elohim'..." (Articles of Faith,
p. 466) "...Christ in His preexistent, antemortal, or unembodied
state...was known as Jehovah..." (Articles of Faith, p. 471)

        Today Mormon leaders teach that "Elohim" in the OT refers to God
the Father and "Jehovah" refers to Christ. McConkie attacked Christians
for saying "Jehovah" can refer to the Father. He stressed that these two
"name-titles" should not be changed around so that Christ is called
"Elohim" and the Father is called "Jehovah." "...the Father...is Elohim,
not Jehovah.... Jehovah is Christ, and Christ is Jehovah; they are one
and the same person." (Promised Messiah, p. 111)

        In the OT of the KJV of the Bible, the Hebrew word "Elohim" is
used to refer to the true God, false gods and goddesses, and the judges
of Israel. When referring to the true God, "Elohim" is translated with a
capital "G." When referring to false gods and goddesses and the judges
of Israel, it is translated with a small "g." It is translated four
times as "judges" (Exod. 21:6; 22:8-9), once as "judge" (1 Sam. 2:25),
twice as "mighty" (Gen. 23:6; Exod. 9:28), once as "angels" (Ps. 8:5),
once as "godly" (Mal. 2:15), once as "great" (Gen. 30:8), and once as
"very great." (1 Sam. 14:15)

        The word "Jehovah" is the traditional pronunciation of the
tetragrammation YHWH or YHVH with the vowel points taken from the word
"Adonai."  Many people believe the true pronunciation of the
tetragrammation was Yahweh or Yahveh. However, since "Jehovah" rather
than Yahweh is the word used by Mormonism, this section will also use
"Jehovah" instead of Yahweh to examine the validity of the claims of
Mormon leaders regarding that name. "Jehovah," unlike "Elohim," is never
used of false gods. It is the personal name of the triune God of the
Bible. In the KJV, "Jehovah" is rendered primarily "LORD," sometimes
"GOD," and rarely "Lord."

        Now that we understand something about the words "Elohim" and
"Jehovah" and their use by Mormon leaders, we shall consider the Apostle
McConkie's attack on Christians for believing the Father is "Jehovah."
In trying to prove that "Jehovah" refers exclusively to Christ, McConkie
cited several verses from the Bible. Some of these verses and McConkie's
interpretation of them will be examined to see whether he was right.
Remember, McConkie said the Father is not "Jehovah;" He is only
"Elohim." The first example we shall consider involves McConkie's
interpretation of Ps. 110:1. Of this verse he stated:

  "Of whom spake David when his tongue was touched by the Holy Spirit
  and he testified, "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right
  hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?" (Ps. 110:1.) Two
  Lords are here involved: one is speaking to the other; one is greater
  than the other; one is making provision for the triumph and glory of
  the other. Who are they and what message is contained in this
  Messianic prophecy?
  "What think ye of Christ?" our Lord asked certain of his detractors
  toward the end of his mortal ministry. "Whose son is he?" Is Christ
  the Son of God or of someone else? Is he to be born of a divine Parent
  or will he be as other men -- a mortal son of a mortal father? That he
  was to be a descendant of David was a matter of great pride to all the
  Jews. And so they answered, "The Son of David."
  David's son? Truly he was. But he was more, much more. And so our
  Lord, with irrefutable logic and to their complete discomfiture,
  asked, "How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord
  said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine
  enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his
  son?" That is, if he is only the Son of David, how is it that the
  great King, acting under inspiration, calls him Lord and worships him
  as such? And we might add: _Who is the other Lord, the one who spake
  unto David's Lord?_ Can there be any question as to how Jesus is
  interpreting the words of the Psalm? He is saying that it means: '_The
  Father said unto the Son, Elohim said unto Jehovah_, sit thou on my
  right hand, until after your mortal ministry; then I will raise you up
  to eternal glory and exaltation with me, where you will continue to
  sit on my right hand forever.' (Promised Messiah, pp. 101-102)
  (emphasis added)

        Agreeing with the above statement by McConkie, the following
remark in the Mormon pamphlet _What the Mormons Think of Christ, p. 6
reads: "The Lord [Elohim, the Father] said unto my Lord [Jehovah, the
Son]..." (brackets in original)

        McConkie clearly stated that it is "Elohim" the Father who is
speaking to "Jehovah" the Son in this Psalm. However, when one looks at
the Hebrew word translated "LORD," it becomes apparent that either the
first "LORD" is not the Father or else the Father is "Jehovah." Either
way McConkie is wrong. The Psalm reads:

  "The LORD [Jehovah] said unto my Lord [Adon], Sit thou at my right
  hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. (Ps. 110:1)

        The first "LORD" in this verse is "Jehovah" who Mormonism says
is Christ, not the Father. The second "Lord" is the Hebrew word "Adon"
(singular for "Adonai," meaning master or lord). If the first "LORD" is
the Father and the second "Lord" is the Son, then the Father is
"Jehovah" and the Son is "Adon." However, if the Father is not "Jehovah"
as McConkie claimed, then the first "LORD" is "Jehovah" the Son, but
who, then, is "Adon?" Obviously the Father is "Jehovah" in this Psalm,
and His Son is "Adon."

        Another example involves Isa. 42:6 about which McConkie stated
the following:

  "I the Lord have called thee in righteousness," _Isaiah quoted the
  Father as saying of Christ_, "and will hold thine hand, and will keep
  thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the
  Gentiles." (Isa. 42:6.) (Promised Messiah, p. 81) (emphasis added)

        McConkie said the Father was speaking of Christ in this passage
which reads:

  "I the LORD [Jehovah] have called thee in righteousness, and will hold
  thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the
  people, for a light of the Gentiles. (Isa. 42:6)

        According to McConkie, "I the LORD" refers to the Father, and
"thine" and "thee" refer to Christ. However, the "LORD" who is speaking
is "Jehovah" which means either McConkie was wrong about who is speaking
or else the Father is "Jehovah."

        Another example involves Ps. 22:7-8. Of these verses McConkie
stated:

  "The same Psalm says: "All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they
  shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the Lord
  that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in
  him." (Ps. 22:7-8.) _The fulfillment, as Jesus hung on the cross_, is
  found in these words: "The chief priests mocking him, with the scribes
  and elders, said, He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be
  the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will
  believe him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will
  have him: for he said, I am the Son of God. The thieves also, which
  were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth." (Matt.
  27:41-44.) (Promised Messiah, pp. 530-531) (emphasis added)

        Ps. 22:7-8 reads as follows:

  "All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they
  shake the head, saying, He trusted on the LORD [Jehovah] that he would
  deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.

        McConkie said these verses had their fulfillment "as Jesus hung
on the cross." That means the person who was scorned in these verses was
Christ. Who, then, was the "LORD" in whom he trusted? It was "Jehovah"
the Father.

        Another example involves Ps. 31:13 and Ps. 41:9. Regarding them,
McConkie stated the following:

  "With reference to the conniving and conspiring plots incident to our
  Lord's arrest and judicial trials the prophecy was: "They took counsel
  together against me, they devised to take away my life." (Ps. 31:13.)
  As to the role of Judas in those conspiracies, the Psalmist says:
  "Mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my
  bread, hath lifted up his heel against me." (Ps. 41:9.) (Promised
  Messiah, p. 532)

        Apostle McConkie said these Psalms refer to Christ's "arrest and
judicial trials." We shall first consider Ps. 31 and then Ps. 41. While
McConkie only quoted verse 13 of Ps. 31, verse 14 will also be included
to give a complete understanding of the matter.

  "For I have heard the slander of many: fear was on every side: while
  they took counsel together against me, they devised to take away my
  life. But I trusted in thee, O LORD [Jehovah]: I said, Thou art my God
  [Elohim]. (Ps. 31:13-14)

        McConkie said verse 13 referred to Jesus Christ. Verse 14 goes
on to tell that He (Christ) trusted in the "LORD" who is called His
"God" or "Elohim." Mormonism teaches that the God above Jesus is
"Elohim" the Father. Verse 14, however, reveals that the "Elohim" of the
man Jesus is "Jehovah" the Father.

        In Ps. 41, McConkie only quoted one verse; however, two verses
will be considered in this examination.

  "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my
  bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.
  But thou, O LORD [Jehovah], be merciful unto me, and raise me up, that
  I may requite them. (Ps. 41:9-10)

        McConkie stated above that verse 9 referred to Judas' role in
Christ's death. Since it was Judas who was the "familiar friend" who
"lifted up his heel," the pronouns "mine," "I," "my," and "me" in verse
9 must refer to Christ. Notice that at the beginning of verse 10 there
is a change of pronoun to "thou," which refers to the "LORD" (Jehovah).
Then the pronouns "me" and "I" which refer to Christ are used again.
That means Christ was speaking to "Jehovah" the Father in these verses.

        Another example involves McConkie's following remark about Ps.
        110:4.

  "One of the great Messianic prophecies, spoken by the mouth of David,
  says: "The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for
  ever after the order of Melchizedek." (Ps. 110:4.) (Promised Messiah,
  p. 450)

        McConkie admitted this is a Messianic prophecy involving Christ.
The question is, What in this verse refers to Christ?

  "The LORD [Jehovah] hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest
  for ever after the order of Melchizedek. (Ps. 110:4)

        Does the "LORD," which is "Jehovah," refer to Christ? If
McConkie is right and Jesus is "Jehovah," but the Father is not, then
the "LORD" would have to refer to Christ. But who, then, is the one
addressed as the "priest forever after the order of Melchizedek?" The
Bible reveals that the one referred to is Jesus Christ (Heb. 5:8-10;
6:20; 7); therefore, the "LORD" (Jehovah) in Ps. 110:4 is the Father.

        Another example involves Isa. 53:4-12. Of these verses McConkie
stated:

  "Of the atoning sacrifice of the future Messiah, Isaiah said...
     The _Lord_ has laid on him the iniquities of us all....
     It pleased the _Lord_ to bruise him... (Promised Messiah, p. 234)
     (emphasis added)

        McConkie rightly said these verses refer to "the atoning
sacrifice of the future Messiah." However, what he failed to mention is
that they also prove that the Father is "Jehovah." Verse 6 reads: "All
we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way;
and the LORD [Jehovah] hath laid on him [Christ] the iniquity of us
all," and verse 10 reads: "Yet it pleased the LORD [Jehovah] to bruise
him [Christ]..."

        Obviously the "LORD" who laid on Christ "the iniquity of us all"
and who bruised Him is God the Father who is called "Jehovah" in these
verses.

        Remember, McConkie stated that "some sectarians even believe
that Jehovah is the Supreme Deity," and that Christ "came into
mortality" as His "Only Begotten" Son. He called this concept
"misinformation" that is "untrue." To prove that it is McConkie who is
misinformed and believing untruth, two Scriptural references (2 Sam.
7:14; Ps. 2:7) will be examined. McConkie stated the following regarding
these Scriptures:

  "In the midst of a passage that is clearly Messianic, the Lord says of
  the Seed of David: "I will be his father, and he shall be my son." (2
  Sam. 7:14.) In the second Psalm, the whole of which is also clearly
  Messianic, occurs this statement: "Thou art my Son; this day have I
  begotten thee." (Ps. 2:7.) Paul quotes both of these statements in
  Hebrews 1:5 and says they are prophecies that Christ would come as the
  Son of God. (Promised Messiah, p. 143)

        McConkie cited Heb. 1:5 to show that 2 Sam. 7:14 and Ps. 2:7
refer to Christ who "would come as the Son of God." Since McConkie first
referenced 2 Sam. 7:14, this examination will, too. However, along with
verse 14, verses 11-13 will also be included.

  "And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people
  Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the
  LORD [Jehovah] telleth thee that he will make thee an house.
  And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers,
  I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy
  bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
  He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of
  his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. (2
  Sam. 7:11-14)

        These verses teach that the "LORD" (Jehovah) would have a Son,
the Messiah.
        In the second example McConkie cited Ps. 2:7. This examination
will include verse 8. Notice that it is the "LORD" (Jehovah) who says,
"Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

  "I will declare the decree: the LORD [Jehovah] hath said unto me, Thou
  art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
  Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance,
  and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

        McConkie said these verses of Scripture are "clearly Messianic,"
and he acknowledged they teach that "Christ would come as the Son of
God." What he is not willing to acknowledge, however, is that these
Scriptures also teach that the Father is "Jehovah" and that the
"sectarians" who believe "Jehovah is the Supreme Deity whose Son" is
Jesus Christ, "the Only Begotten," are right in their belief.

        Another example involves Mic. 5:4. Of this verse McConkie stated
the following:

  "And so, truly, did our Lord act _during his mortal ministry! Truly,
  this is he of whom it is written_: "He shall stand and feed in the
  strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his
  God... for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth." (Mic.
  5:4.) (Promised Messiah, p. 182) (emphasis added)

        According to McConkie, the pronoun "He" at the beginning of Mic.
5:4 refers to Christ "during his mortal ministry." Who, then, is the
"LORD his God?" Mic. 5:4 reads:

  "And he [Christ] shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD
  [Jehovah], in the majesty of the name of the LORD [Jehovah] his God
  [Elohim]... for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.

        Obviously the "LORD" of Jesus Christ is "Jehovah" the Father who
is referred to as "Jehovah his Elohim."

        Another example involves Ps. 2:2 and Isa. 61:1. Of these verses
McConkie stated the following:

  "A number of Messianic passages speak of "the Lord, and...his
  anointed" (Ps. 2:2), signifying that the Chosen One was consecrated
  and set apart for the ministry and mission that was his. _Jesus
  applied these passages to himself_ by quoting Isaiah's prophecy. "The
  Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek" (Isa.
  61:1), and then saying: "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your
  ears" (Luke 4:21). (Promised Messiah, pp. 182-183) (emphasis added)

        The first source McConkie quoted -- Ps. 2:2 -- reads as follows:

  "The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel
  together, against the LORD [Jehovah], and against his anointed.

        McConkie said the "anointed" one was Christ. If that is true,
who was "Jehovah?" If "Jehovah" is always Christ, who was the "anointed"
one? Obviously "Jehovah" is referring to God the Father and the
"anointed" is indeed referring to Christ. The second source McConkie
cited is Isa. 61:1 which states:

  "The Spirit of the Lord [Adonai] GOD [Jehovah] is upon me; because the
  LORD [Jehovah] hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek;
  he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to
  the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

        The one who was anointed to preach, bind up, proclaim, and open
was Jesus Christ. Who, then, was the one who anointed Him? This verse
says the "LORD" (Jehovah) did the anointing. Again, we face the same
problem. If "Jehovah" does not refer to the Father, but only to Christ,
then Jesus anointed someone, but who? As McConkie pointed out, "Jesus
applied these passages to himself." Therefore, the "Jehovah" who
anointed Christ is God the Father.

        Other examples could be cited to show that McConkie and other
Mormon leaders are wrong when they say God the Father is not "Jehovah."
However, these should be enough to expose their error.

        Now, what about Mormonism's claim that Jesus is "Jehovah," but
He is not "Elohim?" It is true that Jesus is "Jehovah." The following
Scriptures prove this fact:

  "Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah] the King of Israel, and his redeemer
  the LORD [Jehovah] of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and
  beside me there is no God. (Isa. 44:6)
  [Jesus said] ...I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and
  was dead... (Rev. 1:17-18)

  "...saith the LORD [Jehovah]...they shall look upon me whom they have
  pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only
  son... (Zech. 12:1,10)
  Behold, he [Christ] cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him,
  and they also which pierced him... (Rev. 1:7)

  "...I am the LORD [Jehovah] thy God, the Holy One of Israel... (Isa.
  43:3)
  ...Ye denied the Holy One [Christ] and the Just... (Acts 3:14)

  "And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the name of
  the LORD [Jehovah] shall be delivered... (Joel 2:32)
  "...the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth...there is none other name
  under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:10,12)

  "Behold, the Lord GOD [Jehovah] will come with strong hand...his
  reward is with him... (Isa. 40:10)
  ...Behold, I [Christ] come quickly; and my reward is with me... (Rev.
  22:12)

  "...the LORD [Jehovah] my God shall come, and all the saints with
  thee. (Zech. 14:5)
  "...at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints. (1
  Thess. 3:13)

  "The LORD [Jehovah] is my shepherd... (Ps. 23:1)
  [Jesus said] I am the good shepherd... (John 10:14)

  "...saith the Lord GOD [Jehovah]. I will seek that which was lost...
  (Ezek. 34:15-16)
  ...the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
  (Luke 19:10)

  "For I am the LORD [Jehovah] thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy
  Saviour... (Isa. 43:3)
  Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great
  God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. (Tit. 2:13. See also Jer. 42:5 and
  Rev. 1:5; Mal. 3:6 and Heb. 13:8; 1 Kin. 8:28,39 and John 2:24-25;
  Isa. 25:8 and 2 Tim. 1:10; Ps. 107:24,29 and Matt. 8:26; Prov.3:12 and
  Rev. 3:19)

        While Mormons are right when they say Jesus is "Jehovah," they
are wrong when they say He is not "Elohim." The Bible reveals that
"Jehovah" is the only true "Elohim" there is; all others are false.
Remember, "Jehovah" is the personal name of the triune God who has
revealed Himself in the Bible.

        Before we consider Biblical quotes which show that "Jehovah" and
"Elohim" are not two separate gods as Mormons claims let us first note
that not only are both God the Father and Christ addressed as "Jehovah"
and "Elohim" but so is the Holy Spirit.

  "Whereof the _Holy Ghost_..._said_...This _is_ the covenant that I
  will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my
  laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And
  their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. (Heb. 10:15-17)
  (emphasis on "Holy Ghost" and "said" added)
  Behold, the days come, _saith the LORD_ [Jehovah], that I will make a
  new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah...
  I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts;
  and will be their God [Elohim], and they shall be my people.... I will
  forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (Jer.
  31:31,33-34) (emphasis added)

  "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy
  men of God spake as they were moved by the _Holy Ghost_. (2 Pet. 1:21)
  (emphasis on "Holy Ghost" added)
  "The Spirit of the LORD [Jehovah] spake by me, and his word was in
  my tongue. (2 Sam. 23:2. See also Heb. 3:7-11 with Ps. 95:6-11)

        Let us now continue with the Biblical quotes which show that
"Jehovah" and "Elohim" are not two separate gods as Mormons claim.

  "And when the LORD [Jehovah] saw that he [Moses] turned aside to see,
  God [Elohim] called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said,
  Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.... [Bruce R. McConkie
  acknowledged that "it was" Christ's "voice that spoke to Moses in the
  burning bush..." Promised Messiah, p. 394]
  And the LORD [Jehovah] said...
  And Moses said unto God [Elohim], Behold, when I come unto the
  children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God [Elohim] of your
  fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his
  name? what shall I say unto them?
  And God [Elohim] said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus
  shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto
  you.
  And God [Elohim] said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto
  the children of Israel, the LORD [Jehovah] God [Elohim] of your
  fathers, the God [Elohim] of Abraham, the God [Elohim] of Isaac, and
  the God [Elohim] of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for
  ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. (Exod.
  3:4,7,13-15)

  "And God [Elohim] spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD
  [Jehovah]. (Exod. 6:2)

  "I am the LORD [Jehovah], and there is none else, there is no God
  [Elohim] beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
  (Isa. 45:5)

  "But the LORD [Jehovah] is the true God [Elohim], he is the living God
  [Elohim], and an everlasting king... (Jer. 10:10)

  "Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah] the King of Israel, and his redeemer
  the LORD [Jehovah] of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and
  beside me there is no God [Elohim]. (Isa. 44:6)

  "Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus,
  saith the LORD [Jehovah], whose name is The God [Elohim] of hosts.
  (Amos 5:27)

  "Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD's
  [Jehovah's] thy God [Elohim], the earth also, with all that therein
  is. (Deut. 10:14)

  "Wherefore thou art great, O LORD [Jehovah] God [Elohim]: for there is
  none like thee, neither is there any God [Elohim] beside thee,
  according to all that we have heard with our ears. (2 Sam. 7:22)

  "And he said unto them, I am an Hebrew; and I fear the LORD [Jehovah],
  the God [Elohim] of heaven, which hath made the sea and the dry land.
  (Jon. 1:9)

  "For who is God [Elohim] save the LORD [Jehovah]? or who is a rock
  save our God [Elohim]? (Ps. 18:31)

  "Blessed is the nation whose God [Elohim] is the LORD [Jehovah]...
  (Ps. 33:12. See also Ps. 144:15)

  "Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God
  [Elohim], the LORD [Jehovah], the Creator of the ends of the earth,
  fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his
  understanding. (Isa. 40:28)

  "The mighty God [Elohim], even the LORD [Jehovah], hath spoken, and
  called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down
  thereof. (Ps. 50:1)

  "Sing unto God [Elohim], sing praises to his name: estol him that
  rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him. (Ps.
  68:4) [Regarding the word "Jah," Bruce R. McConkie stated: "Jah
  (Hebrew Yah) is a contracted form of Jehovah, Jahveh, or Yahweh -- all
  of which names have reference to Christ, the God of Israel." Mormon
  Doctrine, p. 391]

  "And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from
  Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God [Elohim], whose
  name is called by the name of the LORD [Jehovah] of hosts that
  dwelleth between the cherubims. (2 Sam. 6:2)

  "...the Great the Mighty God [Elohim], the LORD [Jehovah] of hosts, is
  his name. (Jer. 32:18)

  "O my God [Elohim], make them like a wheel; as the stubble before the
  wind....
  Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD
  [Jehovah]....
  That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most
  high over all the earth. (Ps. 83:13,16,18)

        The Bible clearly teaches that "Jehovah" is "Elohim." In fact,
He is the only "Elohim" there is. He is the "true," the "living," the
"mighty," the "great," and the "everlasting Elohim." He is the "Elohim"
of Israel, of all the kingdoms of the earth, and of the heavens. He is
the Creator who made the heavens and all their host and the earth and
all that dwell thereon. "Jehovah's" name is "Elohim of hosts." (Amos
5:27)

        Not only is "Jehovah," "Elohim," but "Elohim" is "Jehovah." The
Bible reveals that "Elohim's" name is "Jah" (Ps. 68:4), "Jehovah" (Ps.
83:18), and "Jehovah of hosts." (2 Sam. 6:2; Jer. 32:18)   The nation
whose "Elohim" is "Jehovah" is blessed. (Ps. 33:12) Clearly, this is not
the "Jehovah" and "Elohim" of the Mormons.

        Another Mormon error regarding "Elohim" and "Jehovah" is the
belief that "Elohim," not "Jehovah," is the Father of all the spirits,
including Jesus. In the Articles of Faith by Apostle James E. Talmage,
"A Doctrinal Exposition by The First Presidency and The Twelve" apostles
states that "God the Eternal Father...'Elohim,' is the literal Parent
of...the spirits of the human race." (p. 466) This "Doctrinal
Exposition" also states explicitly that "Jesus Christ is not the Father
of the spirits who have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this earth,
for He is one of them. He is The Son, as they are sons and daughters of
Elohim." (p. 473)

        The Apostle Talmage stated that "_Elohim_...is the name-title of
God the Eternal Father, whose firstborn Son in the spirit is
_Jehovah_--" (Jesus the Christ, p. 38)

        The Apostle Bruce R. McConkie stated the following about this
matter: "...Jehovah-Christ...did in fact create the earth and all forms
of plant and animal life on the face thereof. _But when it came to
placing man on earth, there was a change in Creators_. That is, the
Father himself became personally involved. All things were created by
the Son, using the power delegated by the Father, except man. _In the
spirit and again in the flesh, man was created by the Father_. There was
no delegation of authority where the crowning creature of creation was
concerned." (Promised Messiah, p. 62) (emphasis added)

        Mormon leaders claim that "Jehovah-Christ" did not create either
man's spirit or his body. They maintain that the Mormon "Elohim," who is
the father, created man both in spirit and body. The Bible reveals the
truth about who created man.

  "And Moses spake unto the LORD [Jehovah], saying,
  Let the LORD [Jehovah], the God [Elohim] of the _spirits of all
  flesh_, set a man over the congregation. (Num. 27:15-16. See also
  16:20-23) (emphasis added)

  "...the LORD [Jehovah], which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth
  the foundation of the earth, and _formeth the spirit of man within
  him_. (Zech. 12:1) (emphasis added)

  "...the LORD [Jehovah]...made us this soul... (Jer. 38:16)

  "For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth: for
  the spirit should fail before me, and the _souls which I have
  made_....
  ...saith the LORD [Jehovah]... (Isa. 57:16,19) (emphasis on "souls...I
  have made" added)

  "Behold, I am the LORD [Jehovah], the God [Elohim] _of all flesh_...
  (Jer. 32:27) (emphasis added)

  "Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah], thy redeemer, and he that _formed thee
  from the womb_.
  I am the LORD [Jehovah] that maketh all things... (Isa. 44:24)
  (emphasis added)

  "Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah]...
  I have made the earth, and _created man_ upon it... (Isa. 45:11-12)
  (emphasis added)

  "...God [Elohim] created man upon the earth...
  Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD
  [Jehovah] he is God [Elohim]; there is none else beside him. (Deut.
  4:32,35)

  "Thus saith God [El] the LORD [Jehovah]...he that spread forth the
  earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the
  people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein. (Isa. 42:5)

  "...Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah] of hosts, the God [Elohim] of
  Israel... I have made the earth, _the man_ and the beast that are upon
  the ground... (Jer. 27:4-5) (most emphasis added)

        The Bible reveals that it is "Jehovah" who is the "Elohim of the
spirits of all flesh" and "of all flesh" itself, that it was He who
"formed the spirit of man within him," that He "made us this soul" and
"formed us from the womb." He did indeed "create man."

        If Mormon leaders are right when they say Jesus is "Jehovah,"
then they are wrong when they say he did not create man. If they are
right when they say the father is the one who created man, then they are
wrong when they say he is not "Jehovah."

        Although Mormon leaders teach that Jesus did not create man,
Mormon scriptures teach that he did. The BoM states the following:

  "Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son....
  And never have I showed myself unto _man whom I have created_, for
  never has man believed in me as thou hast....
  Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and
  _man have I created_ after the body of my spirit... (Eth. 3:14-16)
  (emphasis added)

  "For it is I that taketh upon me the sins of the world; for it is _I
  that hath created them_... (Mos. 26:23) (emphasis added)

  "...the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of
  Jacob...is that same God who created the heavens and the earth, and
  all things that in them are.
  Behold _he created Adam_... (Mor. 9:11-12) (emphasis added)

        D&C, 93:10 states that "the worlds were made by him [Christ];
_men were made by him_; all things were made by him, and through him,
and of him." (emphasis added)

        Another error by Bruce R. McConkie involving "Jehovah" and his
creation is the belief that "Jehovah" had "many" pre-mortal spirits
helping him create. Included in this alleged group was Joseph Smith, Jr.

  "That he [Christ] was aided in the creation of this earth by "many of
  the noble and great" spirit children of the Father is evident from
  Abraham's writings. Unto those superior spirits Christ said: "We will
  go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these
  materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell." (Abra.
  3:22-24.) Michael or Adam was one of these. Enoch, Noah, Abraham,
  Moses, Peter, James, and John, Joseph Smith, and many other "noble and
  great" ones played a part in the great creative enterprise. (Doctrines
  of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 74-75.) (Mormon Doctrine, p. 169)

        The Bible reveals the truth about this matter:

  "Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah], thy redeemer, and he that formed thee
  from the womb, I am the LORD [Jehovah] that maketh all things; that
  stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by
  myself. (Isa. 44:24)

  "Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of
  the sea. (Job 9:8)

        "Jehovah," by Himself, created all things. He had no alleged
preexistent spirit helpers assisting Him.

        Regarding the Mormon 'Elohim," the Apostle McConkie stated:
"Elohim. plural word though it is, is also used as the exalted
name-title of God the Eternal Father, a usage that connotes his
supremacy and omnipotence, he being God above all Gods." (Mormon
Doctrine, p. 224) He also stated that "Jesus...is above all save the
Father only." (Promised Messiah, p. 363)

        The Bible states that the One who is God above all so-called
gods is the triune God "Jehovah."

  "For the LORD [Jehovah] is a great God [El], and a great King above
  all gods [Elohim]. (Ps. 95:3)

  "For thou, LORD [Jehovah], art high above all the earth: thou art
  exalted far above all gods [Elohim]. (Ps. 97:9)

  "Now I know that the LORD [Jehovah] is greater than all gods
  [Elohim]... (Exod. 18:11. See also Ps. 135:5; Deut. 10:17)

        If Mormon leaders are right when they say "Jehovah" is god the
son and "Elohim" is god the father, these verses from the Bible would be
teaching that the Mormon son is above his father. However, as McConkie
clearly stated, Mormons believe "Elohim" the father, not "Jehovah" the
son, is the "God above all Gods" -- that Jesus is above all except the
father; yet the Bible teaches that "Jehovah" is above all "Elohim."

        At a BYU Dev. on March 2, 1982, Bruce R. McConkie made the
following remark about praying to Jesus:

  "Another peril is that those so involved often begin to pray directly
  to Christ because of some special friendship they feel has been
  developed....
  This is plain sectarian nonsense. Our prayers are addressed to the
  Father, and to him only....
  ...Perfect prayer is addressed to the Father, in the name of the Son;
  it is uttered by the power of the Holy Ghost... (Our Relationship With
  the Lord, pp. 19-20)

        McConkie states on p. 335 of his book Promised Messiah that the
Mormons "pray to the Father, not the Son..." On p. 306 of the same book
McConkie states that "Christ [the Son] is Jehovah." This is important to
remember, because although McConkie said prayer is not to be offered to
the Mormon Christ who is "Jehovah," the Bible states repeatedly in the
OT that people prayed to "Jehovah," and He not only heard those prayers,
but He accepted them as valid requests. The following is but a small
sample of the vast number of times people prayed to "Jehovah."

  "In my distress I called upon the LORD [Jehovah], and cried unto my
  God [Elohim]: he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came
  before him, even into his ears. (Ps. 18:6)

  "And the LORD [Jehovah] said unto him, I have heard thy prayer and thy
  supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this
  house, which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever; and mine
  eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually. (1 Kin. 9:3)

  "And said unto Jeremiah the prophet, Let, we beseech thee, our
  supplication be accepted before thee, and pray for us unto the LORD
  [Jehovah] thy God [Elohim], even for all this remnant... (Jer. 42:2)

  "O LORD [Jehovah], I beseech thee, let now thine ear be attentive to
  the prayer of thy servant, and to the prayer of thy servants, who
  desire to fear thy name... (Neh. 1:11)

  "And it was so, that when Solomon had made an end of praying all this
  prayer and supplication unto the LORD [Jehovah], he arose from before
  the altar of the LORD [Jehovah], from kneeling on his knees with his
  hands spread up to heaven. (1 Kin. 8:54)

  "He went in therefore, and shut the door upon them twain, and prayed
  unto the LORD [Jehovah]. (2 Kin. 4:33)

  "Go, and say to Hezekiah, Thus saith the LORD [Jehovah], the God
  [Elohim] of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy
  tears: behold, I will add unto thy days fifteen years. (Isa. 38:5)

  "I acknowledge my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I
  said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD [Jehovah]; and
  thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.
  For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when
  thou mayest be found... (Ps. 32:5-6)

        Notice above in Ps. 32:6 that the "godly" pray to "Jehovah."
According to McConkie and other Mormon leaders, that is Christ the very
one to whom McConkie said people should not pray.

        The Bible reveals there is only one true "Elohim," and His name
is "Jehovah." All other "Elohim" are false. They are idols that cause
their followers to commit adultery against the true "Elohim" and
idolatry.

  "For the LORD [Jehovah] is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to
  be feared above all gods [Elohim].
  For all the gods [Elohim] of the nations are idols: but the LORD
  [Jehovah] made the heavens. (Ps. 96:4-5)

  "Thou shalt have no other gods [Elohim] before me. (Exod. 20:3)

  "Now I know that the LORD [Jehovah] is greater than all gods
  [Elohim]... (Exod. 18:11)

  "And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD [Jehovah] thy God
  [Elohim], and walk after other gods [Elohim], and serve them, and
  worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely
  perish. (Deut. 8:19)

  "Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods [Elohim].
  They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me:
  for if thou serve their gods [Elohim], it will surely be a snare unto
  thee. (Exod. 23:32- 33)

  "Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn
  aside, and serve other gods [Elohim], and worship them. (Deut. 11:16)

  "That ye come not among these nations, these that remain among you;
  neither make mention of the name of their gods [Elohim], nor cause to
  swear by them, neither serve them, nor bow yourselves unto them.
  (Josh. 23:7)

  "...neither walk after other gods [Elohim] to your hurt. (Jer. 7:6)

  "But the LORD [Jehovah] is the true God [Elohim], he is the living God
  [Elohim]... (Jer. 10:10)

  "And they forsook the LORD [Jehovah] God [Elohim] of their fathers,
  which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods
  [Elohim], of the gods [Elohim] of the people that were round about
  them, and bowed themselves unto them, and provoked the LORD [Jehovah]
  to anger. (Jud. 2:12)

  "Shall a man make gods [Elohim] unto himself, and they are no gods
  [Elohim]? Therefore, behold, I will this once cause them to know, I
  will cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know
  that my name is the LORD [Jehovah]. ( Jer. 16:20-21)

  "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD [Jehovah], choose you
  this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods [Elohim] which your
  fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods
  [Elohim] of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my
  house, we will serve the LORD [Jehovah].
  And the people answered and said, God [Elohim] forbid that we should
  forsake the LORD [Jehovah], to serve other gods [Elohim]. (Josh.
  24:15-16)

        These verses teach that the only true, living "Elohim" in heaven
and on earth is "Jehovah" -- the triune God who made heaven and earth
and all therein.

        "Jehovah" is greater than any "Elohim," because all other
"Elohim" are idols. The reality behind them is demonic. (Deut. 32:17)
"Jehovah Elohim" has given explicit warnings and guidelines regarding
these false "Elohim." He told His people not to have any "Elohim" but
Him. He told the people that if they left Him for the false "Elohim,"
those "Elohim" would be a snare to them, and they would be hurt and
would perish. He warned the people to "take heed" that their "heart be
not deceived" into worshiping, serving, swearing by, and making
covenants with false "Elohim." "Jehovah Elohim" told His people He would
eventually judge all false "Elohim" and their followers.

        Despite these warnings and guidelines, "Elohim's" covenant
people forsook Him and believed in and worshiped the false "Elohim's" of
the people they came in contact with. Ju. 10:6 states that "the children
of Israel did evil again in the sight of the LORD [Jehovah] and served
Baalim, and Ashtaroth, and the gods [Elohim] of Syria, and the gods
[Elohim] of Zidon, and the gods [Elohim] of Moab, and the gods [Elohim]
of the children of Ammon, and the gods [Elohim] of the Philistines, and
forsook the LORD [Jehovah], and served not him."

        This examination has shown that the "Elohim" of Mormonism, like
the "Elohim" in Ju. 10:6 is not the true "Jehovah Elohim." Therefore,
the people who leave the true "Elohim" for the Mormon "Elohim" will do
"evil...in the sight of the LORD [Jehovah]."

        Although McConkie attacked Christians for their belief in a
triune God who is Spirit and for their belief that God the Father
[Jehovah] sent His Son into the world, these beliefs are true. God is
triune; He is Spirit; He is "Jehovah;" and He did send His Son into the
world to redeem mankind.

        It is obvious from this examination that it is not the
Christians who "thrash around in...darkness" about who "Elohim" and
"Jehovah" are. One wonders what "Holy Writ" McConkie had in mind when he
stated that it attests to the fact that "Elohim is the Father, and that
Jehovah is the Son." He certainly did not mean the Bible which teaches
that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all the one "Jehovah Elohim."
He apparently did not mean the D&C either, because chapter 109, verses
1,4,9-10, 14,19,22,24,29,34,42,47,56,68,77 refer to the Father as
"Jehovah."

Summary

        Obviously Joseph Fielding Smith's statement that the Mormons
"have a clear and perfect understanding of the nature of God" (Doctrines
of Salvation, 1:279) is not accurate. The Mormon gods are not the true
God as Mormonism claims, but are idols which cause their followers to
commit adultery against God and idolatry.

        In answer to Jesus' question, "But whom say ye that I am,"
Mormons say Jesus is someone different from the Jesus who is revealed in
the Bible and whom the apostles preached. Therefore, anyone trusting in
the Mormon Jesus is believing in "another Jesus" whom Paul warned about.

        Bernard P. Brockbank, of the First Quorum of the Seventy,
admitted in the May 1977 issue of The Ensign, a Mormon publication, that
the Mormon Jesus is different from the Christian Jesus. He stated that
"it is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different
Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons or The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints." (p. 26)

        The people who believe in the Mormon Jesus are committing
adultery against God and idolatry. They do not have the Son; therefore,
they do not have the Father, and they do not have eternal life. As the
Apostle Bruce R. McConkie rightly stated: "Salvation comes only by
worshiping the true God." (Promised Messiah, p. 163) McConkie also
rightly stated that "the mere worship of a god who has the proper
scriptural names does not assure one that he is worshiping the true and
living God," because the "true names of Deity" can be applied to "false
concepts of God." (Mormon Doctrine, p. 270) Remember that the Apostle
Stephen L. Richards admitted that Joseph Smith, Jr., gave "a new
conception of God and the Godhead." (Contributions of Joseph Smith, p.
1)

        It is important for the people who have left the true triune God
revealed in the Bible to repent and return to Him. They must forsake the
sins of idolatry and adultery which they are committing in Mormonism.
The Bible says:

  "...all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from
  me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD
  [Jehovah], the fountain of living waters. (Jer. 17:13)

  "And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD [Jehovah] thy God
  [Elohim], and walk after other gods [Elohim], and serve them, and
  worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely
  perish. (Deut. 8:19)

  "Thou shalt make no covenant with...their gods [Elohim]. (Exod. 23:32)

  "...Put away the strange gods [Elohim] that are among you, and be
  clean, and change your garments. (Gen. 35:2)

  "...flee from idolatry. (1 Cor. 10:14)

        It is necessary that Christians heed the warnings of the Bible.
If they do, they will not fall into the sins of adultery against God and
idolatry. Remember, to know the "only true God" is eternal life. (John
17:3)

  "...their gods [Elohim] shall be a snare unto you." (Ju. 2:3. See also
  Exod. 23:32-33)




Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84288
From: keng@den.mmc.com (Ken Garrido)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree) writes:
>In article <keng.735334134@tunfaire> keng@den.mmc.com (Ken Garrido) writes:
>[lotsa stuff taken out]

>Bottom line: due process was not served.  No peaceful attempt to serve
>a warrant occurred.

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.

>royc

--
"Milk is for babies; when you're a man, you drink beer" - Arnold

Ken Garrido (that's guh-REED-oh) Miserable ASM8086 and C hack.
email: keng@tunfaire.den.mmc.com *or* KENNETH.GARRIDO@filebank.com

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84289
From: brom@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (David Bromage)
Subject: Re: New Religion Forming -- Sign Up

alt.religion.spam?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84290
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Waco information accuracy

In article <sandvik-250493170513@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <1r9mflINNak4@crcnis1.unl.edu>, e_p@unl.edu (edgar pearlstein)
>wrote:
>>          An example is the FBI report that several of the bodies found 
>>        in the rubble had bullet wounds.  The local coroner, who is 
>>        independent of the FBI, has so far found no bullet wounds! 
>
>According to CNN last night (Saturday 4/24/93) he has now found bullets
>in two of the corpses, in the head (that would indicate that the bullets
>were aimed at killing the humans).
>
	This will not, of course, deter the several die-hard Koreshies on
this net, who will probably claim that the Tarrant County medical examiner
(Dr. Peerwani) was coerced by the FBI into faking this evidence.  Either that,
or they'll claim the FBI shot them.
	The rest of us might contemplate the difficulty of determining the
cause of death from a corpse that has been reduced to a Krispy Kritter.
	************************************************************
	*  	The_Doge of South St. Louis			   *
	*		Dobbs-Approved Media Conspirator(tm)	   *
	*	"One Step Beyond"  -- Sundays, 3 to 5 pm	   *
	*		88.1 FM		St. Louis Community Radio  *
	*  "You'll pay to know what you *really* think!"           *
	*			-- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs"		   *
	************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84291
From: dfranich@saturn.sdsu.edu (David Franich)
Subject: Re: New Religion Forming -- Sign Up

Andrew Bulhak (ins559n@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au) wrote:
: Jim Kasprzak (kasprj@isaac.its.rpi.edu) wrote:
: : In article <=4z5wqc@rpi.edu>, weinss@rs6101.ecs.rpi.edu (Stephen Andrew Weinstein) writes:
: :  So what is Kibology? Chopped liver?
: Kibo Himself summed it up by saying "Kibology is not just a religion, it is
: also a candy mint ... and a floor wax." I personally think that it is more
: like Spam Clear.
: :   

I'm presently searching for enlightenment, answers to the unanswerable,
a certain amount of direction without actually going anywhere.
Could Kibology be it?  I don't know enough about Kibology and wish that
someone can help me.
After I've spread my ninth tube of anchovy paste on my living room
wall to creat my own form of art I need some higher authority to 
turn towards to give my life some meaning.  Maybe Kibology is the
answer.  It's either that or I go out to the store and buy up another
case of anchovy paste.
 


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84292
From: markbr%radian@natinst.com (mark)
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.taoism

In article <1993Apr22.004331.22548@coe.montana.edu> uphrrmk@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Jack Coyote) writes:
>Sunlight shining off of the ocean.
>
The universe, mirrored in a puddle.
>
>Aleph null bottles of beer on the wall, Aleph null bottles of beer!
>Take one down, pass it around  ...  Aleph null bottles of beer on the wall!
>
Isn't it amazing how there *always* seems to be *another* bottle of bheer there?

Aleph *one* bottles of beer on the wall, Aleph *one* null bottles of beer!

	you, too, are a puddle.
	As above, so below.

	mark

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84293
From: cayley@plains.NoDak.edu (Michele Cayley)
Subject: Re: New Religion Forming -- Sign Up


refrettably you are mistaken.  alt.drugs was used to recruit people for the
worldwide pot religion.  I, however hve no problem being in both of them



Death to Dupont
Free Bobby Fischer
Michele Cayley is my mom, sue me not her
johan engevik (drunken naked genius at large)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84294
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
> 
>Even though a new-born is innocent as can be, his sinful nature
>will surely manifest itself more explicity as he gets older.  For
>as surely as he grows hair on his head and teeth within his mouth,
>he will show the signs of his innate sin by rebelling
>against mommy and daddy with that loud proclamation "No."

That's not "showing the signs of his innate sin", that's testing the
limits of his newfound independence.  A two-year-old will continually
test you to see just how much he can get away with, just as a pet dog
will.

If a child always submitted to your will in a docile fashion, would
you praise him and suspect that he's the Second Coming of Christ, or
would you seek professional help about his emotional development?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84295
From: hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com (Bill Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Burden of Proof

In article <1r69b7INN539@lynx.unm.edu> cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl) writes:
>In article <1r4b59$7hg@aurora.engr.LaTech.edu>, ray@engr.LaTech.edu (Bill Ray) writes:
>********NOTE: FOLLOWUPS go to alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins!
>
>[deleted]
>> If I make a statement, "That God exists, loves me, etc." but in no way
>> insist that you believe it, does that place a burden of proof upon me.
>> If you insist that God doesn't exist, does that place a burden of proof 
>> upon you?  I give no proofs, I only give testimony to my beliefs.  I will
>> respond to proofs that you attempt to disprove my beliefs.
>
>If you say X statement and give it the authority of fact, I will respond
>by asking you why. You aren't obligated to say anything, but if your
>intent is to convince me that X statement is true, then yes, the burden
>of proof is upon you. 

If what was being discussed could be established or disproven by 
experiment and observation, then I would agree with you, Chris.  
The burden of proof would belong to Bill. But the source
document for Christianity, the Bible, simply assumes God exists
and makes it clear (to us Calvinists, anyway :-)) that when a person
is in fellowship with God, it is because God has taken the initiative
in revealing Himself to that person. So from a Christian point of
view, the burden of proof belongs to God. Bill is being consistent
with what the Bible teaches in relating his own experience with God,
but it would be an error on his part to assume that there is a direct,
causal relationship between his testimony and someone else becoming
convinced that God exists and that he needs to be reconciled to God.

>
>If you are merely giving testimony to your beliefs, then you are an egotist.

Please excuse me if I missed an earlier part of this thread
in which Bill came across like an egotist. What I saw was simply
obedience to the scriptural command to "always be ready
to give a reason for the joy that is in you".  

Bill Hamilton


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84296
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1rfg06$8mm@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, cj195@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(John W. Redelfs) wrote:
> In the hands of a defender, a .357 _is_ a miracle from God.  He helps those 
> who help themselves.  Or haven't you ever heard that one before?

I didn't know God was a secular humanist...

Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84297
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>
>I've done all those things, and I've regretted it, and I learned 
>a lesson or two. So far an aspirin, a good talk with your wife,
>or a one week vacation has cured me -- no need for group therapy
>or strange religions!

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

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84298
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: To Rob Lanphier

brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>
>Kent, with regards to the information contained in the Bible (which
>is the original context of this thread), Brian Kendig is inside a huge
>wall.  Brian *IS* inside.  The Bible and the information contained therein
>are outside the wall.

Um, I think you and the Bible are the ones inside the wall.  There's a
really wonderful world out here.  You really should peek out at it sometime.

The silly things you keep saying only reinforce the fact that we *are*
on opposite sides of a very high wall.  I see how incredibly beautiful
things are on my side, and I only keep telling you about it because
I'd like to you come join me here.

>Brian Kendig proves this very sad fact by the
>absurd things he says.  For example, "If I get through into the firey
>pit, I will cease to exist."

I never said that.  I said that I would PREFER to cease to exist than
to be tossed into any god's version of Hell.

>I am proposing to Brian, "Brian, come up here
>and take a look from this vantage point."   But Brian replies, "I rather
>not thank you.  I am content where I am.  Besides, the vista from up
>there stinks."   And in the meanwhile, Brian ignores the facts that
>he has never up there nor does he realize I had shared the same
>plateau where Brian now stands.

You say to me, "Brian, come up here and take a look from this vantage
point."  But you're in a valley, looking at a crayon drawing of a sun
and a tree, and I can't for the life of me figure out why you're so
immersed in it.  *I*'m the one trying to get you to come up HERE,
don't you see?

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
/_/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
_/_/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
  /  The meaning of life     Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
 /    is that it ends.                                           -- Rousseau

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84299
From: king@ctron.com (John E. King)
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin


rfox@charlie.usd.edu writes:

[Discussion on Josephus inserts]

Thanks.  Am I correct, then, in assuming that that Josephus
did in fact write about Jesus, but Christian copists embellished it?

Jack

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84300
From: rss2d@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Randolph Stuart Sergent)
Subject: Re: Greek myth and the Bible

In article <765422d6347700t48@edmahood.infoserv.com> edmahood@infoserv.com (Ed Mahood, Jr.) writes:
>In <Pegasus-130393124328@fp1-dialin-7.uoregon.edu>, Pegasus@AAA.UOregon.EDU (Laurie EWBrandt)  wrote:
>> ...
>> A definiation from a text book used as part of an introductory course in
>> social anthorpology "The term myth designates traditionally based, dramatic
>> narratives on themes that emphasize the nature of humankind's relationship
>> to nature and to the supernatural. ...." from Peter B. Hammand's .An 
>> introduction to Cutural and Social Anthropology. second ed Macmillion 
>> page 387.
>

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

randy

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84301
From: jwmorris@netcom.com (John W. Morris)
Subject: Re: Davidians and compassion

: 
: > Surely you are not equating David Koresh with Christianity? The two are
: > not comparable.
: 
: This is always an option: when the sect is causing harm, re-label
: the cult to something else.
: 
: Cheers,
: Kent

Good point.

I would not doubt that DK could have spouted verse and debated with best.
According to reports his extensive Bible knowledge was one way he sucked
in the fools (followers?).

Quote bible all you want. I too judge what you say be what you do and
even more by if it makes sense.

Sense, common that is.  Doesn't seem so common after all!

-- 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| John Morris                                    jwmorris@netcom.com |
| San Diego, CA                    I have no opinion, but if I did...|
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84302
From: tbrent@ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?



|> >One more thought.  The government claimed that they believed he had automatic
|> >weapons on the premises. 
|> 
|> >        HE HAD A LICENSE FOR THE 50 CALIBER MACHINE GUN!
|> 
|> >THEY KNEW DAMN WELL HE HAD ONE. THEY ALSO KNEW HE HAD IT LEGALLY!
|> 
|> >Still, without the element of surprise they sent in agents to get him.
|> >For all of this my President takes full responsibility.  What a guy!
|> >I hope he gets it.
|> 
|> 	The .50cal gun was a semi-auto, and was thus legal. The BATF
|> 	claims that the Davidians also possessed illegally modified
|> 	AR-15's and illegal explosives.
|> 
|> 
|>                   _____  _____
|>                   \\\\\\/ ___/___________________
|>   Mitchell S Todd  \\\\/ /                 _____/__________________________
|> ________________    \\/ / mst4298@zeus._____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_'_/
|> \_____        \__    / / tamu.edu  _____/.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'_'_/
|>     \__________\__  / /        _____/_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_/
|>                 \_ / /__________/
|>                  \/____/\\\\\\
|>  			 \\\\\\
|> 			  ------

If you check the news today, (AP) the "authorities also found a state-of-the-art
automatic machine gun that investigators did not know was in the cult's arsenal."
[Carl Stern, Justice Department]

I imagine the authorities know the difference between semi and fully automatic
and probably knew weather the guns were legal as they have access to any relative
documentation (i.e. permits).  In addition the .50 caliber guns (plural) were
semi-automatic rifles.

-Tim

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84303
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

keng@den.mmc.com (Ken Garrido) writes:
> royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree) writes:
> >In article <keng.735334134@tunfaire> keng@den.mmc.com (Ken Garrido) writes:
> >[lotsa stuff taken out]
> 
> >Bottom line: due process was not served.  No peaceful attempt to serve
> >a warrant occurred.
> 
> 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.
> 
Did you by any chance see the pictures of the agents in flak jackets climbing
up on the roof and breaking windows.  You call that peaceful?  If you
believed, as these people did, that they would be attacked by evil forces
from the outside, found the scores of agents breaking into your compound
what would you do?  Your beliefs always determine your actions.  The
beliefs may be wrong from my point of view but they are yours all the same.

To make it more practical.  If I attempted to stick you with a needle you
would try to stop me because you believe it would hurt, or that I do not
have that right.  If you did not you would ignore me.  You certainly would
it you saw me sticking the needle in a tree.

Koresh may have been misguided, only God knows.  But the Jews at Masada
died for what they believed, the three Hebrews preferred to die in the
furnace rather than bow down, Daniel preferred to die in a lion's den
rather than stop praying to his God, and as a Christian I am prepared to
die for my faith.

Koresh was not dying for now reason.  He had a cause.  Why should he give
up the children to forces he was convinced were evil.  The events are
bizarre but they match his beliefs.

Darius

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84304
From: dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe)
Subject: Re: What RIGHT ?

joakimr@ifi.uio.no (Joakim Ruud) writes:
> 
> Recently, I've asked myself a rather interesting question: What RIGHT does
> god have on our lives (always assuming there is a god, of course...!) ??
> 
> In his infinite wisdom, he made it perfectly clear that if we don't live
> according to his rules, we will burn in hell. Well, with what RIGHT can god
> make that desicion? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that god creates every
> one of us (directly or indirectly, it doesn't matter.). What then happens, is
> that he first creates us, and then turns us lose. Well, I didn't ask to be
> created. 
> 
> Let's make an analogue. If a scientist creates a unique living creature (which
> has happened, it was even patented...!!!), does he then have the right to
> expect it to behave in a certain matter, or die...?
> 
> Who is god to impose its rules on us ? Who can tell if god is REALLY so
> righteous as god likes us to believe? Are all christians a flock of sheep,
> unable to do otherwise that follow the rest? 
> 
> Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
> 
> I just want to point out that this is not sarcasm, I mean it.
> 
> 		 	How should one deal with a man who is convinced that
> 		 	he is acting according to God's will, and who there-
>      Jokke		fore believes that he is doing you a favour by
> 		 	stabbing you in the back?
>  
> 							-Voltaire
> 

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84305
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?
From: medkeffjs@hirama.hiram.edu (Jeff Medkeff)


> keng@den.mmc.com (Ken Garrido) writes:
>> royc@rbdc.wsnc.org (Roy Crabtree) writes:

>> >In article <keng.735334134@tunfaire> keng@den.mmc.com (Ken Garrido) writes:
>> >[lotsa stuff taken out]
>> 
>> >Bottom line: due process was not served.  No peaceful attempt to serve
>> >a warrant occurred.
>> 
>> 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.

I am not exactly known as a Flower Child Pacifist, but lets call
cowpoop cowpoop.

"The peaceful attempt to serve the warrant" consisted of the following
actions, in order:

1) BATF agents forcing their entry of the "compound" through second
story windows.

2) BATF agents loosing some grenades (allegedly "stun" or "flash"
grenades) which promptly detonated.

*After* which, according to the tapes I have seen, the B-D
started shooting back.

Now exactly how is it that someone breaking into private property
and tossing grenades around is considered "peaceful" by
*anyone*? You *think* on that.

(Which is not to say I do not still hold my previous and
entirely correct notions about what should be worn and
what arms should be used in assaulting a building.)

-- 
Jeffrey S. Medkeff      Bitnet-    medkeffjs@hiramb
PO Box 1098             Internet-  medkeffjs@hiramb.hiram.edu
Hiram, OH 44234         Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight. But
U.S.A.                  Roaring Bill (who killed him) thought it right.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84306
From: mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee)
Subject: The Laws of God (was Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!)


In article <1r4e63INN2kb@owl.csrv.uidaho.edu>, lanphi872@moscow.uidaho.edu (Rob Lanphier) writes:
|>
|> These are two conflicting statements.  To say one is a clarification of the
|> other is a breach of logic.  I don't mind people shifting their position on
|> an issue.  It irritates me when it is said under the premise that no change
|> was made.  What about Deuteronomy 22:20-25?  Is it wrong now?  Did Jesus
|> change that?
|> 
|> : If anything, He clarified the Law such as in that quote you made.  In the
|> : following verses, Jesus takes several portions of the Law and expounds upon
|> : the Law giving clearer meaning to what God intended.
|> 
|> Sure he does this.  However, he doesn't address the notion of stoning
|> non-virgin brides, because this needs no clarification.  Are you going to
|> deny that Deuteronomy 22:20-25 is not patently clear in its intent?
|>

I see what you are getting at (or at least I think I do).  Correct me if
I am mistaken, but I *think* you are asking me if I still believe that we
should uphold all of the Laws pertaining to capital punishment for such
things as adultery, rape and other heinous crimes.  As you may recall,
Jesus was confronted by this same question in regards to the adultress
who was caught in the act and brought before Jesus.  And His reply, "Let
he who is without sin cast the first stone."  Jesus does not deny the
sentence that is to due for this violation of the Law.  What do you think
of this?

|> 
|> : I think you will agree with me that there are in today's world, a lot of
|> : modern-day Pharisees who know the bible from end to end but do not believe
|> : in it.  What good is head knowledge if there is nothing in the heart?
|> 
|> I'll agree that there is a lot of modern day Pharisees that know the Bible
|> from end to end and don't believe in it.  Depending on how they use this
|> knowledge, they can be scary.  They can argue any position they desire, and
|> back it up with selected parts of the Bible.  Such Pharisees include David
|> Koresh and Adolph Hitler.  I will qualify this by saying *I don't know* if
|> they actually believed what they were preaching, but the ends certainly
|> made the means look frightening.
|>

Agreed.  :)
 
|> However, just as scary are those that don't know much of the Bible, but
|> believe every word.  In fact, this is probably scarier, since there are far
|> more of these people, from what I've seen.  In addition, they are very easy
|> to manipulate by the aforementioned Pharisees, since they don't know enough
|> to debate with these people.
|> 

Agreed also.  If one is to use the Bible as a reference, one must always be
open to different interpretations.  As a Christian, I have the Spirit of God
to verify what I believe in the Word.  If what the Spirit tells me is not
backed up in scripture then the spirit I am communicating with is not of
God.  After all, Jesus tells us to "test the spirits" to know for sure that
it is from God.

|>
|> : Christianity is not just a set of rules; it's a lifestyle that changes one's
|> : perspectives and personal conduct.  And it demands obedience to God's will.
|> 
|> No, it demands obedience to a book.  If God came down and personally told
|> me how I should behave, then I would say that I would be doing God's will
|> by doing it.  However, if preachers, pastors, and evangelists tell me to
|> obey the will of a book written by people who have been dead for close to
|> two millenia (even longer for the OT), even if I follow everything in it
|> with my heart, I could scarcely be honest with myself by saying I'm doing
|> the will of God.
|>

I obey what the Spirit of God tells me to do.  The Spirit will not violate
anything that is written in the Bible because that is the Word of God.  I do
not worship pastors, preachers, my wife, my mother or my father.  What they
tell me does not carry the weight of what God tells me to do and His commands
are rienforced in the Bible.
 
|> : Some people can live by it, but many others cannot or will not.  That is
|> : their choice and I have to respect it because God respects it too.
|> 
|> Well, if God respects it so much, how come there is talk in the Bible about
|> eternal damnation for non-believers?  I see little respect eminating from
|> the god of the Bible.  I see a selfish and spiteful god.
|>

Eternal damnation is the consequence of the choice one makes in rejecting
God.  If you choose to jump off a cliff, you can hardly blame God for you 
going *splat* at the bottom.  He knows that if you choose to jump, that 
you will die but He will not prevent you from making that choice.  In fact,
He sent His Son to stand on the edge of the cliff and tell everyone of what
lies below.  To prove that point, Jesus took that plunge Himself but He being
God was able to rise up again.  I have seen the example of Christ and have 
chosen not to jump and I'm trying to tell you not to jump or else you'll 
go *splat*.
 
You don't have to listen to me and I won't stop you if you decide to jump.
I only ask that you check it out before taking the plunge.  You owe it to
yourself.  I don't like seeing anyone go *splat*.

God be with you,
 
Malcolm Lee  :)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84307
From: dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

-- 
Douglas C. Meier		|  You can't play Electro-magnetic Golf
Northwestern University, ACNS 	|  according to the rules of Centrifugal
This University is too Commie-	|  Bumblepuppy. -Huxley, Brave New World
Lib Pinko to have these views.	|  dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84308
From: markp@elvis.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In <30136@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:

>In article <1qjd3o$nlv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>>Firstly, science has its basis in values, not the other way round.
>>So you better explain what objective atoms are, and how we get them
>>from subjective values, before we go any further.


>Atoms are not objective.  They aren't even real.  What scientists call
>an atom is nothing more than a mathematical model that describes 
>certain physical, observable properties of our surroundings.  All
>of which is subjective.  

Omigod, it's an operationalist! Sorry, Jim, but the idea that a theory
explaining a myriad of distinctly different observations is merely a
"model" is more than sensible people can accept -- your phobia about
objective reality notwithstanding.
--
Mark Pundurs

any resemblance between my opinions and those 
of Wolfram Research, Inc. is purely coincidental

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84309
From: markp@elvis.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In <930415.112243.8v6.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:

>There's no objective physics; Einstein and Bohr have told us that.

Speaking as one who knows relativity and quantum mechanics, I say: 
Bullshit.

>There's no objective reality.  LSD should be sufficient to prove that.

Speaking as one who has taken LSD, I say: 
Bullshit.

>> One wonders just what people who ask such questions understand by the term 
>> "objective", if anything.

>I consider it to be a useful fiction; an abstract ideal we can strive
>towards.  Like an ideal gas or a light inextensible string, it doesn't
>actually exist; but we can talk about things as if they were like it, and not
>be too far wrong.

How could striving toward an ideal be in any way useful, if the ideal 
had no objective existence?
--
Mark Pundurs

any resemblance between my opinions and those 
of Wolfram Research, Inc. is purely coincidental

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84310
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor, The Sounding Board)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <C5uvqo.GB7@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>In article <sandvik-190493200323@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:

>>I'm mostly angry why the Davidians didn't spare the children the
>>awful suffering. See my other posting, I'm in a bad temper.

>Well, dozens of children left the compound between the original BATF assualt
>and the FBI assault 7 weeks later. So if Koresh really wanted to kill
>children, why did he let so many go?

Word is that the ones he let go were not his.
---
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ---------Visit the SOUNDING BOARD BBS +1 214 596 2915, a Wildcat! BBS-------

    "Foot" the Bill:  let's get a new President.

    Patrick Taylor, Ericsson Network Systems  THX-1138
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                    "Don't let the .se fool you"

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84311
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Subject: Magick and parallel universes (was: The Universe and Black Holes)

In article <IfpMCx600VB986FZFR@andrew.cmu.edu> nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nanci Ann Miller) writes:
>emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>> BTW, the parallel universe approach implys an element of mind in the
>> very physical reality of the universe. 

>This sounds interesting... but what exactly do you mean?  

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.

>Nanci

eric


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84312
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1r66su$dm7@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>In article <sandvik-210493213823@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>#Frank, unless you didn't realize it, you are just now involved
>#in a debate where we have various opinions, and each entity
>#has its own frame where the opinion is expressed. I think I 
>#don't need to state the dreadful r-word.

>So, it's _sometimes_ correct to say that morality is objective, or what?

If you were able to prove that morality is objective, then it would
be correct to do so. The problem is, by the very meaning of the
words in question, to do so is oxymoronic. Of course you could
redefine the words, but that would still not lend support to the
underlying concept.

>After all, I could hardly be wrong, without dragging in the o-word.

This does not parse. How could you hardly be wrong without dragging
in the o-word?

>For your part, when you say that relativism is true, that's just
>your opinion.  Why do folk get so heated then, if a belief in relativism
>is merely a matter of taste?  (to be fair, _you_ have been very calm,
>I get the impression that's because you don't care about notions of
>objectivity in any flavour.  Right?)

I have no problem with objectivity at all. It is my objectivity that
has led me to conclude that morality is subjective.

>-- 
>Frank O'Dwyer                                  'I'm not hatching That'
>odwyer@sse.ie                                  from "Hens",  by Evelyn Conlon

eric

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84313
From: wvhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William VanHorne)
Subject: Re: Why did they behave as they did (Waco--reading suggestion)

In article <pgf.735710979@srl03.cacs.usl.edu> pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>How come noone mentions Eric Hoffer when talking about 
>fanatic behavior anymore?

Good point.  If you haven't read "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer, do
so at your first opportunity.  I don't know why Hoffer is out of style
now, but "The True Believer" is still the best explanation of nutball
behavior ever written.

---Bill VanHorne

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84314
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Daniel v. Zoroaster, was The Jewish Discomfort With Jesus

In article <1746.2BD37A66@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> 
Bill.Carlson@p0.f18.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Bill Carlson) writes:
> Since everywhere I look, Zoroaster is suggested as being a probable
> descendant of Daniel; suppose you prove he wasn't.

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.

ZARATHUSHTRA, founder of the religion know as Zoroastrianism or Mazdaism (from
Mazda or Ahura Mazda, the name of the god prophesied by Zarathushtra.) The
etymology and history of Zarathushtra, the Avestan and oldest form of the name,
as uncertain, both in various Iranian languages and in related forms else-
where. There may have been an Old Persian form, Zara-ushtra, from which the
Greek form, Zoroastres, may be derived, and there may have existed an Old
Iranian form, Zarat-ushtra, to which may be linked the Middle Iranian Zrdrwsht,
several Middle Persian forms (such as Zrtwsht), and the New Persian Zardusht.
We can state with certainty only that the second half of the name, ushtra,
means "camel." The form Zoroaster, derived from the Greek Zoroastres, was used
traditionally in European culture until the eighteenth century, when
Zarathustra, closer to the original (and as found in Nietzsche), came into
common use after the rediscovery of the Avesta, the collection of sacred books
of Zoroastrianism, and the resulting studies in Iranian philology. [See Avesta.]
  Notwithstanding the great and continued popularity of Zarathushtra, even in
Western culture, the sources available to us are few, extremely fragmented,
and heterogeneous. Our principle sources are the five Gathas ("songs"),
attributed to Zarathushtra himself and included in the Yasna section of the
Avesta: Gatha Ahunavaiti (Yasna 28-34), Gatha Ushtavaiti (Yasna 43-46), Gatha
Spentamainyu (Yasna 47-50), Gatha Vokukhshathra (Yasna 51), and Gatha
Vashishtoishti (Yasna 53), the last of which was probably written after the
prophet's death.
  Other sources of considerable, albeit varying, importance are the Younger
Avesta and the remaining Zoroastrian religious literature, in particular the
Pahlavi texts of the ninth and tenth centures CE. Although the Achaemenid
inscriptions (sixth to fourth centures BCE) never mention Zarathushtra, he is
mentioned by some Greek sources of the time (not, however, by Herodotus, who
seems unaware of him).
  The Avesta does not provide any direct or explicit data concerning the true
chronological history of Zarathushtra. But the text is useful in an indirect
way, as it clearly implies that the environment in which Zoroastrianism arose
was not that of Iran under the Medes or the Persians. The Greek sources, on the
other hand, do provide some information concerning the time of Zarathushtra,
although from a historical point of view they are unreliable. Some place him
six thousand years before the Trojan War (Xanthus of Lydia, Eudoxus of Cnidus,
Hermippus, Hermodorus, Aristotle, Plutarch, Diogenes Laertius, and Pliny). The
account by Xanthus of Lydia, however, has also been interpreted by some to mean
six hundred, rather than six thousand, years before the expedition of Xerxes
against Greece. This interpretation is favored by Diogenes Laertius, who makes
reference to Xanthus, but although a few scholars (A. S. Shabazi, Helmut
Humbach) have recently attempted to rehabilitate it under various pretexts, it
is generally rejected.
  Although the historical value of the Greek sources is negligible, they are
nonetheless important in that they show that the millenarian doctrine of history
of the cosmos had already been developed in Iran by the Achaemenid period, as
the above account would seem to demonstrate. They also show that by this time
Zarathushtra was already seen as an almost mythical figure, one from an
extremely distant past. All of this leads to the conclusion that the prophet
could not have belonged to a historical period contemporary with, or even close
to, that of the Achaemenids.
  Later Zoroastrian sources, the Pahlavi texts, do provide an absolute chrono-
logy for Zarathushtra, one that was also accepted by some Arab authors. Accord-
ing to these sources, Zarathushtra lived 300 or 258 years before Alexander.
Again, scholars are divided on the validity of the chronology; some view it as
historically reliable while others believe that it is devoid of historical
justification. The most convincing arguments, however, seem to support the
latter position. The figure of 258 years is accurate only on the surface
because it represents, in fact, the more general one of 300, which was employed
by Sasanid propagandists to locate Zarathushtra's lifetime roughly around the
beginning of Iranian domination. For a number of reasons connected with complex
problems inherent in the Iranian chronology, there was also a desire on the
part of the Sasanid propagandists to avoid any millenarian threat. In this
context, Zarathushtra, whom tradition places early in the ninth millennium after
the beginning of the cosmos, converted Vishtaspa at the age of forty-two, and
Vishtaspa's conversion was viewed by some as the beginning of the millennium
(thus explaining the double date of 300 and 258 years before Alexander).
  Given the unreliability of the few available sources, we are forced to
reconstruct an absolute chronology on the basis of other elements, principally
on the contention that Zarathushtra must have lived a few centuries before Cyrus
the Great, Cambyses, and Darius, as there is no mention in the Avesta of the
great political achievements that took place in western Iran in the middle of
the first millennium BCE. Nor is there any mention of the history of that
period, which was to lead Iran to a position of such predominance. At the same
time, for a number of reasons, going back much further in history would not be
justified. Consequently, the traditionally accepted theory of placing Zara-
thushtra around the beginning of the first millennium BCE appears to be the
most legitimate.
  As to Zarathushtra's land of origin, many scholars agree, on the basis of
valid arguments, that he must have come from eastern Iran. Some have held that
he was a Mede, largely because of a late Iranian tradition linking Zarathushtra
with Azerbaijan, but also because of linguistic reasons, based on the language
of the Avesta. This hypothesis, however, should be discarded, as we can suppose,
both on historical and linguistic grounds, that Zarathushtra came from the east,
even though we do not know precisely from which region. There is a considerable
variety of opinion on this particular matter, including the improbable view
that he came from Chorasmia, or present-day Khorezm, or from a wider Chorasmian
region, reaching as far as the oases of Merv and Herat. Most likely, however,
Zarathushtra's land of origin is somewhere in the vast area stretching from the
Hindu Kush mountain range to the more southern regions of Bactria and Arachosia
(modern Qandahar), as well as Drangiana (the area of lake Helmand). It would
thus be located in what is now Afghanistan or in the border regions of Iran.
  Zarathushtra himself tells us that he belonged to the priestly caste (Yasna
33.6). He was a zaotar (cf. Sanskrit hotr), that is, a priest belonging to a
specific group connected with a school that produced very elaborate and learned
religious poetry. Even in the so-called Younger Avesta he is described as an
athravan (Yashts 13.94), a more general term encompassing the entire priestly
caste. To enter it he had undergone a long and rigid training, which he used
to lend dignity (as in the Gathas) to the contents of his new message, the
product of a great and original ethical mind.
  Zarathushtra also belongs to that venerable priestly tradition, linking India
to Iran in another way, by centering his teachings on the praise of the ashavan,
or "possessor of asha," that is, the one who, as in the Vedic rtavan, seeks
truth and masters it, thus becoming ashavan in this life - almost an initiate -
and blessed after death. Any good follower of such teachings seeks the "vision
of asha," just as those chosing the right path in Vedic India aspired to the
"vision of the Sun," a manifestation of rta. Behind these concepts and this
language lies the great tradition of "Aryan mysticism," that is, of Indo-Iranian
mysticism.
  Zarathushtra's greatness, however, does not lie in his having belonged to a
particular religious tradition. Rather, it lies in the innovation and strength
of his message, which was in itself a break in the tradition, one that force-
fully and effectively introduced two great revolutionary ideas: dualistic
monotheism (the Wise Lord who fathers two twin spirits, the beneficent and the
evil); and the expectation of a transfiguration (Av., Frashokereti; Pahl.,
Frashgird) of life and existence. [See Frashokereti] 
  Both his monotheistic and dualistic ideas and his particular soteriological
doctrine deeply separate Zarathushtra's teachings from the Indo-Iranian tradi-
tions of his upbringing. They exemplify his rebellion against a formalistic
and ritualistic religion that did not provide adequate answers to the problem
of evil. Because of his basic tenets, Zarathushtra, who advocated an inward
religiosity and the right of the individual to resist the imperatives of tradi-
tion, can be numbered among the greatest of religious figures.
  Another original facet of Zarathushtra's message, one that is not easy to
understand but which, however, holds the key to a deeper understanding of the
complex intellectual and poetic structure of the Gathas, is the doctrine of the
Amesha Spentas, the "beneficent immortals." These are spiritualizations of the
abstract notions of good thought, best truth, desirable power, bounteous
devotion, wholeness, and immortality, all of which operate according to a
system of interrelations and correlations and can simultaneously be the
manifestations of a divinity and of human virtue. [See Amesha Spentas.]
  Other than the names of his father, Pourushaspa ("possessing gray horses"),
and of his mother, Dughdova ("one who has milked"), we know almost nothing of
Zarathushtra's life. A late Pahlavi text also give the names of four brothers.
According to tradition, Zarathushtra left home at the age of twenty, and at
thirty he was subject to a revelation, both through an intense and powerful
inspiration and through a vision. Only after ten years had passed, however, did
he succeed in converting a cousin of his, Maidhyoimah, to his beliefs. He was
strongly opposed in his native land by kavis, karapans, and usijs, priestly
groups associated with traditional teachings and practices. This hostility
caused him to leave his region (Yasna 46:1) and to seek refuge at the court of
Kavi Vishtaspa, a ruler who had been converted to the new religion together with
his wife, Hutaosa, when the prophet, according to tradition, was forty-two
years old. We also know the name of a son, Isat Vastra ("desiring pastures"),
and of three daughters born of his first wife, as well as the names of two more
sons, Urvatatnara ("commanding men") and Hvarecithra ("sun-faced"), born of
his second wife, Hvovi, a member of the influential Hvogva ("possessing good
cattle") family. Two other figures belonging to the Hvogva family are mentioned:
Frashaoshtra and Jamaspa, the former as Hvovi's father, and the latter as the
husband of the third daughter of the prophet, Pouruchista ("very thoughtful"),
whose wedding is celebrated in the fifth hymm in the Gathas (Yasna 53). Again,
according to tradition, Zarathushtra died at the age of seventy-seven. He was
assassinated by a karapan, a priest of the old religion, who belonged to the
Tuirya tribe and was called Tur i Bradres (his name is known only in the Pahlavi
form).
  The paucity of information on the prophet's life is compensated by a tradi-
tion, rich in legendary detail, that arose through the centuries in Zoroastrian
communities. The main texts documenting the tradition are the seventh book of
the Denkard, a Pahlavi work dating from the ninth century CE, as well as
passages from other Pahlavi texts and a New Persian work from the thirteenth
century, the Zarathusht-nama (Book of Zarathushtra), written by Zaratusht-i
Bahram-i Pazhdu. Mythical and ritual elements prevail in the later legends about
Zarathushtra, which idealize him into a symbol and make him the archetype of the
perfect man.
  Zarathushtra's great popularity in the ancient world continued throughout the
Renaissance until the Enlightenment. During the Classical and Hellenistic
periods he was viewed as a wise man, a typical representative of an "alien
wisdom," a master of the secrets of heaven and earth, a seer, astrologer,
psychologist, and wonder worker. Pythagorean thinkers went so far as to see the
influence of Zarathushtra on Pythagoras himself, and the Academicians always
openly admired the Persian thinker who founded the school of the Magi and
advocated a doctrine of dualism. Earliest Christianity viewed Zarathushtra as
a precursor of the Christian faith, one who not only prophesied, as had the
biblical prophets, the advent of the Messiah but also predicted the supernatural
sign of his coming, the star that was to appear in the East and guide the three
Magi to the manger in Bethlehem. [See Magi.] This Christian interpretation is
derived from the Zoroastrian doctrine of the Saoshyant, the Savior of the
Future. [See Saoshyant.] Later, however, religious struggles arose during the
Sasanid empire in Persia (third to seventh centuries CE), which linked the
spread of Christianity with the Roman empire. Zarathushtra's popularity in the
Christian world began to decline. The Iranian prophet, who had been praised
often by the gnostic schools and who had been seen by Mani as one of the three
great messengers from the past, was now seen, instead, as a leader of imposture
and heresy, a teacher of the diabolic arts of witchery. But during the Renaiss-
ance and the Enlightenment, European cultures reverted to the image of Zara-
thushtra that had come down through Classical and Hellenistic antiquity. He was
viewed, once again, as a great and wise man, as the author of the _Chaldean
Oracles_ and probably inventor of Qabbalah, as a teacher of astrology, as a
possible bridge between Christianity and Platonism, and, at times (as in
Voltaire), as a symbol of non-Christian wisdom.
  After Western philology rediscovered Zarathushtra during the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries, Friedrich Nietzsche, in an intentional paradox, gave
the name Zarathustra to the hero of his work _Also sprach Zarathustra_ (1883-
1892). Nietzsche saw the Iranian prophet as the first to have discovered the
true motive force underlying all things, that is, the eternal struggle between
good and evil. [See also Zoroastrianism]

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84315
From: "David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: ABORTION and private health coverage -- letters regarding

On 21-Apr-93 in Re: ABORTION and private he..
user Not a Boomer@desire.wrig writes:
>	And while courts have found it ok to charge women less for auto
>insurance, it's illegal to charge them more for health insurance (because they
>live longer) or make them pay more into retirement funds so the legal arena 
>isn't being 100% consistent on the gender issue.
Not so in PA.  Recently the gender inequity in auto insurance was
removed.  Just a point.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84316
From: cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl)
Subject: Re: Burden of Proof

>  hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com (Bill Hamilton) writes:
> >cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl) writes:
> >>ray@engr.LaTech.edu (Bill Ray) writes:

> >********NOTE: FOLLOWUPS go to alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins!
> >
> >[deleted]
> >[more deleted]
> >If you say X statement and give it the authority of fact, I will respond
> >by asking you why. You aren't obligated to say anything, but if your
> >intent is to convince me that X statement is true, then yes, the burden
> >of proof is upon you. 
> 
>[some interesting stuff, on the lines of the burden of proof belongs to God] 
> 
> >
> >If you are merely giving testimony to your beliefs, then you are an egotist.
> 
> Please excuse me if I missed an earlier part of this thread
> in which Bill came across like an egotist. What I saw was simply
> obedience to the scriptural command to "always be ready
> to give a reason for the joy that is in you". 

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

Jumping on your trailer, "always be ready etc.", then that goes right
back to the burden of proof question. Go ahead and give me a reason why
you think God exists, if you state such a thing. 
> 
> Bill Hamilton
> 
Chris Faehl
cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84319
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

In article <1r477q$1vk@sbctri.sbc.com>, tph@susie.sbc.com (Timothy P. Henrion) writes:
> In article <1993Apr21.093914.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>>I assume you have evidence that he was responsible for the deaths?
> 
> Only my common sense.  The fire was caused by either Koresh and his
> followers or by the FBI/ATF/CIA/KGB/and maybe the Harper Valley PTA.  Since
> you are throwing around the evidence arguement, I'll throw it back.  Can
> you prove any government agency did it?  (Please don't resort to "they 
> covered it up so that proves they did it" or any wild theories about how
> the government agencies intentionally started the fire.  The key words
> are proof and evidence.)
> proves they did it"

No, which is why I want an investigation.  
 
> Please explain how Koresh was defending himself from those children who
> burned.  

Who ever said he was? What is obvious is that he was defending himself, and his
followers, from the government.  Whether you think he was right or wrong in
this is another question.  If he was right, then he had the moral right to kill
those kgBATF agents.
--Ray Cote

There's no government like no government.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84320
From: Charlie Fulton <charlie@isis.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Abortion

In article <C5n2xM.vsD@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis, 
margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
>In <17858.459.uupcb@ozonehole.com> anthony.landreneau@ozonehole.com 
(Anthony 
>Landreneau)  writes:
>>
>>The rape has passed, there is nothing that will ever take that away.
>
>True.  But forcing her to remain pregnant continues the violation of
>her body for another 9 months.  I see this as being unbelievably cruel.

If she doesn't welcome the excruciating pain of labor, the
selfish bitch deserves to die in childbirth.  She was probably
lying about the rape anyway.

Charlie

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84321
From: jasons@atlastele.com (Jason Smith)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <sandvik-210493225220@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
= In article <1993Apr21.231552.24869@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
= brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) wrote:
= 
= Hmm, it seems that this is the core of Christianity then, you 
= have to feel guilty, and then there's this single personality
= that will save you from this universal guilt feeling.
= 
= Brian, I will tell you a secret, I don't feel guilty at all,
= I do mistakes, and I regret them, however I've never had this
= huge guilt feeling hanging over my shoulder.

I will tell you another secret.  I get this burning sensation in my
hand every time I hold it over a candle.  The pain does not fill my entire
body, and I'm told the longer I hold it here, the less it'll hurt (it'll
eventually burn up the nerves, or so I'm told).  So I suppose I should just
ignore the pain, because holding my hand over the candle is something I just
want to do. I've got the right, don't I?

Your body feels pain to let you know something is wrong.  It's your body's
alarm system informing you that something needs your attention.

A fever tells you that you are sick, and need some sort of care.

Guilt can be seen as that "emotional or spiritual" alarm, just informing you
that there is something that you've done that "requires your attention".

It doesn't require a "personality type" to become a believer.  It requires
someone who is willing to listen to themselves, their body & soul.  

= All I know is that I don't know everything. And frankly speaking
= I don't care, life is fun anyway. I recognize that I'm not 
= perfect, but that does not hinder me from have a healthy
= and inspiring life.

For several years all I knew is I really liked dropping 'cid (LSD).
Frankly speaking, I didn't really care.  It was fun anyway.

It didn't matter that every child my wife and I want to have are at a 
*tremendously* greater risk of serious birth defects.

For several years all I knew is I really liked having sex with as many women
as I could convice.  Frankly speaking, I didn't care.  

I didn't care that I was putting each one of them at risk (as well as their
future partners).

It didn't matter that for the first decade of my marriage, my wife and I
will have the worry that possibly that last sneeze meant something *much*
worse than a cold.

= 
= There are humans that subscribe to the same notion. The nice
= thing is that when you finally shake off this huge burden,
= the shoulders feel far more relaxed!

The nice thing about pain killers, if you take enough, you won't care about 
the fever, shortness of breath or pain.

-- 
Jason D. Smith  	|
jasons@atlastele.com	|    I'm not young enough to know everything.
     1x1        	| 

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84323
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Subject: Re: Rawlins debunks creationism

In article <1993Apr15.223844.16453@rambo.atlanta.dg.com> wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:

>    We are talking about origins, not merely science.   Science cannot
>    explain origins.  For a person to exclude anything but science from
>    the issue of origins is to say that there is no higher truth
>    than science.  This is a false premise.  By the way, I enjoy science.
>    It is truly a wonder observing God's creation.  Macroevolution is
>    a mixture of 15 percent science and 85 percent religion [guaranteed
>    within three percent error :) ]

Let us explore this interesting paragraph point by point, sentence by
sentence.


1) We are talking about origins, not merely science.

Origins of what?  Are we speaking of the origins of life, the human
species, the universe, physical law, biological diversity or what?

2) Science cannot explain origins.

This is a false statement unless it is carefully qualified.  It depends
on what origins we are talking about.

3) For a person to exclude anything but science from the issue of origins
is to say that there is no higher truth than science.

Again, this is a false statement.  To begin with, the notion of "higher
truth" is distinctly dubious.  Many people believe that there are ways
to ascertain truth that are not in the repetoire of science; they even
believe that there are ways that are more reliable and certain.  Many
believe that there are truths that cannot be expressed using the language
of science.  Let it be so.  These truths are neither "higher" or 
"lower"; they are simply true.

More to the point, restricting one's discussion of origins to science
does not reject other sources of knowledge; it simply restricts the
scope of discussion.

4) This is a false premise.

If this is intended as asserting that the previous sentence was false
then (4) is actually true.  However the context identifies it as another
false [or at least theologically unsound] statement.

5) By the way, I enjoy science.

On the evidence Mr. Rawlins lacks sufficient understanding of science
to enjoy science in any meaningful sense.  One might just as well say
that one enjoys literature written in a language that one cannot read.
However one cannot mark this sentence as false -- to follow the analogy,
perhaps he likes the pretty shapes of the letters.

6) It is truly a wonder observing God's creation.

Let us not quibble; count this one as true.

7) Macroevolution is a mixture of 15 percent science and 85 percent
religion [guaranteed within three percent error :) ]

Still another false statement.  However one can make it come out true
with the following contextual modification:

"Macroevolution, as misunderstood by Rawline, is a mixture of 15 percent
of what Rawlins erroneously thinks of as science, and 85 percent of
what Rawlins erroneously thinks of as religion."

-----

It is distinctly noticeable that Mr. Rawlins fails miserably to touch
on truth except when he reports personally on what he feels.  [I do
him the justice of assuming that he is not misinforming us as to his
personal reactions.]  One can account for this by the hypothesis that
he has an idiosyncratic and personal concept of truth.
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84324
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin

In article <1993Apr15.225657.17804@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>
wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
 
(Deletion)
>
>       Since you have referred to the Messiah, I assume you are referring
>        to the New Testament.  Please detail your complaints or e-mail if
>        you don't want to post.  First-century Greek is well-known and
>        well-understood.  Have you considered Josephus, the Jewish Historian,
>        who also wrote of Jesus?  In addition, the four gospel accounts
>        are very much in harmony.
>
 
Since this drivel is also crossposted to alt.atheism, how about reading
the alt.atheism FAQ? The Josephus quote is concidered to be a fake even
by Christian historians, and the four gospels contradict each other in
important points.
 
Weren't you going to offer a scientific theory of Creationism?
   Benedikt

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84325
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1qie61$fkt@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:

>Objective morality is morality built from objective values.


And organized religion is a religion built from organized values.
And Ford Tempo is a Tempo built from Ford values.
And rational response is response built from rational values.
And unconditional surrender is surrender built from unconditional values.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
          uncle!

bye
-jim halat

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84326
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1993Apr15.071814.27960@wam.umd.edu>, judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- objectively subjective) writes:
>> = <1qhn7m$a95@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>[culled from a discussion on Christianity and objective morals]
>
>Question:  Is there any effective difference between:
>
>"Objective values exist, and there is disagreement over what they are"
>
>and
>
>"Values are subjective?"
>
>I don't see any.
>



Is there any difference in saying 

"Absolute Truth exists, but some people think its a lie"

and

"Truth is relative" ?

I think there is:  in both examples, the first statement is a
fundamental disagreement between at least two people; the 
second statement is agreed upon by all.

To put it another way, someone who says objective values exist
does not agree that values are subjective.

-jim halat

                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84327
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1qjbn0$na4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:


>Really?  You don't know what objective value is?  If I offered the people
>of the U.S., collectively, $1 for all of the land in America, would that 
>sound like a good deal?  

That happens to be a subjective example that the people of the
US would happen to agree on.  Continue to move the price up; 
at some point a few people would accept then more then more until 
probably all would accept at a high enough number.

Endpoints of a subjective scale are not the given homes of 
objective viewpoints.

-jim halat


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84328
From: halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1qjd3o$nlv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
>Firstly, science has its basis in values, not the other way round.
>So you better explain what objective atoms are, and how we get them
>from subjective values, before we go any further.


Atoms are not objective.  They aren't even real.  What scientists call
an atom is nothing more than a mathematical model that describes 
certain physical, observable properties of our surroundings.  All
of which is subjective.  

What is objective, though, is the approach a scientist 
takes in discussing his model and his observations.  There
is no objective science.  But there is an objective approach
which is subjectively selected by the scientist.  Objective
in this case means a specified, unchanging set of rules that
he and his colleagues use to discuss their science.

This is in contrast to your Objective Morality.  There may be an
objective approach to subjectively discuss your beliefs on
morality.  But there exists no objective morality.

Also, science deals with how we can discuss our observations of 
the physical world around us.  In that the method of discussion
is objective ( not the science; not the discussion itself ).

Science makes no claims to know the whys or even the hows sometimes
of what we can observe.  It simply gives us a way to discuss our
surroundings in a meaningful, consistent way.

I think it was Neils Bohr who said (to paraphrase) Science is what
we can _say_ about the physical world.

-jim halat

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84329
From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <markp.735230393@elvis.wri.com>
markp@elvis.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
 
>>Atoms are not objective.  They aren't even real.  What scientists call
>>an atom is nothing more than a mathematical model that describes
>>certain physical, observable properties of our surroundings.  All
>>of which is subjective.
>
>Omigod, it's an operationalist! Sorry, Jim, but the idea that a theory
>explaining a myriad of distinctly different observations is merely a
>"model" is more than sensible people can accept -- your phobia about
>objective reality notwithstanding.
 
 
The point about its being real or not is that one does not waste time with
what reality might be when one wants predictions. The questions if the
atoms are there or if something else is there making measurements indicate
atoms is not necessary in such a system.
 
And one does not have to write a new theory of existence everytime new
models are used in Physics.
 
Don't forget to prove your last sentence, namely that sensible don't
accept that.
   Benedikt

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84331
From: joakimr@ifi.uio.no (Joakim Ruud)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?


 
> Tell me are you really this stupid, or are you just pretending.

Tell me are you really this stupid, or are you just pretending. 

> I have fire insurance that I hope I never have to use.

A fire insurance is not an offensive weapon.

> I have a spare tire in my trunk that I hope I never have to use.

A spare tire is not an offensive weapon.

		 	How should one deal with a man who is convinced that
		 	he is acting according to God's will, and who there-
     Jokke		fore believes that he is doing you a favour by
		 	stabbing you in the back?
 
							-Voltaire

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84332
From: wilkins@scubed.com (Darin Wilkins)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

>In article <C5w7CA.M3s@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tbrent@ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:
>>If you check the news today, (AP) the "authorities also found a state-of-the-art
>>automatic machine gun that investigators did not know was in the cult's arsenal."
>>[Carl Stern, Justice Department]

In article <1r7hmlINNc6@mojo.eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>Yeah.  In a fire that reportedly burned hotter than 1000 degrees-- hot
>enough to make the bodies still unidentifiable-- the authorities found
>a gun that was recognizably fully-automatic and state of the art.
>Isn't that CONVEEEENIENT?

Convenient?  It seems very appropriate that this is cross-posted to
alt.conspiracy.

Assuming the most favorable interpretation of your '1000 degree'
measurement (that the temperature is in Centigrade, rather than the
more common -in the US- Fahrenheit), you are still laboring under at
least 2 misconceptions:

1.  You seem to believe that steel melts somewhere around 1000 C.
    Actually, the melting point of most iron alloys (and steels are
    iron alloys) is in the neighborhood of 1400 C.  Even if the gun
    were found in area which achieved the 1000 C temperature, the steel
    parts of the gun would not be deformed, and it would still be
    trivial to identify the nature of the weapon.

2.  A fire is not an isothermal process.  There are 'hot' spots and
    'cold' spots, though 'cold' is purely a relative term.   So the
    weapon was not necessarily situated in a hot spot, as you seem to
    imply.  And, even if it was, so what?  It would not have melted
    anyway.

darin
wilkins@scubed.com
________________________________
|                              |
| I will be President for food |
|______________________________|

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84334
From: dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood)
Subject: Re: Laws of God (was Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!)



mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm.Lee) writes:

>dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood) writes:
>|> 
>|> mlee@ra.royalroads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:
>|> >These laws written for the Israelites, God's chosen people whom God had
>|> >expressly set apart from the rest of the world.  The Israelites were a
>|> >direct witness to God's existence.  To disobey God after KNOWing that God is
>|> >real would be an outright denial of God and therefore immediately punishable.
>|> >Remember, these laws were written for a different time and applied only to 
>|> >God's chosen people.  But Jesus has changed all of that.  We are living in the
>|> >age of grace.  Sin is no longer immediately punishable by death.  There is
>|> >repentance and there is salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.  And not just
>|> >for a few chosen people.  Salvation is available to everyone, Jew and Gentile
>|> >alike.
>|> 
>|> Sorry if this is late for the thread, but...
>|> 
>|> I thought God was supposed to be constant and never-changing.  How do
>|> you reconcile this common Christian view with the paragraph above?
>|>

>God never changes.  

Sorry, but yes he does, by your own description.

>He still loves us.  Sending Jesus was one of His attempts to
>reconcile with mankind.

Humorous, this notion of an all-knowing, all-powerful god who must
"attempt" to "reconcile" with his lowly creations.  I realize that it
is not possible to penetrate such logic, but is there any chance that
you might consider that an omnipotent god need not "attempt" anything,
and further that an attempt to "reconcile" implies a lack of
omniscience?

What you are doing here is projecting human weaknesses onto your god.

>|> 
>|> Also, while we're at it:
>|> 
>|> 1. How do you reconcile "A KIND and LOVING God!!" with the
>|> Judeo-Christian view that sin was at one time "immediately punishable
>|> by death"?  Was killing people for sinning God's way of showing
>|> KINDness and LOVE?
>|>

>Sinning in the face of God was punishable by immediate death.  There are
>several OT passages to back this up.  God is God.  

But all humans are sinners, thus all pre-Jesus humans should have been
punished with death.  We aren't punished with sin now, of course,
because God has changed.  He required a brutal, sadistic sacrifice of
his own blood in order to allow us to sin without immediate death.  

>He cannot tolerate the prescence of sin in His midst.  

Yet he does so now.  He has changed.  The sadistic murder of his own
son has made him more tolerant of our sins.

Besides, his "midst" is everywhere, so your statement is meaningless.
He tolerates sin in Hell, which surely is in his midst as well.  Also,
given that he is all-knowing, he must have eternal knowledge of who
will commit which sins, as well as when and where, so what does
tolerance have to do with anything.  All of this is absolute nonsense,
unless your god is not indeed all-knowing and all-powerful, or unless
he doesn't take the personal interest in everyday affairs that you
claim.

>And the Israelites knew this!  And
>still, some of them chose to disobey and were destroyed.  Were these
>people KIND and LOVing themselves?  

Not relevant.  The claim of kindness and lovingness was made by you in
reference to your god.  The nature of his creations/victims is not at
issue.

>God gave them every break He could but in the end, He really had no
>choice in the matter.  

I see: an all-knowing god who did not know what the ultimate outcome
would be, and an all-powerful god who had no choice in the matter.
Mindmush.

>Seeing as how we were failing to achieve salvation on our own, He sent
>His Son to die for us - to be the ultimate sin offering.  

Did I miss something?  Did you give some indication at to why a KIND
and LOVING god should require sadistic human sacrifice to allow his
own botched creations to "achieve salvation"?

>|> 
>|> 2. Is the fact the He no longer does this an admission on His part of
>|> having made a mistake?
>|>

>He sent His Son as a consolation to us, out of love.
 
I note that your answer physically follows my question, but I fail to
discern a connection between the two.

By the way, for what am I being consoled?

>|> 3. Now that we are "living in the age of grace", does this mean that
>|> for our sins, God now damns us to eternal hell after we die, rather
>|> than killing us immediately?  If so, is this eternal damnation an
>|> example of "A KIND and LOVING God!!"?
>|>

>Hey, let's be fair for a moment here.  KIND and LOVING does not mean
>a free ride. 

Why not?  By the way, I note for the record that you didn't answer the
questions. 

>There is an amount of give and take as in any relationship.
>Parents are supposed to be kind and loving but does that mean that 
>children can do whatever they want?  NOT!  Part of being a parent means
>administering punishment when the child is at fault.  

Death and/or eternal damnation is your idea of correctional
punishment?  I hope you aren't a parent.

>Part of being a parent means giving instruction.  God tests us through
>the trial of life such that we may grow stronger.  He teaches what is
>right and what is wrong.  

This is quite an elaborate fantasy that you've constructed, but sadly
it lacks a basis in reality.  It also does not address the questions
that I raised.

>The consequences of our actions are made clear to us, be it Heaven or
>be it Hell.  If God did not follow through with what He has warned us
>about, He would not be a very good parent.

The god that you describe is not a good parent, but a tyrant.

>In parenting, if a parent issues a warning but does not follow through
>with it, the children will not take that parent's words very seriously.
>God does the same by telling us who have ears to hear what to do and
>what not to do.  By life's trials, we see the folly of doing our own
>will rather than His.  He warns us about the consequences of rejecting
>Him when it comes time for Judgement.  

Sorry, was that the god of the Bible whose rules I am to follow, or
the god of the Koran?  The Vedas?  The Book of Koresh?  Oh, yes, it's
all so clear.

>Do we follow Him?
>
>I will.

Bully for you.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84336
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In <C5sqyA.F7v@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tbrent@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:

|Probably not.  But then, I don't pack heavy weaponry with intent to use it.

Please cite your evidence that he was intending to use it.

|You don't really think he should have been allowed to keep that stuff do 
|you?

Why not?

|If so, tell me where you live so I can be sure to steer well clear.

Check the sig.

|The public also has rights, and they should be placed above those of the
|individual.

Society does not have rights only individuals have rights.

|Go ahead, call me a commie,

OK, your a commie.

|but you'd be singing a different
|tune if I exercised my right to rape your daughter.

You think you have a right to rape anyone? No wonder you don't care about
the rightws of others.

|He broke the law,

Please indicate which law you feel Koresh broke, and when was he convicted of
said crime.

|he was a threat to society,

So you feel that owning guns makes him a threat to society. When are y ou
going to start going after knives and baseball bats as well.
Or do you feel that someone who spouts unpopular ideas is by definition a
threat to society.

|they did there job - simple.

It is simple if you think that there job is to assualt civilians.

|>	Support your First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth
|>Amendment rights, lest they be taken away from you just as the FBI did
|>to the Davidians. Think about it.

|I'll support them all (except no. 2)

In other words you don't support any of them.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84338
From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Subject: Re: cults (who keeps them going ?)

In article <sbuckley.735337212@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:

>>Mr. Clinton said today that the horrible tragedy of the Waco fiasco
>>should remind those who join cults of the dangers of doing so.
>>Now, I began scratching my head thinking (a bad sign :-), "don't the 
>>mainstream religions (in this case Christianity...or the 7th day 
>>adventist in particular) just keep these guys going ? Isn't Mr. Clinton 
>>condemning his own religion ? After all, isn't it a cult too ?"

>>... bad thoughts these.

>  well it depends on whether you take the literal dictionary definition of
>cult and say all faiths are cults, or if you take a more social-context
>view of "cult which allows you to recognize mainstream religions as 
>socially-acceptable and cults as groups that involve techniques of brain-
>washing and all the other characteristics that define oppressive [probly not
>the *best* word] cult behaviour.

My understanding of the academic use of the word cult is that it is
a group of people oriented around a single authority figure. It need
not be religious. However, I have seen plenty of religious cults,
including some that mainstream.

eric


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84339
From: HOLFELTZ@LSTC2VM.stortek.com
Subject: Re: Merlin, Mithras and Magick

In article <yag12B3w165w@anarky.tch.org>
melchar@anarky.tch.org (Melchar) writes:
 
>
>> [I've read many things like this in the past, yet not quite so
>> blatant a comparison of Christian and Pagan, Roman myth/practice.
>> Is it all historical?  How often has Merlin/Myrddin been associated
>> with Roman gods?  How often has he been associated with Mithras?
>> Does anyone know where Mithras originated?  In Asia?  What part?]
>>
>> Thyagi@HouseofKAos.Abyss.com
>
>      Mithraic worship predates Xianity but in many ways is similar.  It
>was a mystery cult, (worship in which not all the information was
>available to all members:  tests had to be passed & at each stage, new
>info was offered to the worshipper [similar to the Masons......in more
>than one way]) -- of Mithras, a sun deity.  He was cyclic (went down to
>darkness, was reborn), inspired hope; fought against the darkness; was
>popular and charismatic.......
>      The worship originated in Persia & was linked to the Ahura-Mazda
 
Wow, this is news to me---it started in Tarsus--you know, where Paul
of NT fame was from.  Not to be nasty, but get a clue, read
_The Orgins of the Mithraic Mysteries_ by DUlansey!
 
Hey hasn't anyone read Manly P Hall's works?  Perhaps it might be
worth a try....
 
>cults.  For a while it threatened to eclipse Xianity -- however it
>suffered from ONE fatal flaw:  it only accepted free men as members.
>       Xianity took women and slaves and......anyone it could get

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84340
From: tph@susie.sbc.com (Timothy P. Henrion)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

In article <1993Apr22.125956.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>In article <1r477q$1vk@sbctri.sbc.com>, tph@susie.sbc.com (Timothy P. Henrion) writes:
> 
>> Please explain how Koresh was defending himself from those children who
>> burned.  
>
>Who ever said he was? What is obvious is that he was defending himself, and his
>followers, from the government.  Whether you think he was right or wrong in
>this is another question.  If he was right, then he had the moral right to kill
>those kgBATF agents.
>--Ray Cote
>

The killing of the ATF agents is a separate issue.  My point is that many
children died because of Koresh defending himself.  Did he have what you
call the "moral right" to keep those children in a dangerous enviroment in
order to defend himself?  


-- 
  Tim Henrion              Southwestern Bell Technology Resources
  thenrion@sbctri.sbc.com       

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84341
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

markp@avignon (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>>markp@elvis.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>>> In <930415.112243.8v6.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk
>>> (mathew) writes:
>>> > There's no objective physics; Einstein and Bohr have told us that.
>>> 
>>> Speaking as one who knows relativity and quantum mechanics, I say: 
>>> Bullshit.
> 
>>Speaking as someone who also knows relativity and quantum mechanics, I say:
>>Go ahead, punk, make my day.  My degree can beat up your degree.
> 
> OK, refer us to the place in Einstein's (or Bohr's) writings where
> he said 'there's no objective physics.'

Ah, you taking everything as literal quotation.  No wonder you're confused.

First, can I ask that we decide on a definition of "objective"?

>>>>There's no objective reality.  LSD should be sufficient to prove that.
>>> 
>>> Speaking as one who has taken LSD, I say: 
>>> Bullshit.
> 
>>Well, I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge on that one, but I think I
>>detect a pattern in your responses.  How about some actual support for your
>>dismissals?
> 
> You take LSD, and it skews your perception of reality. You come down,
> and your perceptions unskew.

And?

>>> How could striving toward an ideal be in any way useful, if the ideal 
>>> had no objective existence?
> 
>>A perfectly efficient power station would convert all of the energy in coal
>>into electricity.  There is absolutely no way we can build a perfect power
>>station; it's an ideal.  But striving towards that ideal is undeniably
>>useful and valuable, is it not?
> 
> OK, let me narrow the question. Is it useful to strive toward a
> (nonexistent) objective ethics?

I'd guess that it might be.

> In what way?

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...


mathew

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84342
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: Moral relativism -- what if we all agree? (was Re: After 2000 etc)

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> In article <930422.113807.7Q9.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew 
> <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> #Got it in one.  Similarly, a moral relativist will not judge one moral syste
> #to be better than another in every possible circumstance.  This does not,
> #however, preclude him from judging one moral system to be better than anothe
> #in a specific set of circumstances.  Nor does it preclude a set of moral
> #relativists from collectively judging a moral system, from some set of
> #circumstances which they all agree they are in.
> 
> O.K., this makes sense to me.  (I'm serious, you've explained something
> to me which I never understood before).  But just for grins, suppose we
> almost all agree that we are in a set of circumstances called "reality".
> What then?

Then we all live happily ever after. :-)

Seriously, if we all agreed on the circumstances we're in, I suspect we'd all
agree on the best course of action.  Unfortunately, I have no confidence that
such a situation will ever arise. 

Some of us think there's a big God in the sky, some don't.  Some think
they've been chosen by God, others disagree.  Some think they are infallible,
others think otherwise.  Until those disagreements over circumstances can be
ironed out, there's little hope of everyone agreeing.

>     Or say, for all practical intents and purposes, there is no frame
> of reference in which thus and such is good, isn't that approximately
> objective, in the same way that we usually expect a speeding bullet to
> outrun a snail?

Yes.  I think that, for example, only a vanishingly small number of people
would hold that there's a frame of reference in which gassing six million
Jews is good.  So that's probably about as close to an objective moral value
as I've encountered in my life so far.

>                       For example, if we hear of a bomb in a crowded area,
> isn't it a rather sensible first guess that this is an immoral act, even
> though there conceivably might be some tail-end case that would justify it?

Well, I think your example's poor.  If the bomb's in Iraq, for example, and
was dropped by an American plane, many people would hold that it was a moral
act.

> #> #> And what weasel word do you use to describe that frame of reference, if
> #> #> it isn't an objective reality for values?
> #> #
> #> #I'm sorry, I can't parse "an objective reality for values".  Could you tr
> y
> #> #again?
> #> 
> #> s/an objective reality for values/some values are real even in the face
> #> of disagreement/
> #
> #I still don't quite see what you're trying to say.  I assume by "values" you
> #mean moral values, yes?  In which case, what do you mean by "real"?  What is
> #a "real" moral value, as opposed to an unreal one?
> 
> I mean to say that values are as real as horses, whatever you understand
> by a horse being real is pretty much what I mean about a value being real.

Hmm.  So these moral values have a perceptible physical presence?

> #> If you are saying that some moral systems are better than others, in
> #> your opinion, then all you get is infinite regress.
> #
> #Sorry, but in what way is it an infinite regress?  It looks extremely finite
> #to me.
> 
> I meant that it's never more than your opinion.

Right, and the chain ends right there.  The buck stops with me.  It's not an
infinite regress.

>                                                       You've clarified this
> for me above.  My understanding is now that if a supermajority of relativists
> agree that thus and such is wrong in almost any or all frames of reference,
> then they're saying something which is to all practical intents and purposes
> no different than what I'm saying.

Right.  The key point, however, is that there are vanishingly few of these
moral issues where we can get 99.9% of people to agree on the outcome for all
frames of reference (and agree on the frames of reference...)

> #>                                                    What you do not get
> #> is any justification for saying that the moral system of the terrorist
> #> is inferior to that of the man of peace.
> #
> #Sorry, but that's not so.  I can provide a justification for asserting that
> #the moral system of the terrorist is inferior to that of the man of peace.  
> #I just can't provide a justification which works in all possible
> #circumstances.
> 
> Logically possible, or actually possible?

I can't manage either.  Killing Hitler using a car bomb would have been a
terrorist act, but I have to admit that I couldn't exactly condemn it. 
Although there are tricky philosophical issues to do with hindsight...

>                                              By which I mean, are you
> stretching possible to include events such as the atoms in my terminal
> switching places so that the terminal turns upside down, or do you
> think it likely that circumstances will arise in which terrorism is
> superior to peace.

I think that circumstances have already arisen where terrorism would have
been better than peace.  Better in terms of numbers of innocent people
killed.  Assuming it was successful terrorism, of course.


mathew

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84343
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Subject: What about when there's complete disagreement? (was Re: After stuff)

[ There are actually some talk.abortion related comments below, believe it or
  not... ]

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> In article <930422.113530.7w1.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk# mathew <mathew@mant
> is.co.uk> writes:
> #frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
> #> Specifically, I'd like to know what relativism concludes when two
> #> people grotesquely disagree.  Is it:
> #> 
> #> (a) Both are right
> #> 
> #> (b) One of them is wrong, and sometimes (though perhaps rarely) we have a 
> #>     pretty good idea who it is
> #> 
> #> (c) One of them is wrong, but we never have any information as to who, so
> #>     we make our best guess if we really must make a decision.
> #> 
> #> (d) The idea of a "right" moral judgement is meaningless (implying that
> #>      whether peace is better than war, e.g., is a meaningless question,
> #>      and need not be discussed for it has no correct answer)
> #> 
> #> (e) Something else.  A short, positive assertion would be nice.
> #
> #From whose point of view would you like to know what relativism concludes? 
> #One of the people involved in the argument, or some third person observing
> #the arguers?
> 
> I've just come from responding another of your posts, where some pennies
> have dropped for me.  But it would clarify further if you would answer
> from the point of view of any disinterested observers - perhaps an
> observer as likely to be in position A as in position B (where A and B
> disagree) in the future, and have his or her conclusion now binding on
> them at that time.

Well, if our observer X is as likely to be in A's position as B's, and if he
agrees that both A and B are making appropriate observations and inferences
regarding the situation, then I would expect him to conclude that there is no
right answer.  Hopefully there would be some other factor which would allow
him to make some judgement regarding which answer to accept.

If, on the other hand, he disagrees with the principles of either A or B, I
suspect he would make a decision in favour of the other one.

It is unfortunately the case that not all moral arguments have answers from
all perspectives.  For instance, I am completely unable to come to any
conclusion regarding whether abortion should be allowed or not, from my
perspective.  In an ideal world, all living things would have a right to
life; but in an ideal world, women would have the absolute right to do what
they like with their own bodies.  Clearly there is no way to resolve in
favour of both these principles.  Therefore I agree with the compromise
solution of allowing abortion up to a certain time after conception, and
deciding on the time based on various (sometimes ill-defined) criteria.  This
is also a sensible move, I think, because it lets people make their own
decisions (within reason).  And for what it's worth, I am reasonably happy
with current UK abortion law.

Similarly, the situation in what's left of Yugoslavia is a horrible mess, and
I really can't see my way to any sort of conclusion.  There, I don't even
know enough to imagine what sort of compromise one might manage.


mathew

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84344
From: watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson)
Subject: Re: Koresh Doctrine -- 4 of 4

f_gautjw@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:

>In article <watson.735759766@mariner.sce.carleton.ca>, watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson) writes:
>> Question for those of you who seem to be fundamentalists (Stephen
>> Tice, the Cotera, Joe Gaut, et al)(apologies if I've mislabelled any
>> of you, I've only started reading t.r.m since the BD disaster.  But I
>> know the Cotera is a fundy) and are defending Koresh and his beliefs
>> as an example of True Christianity under persecution from the the Big
>> Bad Secular State: what is your opinion of his reported sexual habits?
>> If the reports are accurate, what IYO does this say about the quality of
>> his Christianity?  Or are the allegations just part of the Big
>> Cover-Up?

>Thank you, Steve.  It is refreshing to have someone accuse me of being
>a Christian.  I only hope enough evidence can be garnered to get a
>conviction.  I am not certain what you mean by the "fundy" part as the
>term fundamentalist has a wide variety of uses.  If you refer to

I use it to refer to those Christians who take a more
conservative-literalist approach to the Bible, as distinct from
"liberals".

>those who actually believe Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God and
>wish to follow in his way, then I plead guilty.  But what does it

I would use the word "Christian" (unqualified) to describe someone to
whom the above definition applied.  BTW, it applies to me.

[deletia: Joe Gaut indicates his interest in the BD disaster is from a
civil liberties issue, not an attempt to justify Koresh's beliefs
and/or practices.]

I agree with Joe about this: if some group wants to believe in
whatever god or Invisible Pink Unicorns and go off and live together
and have group sex, or no sex, or sex only for the leaders (but NOT
with children), then, as much as I might believe them to be misguided,
I think they should have the legal right.  And I hope the
investigation will start by determining whether the feds had any
*legitimate* reason for going after Koresh in the first place (before
moving on to consider the wisdom of various tactics used).

[Joe goes on to dispute the child-abuse allegations.  I'll
(provisionally) accept this, unless someone has evidence to support
the allegations?]

Actually I wasn't thinking about the (alleged) child abuse, but about
the reports that he had sex with, and fathered children by, several
women in the cult.  I agree this is not a legal matter - consenting
adults and all that - but Stephen Tice seems to be defending Koresh's
beliefs and practices from specifically *Christian* perspective, not a
civil liberties perspective.  

I think my question is not really aimed at Joe (and possibly not at
Ray Cote either, who seems to also be taking the political angle), but
at Stephen Tice.


--
| Steve Watson a.k.a. watson@sce.carleton.ca === Carleton University, Ontario |
|  this->opinion = My.opinion;  assert (this->opinion != CarletonU.opinion);  |
"Somebody touched me / Making everything new / Burned through my life / Like a
 bolt from the blue / Somebody touched me / I know it was you" - Bruce Cockburn

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84345
From: markp@elvis.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In <30185@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:

>In article <markp.735230393@elvis.wri.com>, markp@elvis.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:

>>Omigod, it's an operationalist! Sorry, Jim, but the idea that a theory
>>explaining a myriad of distinctly different observations is merely a
>>"model" is more than sensible people can accept -- your phobia about
>>objective reality notwithstanding.

>First of all, I have no phobia of objective reality.  I'm simply
>saying that the scientific model of the atom is probably not 
>what is really out there.  I'm not saying that there's no object
>that sources these properties we measure from atomic theory.

You hadn't made that clear; I'm glad to have it clarified! So you're
a (physical) objectivist, after all, right?

>Take light as another example.  There are two theories: particle and
>wave.  Each one fails to predict the behavior of light as some point.
>So which is it: particle or wave?  You tell me.  You're the sensible
>one.

Wavicle! Next question? ;-)
--
Mark Pundurs

any resemblance between my opinions and those 
of Wolfram Research, Inc. is purely coincidental

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84346
Subject: Re: Rawlins debunks creationism
From: rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota)

In article <1r9fuj$bdi@lll-winken.llnl.gov>, dk@imager (Dave Knapp) writes:
>In article <C5wo5C.EBv@sunfish.usd.edu> rfox@charlie.usd.edu writes:
>>
>>Simply put, evolution/creation when each is looked at properly - theory/fact
>>vs. assertion/fiction - is a specific example of exactly what separates reason
>>and science from nonsense.
>
>   Although I agree that creation is nonsense, I submit that you are making
>the same mistake that creationists commonly do.  In this and previous posts,
>I think you have been engaging in the fallacy of false dichotomy; you have
>consistently characterized science/religion as rationalism/nonsense, when
>in fact the latter do not form a complete set of options.  Neither do the
>former, for that matter.
>
>   I wish that the semi-explicit linking of evolution to so-called "rational"
>atheism could be avoided; it just gives the creationists fuel for their
>often-repeated incantation that "evolution leads to atheism."
>
>  -- Dave

No, Dave, and as an anthropologist I take great umbrage with this 
misrepresentation.  I sense that it is you that has made the jump from creation
(science) to religion (see above).  I have characterized science/*creation 
science* as rationalism/nonsense, and that it is.  When people promote their 
religious beliefs as science they become nonsense.  Kept where they belong 
they are meaningful and useful, as virtually any anthropologists will tell you,
and as I have said several times in this group.  And it works the other way, 
too, and I have repeatedly said so.  Never have I said or meant anything 
different, here or elsewhere, and I don't think my communication skills betray
me.  Nor do I presume to offend people's spiritual sensibilities, as
I would hope others would not disparage mine.

Rich Fox, Anthro, Usouthdakota

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84347
From: bittrolff@evans.enet.dec.com ()
Subject: Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!


In article <1993Apr20.143754.643@ra.royalroads.ca>, mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) writes:

|>BTW, David Koresh was NOT
|>Jesus Christ as he claimed.

How can you tell for sure? Three days haven't passed yet. 

--
Steve Bittrolff

The previous is my opinion, and is shared by any reasonably intelligent person.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84348
From: jmeritt@mental.mitre.org
Subject: Rawlins has been listening to the Devil

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

Now, how we tell which divine inspiration comes from the One True God and which
comes from a satanic trickster?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84349
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Subject: Re: Burden of Proof

In article <C5t5sF.8oz@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> frittsbc@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Brian Fritts) writes:
>  I saw one theist on this net talking about the absurdity of one saying he
>doesn't believe in god, and how can we be sure.  The problem with this and
>other arguments assumes that the burden of proof lies with the atheist. Wrong!
>In philosophy the one who is making a positive argument must give reasons for
>his believing so, not the negative.  If I were to make the statement elves 
>exist, then it would be up to me to prove my positive assertion, not the 
>person saying that elves don't exist.  If the negative in this case had to 
>prove elves don't exist he would have to omniscient and know every inch of the
>universe.  The same applies with god.  Give me your reasons, and you (the theist) make the case.

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


-- 
  ________  Lionel Tun, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk  ________
 / /_  __/\       Computer Vision Group      /\ \__  _\
/___/_/_/\/ City University, London EC1V 0HB \ \___\_\_\
\___\_\_\/        071-477 8000 ext 3889       \/___/_/_/

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84350
From: markp@elvis.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In <30192@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:

>In article <C5y93B.708@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>In article <930423.103637.3O4.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>>>> > There's no objective physics; Einstein and Bohr have told us that.
>>>> Speaking as one who knows relativity and quantum mechanics, I say: 
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>Speaking as someone who also knows relativity and quantum mechanics, I say:
>>>Go ahead, punk, make my day.  My degree can beat up your degree.
>>
>>Simple.  Take out some physics books, and start looking for statements which
>>say that there is no objective physics.  I doubt you will find any.  You might
>>find statements that there is no objective length, or no objective location,
>>but no objective _physics_?  (Consider, for instance, that speed-of-light-in-
>>vacuum is invariant.  This sounds an awful lot like an objective
>>speed-of-light-in-vacuum.)

>Or, you can try not confuse a construct with the constructor.  If you take
>a look at Quantum Mechanics, many objective observations can be made
>as well.  However, Physics is not objective.  Bohr said the randomness
>of atomic motion is inherent in the motion itself.  Einstein said that 
>nature is deterministic; it is our method of observation that inserts the
>randomness.  They were talking about the exact same results.

But neither of them claimed to have experimental evidence that proved 
them right. In a similar vein, there is as yet no experimental evidence
for supersymmetric particles; so some physicists believe in them, and
some don't -- but all agree that either there is an objectively true
answer to the question.

>Depends on how you look at it, I guess.
--
Mark Pundurs

any resemblance between my opinions and those 
of Wolfram Research, Inc. is purely coincidental

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84351
From: markp@elvis.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In <hfk5iji@zola.esd.sgi.com> cj@eno.esd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:

>markp@elvis.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>|In <930415.112243.8v6.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:

>|>There's no objective reality.  LSD should be sufficient to prove that.
>|Speaking as one who has taken LSD, I say: 
>|Bullshit.

>Oh, lawdy.  If that experience didn't teach you that your
>perceptions are always going to get between you & "reality",

It sure did!

>I don't know what will.  Have you read anything about how
>your brain works?  About various sensory illusions you can
>be tricked by?  

I have; and all the above teach me that accurately perceiving reality 
is a tricky business -- _not_ that there's no reality.

>---
>C J Silverio	cj@sgi.com	ceej@well.sf.ca.us
>"Last Friday, April 16, 1943, I was forced to interrupt my work in the
>laboratory in the middle of the afternoon and proceed home, being affected
>by a remarkable restlessness, combined with a slight dizziness."
>--Albert Hofmann
--
Mark Pundurs

any resemblance between my opinions and those 
of Wolfram Research, Inc. is purely coincidental

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84352
Subject: Re: What RIGHT ?
From: "Casper C. Knies" <ISSCCK@BYUVM.BITNET>


Joakim Ruud (joakimr@ifi.uio.no) writes:

#Recently, I've asked myself a rather interesting question: What RIGHT does
#god have on our lives (always assuming there is a god, of course...!) ??
#
#In his infinite wisdom, he made it perfectly clear that if we don't live
#according to his rules, we will burn in hell. Well, with what RIGHT can god
#make that desicion? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that god creates
#every one of us (directly or indirectly, it doesn't matter.). What then
#happens, is that he first creates us, and then turns us lose. Well, I didn't
#ask to be created.
#
#Let's make an analogue. If a scientist creates a unique living creature
#(which has happened, it was even patented...!!!), does he then have the
#right to expect it to behave in a certain matter, or die...?

Dear Joakim, let me begin by saying that these are excellent questions,
but that by asking, you will find as many different explanations as there
are respondents.  As a Latter-day Saint, I believe that all of us (you,
me, etc.) lived once as spirit-children of God the Father (Hebrews 12:9)
in the pre-mortal existance. In order to continue our eternal progression,
an earthly probationary time was required.  (To live by faith, not by
sight, to choose good over evil, and to prepare ourselves in all things
to become worthy of a higher order of existance.)  We believe that all of
God's spirit-offspring were once assembled to discuss the specifics of
this earthly sojourn.  One-third chose for Lucifer's plan, most followed
the Firstborn (the pre-mortal Jesus Christ).  Lucifer's aspirations ("I
will exalt my throne above the stars of God . . ." Isaiah 14:12-17, etc.)
resulted into the rebellion of his followers against the Firstborn and
those who followed Him, resulting in the casting out of Lucifer (who
became Satan, the father of lies) and one-third of the hosts of heaven
("And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast
them to the earth . . ." Revelation 12:4) as demons (evil spirits).

To get back on OUR choice to be born on this earth, and to be subject to
God and His plan (for good or bad, based upon our obedience and choices),
we made that choice individually.  (God speaking to Job: "Where wast thou
when I laid the foundations of the earth, . . . when the morning stars
sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38:4-7).  We
lost the knowledge of our pre-mortal existance (the "Veil of Forgetful-
ness," somewhere in Psalms), in order to live by faith, not by sight.

You may not accept this scenario, neither do quite a few who rely on the
Bible alone, which offers only fragmentary insights into this particular
aspect of our existence as individuals, as sons and daughters of God.

#Who is god to impose its rules on us ? Who can tell if god is REALLY so
#righteous as god likes us to believe? Are all christians a flock of sheep,
#unable to do otherwise that follow the rest?
#
#Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

(All Christians, by definition, ARE a flock of sheep, following the Shepherd
as they understand Him  ;-)  --But in any event, not all Christians believe
in the same theology, such as the one Latter-day Saints believe in.  (They
will cry "heresy" and other accusations of "perverting" the doctrines of
the Bible, while they themselves believe in a myriad of interpretations, as
found in their catechisms and various do-it-yourself Bible-study manuals...)

As for me, I have a personal conviction that the pre-existance scenario as
explained above, is most in harmony with Biblical doctrine, some Dead Sea
Scroll books, the pseudographion, other (Jewish) sources, and last but not
least, modern-day revelation on the subject.

#I just want to point out that this is not sarcasm, I mean it.
#
#                        How should one deal with a man who is convinced that
#                        he is acting according to God's will, and who there-
#     Jokke              fore believes that he is doing you a favour by
#                        stabbing you in the back?
#
#                                                        -Voltaire


Casper C. Knies              isscck@byuvm.bitnet
Brigham Young University     isscck@vm.byu.edu
UCS Computer Facilities

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84353
From: uphrrmk@Msu.oscs.montana.edu (La Morte)
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.taoism

In article <1993Apr22.152720.24846@radian.uucp>, markbr%radian@natinst.com (mark) writes:
>In article <1993Apr22.004331.22548@coe.montana.edu> uphrrmk@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Jack Coyote) writes:
>>Sunlight shining off of the ocean.
>>
>The universe, mirrored in a puddle.
>>
>>Aleph null bottles of beer on the wall, Aleph null bottles of beer!
>>Take one down, pass it around  ...  Aleph null bottles of beer on the wall!
>>
>Isn't it amazing how there *always* seems to be *another* bottle of bheer there?
>
>Aleph *one* bottles of beer on the wall, Aleph *one* null bottles of beer!
>
>	you, too, are a puddle.
>	As above, so below.
>
>	mark

   Wow, look at alllthe pretty puddles!!!!

  Jimmy crack koan, and I don't care, Jimmy crack koan and i don't care, Jimmy
crack Koan and i don't care, Zen Master's gone away.....


                                               La Morte,
                              Who wants to take one down and pass it around.
                                 (the beer, not the koans.)


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84354
From: merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

jasons@atlastele.com (Jason Smith) writes:
...
>For several years all I knew is I really liked dropping 'cid (LSD).
>Frankly speaking, I didn't really care.  It was fun anyway.

>It didn't matter that every child my wife and I want to have are at a 
>*tremendously* greater risk of serious birth defects.

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?

---
Merlyn LeRoy

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84357
From: alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

starowl@rahul.net (Michael D. Adams) writes:
> : If anyone in .netland is in the process of devising a new religion,
> : do not use the lamb or the bull, because they have already been
> : reserved.  Please choose another animal, preferably one not
> : on the Endangered Species List.  
> 
> How about "washed in the blood of Barney the Dinosaur"?  :)

Judging from postings I've read all over Usenet and on non-Usenet
BBs conferences, Barney is DEFINITELY an endangered species. Especially
if he runs into me in a dark alley.
                                   
                                            A.Lizard

-------------------------------------------------------------------
A.Lizard Internet Addresses:
alizard%tweekco%boo@PacBell.COM        (preferred)
PacBell.COM!boo!tweekco!alizard (bang path for above)
alizard@gentoo.com (backup)
PGP2.2 public key available on request

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84358
From: alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard)
Subject: Re: OTO, the Ancient Order of Oriental Templars

Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:

> "This organization is known at the present time as the Ancient
> Order of Oriental Templars.  Ordo Templi Orientis.  Otherwise:
> The Hermetic Brotherhood of Light.
> 
Does this organization have an official e-mail address these
days? (an address for any of the SF Bay Area Lodges, e.g. Thelema
would do.)
                                      93...
                                       A.Lizard

-------------------------------------------------------------------
A.Lizard Internet Addresses:
alizard%tweekco%boo@PacBell.COM        (preferred)
PacBell.COM!boo!tweekco!alizard (bang path for above)
alizard@gentoo.com (backup)
PGP2.2 public key available on request

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84360
From: weinss@rs6101.ecs.rpi.edu (Stephen Andrew Weinstein)
Subject: New Religion Forming -- Sign Up

Let me begin by saying I think this is the world's first religion to use
the net as its major recruitment medium.  Therefore, even if this
religion does not take off, its founding members will be very important
historically as this method of soliciting membership will eventually become 
common.

The basis of this religion is to apply various aspects of current conventional
morality to the characters in Genesis and Exodus but assume that the Bible's
accounts of the facts and historical events is correct.

For example,

Story of Adam and Eve:
Adam and Eve are in Garden of Eden naked and ignorant.  Have unlimited
supply of food provided, but no clothing, jobs, or knowledge.  God says
not to eat fruit of tree of knowledge.  They do anyway, then try to hide 
in bushes.  God finds them and forces them out of Garden.
(There are several different stories on what they were doing while naked in
the bushes that might have angered God.)

Traditional Philosophy:
1. The only reason you need knowledge or a job is to eat.  If someone else will
provide you with food, then you can be stupid and unemployed and it's OK. This
is why married women usually didn't work until recent decades.
2. Authority figures, such as God, whoever was behind the Vietnam War, Hitler 
and slaveowners, are always right and should be blindly followed without 
question by ordinary people, who can't make decisions for themselves.

Interpretation of events based on Traditional Philosophy:
They were not supposed to eat the fruit.  They should have done whatever God
told them to.  Like small children, they had their needs provided for and were
obligated to do whatever their "Father" said to.  Being forced to leave the 
Garden and work in order to obtain food was a punishment.

Lessons from Traditional Interpretation:
1.  Ignorance is good.  Knowledge is bad, but tempting.
2.  Having food provided for you for nothing (read "welfare") is ideal.  Get-
ting a job and feeding yourself with what you earn is punishment.
3.  Public nudity is good.  Covering up is bad.
4.  Authority figures are intrinsically right.  Normal people are dumb and 
should do whatever they are told without question.  They should not think for 
themselves.
5.  People in subordinate positions are especially obligated to refrain from
learning.  For example, it should be illegal for slaves to learn to read.

1990's philosophy:
1.  People should seek education and employment outside the home, unless
named "Hillary Clinton" or "Murphy Brown".
2.  People should use common sense.  They should not kill other people 
(binding of Issac, wars, Holocaust, etc.) just because they are told to.

Interpretation of events based on current philosophy:
They were supposed to eat the fruit.  God gave wanted them to seek knowledge
rather than be handed it on a silver platter.  Once they had gained knowledge
and (by seeking it) showed their ability to make mature decisions for them-
selves, they no longer needed to be treated like little children and were 
REWARDED by being allowed into the "real world."

Lessons from new interpretation:
1.  Ignorance is bad.  Knowledge is good, but must be sought.
2.  Having food provided for you for nothing (read "welfare") is at best
a temporary measure.  Getting a job and feeding yourself with what you earn
is ideal.
3.  Public nudity is bad.  Covering up is good.
4.  Authority figures are often wrong.  Normal people are intelligent and
should consider whether the instructions are really a good idea and "alter
or abolish" bad governments.  They should think for themselves.
5.  People in subordinate decisions are often discouraged from knowledge
but should seek it anyway, and all the harder.  For example, poor children 
without good schools should work especially hard in order to make a better
life for their children (and themselves).

I have tentatively named this new philosophy "The Church of Eveism" because
Eve's decision to eat the apple is man[sic]kind's first good decision, instead
of its first bad one, as traditionally believed.  She is therefore clearly
a protagonist.  God at first appears evil, for telling people not to seek 
knowledge but on deeper analysis is also a protagonist.  As God rewarded the
decision to defy him, and provided the tree in the first place, the intention
and desire were clearly to have the knowledge be obtained, but to delay it 
until it was actively sought.

---End serious discussion.  Begin humor.--

Save this post to disk (or file server).  Someday it will be considered the
most important writing since the 10 Commandments.  You want an original copy.

Stay tuned for the RFD on soc.religion.eveism...
Can I get a tax deduction for money I donate to this organization?

--Return to serious discussion when posting follow-ups.--

Stephen Weinstein
weinss@rpi.edu










Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84380
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

Brian Kendig first states:

> I am my own master.

I ask:

> Are you truly the master of yourself?

Brian Kendig states:

> Not yet . . .

Make up your mind. 

> . . .  but my life is the ground I use to practice on.  The fun is
> in the getting there! We don't start out perfect . . . .

And we do not end perfect either.  We are never perfect.  Can you name
one person, young or old, past or present, that you deem perfect? 
Good luck.

> I know my shortcomings, and I know my strengths, and I live
> my life according to the decisions I make, and I am content to abide
> with the consequences of my decisions as easily as I'll accept the
> +praise for them.  There have been times in my life when I've made
> mistakes, yes; I try to never make the same mistake twice.

Then you lie to yourself.  You do not know your shortcomings.  I have clearly
shown one of your shortcomings, if not two.  That is, ignorance of the Bible
and the arrogance you demonstrate butchering it without even knowing its 
contents.

> I regard Christ as a myth. 

Because you have been too prideful to examine the record of him for yourself.
And to demonstate your lack of support for your conclusion, I bet you do not
even know what the word "Christ" means.  Or which prophet used "Christ" to 
describe the "Son of Man". 

> I feel that there are far too many people
> offering far too many interpretations of what he supposedly said and
> did.  The only person who can really judge me is *me*.

Yes.  I agree with that.  So we must learn first.  Read the Bible.  Come
up with our own interpretation.   Evaluate what is being said
and by whom.  Check the history books as well.  Compare someone else's
interpretation with your own.  Then make a judgment.  But I tell you the
truth, 99% of what is being said in the Bible needs interpretation as 
much as a coffee cup needs interpretation.

And remember, the Bible isn't a Guru's Esoteric Guide to Metaphysics.  
It doesn't take a theologian to understand what is being said.    The 
Bible is a bunch of testimonies from people like you and I addressed 
to people like you and I.  These guys wrote down what they saw and heard.  Is it 
their open diary--and they want to tell you something.  And because they
want you to know something, they make it very clear what they want you to
know.   They didn't encouch their ideas in esoteric rhetoric, but in simple
straight-forward language.

> I choose the
> roads I travel, and I decide whether or not I want to reach the end of
> any given road or turn back -- and as long as I don't *always* turn
> back, there's no shame in it.  When I need help, I seek out my friends.

You have chosen the road that avoids the Bible.  You have chosen the
road that avoids a confrontation with the living God because that
road doesn't look appealing to you.  You rather build your own road.  One
that goes far away from that confrontation.   But be assured of this,
you will have to confront him one day willingly or unwillingly. 

>And you don't have a clue about what I'm saying, either.  Open your
>eyes and SEE; open your ears and LISTEN.  I'm not just spouting off
>empty words.  This is my LIFE, this is what gives me MEANING.

I see what you mean.  I hear what your saying.  I am not degrading your
life.  But I have heard the same irrational excuses for years.  There is nothing 
new in what you are saying.  And by your own words, you are "spouting off" 
contradictions.   If contradictions give you meaning, then your life must
be sad.

> I say my mother loves me.  How do I know, you ask?  I can point to
> definite things she's done for me, and I can even just bring her to
> you so you can ask her, face-to-face.
> You say your deity loves you.  How do you know, I ask? 

Bingo.  For God so loved the world, he GAVE his only begotton to son
so that whososever belives in him will have ever lasting life.   I look
what God *did*.  He has given his Son, even to his death, so that I can have 
hope in his resurrection and know that life isn't for nothing, but has
glorious purpose.

> You can't even convince me that it exists! 

Because you turn your eyes away from testimony and history.  You choose to
lie to yourself that he doesn't exist, for you ignore what has been said for 
thousands of years.  You sound exactly, almost verbatim, like the Lazarus of 
Jesus's story starting in Luke 16:19.  And the conclusion of that story is a 
bleak one.  Lazarus wound up in hell.  The story ends like this:

      "For if Lazarus doesn't even listen to Moses and the Prophets,
       he won't even believe if a man rose from the dead."

> If any god dangles 'heaven' before me like a carrot, promising untold
> pleasures to me if I'll only suspend my disbelief and ignore my
> rationality for just this once, then I would choose 'hell'.  I can
> *not* lie to myself to placate another being, no matter how powerful
> it is.

Arrogance at its best.   The fact is, you are not rational.  Several specific
cases  have already been cited.   And again with this new statement, you show more irrationality with regards to heaven.  Jesus does tell you something of what to expect
in heaven.  Jesus expects you to use your brain to believe in him.  Jesus does
not expect you to placate either.  Jesus wants you to willingly come to him, but not
as his grovelling slave, but rather as his brother who will share in his
glorious riches.  Why do you not pick up the Bible and read it for yourself.  
You maintain you have an open mind.  See whether you are lying to yourself for
yourself.

>>Why would you want to live a good life?
>>To you, you die and that's it.  Don't contradict yourself.  You have
>>no reason to live a good life.  It doesn't do you any good in the
>>end.  Your life doesn't do anybody else any good  either because
>>everyone dies anyway.  So you have no reason to lead a good life. Leading
>>a good life is meaningless.   Why do you do such a meaningless thing?

>That paragraph demonstrates that you haven't listened to a single word
>I've said.

I do understand what you said.   But that's is not what I feel went amiss here.

You missed the point.  Living a "good life" has no eternal consequences.
Once they close the amusement park of life, to you that is the end.  To you, it 
is over.  To you, therefore, your time spent in the amusement park is meaningless. 
It has no eternal consequences to you nor to anyone left on earth. 

But then you contradict yourself.  From a previous post, you said doing evil things 
is bad.  To you, it shouldn't matter if you do evil things or good things.  It is
all meaningless in the end anyway.  So go rob a bank.  Go tell someone
you dislike that he is a dirty rotten slime bag.  What's restraining you?
Life after all, has no eternal consequences and accountability is irrelevant.

> In the same way, I think life is fun.  And I don't intend to leave the
> amusement park of life until they close down for the night!  :-D

At which time, you are truly not the master of yourself.

>>I'm sorry, I don't feel that sacrificing Jesus was something any god
>>I'd worship would do, unless the sacrifice was only temporary, in
>>which case it's not really all that important.
>
>Has the resurrection sunk in?  Jesus is alive.  Jesus is NOT dead.

So you (and your holy book) say.  By the same token, therefore, Santa
Claus delivers toys every xmas.  Don't you see?  I have NO REASON to
believe that what you say is true.  Please give me some reason that I
can't similarly apply to Santa Claus.

You have EVERY reason to believe that what Jesus says and the witnesses
of Jesus say are true.  But you choose to be unreasonable and "ignore" the
reasons.  By definition, "ignorance". 

Santa Claus is said to live at the North Pole and have a squad of elves
and flying reindeer.   Ever see a flying reindeer?  Has anyone in human
history seen a flying reindeer?  Has anyone seen a reindeer whose nose 
blinks red?    

On the other hand, are people born in Bethlehem?  Was Nebuchandezzar really
a king?  Was Daniel really one of his court officials?  Were David and Solomon
really kings of Israel and Judah?  Was their really a king called Jehoachin?
Did Sennecherib really attack Jerusalem 600 years before Christ?  Did
Sennacherib really lose his battle--and badly?   Was there really a 
Caiaphas who interrogated Jesus?   Yes, yes, yes . . . history verifies
it.  It is NONFICTION.

Do you have a problem discerning truth from fiction?  Perhaps you
can't evaluate the context of Grimm's Fairy Tales apart from
that of the Scientific American.  I suppose you treat both with equal
truthfulness or equal falsity.  Is this what you are telling me?  Or
is it that just do want to read the Scientific American and find out
that it's not a fairy tale?

>Are you thereby inferring that your deity is nothing more than a
>collection of verses in a book, and cannot be supported without
>invoking them?

Get real.  Have you ever been to Zaire?  Do you have to go there
to be  assured that there really is such a place?  Given your 
irrationality, I take it you have never used a map in your life.

> Why do you believe what you believe?

Given the overwhelming evidence as well as my personal experience with the living
God, I'd be an irrational unreasoning ignorant fool if I didn't follow Jesus.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84395
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Subject: The LAW of RETRIBUTION

          
          
                            The LAW of RETRIBUTION
          
               Violent crime, racism, bigotry, domestic abuse, rape, 
          police brutality and oppression, human rights violations, 
          etc., ETC., continue to get worse and worse in spite of more 
          and more man-made laws on all levels from local ordinances to 
          international law. 
          
               The man-made laws are NOT working. 

               "WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE!"  
          Perpetrators remain IGNORANT of The LAW--a universal, cosmic, 
          and Spiritual Law--The "LAW of RETRIBUTION" or "KARMA": 
          
               "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a 
          man soweth, that shall he also reap."  Galatians 6:7, KJV. 
    
               "He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity; 
          he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword.  
          Here is the patience and faith of the saints."  Revelation 
          13:10, KJV. 
    
               "What goes around comes around."

               This LAW of the Universe is just as real as the physical 
          law that for every action there is an equal and opposite 
          REaction. 
    
               It is the ENFORCEMENT, the TEETH, behind The "GOLDEN 
          RULE": "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." 

               ALL perpetrators in the present will become VICTIMS in 
          the future, most likely in a FUTURE INCARNATION.  Most 
          victims in the present were PERPETRATORS in the past, usually 
          during a PREVIOUS LIFE. 
          
               What is needed is a MASSIVE WORLDWIDE PROGRAM of 
          EDUCATION to teach ALL present and potential perpetrators, in 
          a convincing manner (with sufficient supporting evidence), 
          that what they do to others WILL BE DONE TO THEM, in this 
          life or the next. 
          
               Anyone who doubts the FACT of REINCARNATION, and the 
          related "LAW of Retribution", should read books such as "HERE 
          AND HEREAFTER", by Ruth Montgomery, which describes several 
          kinds of evidence supporting REincarnation, including 
          HYPNOTIC REGRESSION to past lives [about 50% accurate; the 
          subconscious mind can sometimes make things up, especially 
          with a bad hypnotist], SPONTANEOUS RECALL (especially by 
          young children, some of whom can identify their most recent 
          previous relatives, homes, possessions, etc.), DREAM RECALL 
          of past life experiences, DEJA VU (familiarity with a far off 
          land while traveling there for the first time on vacation), 
          the psychic readings of the late EDGAR CAYCE, and EVEN 
          SUPPORTING STATEMENTS FROM THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE including 
          Matthew 17:11-13 (John the Baptist was the REINCARNATION of 
          Elias.) and John 9:1-2 (How can a person POSSIBLY sin before 
          he is born, unless he LIVED BEFORE?!). 
          
               Strong INTERESTS, innate TALENTS, strong PHOBIAS, etc., 
          typically originate from a person's PAST LIVES.  For example, 
          a strong fear of swimming in or traveling over water usually 
          results from having DROWNED at the end of a PREVIOUS LIFE.  
          And sometimes a person will take AN IMMEDIATE DISLIKE to 
          another person being met for the first time in their PRESENT 
          life, because of a bad encounter with him during a PREVIOUS 
          INCARNATION. 

               People would behave much better toward each other if 
          they knew that their actions in the present will SURELY be 
          reaped by them in the future, or in a FUTURE INCARNATION! 

 
               For more information, answers to your questions, etc., 
          please consult my CITED SOURCES (books like "HERE AND 
          HEREAFTER", by Ruth Montgomery). 


               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. 


                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   2nd Initiate in Eckankar,
                                      (but not an agent thereof)

          

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84396
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: O.T.O clarification

Sorry, the San Jose based Rosicrucian order is called A.M.O.R.C, 
I don't remember for the time being what the A.M. stand for
but O.R.C is Ordo Rosae Crucis, in other words latin for
Order of the Rose Cross. Sigh, seems l'm loosing more and more
of my long term memory.

Otherwise their headquarters in San Jose has a pretty decent
metaphysical bookstore, if any of you are interested in such books.
And my son loves to run around in their Egyptian museum.

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84397
Subject: Re: Catholic Lit-Crit of a.s.s.
From: NUNNALLY@acs.harding.edu (John Nunnally)

In <dlphknob.734986640@camelot> dlphknob@camelot.bradley.edu writes:

> In <1993Apr14.101241.476@mtechca.maintech.com> foster@mtechca.maintech.com writes:
> 
> >I am surprised and saddened. I would expect this kind of behavior
> >from the Evangelical Born-Again Gospel-Thumping In-Your-Face We're-
> >The-Only-True-Christian Protestants, but I have always thought 
> >that Catholics behaved better than this.
> >                                   Please do not stoop to the
> >level of the E B-A G-T I-Y-F W-T-O-T-C Protestants, who think
> >that the best way to witness is to be strident, intrusive, loud,
> >insulting and overbearingly self-righteous.
> 
> (Pleading mode on)
> 
> Please!  I'm begging you!  Quit confusing religious groups, and stop
> making generalizations!  I'm a Protestant!  I'm an evangelical!  I don't
> believe that my way is the only way!  I'm not a "creation scientist"!  I
> don't think that homosexuals should be hung by their toenails!  
> 
> If you want to discuss bible thumpers, you would be better off singling
> out (and making obtuse generalizations about) Fundamentalists.  If you
> compared the actions of Presbyterians or Methodists with those of Southern 
> Baptists, you would think that they were different religions!
> 
[Sarcasm on]
Be sure we pick on the "correct groups" here.  "Bible thumpers",
"fundamentalists", and Southern Baptists *deserve* our hasty generalizations
and prejudicial statements.  Just don't pick on the Presbyterians
and the Methodists!
[Sarcasm off] 
> Please, prejudice is about thinking that all people of a group are the
> same, so please don't write off all Protestants or all evangelicals!
> 
> (Pleading mode off.)
> 
> God.......I wish I could get ahold of all the Thomas Stories......
> --
> 	"Fbzr enval jvagre Fhaqnlf jura gurer'f n yvggyr oberqbz, lbh fubhyq
> nyjnlf pneel n tha.  Abg gb fubbg lbhefrys, ohg gb xabj rknpgyl gung lbh'er 
> nyjnlf znxvat n pubvpr."
> 			--Yvan Jregzhyyre
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>         Jemaleddin Sasha David Cole IV - Chief of Knobbery Research
>                         dlphknob@camelot.bradley.edu

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84398
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: ALT.SEX.STORIES under Literary Critical Analysis :-)

In article <1qevbh$h7v@agate.berkeley.edu>, dzkriz@ocf.berkeley.edu (Dennis
Kriz) wrote:
> I'm going to try to do something here, that perhaps many would
> not have thought even possible.  I want to begin the process of
> initiating a literary critical study of the pornography posted on
> alt.sex.stories, to identify the major themes and motifs present
> in the stories posted there -- opening up then the possibility of
> an objective moral evaluation of the material present there.  

Dennis, I'm astounded. I didn't know you were interested to even
study such filth as alt.sex.stories provide...

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84399
From: anthony.landreneau@ozonehole.com (Anthony Landreneau) 
Subject: Re: Abortion

To: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
From: anthony.landreneau@ozonehole.com

LM>>The rape has passed, there is nothing that will ever take that away.

LM>True.  But forcing her to remain pregnant continues the violation of
LM>her body for another 9 months.  I see this as being unbelievably cruel.

Life is not a "violation". As for cruel, killing a living being solely
because it exsist. That my friend is down right cold.

                                   Anthony


 * SLMR 2.1 * What's the difference between an Orange?
                      
----
The Ozone Hole BBS * A Private Bulletin Board Service * (504)891-3142
3 Full Service Nodes * USRobotics 16.8K bps * 10 Gigs * 100,000 Files
SKYDIVE New Orleans! * RIME Network Mail HUB * 500+ Usenet Newsgroups
Please route all questions or inquiries to:  postmaster@ozonehole.com

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84401
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: What part of "No" don't you understand?

> = eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>> = Steve Novak writes:

>>Because, of course, that possibility existed.  Meaning any student who
>>really gave a shit could have a moment of silence on his/her own, which
>>makes more sense than forcing those who DON'T want to participate to
>>have to take part.  What other reason is there for an organized "moment
>>of silence"?

>A "moment of silence" doesn't mean much unless *everyone*
>participates.  Otherwise it's not silent, now is it?

The whole point is, maybe everyone _doesn't want_ to participate.

[...]
>Blindly opposing everything with a flavor of religion in it is
>utterly idiotic.

Blindly opposing everything with a flavor of religion in it that is
supported by taxpayer money is the only way to keep christianity from
becoming the official U.S. religion.

Not noticing that danger is utterly idiotic.


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Ban the Bomb!"  "Ban the POPE!!"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84414
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <C5w7CA.M3s@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tbrent@ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:
>
>If you check the news today, (AP) the "authorities also found a state-of-the-art
>automatic machine gun that investigators did not know was in the cult's arsenal."
>[Carl Stern, Justice Department]


Yeah.  In a fire that reportedly burned hotter than 1000 degrees-- hot
enough to make the bodies still unidentifiable-- the authorities found
a gun that was recognizably fully-automatic and state of the art.
Isn't that CONVEEEENIENT?
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84422
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <pww-180493195323@spac-at1-59.rice.edu> pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker) writes:
>In article <1993Apr18.210407.10208@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
>Darcy) wrote:
>> The phenomenologist Husserl, for one, considered Intentionality to be the
>> primary ontological "stuff" from which all other ontology was built --
>> perceptions, consciousness, thoughts, etc. Frank is by no means alone in
>> seeing intentionality (or "values", as he puts it) underlying all human
>> experience, even the so-called "objective" experiences, such as 
>> measurements of the natural world, or the output of your DES chip.
>
>And others of us see it as intellectual masturbation.

I'll defer to your greater firsthand knowledge in such matters.

								- Kevin

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84423
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin
From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)

In article <1r67ruINNmle@ctron-news.ctron.com>, king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes...
> 
>rfox@charlie.usd.edu writes:
> 
>[Discussion on Josephus inserts]
> 
>Thanks.  Am I correct, then, in assuming that that Josephus
>did in fact write about Jesus, but Christian copists embellished it?
> 
>Jack

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.)

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84428
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: 23 Apr 93   God's Promise in Matthew 3:11



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

	Matthew 3:11 (NIV)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84429
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?

In <1rdlsf$vi@agate.berkeley.edu> isaackuo@skippy.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo) writes:

|I merely point out that it IS a valid strategy which is used every day.
|Furthermore, we don't know of any substitute strategy capable of apprehending
|potentially dangerous and armed suspects.  Do you suggest that the police
|always knock with guns holstered and never arrest any suspects until they have
|been allowed to inspect the officers's badges?  Just what should the police do
|when apprehending potentially dangerous and armed suspects?  How far can they
|reasonably go to identiy themselves?  What do you suggest they can do which
|can't be faked by the "competition"?

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.

|Even if you've got deadly enemies who may pretend to be cops, that's not an
|excuse to murder police.

It wouldn't be murder, it would be self defense.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84430
From: jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <bskendigC5qyJ2.GEw@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:

>>One way or another -- so much for patience. Too bad you couldn't just
>>wait. Was the prospect of God's Message just too much to take?

>So you believe that David Koresh really is Jesus Christ?

Well lets see - a long haired nut case with sexual hangups surrounded
by a lot of gulible losers without a brain between them with a miserable
and meaningless death to boot

Sounds like he fits the bill to me!

Joseph 'Remember David Koresh fried for you' Askew

-- 
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  In the autumn stillness, see the Pleiades,
jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu  Remote in thorny deserts, fell the grief.
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  North of our tents, the sky must end somwhere,
Actually, I rather like Brenda  Beyond the pale, the River murmurs on.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84431
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is


: In my mind, to say that science has its basis in values is a bit of a
: reach. Science has its basis in observable fact. 

I'd say that what one chooses to observe and how the observation is
interpreted and what significance it's given depends a great deal on
the values of the observer. Science is a human activity and as such,
is subject to the same potential for distortion as any other human
activity. The myth that scientists are above moral influence or
ethical concern, that their knowledge can be abstacted whole and pure
from nature untainted by the biases of the scientist, is nonsense.

Bill

: If one is to argue for objective values (in a moral sense) then one must
: first start by demonstrating that morality itself is objective. Considering
: the meaning of the word "objective" I doubt that this will ever happen.

: So, back to the original question:

: And objective morality is.....?

This may be an unfortunate choice of words, almost self-contradictory.
Objective in the sense used here means something immutable and
absolute while morality describes the behavior of some group of
people. The first term is all inclusive, the second is specific. The
concept supposedly described may have meaning however. 
If there is a God as described by the Christians (for instance), then
He has existence apart from and independent of humankind; His
existence is outside of our frame of reference (reality). If this
being declares a thing to be so, it is -necessarily- so since He has
defined Himself as omnipotent and, if His claims are to be believed,
He is at least omnipotent relative to us. God is intrinsically
self-defined and all reality is whatever He says it is - in an
objective sense.
If God determines a standard of conduct, that standard is objective.
If human beings are held accountable for their conformance to that
standard while permitted to ignore it, they substitute a relative
morality or mode of conduct, giving the term morality a nebulous,
meaningless sense that can be argued about by those pretending to
misunderstand. The standard is objective and the conduct required to
meet that standard is therefore objectively determined.
Just because it is convenient to pretend that the term morality is
infinitely malleable, doesn't mean that the objective standard itself
doesn't exist. Morality has come to mean little more than a cultural
norm, or the preferred conduct of "decent" people, making it seem
subjective, but it is derived from an absolute, objective, standard.
Ironically, this objective standard is in perfect accord with our true
nature (according to Christianity at least), yet is condemned as being
contrary to human nre, oppressive and severe. This may be due as

Bill
much to our amoral inclinations as to the standard itself, but like it
or not, it's there.x

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84433
From: mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough)
Subject: Re: Burden of Proof

In article <1993Apr26.142158.11620@ousrvr.oulu.fi> ktikkane@phoenix.oulu.fi (Kari Tikkanen) writes:
>In Math exam I have burden of proof when it says:
>  "Prove that no elements in set A=( n divided by 30 leaves 5 as a remainder,
>   n prime, n integer) does exist."
>
>Well, Mathematics is formal science.  Real world may be different thing.
>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.

>----------------------- ktikkane@phoenix.oulu.fi -------------------
>  Kari Tikkanen      !   .  . -#- !      b        !   begin  
>  SF-90550 OULU      !         !  !  I = / f(x)dx !     s:=s+Eq(i);
>  FINLAND            ! .  .  Vega !      a        !   end
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
Please, not Pascal!  NOOOOO!! ;)

-- 
***************************************************************************
* mccullou@whipple.cs.wisc.edu * Never program and drink beer at the same *
* M^2                          *  time.  It doesn't work.                 *
***************************************************************************

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84434
From: phaedrus@IASTATE.EDU (James R. Goodfriend)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <visser.735260518@convex.convex.com>, visser@convex.com (Lance
Visser) writes:
> In <bskendigC5qyJ2.GEw@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:
> 
> +>b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice) writes:
> +>>
> +>>One way or another -- so much for patience. Too bad you couldn't just 
> +>>wait. Was the prospect of God's Message just too much to take?
> 
> +>So you believe that David Koresh really is Jesus Christ?
> 
> 	They cut off the water, there were no fire trucks present and
> the FBI/ATF go blasting holes into the builing and firing gas munitions.
> The building burns, almost everyone dies.  It probably doesn't bother
> you much, but it bothers many other people.....most of whom dont believe
> particularly in Koresh or his message.
> 
> 	Four ATF agents and 90 branch Davidians are now dead because of
> crazy tactics on the part of the ATF and FBI.
> 
> 	Attorney General Vampira tells us that todays events were suppose
> to "save" those in the compound.  Blowing holes in a building and
> gassing those inside was supposed to "save" them?
> 
> 
> 
	Personally, I think it was Mrs. O'Leary's cow that knocked over that
lantern...

:*)

phaedrus - The CyberPyrate

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84435
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <1993Apr22.155850.28992@atlastele.com>, jasons@atlastele.com
(Jason Smith) wrote:
> For several years all I knew is I really liked dropping 'cid (LSD).
> Frankly speaking, I didn't really care.  It was fun anyway.
> 
> It didn't matter that every child my wife and I want to have are at a 
> *tremendously* greater risk of serious birth defects.
> 
> For several years all I knew is I really liked having sex with as many women
> as I could convice.  Frankly speaking, I didn't care.  
> 
> I didn't care that I was putting each one of them at risk (as well as their
> future partners).

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

This is just one possible explanation why you feel this burden,
while I haven't felt it so far.

Regards,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84436
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: 26 Apr 93   God's Promise in Matthew 5:6


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

	Matthew 5:6 (NIV)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84437
From: tph@drake_mallard.sbc.com (Timothy P. Henrion)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

In article <24APR199300033703@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) writes:
>In article <1r17j9$5ie@sbctri.sbc.com>, netd@susie.sbc.com () writes...
>                                                           ^^-- name?
>>(stephen) writes:
>>>For those who think David Koresh didn't have a solid structure,
>>>or sound Biblical backing for his hour long tape broadcast,
>> 
>>I don't think anyone really cares about the solid structure of his
>>sermon.  
>
>Other than it tells quite a lot about the Man himself. 
                                             
I'm curious.  Are you referring to Koresh as "the Man"?  Why the 
upper case M?                           
                                                         
>
>>It's the deaths he's responsible for that concern most people.
>
>Are you the spokesman for "most people?"
                                                          
I never claimed to be a spokesman for "most people".  It is an assumption
on my part that people with normal values and morality would be more 
concerned with human life than sermon structure.  
                                      
>
>You missed the point -- which is that the Prophets, the Psalms, and 
>Revelation, all together, provide a very rich view of a very special
>event -- a wedding.                        
>                        
                     
Are burning children part of this very special event?      
                                          

>	                        
>My comment stems from the realization that we who love the Lord, are
>human and imperfect. Whatever we "preach," no matter how eloquent, or
>how corrupted -- is of little difference. Those who know the Master's
>voice will recognize Him -- a gem-stone amidst rock. Such is also the 
>lesson of the "stumblingblock." For those who have an ear to hear. 	
                                                
What about those who do not know the Master's voice?  Does the Master
not care about them?  Eloquent, but corrupt, preaching may be of little
difference to you.  But I suspect it made a big difference to all of
those who died in the compound.

-- 
  Tim Henrion              Southwestern Bell Technology Resources
  thenrion@sbctri.sbc.com       

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84438
From: nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <1r59na$e81@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1993Apr21.141259.12012@st-andrews.ac.uk>, nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson) writes:
>|> In article <1r2m21$8mo@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
...
>> Ok, so you don't claim to have an absolute moral system.  Do you claim
>> to have an objective one?  I'll assume your answer is "yes," apologies
>> if not.
>
>I've just spent two solid months arguing that no such thing as an
>objective moral system exists.
>
>jon.

Apologies, I've not been paying attention.

-Norman

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84439
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1993Apr21.180216.7431@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>,
mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas) wrote:
>    Either way, I have evidence to support the theory that the BD's burned
> themselves.  You made a serious implication that the FBI was responsible
> for the fire and the "destruction of the people".  All you have done is
> put doubt on who started the fire without providing any evidence to back
> up your claim that the FBI was responsible.

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
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84440
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1993Apr21.211312.7767@ra.royalroads.ca>,
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
> In article <9601@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, rjl+@pitt.edu (Richard J. Loether) writes:
> |> Yes, of course, as in Matthew 10:34-35 "Do not suppose that I have come to 
> |> bring peace to the earth; it is not peace I have come to bring but a sword..."

 
> Remember the armor of God?  The sword that Christians wield is the
> Word of God, the Bible.

Sorry Malcolm, but I rather believe Jesus than you.

Cheers,
Kent

---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84441
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: The Laws of God (was Re: A KIND and LOVING God!!)

In article <1993Apr22.153528.10877@ra.royalroads.ca>,
mlee@post.RoyalRoads.ca (Malcolm Lee) wrote:
> Eternal damnation is the consequence of the choice one makes in rejecting
> God.  If you choose to jump off a cliff, you can hardly blame God for you 
> going *splat* at the bottom.  He knows that if you choose to jump, that 
> you will die but He will not prevent you from making that choice.  In fact,
> He sent His Son to stand on the edge of the cliff and tell everyone of what
> lies below.  To prove that point, Jesus took that plunge Himself but He being
> God was able to rise up again.  I have seen the example of Christ and have 
> chosen not to jump and I'm trying to tell you not to jump or else you'll 
> go *splat*.
>  
> You don't have to listen to me and I won't stop you if you decide to jump.
> I only ask that you check it out before taking the plunge.  You owe it to
> yourself.  I don't like seeing anyone go *splat*.

I'm for the moment interested in this notion of the 'leap of faith'
established by Kierkegaard. It clearly points out a possible solution
to transcendental values. What I don't understand is that it also
clearly shows the existentialism system where any leap to any
transcendental direction is equal. 

In other words I might not jump off the cliff mentioned above,
but at the same time I will decide to what direction I will go.
Actually I will do it just now.

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84442
From: markk@cypress.West.Sun.COM (Mark Kampe)
Subject: Re: Cybele and Transgender/sexualism

In article 260493115730@raven.aims.unc.edu, fhunt@med.unc.edu (Freb Hunt) writes:
> > Is there some relation between the name 'Cybele' and the phenemenon of the
> > 'sibyl'?  Your paragraph above seems to indicate there might be.

The OED gives the etymology of "sibyl" as coming from the ancient Greek 

	sigma iota beta upsilon lambda lambda alpha 
	( S i b ih l l a )

which is claimed to come from the Doric 

	sigma iota omicron beta upsilon lambda lambda alpha 
	( s i o b ih l l a )

which (if I read it properly) in turn came from the Attican (Athenian)

	theta epsilon omicron beta omicron upsilon lambda eta 
	( th eh o b o ih l ae )

I don't know much about Attis, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that
this God was tied to the Athenian capital

	Alpha tau tau iota kappa upsilon sigma
	(a t t i k u s)

The OED does not list any etymology for "Cybele" since that is a propper noun,
but I suggest that the Greek spelling of that word would be much closer to
the anticedants of Sibyl than the two words are now. Perhaps "Cybele" is a
French or Latin spelling?

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84443
From: deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (David Matthew Deane)
Subject: Re: Flaming Nazis

Okay, I'll bite. I should probably leave this alone, but what the heck...

In article <1993Apr14.124301.422@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>, 
gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <TT3R2B5w165w@brewich.hou.tx.us> popec@brewich.hou.tx.us
>(Pope Charles) writes:
>
>>Rhoemer was the name of the guy responsible for much of the uniforms, 
>>and props used by the early Nazis in their rallies and such.
>
>The name is Roehm, not Rhoemer.  And Hitler does claim that he came up
>with the Swastika business.

But didn't he credit the actual flag design to a party member - some dentist or
other? I believe he gives such credit in Mein Kampf.

>>He was killed in an early Nazi purge. He and many of his associates
>>were flaming homosexuals well know also for their flamboyant orgies.
>
>I have been trying to find if there is any actual evidence for this
>common assertion recently.  Postings to such groups as soc.history and
>soc.culture.german has not uncovered any net.experts who could provide
>any. 

Well, I'm no expert, but all of the histories of Nazi Germany assert this. They
make reference to several scandals that occurred long before "the night of the
long knives". The impression that I got was that homosexuality in portions of
the SA was common knowledge. Also, a book (by a homosexual author whose name
escapes me at the moment) called "Homosexuals in History" asserts that Roehm
and Heines were homosexuals, as well as others in Roehm's SA circle.

>All the books say that Roehm and his associate, Edmund Heines,
>were homosexual.  I have been able to find nothing beyond that, and
>suspect this to be a sort of historical urban legend. 

Well, you're the one who is in Germany. If you don't believe the history books,
look up the primary sources yourself. Those of us outside of Germany do not
have access to these. You do. It seems to me that there were plenty of
documented instances - several scandals, the fact that on the "knight of the
long knives" several SA members (including Heines) were found sleeping
together, etc. Also I believe some people were complaining about the SA's
homosexual activities (seducing young boys, etc). The histories that I've 
read make a very convincing case. None of this sounds like urban legend to me. 

>(Irving, a
>notoriously unreliable historian, says that Funk, the Nazi finance
>minister, was homosexual.  He gives no sources.)

I know next to nothing about Irving and nothing about Funk. What precisely do
you know, that would contradict all of the other history books that I have
read concerning the existence of homosexual Nazis? Are you trying to say that 
all historians are taking part in an anti-homosexual smear? What about 
homosexual writers who agree with the official history? Don't you think they 
would have found out the truth by now if Roehm and Heines were not homosexuals?
I would think they would want to disassociate homosexuality from Nazism. No one 
should use any connection between the two to bash homosexuals in any case. 

>I challenge anyone to document this claim.

If you are going to challenge *all* historians on this point (not just Irving),
then the burden of proof is on you. Track down the references. Find out where
the stories originate from. Again, you are the one in Germany, close to
archival material - most people on the net are not.

>I *have* found a great
>deal of evidence that there were many flaming heterosexuals among the
>Nazis.  This seems to include all of the worst ones--Hitler, Himmler,
>Goebbels, Goering, Heydrich, Eichmann, and many more.

Eh? What is your agenda here? To prove that the Nazis were heterosexuals, so
that you can bash heterosexuals? Does it bother you that some of the Nazis
might have been homosexuals? Does this make all homosexuals bad if this is
true? Of course not. And what about bisexuals? Are they half-Nazis?

I don't know why it would be so difficult to believe that some Nazis were
homosexuals. The German officer corps before WW1, for instance, was notorious
for its homosexuality. There were numerous scandals which rocked the German
govt. during the late 19th and early 20th century. Many of the Kaiser's friends
were prosecuted - the Kaiser was no homosexual, but the Germany army had a long
tradition of tolerating homosexuality, going far back into Prussian history -
back to Frederick the Great at least, who was himself a homosexual. Roehm was a 
product of this Prussian officer tradition, and the old German army (like the
English public school system), being a well known center of homosexuality,
would have been quite willing to overlook Roehm's homosexuality.

In addition, some Nazis complained of homosexuality in the Hitler Youth. The
Hitler Youth swallowed up all pre-Nazi youth groups, and some of the various 
pre-war Vandervogel, Bund, and Volkish youth groups were known to promote 
homoerotic ideals and friendship, and in many cases, homosexuality itself. So 
it seems to me not unlikely that there were plenty of homosexual Nazis, 
regardless of the official Nazi dogmas concerning the "evils" of homosexuality.
Why should this suprise anyone? Homosexuality has always existed, in all 
societies - it would be most unusual if the Nazis were an exception.

No, I don't have any sources for you, as I think the only kind of proof you
will accept would be citations from archival material, and I do not have access 
to these. Nor do I intend to reread every book on the Nazis and on modern
homosexuality that I have ever read - I don't have the time. Nothing is
stopping you, however, from chasing down those sources. Until you prove
otherwise, though, I will stick with the established histories.
                                                                           
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
David Matthew Deane (deane@binah.cc.brandeis.edu)
"...Be in me as the eternal moods of the bleak wind...Let the Gods speak softly
of us in days hereafter..." (Ezra Pound)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84444
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Subject: 18 Apr 93   God's Promise in Philippians 4:9


	Those things,
	which ye have both learned, and received,
	and heard, and seen in me,
	do:
	and the God of peace shall be with you.

	Philippians 4:9

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84445
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: 14 Apr 93   God's Promise in 1 John 1: 7

In article <RN652B5w165w@tweekco.uucp>, alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard)
wrote:
> Judging from postings I've read all over Usenet and on non-Usenet
> BBs conferences, Barney is DEFINITELY an endangered species. Especially
> if he runs into me in a dark alley.

Please, please don't make Barney to a modern martyr/saviour mythical
figure. I detest this being, and if humans will create a religion in his
name, then life will be unbearable :-).

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84446
From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Subject: Re: Disillusioned Protestant Finds Christ

In article <C5KxDD.K4J@boi.hp.com>, jburrill@boi.hp.com (Jim Burrill)
wrote:
> If Jesus never taught the concept of the Trinity, how do you deal with the 
> following:   
> 
>    Mat 28 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven
>    and on earth has been given to me.
> 
>    Mat 28 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing
>    them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
> 
>    Mat 28 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
>    And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." 

Jim, please, that's a lame explanation of the trinity that Jesus provides
above. Baptizing people in the name of three things != trinity. If
this is the case, then I'm wrong, I assumed that trinity implies that
God is three entities, and yet the same.

Cheers,
Kent
---
sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84447
From: daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

Brian Ceccarelli presents us with the fallacy of False Dichotomy in stating
that we must accept every thing in the books attributed to Peter, or we must
discount every other book of antiquity:

>>(1) Peter died two millenia ago.  The original letters he wrote have
>>long since decayed into dust.  If he were alive today and I could
> 
> Do you question the existence of Alexander the Great, Tilgrath Pilisar III,
> Nero, Caligula, Josephus, Cyrus the Great, Artexerxes?   Their documents
> have decayed to dust too.  Brian, why another excuse? 

Mr Ceccarelli, you seem to be stating that we must accept accept everything
written in every "historical" document.  Somehow I doubt do that yourself
that.  Thus since I doubt you accept everything written in every historical
document, I would ask how you can thereby objectively justify complete faith
in the words of the books attributed to Peter. 

I shall now give an example of a document from antiquity, which I am sure you
reject; it dates from the time of Ramses II (This was first presented here by
Matthew Wiener).  These inscriptions were carved soon after a battle, and were
carved with the Pharoah's specific approval so we have true originals, rather
than mere copies.  This account records the the battle of Kadesh (circa 1285
BC), which occurred on the river Orontes, (about 100 miles south of Aleppo). 
The Egyptians won this battle with the Hittites, and Ramses had his victory
inscribed all over the place.  A few of of these inscriptions have survived in
near perfect form.  It is a record of how the Pharoah pretty much
single-handedly defeated the Hittites, after being separated from his troops. 

Note that the Egyptian wavers back and forth between first and third person. 
The following is from Miriam Lichtheim`s _Ancient Egyptian Literature_ volume
II.

	My majesty caused the forces of the foes from Hitti to fall
	on their faces, one upon the other, as crocodiles fall, into
	the water of the Orontes.  I was after them like a griffin;
	I attacked all the countries, I alone.  For my infantry and
	my chariotry had deserted me; not one of them stood looking
	back.  As I live, as Ra loves me, as my father Atum favors
	me, everything that my majesty has told I did it in truth,
	in the presence of my infantry and my chariotry.

(Note: This paragraph records not only Ramses "divine word," but also that
there were thousands of witnesses to the event.  Now from the heart of 
battle.)

	Then his majesty drove at a gallop and charged the forces
	of the Foe from Hitti, being alone by himself, none other
	with him.  His majesty proceeded to look about him and
	found 2500 chariots ringing him on his way out ...

	No officer was with me, no charioteer,
	No soldier of the army, no shield-bearer;
	My infantry, my chariotry yielded before them,
	Not one of them stood firm to fight with them.
	His majesty spoke: "What is this, father Amun?
	Is it right for a father to ignore his son?
	Are my deeds a matter for you to ignore?
	Do I not walk and stand at your word?
	I have not neglected an order you gave.
	Too great is he, the great lord of Egypt,
	To allow aliens to step on his path!
	What are these Asiatics to you, O Amun,
	The wretches ignorant of god?
	Have I not made for you many great monuments,
	...
	I call to you, my father Amun,
	I am among a host of strangers;
	All countries are arrayed against me,
	I am alone, there's none with me!
	...
	The labors of many people are nothing,
	Amun is more helpful than they;
	I came here by the command of your mouth,
	O Amun, I have not transgressed your command!"

	Now though I prayed in a distant land,
	My voice resounded in Southern Thebes.
	I found Amun came when I called to him,
	He gave me his hand and I rejoiced.
	He called from behind as if near by:
	"Forward, I am with you,
	I your father, my hand is with you,
	I prevail over a hundred thousand men,
	I am lord of victory, lover of valor!"
	I found my heart stout, my breast in joy,
	All I did succeeded, I was like Mont.
	...
	I slaughtered among them at my will,
	Not one looked behind him,
	Not one turned around,
	Whoever fell down did not rise.
	...
	One called out to the other saying:
	"No man is he who is among us,
	It is Seth great-of-strength, Baal in person;
	Not deeds of man are these his doings,
	They are of one who is unique,
	Who fights a hundred thousand without soldiers and chariots,
	Come quick, flee before him,
	To seek life and breathe air;
	For he who attempts to get close to him,
	His hands, all his limbs grow limp.
	One cannot hold either bow or spears,
	When one sees him come racing along!"
	My majesty hunted them like a griffin,
	I slaughtered among them unceasingly.

So you see Brian, we have a few original manuscripts recording the miraculous 
battle between the Ramses and the Hittites.  Do you reject them as being
*completely* true? I suspect you do, and if so, then do you also, in your own
words: 

    "question the existence of Alexander the Great, Tilgrath Pilisar III,
     Nero, Caligula, Josephus, Cyrus the Great, Artexerxes?"

Do you also thereby question all their documents? That`s the problem with your
"all or nothing" approach.  Many ancient people used to mix a bit of fancy
with their facts.  So for you to say that we must either accept all of Peter
(and the rest of the New Testament) or accept no records of antiquity at all,
forces you thereby, to accept the verity of documents you probably do not find
completely credible. 

As to your other argument that so many people have testified to Jesus, that he
must be true:

> Are you going to just pass off all this testimony as fictiousness? 
> Are you going to call three thousand years worth of testimony from
> shepherds to IRS agents to royal officials to kings to computer
> programmers, fiction?  With a scoff of your keyboard, with near
> complete ignorance of the testimonies, are you going to say that
> that is all complete hooey?   Would that not be the most audacious
> display of arrogance?  Do you actually think you know better than
> King Solomon, King David, or even Abraham Lincoln?
 
I have three points.  

First, this is "argumentum ad populum" (ie: appeal to popular opinion); you
cannot vote on truth.  For instance, do the millions of Hindu's past and
present who testify to the reality of Brahma, constitute actual evidence for
the existence of Brahma? How would you answer your own question in regards to
the testimony of Hindus:

	"With a scoff of your keyboard, with near complete ignorance of 
	 the testimonies, are you going to say that that is all complete 
	 hooey?"

If you do so "scoff," then how do you objectively justify your own special
pleading?

Second, it is not at all clear that King Solomon or King David testified to
Jesus.  You can claim it to be clear, but that does not make it true. 

Third, it is quite arguable that Abraham Lincoln was not Christian, and that
he had both a public and a private view of Christianity.  In fact there was
much discussion about it in his day (yes, he was publically accused of being a
deist.  Oh my).  I am presently collecting a FAQ for Lincoln as I've
previously done for Tyre, Jefferson and etc. 
 
				Later,

				Dave Butler

    "My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of 
     salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become 
     clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for 
     thinking I shall ever change them."
					Abraham Lincoln
					To Judge J S Wakefield 
					after the death of Willie Lincoln.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84448
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (E. Elizabeth Bartley)
Subject: Re: What part of "No" don't you understand?

In article <1993Apr26.150845.28537@advtech.uswest.com>
> = steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>> = Steve Novak writes:

>>>Because, of course, that possibility existed.  Meaning any student who
>>>really gave a shit could have a moment of silence on his/her own, which
>>>makes more sense than forcing those who DON'T want to participate to
>>>have to take part.  What other reason is there for an organized "moment
>>>of silence"?

>>A "moment of silence" doesn't mean much unless *everyone*
>>participates.  Otherwise it's not silent, now is it?

>The whole point is, maybe everyone _doesn't want_ to participate.

And maybe they do.  But without somebody to set the time that doesn't
do them any good.

>[...]

Humph.  Deleted there was my list of non-religious reasons one might
want a moment of silence for a dead classmate.

Maybe everyone doesn't want to be silent for teachers to give their
pompous non-religious speeches in assembly.  I know I didn't.  So?

>>Blindly opposing everything with a flavor of religion in it is
>>utterly idiotic.

>Blindly opposing everything with a flavor of religion in it that is
>supported by taxpayer money is the only way to keep christianity from
>becoming the official U.S. religion.

Please provide documentation that opposing only things that are
actively religious (e.g. actual prayer, "Amen" after a moment of
silence, mandatory classes in religion) and not things that have
possible but uncertain religious implications (e.g. moments of
silence, having the Bible on the shelves during reading period) is not
a way to prevent a state religion.

-- 
Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84449
From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Subject: LARSONIAN Astronomy, Physics, CREATION



     The following partial summary of a Theory of the Universe includes a
little-known description of the CREATION of our Solar System:


                      LARSONIAN Astronomy and Physics

               Orthodox physicists, astronomers, and astrophysicists 
          CLAIM to be looking for a "Unified Field Theory" in which all 
          of the forces of the universe can be explained with a single 
          set of laws or equations.  But they have been systematically 
          IGNORING or SUPPRESSING an excellent one for 30 years! 

               The late Physicist Dewey B. Larson's comprehensive 
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, which he 
          calls the "Reciprocal System", is built on two fundamental 
          postulates about the physical and mathematical natures of 
          space and time: 
    
               (1) "The physical universe is composed ENTIRELY of ONE 
          component, MOTION, existing in THREE dimensions, in DISCRETE 
          UNITS, and in two RECIPROCAL forms, SPACE and TIME." 
    
               (2) "The physical universe conforms to the relations of 
          ORDINARY COMMUTATIVE mathematics, its magnitudes are 
          ABSOLUTE, and its geometry is EUCLIDEAN." 
    
               From these two postulates, Larson developed a COMPLETE 
          Theoretical Universe, using various combinations of 
          translational, vibrational, rotational, and vibrational-
          rotational MOTIONS, the concepts of IN-ward and OUT-ward 
          SCALAR MOTIONS, and speeds in relation to the Speed of Light 
          (which Larson called "UNIT VELOCITY" and "THE NATURAL 
          DATUM"). 
      
               At each step in the development, Larson was able to 
          MATCH objects in his Theoretical Universe with objects in the 
          REAL physical universe, (photons, sub-atomic particles 
          [INCOMPLETE ATOMS], charges, atoms, molecules, globular star 
          clusters, galaxies, binary star systems, solar systems, white 
          dwarf stars, pulsars, quasars, ETC.), even objects NOT YET 
          DISCOVERED THEN (such as EXPLODING GALAXIES, and GAMMA-RAY 
          BURSTS). 
          
               And applying his Theory to his NEW model of the atom, 
          Larson was able to precisely and accurately CALCULATE inter-
          atomic distances in crystals and molecules, compressibility 
          and thermal expansion of solids, and other properties of 
          matter. 

               All of this is described in good detail, with-OUT fancy 
          complex mathematics, in his books. 
    


          BOOKS of Dewey B. Larson
          
               The following is a complete list of the late Physicist 
          Dewey B. Larson's books about his comprehensive GENERAL 
          UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe.  Some of the early 
          books are out of print now, but still available through 
          inter-library loan. 
    
               "The Structure of the Physical Universe" (1959) 
    
               "The Case AGAINST the Nuclear Atom" (1963)
    
               "Beyond Newton" (1964) 
    
               "New Light on Space and Time" (1965) 
    
               "Quasars and Pulsars" (1971) 
    
               "NOTHING BUT MOTION" (1979) 
                    [A $9.50 SUBSTITUTE for the $8.3 BILLION "Super 
                                                            Collider".] 
                    [The last four chapters EXPLAIN chemical bonding.]

               "The Neglected Facts of Science" (1982) 
     
               "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" (1984)
                    [FINAL SOLUTIONS to most ALL astrophysical
                                                            mysteries.] 
      
               "BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER" (1988)

               All but the last of these books were published by North 
          Pacific Publishers, P.O. Box 13255, Portland, OR  97213, and 
          should be available via inter-library loan if your local 
          university or public library doesn't have each of them. 

               Several of them, INCLUDING the last one, are available 
          from: The International Society of Unified Science (ISUS), 
          1680 E. Atkin Ave., Salt Lake City, Utah  84106.  This is the 
          organization that was started to promote Larson's Theory.  
          They have other related publications, including the quarterly 
          journal "RECIPROCITY". 

          

          Physicist Dewey B. Larson's Background
    
               Physicist Dewey B. Larson was a retired Engineer 
          (Chemical or Electrical).  He was about 91 years old when he 
          died in May 1989.  He had a Bachelor of Science Degree in 
          Engineering Science from Oregon State University.  He 
          developed his comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the 
          physical universe while trying to develop a way to COMPUTE 
          chemical properties based only on the elements used. 
    
               Larson's lack of a fancy "PH.D." degree might be one 
          reason that orthodox physicists are ignoring him, but it is 
          NOT A VALID REASON.  Sometimes it takes a relative outsider 
          to CLEARLY SEE THE FOREST THROUGH THE TREES.  At the same 
          time, it is clear from his books that he also knew ORTHODOX 
          physics and astronomy as well as ANY physicist or astronomer, 
          well enough to point out all their CONTRADICTIONS, AD HOC 
          ASSUMPTIONS, PRINCIPLES OF IMPOTENCE, IN-CONSISTENCIES, ETC.. 
     
               Larson did NOT have the funds, etc. to experimentally 
          test his Theory.  And it was NOT necessary for him to do so.  
          He simply compared the various parts of his Theory with OTHER 
          researchers' experimental and observational data.  And in 
          many cases, HIS explanation FIT BETTER. 
    
               A SELF-CONSISTENT Theory is MUCH MORE than the ORTHODOX 
          physicists and astronomers have!  They CLAIM to be looking 
          for a "unified field theory" that works, but have been 
          IGNORING one for over 30 years now! 
    
               "Modern physics" does NOT explain the physical universe 
          so well.  Some parts of some of Larson's books are FULL of 
          quotations of leading orthodox physicists and astronomers who 
          agree.  And remember that "epicycles", "crystal spheres", 
          "geocentricity", "flat earth theory", etc., ALSO once SEEMED 
          to explain it well, but were later proved CONCEPTUALLY WRONG. 
    
    
               Prof. Frank H. Meyer, Professor Emeritus of UW-Superior, 
          was/is a STRONG PROPONENT of Larson's Theory, and was (or 
          still is) President of Larson's organization, "THE 
          INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF UNIFIED SCIENCE", and Editor of 
          their quarterly Journal "RECIPROCITY".  He moved to 
          Minneapolis after retiring. 
    


          "Super Collider" BOONDOGGLE!
          
               I am AGAINST contruction of the "Superconducting Super 
          Collider", in Texas or anywhere else.  It would be a GROSS 
          WASTE of money, and contribute almost NOTHING of "scientific" 
          value. 
    
               Most physicists don't realize it, but, according to the 
          comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the late Physicist 
          Dewey B. Larson, as described in his books, the strange GOOFY 
          particles ("mesons", "hyperons", ALLEGED "quarks", etc.) 
          which they are finding in EXISTING colliders (Fermi Lab, 
          Cern, etc.) are really just ATOMS of ANTI-MATTER, which are 
          CREATED by the high-energy colliding beams, and which quickly 
          disintegrate like cosmic rays because they are incompatible 
          with their environment. 
    
               A larger and more expensive collider will ONLY create a 
          few more elements of anti-matter that the physicists have not 
          seen there before, and the physicists will be EVEN MORE 
          CONFUSED THAN THEY ARE NOW! 
    
               Are a few more types of anti-matter atoms worth the $8.3 
          BILLION cost?!!  Don't we have much more important uses for 
          this WASTED money?! 
    
     
               Another thing to consider is that the primary proposed 
          location in Texas has a serious and growing problem with some 
          kind of "fire ants" eating the insulation off underground 
          cables.  How much POISONING of the ground and ground water 
          with insecticides will be required to keep the ants out of 
          the "Supercollider"?! 
    
          
               Naming the "Super Collider" after Ronald Reagon, as 
          proposed, is TOTALLY ABSURD!  If it is built, it should be 
          named after a leading particle PHYSICIST. 
      


          LARSONIAN Anti-Matter
          
               In Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the 
          physical universe, anti-matter is NOT a simple case of 
          opposite charges of the same types of particles.  It has more 
          to do with the rates of vibrations and rotations of the 
          photons of which they are made, in relation to the 
          vibrational and rotational equivalents of the speed of light, 
          which Larson calls "Unit Velocity" and the "Natural Datum". 
     
               In Larson's Theory, a positron is actually a particle of 
          MATTER, NOT anti-matter.  When a positron and electron meet, 
          the rotational vibrations (charges) and rotations of their 
          respective photons (of which they are made) neutralize each 
          other. 
      
               In Larson's Theory, the ANTI-MATTER half of the physical 
          universe has THREE dimensions of TIME, and ONLY ONE dimension 
          of space, and exists in a RECIPROCAL RELATIONSHIP to our 
          MATERIAL half. 
       


          LARSONIAN Relativity
          
               The perihelion point in the orbit of the planet Mercury 
          has been observed and precisely measured to ADVANCE at the 
          rate of 574 seconds of arc per century.  531 seconds of this 
          advance are attributed via calculations to gravitational 
          perturbations from the other planets (Venus, Earth, Jupiter, 
          etc.).  The remaining 43 seconds of arc are being used to 
          help "prove" Einstein's "General Theory of Relativity". 
    
               But the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson achieved results 
          CLOSER to the 43 seconds than "General Relativity" can, by 
          INSTEAD using "SPECIAL Relativity".  In one or more of his 
          books, he applied the LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION on the HIGH 
          ORBITAL SPEED of Mercury. 
    
               Larson TOTALLY REJECTED "General Relativity" as another 
          MATHEMATICAL FANTASY.  He also REJECTED most of "Special 
          Relativity", including the parts about "mass increases" near 
          the speed of light, and the use of the Lorentz Transform on 
          doppler shifts, (Those quasars with red-shifts greater than 
          1.000 REALLY ARE MOVING FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT, 
          although most of that motion is away from us IN TIME.). 
     
               In Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the 
          physical universe, there are THREE dimensions of time instead 
          of only one.  But two of those dimensions can NOT be measured 
          from our material half of the physical universe.  The one 
          dimension that we CAN measure is the CLOCK time.  At low 
          relative speeds, the values of the other two dimensions are 
          NEGLIGIBLE; but at high speeds, they become significant, and 
          the Lorentz Transformation must be used as a FUDGE FACTOR. 
          [Larson often used the term "COORDINATE TIME" when writing 
          about this.] 
    
     
               In regard to "mass increases", it has been PROVEN in 
          atomic accelerators that acceleration drops toward zero near 
          the speed of light.  But the formula for acceleration is 
          ACCELERATION = FORCE / MASS, (a = F/m).  Orthodox physicists 
          are IGNORING the THIRD FACTOR: FORCE.  In Larson's Theory, 
          mass STAYS CONSTANT and FORCE drops toward zero.  FORCE is 
          actually a MOTION, or COMBINATIONS of MOTIONS, or RELATIONS 
          BETWEEN MOTIONS, including INward and OUTward SCALAR MOTIONS.  
          The expansion of the universe, for example, is an OUTward 
          SCALAR motion inherent in the universe and NOT a result of 
          the so-called "Big Bang" (which is yet another MATHEMATICAL 
          FANTASY). 
    
                                    
          
          THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION

               I wish to recommend to EVERYONE the book "THE UNIVERSE 
          OF MOTION", by Dewey B. Larson, 1984, North Pacific 
          Publishers, (P.O. Box 13255, Portland, Oregon  97213), 456 
          pages, indexed, hardcover. 
    
               It contains the Astrophysical portions of a GENERAL 
          UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe developed by that 
          author, an UNrecognized GENIUS, more than thirty years ago. 
    
               It contains FINAL SOLUTIONS to most ALL Astrophysical 
          mysteries, including the FORMATION of galaxies, binary and 
          multiple star systems, and solar systems, the TRUE ORIGIN of 
          the "3-degree" background radiation, cosmic rays, and gamma-
          ray bursts, and the TRUE NATURE of quasars, pulsars, white 
          dwarfs, exploding galaxies, etc.. 
    
               It contains what astronomers and astrophysicists are ALL 
          looking for, if they are ready to seriously consider it with 
          OPEN MINDS! 
    
               The following is an example of his Theory's success: 
          In his first book in 1959, "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL 
          UNIVERSE", Larson predicted the existence of EXPLODING 
          GALAXIES, several years BEFORE astronomers started finding 
          them.  They are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of Larson's 
          comprehensive Theory.  And when QUASARS were discovered, he 
          had an immediate related explanation for them also. 
    

 
          GAMMA-RAY BURSTS

               Astro-physicists and astronomers are still scratching 
          their heads about the mysterious GAMMA-RAY BURSTS.  They were 
          originally thought to originate from "neutron stars" in the 
          disc of our galaxy.  But the new Gamma Ray Telescope now in 
          Earth orbit has been detecting them in all directions 
          uniformly, and their source locations in space do NOT 
          correspond to any known objects, (except for a few cases of 
          directional coincidence). 
    
               Gamma-ray bursts are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of the 
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe developed by 
          the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson.  According to page 386 of 
          his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", published in 1984, the 
          gamma-ray bursts are coming from SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS in the 
          ANTI-MATTER HALF of the physical universe, which Larson calls 
          the "Cosmic Sector".  Because of the relationship between the 
          anti-matter and material halves of the physical universe, and 
          the way they are connected together, the gamma-ray bursts can 
          pop into our material half anywhere in space, seemingly at 
          random.  (This is WHY the source locations of the bursts do 
          not correspond with known objects, and come from all 
          directions uniformly.) 
    
               I wonder how close to us in space a source location 
          would have to be for a gamma-ray burst to kill all or most 
          life on Earth!  There would be NO WAY to predict one, NOR to 
          stop it! 
    
               Perhaps some of the MASS EXTINCTIONS of the past, which 
          are now being blamed on impacts of comets and asteroids, were 
          actually caused by nearby GAMMA-RAY BURSTS! 
    


          LARSONIAN Binary Star Formation
          
               About half of all the stars in the galaxy in the 
          vicinity of the sun are binary or double.  But orthodox 
          astronomers and astrophysicists still have no satisfactory 
          theory about how they form or why there are so many of them. 
    
               But binary star systems are actually a LIKELY 
          CONSEQUENCE of the comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of 
          the physical universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey 
          B. Larson. 
    
               I will try to summarize Larsons explanation, which is 
          detailed in Chapter 7 of his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" 
          and in some of his other books. 
    
               First of all, according to Larson, stars do NOT generate 
          energy by "fusion".  A small fraction comes from slow 
          gravitational collapse.  The rest results from the COMPLETE 
          ANNIHILATION of HEAVY elements (heavier than IRON).  Each 
          element has a DESTRUCTIVE TEMPERATURE LIMIT.  The heavier the 
          element is, the lower is this limit.  A star's internal 
          temperature increases as it grows in mass via accretion and 
          absorption of the decay products of cosmic rays, gradually 
          reaching the destructive temperature limit of lighter and 
          lighter elements. 
    
               When the internal temperature of the star reaches the 
          destructive temperature limit of IRON, there is a Type I 
          SUPERNOVA EXPLOSION!  This is because there is SO MUCH iron 
          present; and that is related to the structure of iron atoms 
          and the atom building process, which Larson explains in some 
          of his books [better than I can]. 
    
               When the star explodes, the lighter material on the 
          outer portion of the star is blown outward in space at less 
          than the speed of light.  The heavier material in the center 
          portion of the star was already bouncing around at close to 
          the speed of light, because of the high temperature.  The 
          explosion pushes that material OVER the speed of light, and 
          it expands OUTWARD IN TIME, which is equivalent to INWARD IN 
          SPACE, and it often actually DISAPPEARS for a while. 
    
               Over long periods of time, both masses start to fall 
          back gravitationally.  The material that had been blown 
          outward in space now starts to form a RED GIANT star.  The 
          material that had been blown OUTWARD IN TIME starts to form a 
          WHITE DWARF star.  BOTH stars then start moving back toward 
          the "MAIN SEQUENCE" from opposite directions on the H-R 
          Diagram. 
    
               The chances of the two masses falling back into the 
          exact same location in space, making a single lone star 
          again, are near zero.  They will instead form a BINARY 
          system, orbiting each other. 
     
               According to Larson, a white dwarf star has an INVERSE 
          DENSITY GRADIENT (is densest at its SURFACE), because the 
          material at its center is most widely dispersed (blown 
          outward) in time.   This ELIMINATES the need to resort to 
          MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES about "degenerate matter", "neutron 
          stars", "black holes", etc.. 
    


          LARSONIAN Solar System Formation

               If the mass of the heavy material at the center of the 
          exploding star is relatively SMALL, then, instead of a single 
          white dwarf star, there will be SEVERAL "mini" white dwarf 
          stars (revolving around the red giant star, but probably 
          still too far away in three-dimensional TIME to be affected 
          by its heat, etc.).  These will become PLANETS! 
      
               In Chapter 7 of THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION, Larson used all 
          this information, and other principles of his comprehensive 
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, to derive 
          his own version of Bode's Law. 
          


          "Black Hole" FANTASY!

               I heard that physicist Stephen W. Hawking recently 
          completed a theoretical mathematical analysis of TWO "black 
          holes" merging together into a SINGLE "black hole", and 
          concluded that the new "black hole" would have MORE MASS than 
          the sum of the two original "black holes". 
    
               Such a result should be recognized by EVERYone as a RED 
          FLAG, causing widespread DOUBT about the whole IDEA of "black 
          holes", etc.! 
    
               After reading Physicist Dewey B. Larson's books about 
          his comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical 
          universe, especially his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", it is 
          clear to me that "black holes" are NOTHING more than 
          MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES!  The strange object at Cygnus X-1 is 
          just an unusually massive WHITE DWARF STAR, NOT the "black 
          hole" that orthodox astronomers and physicists so badly want 
          to "prove" their theory. 
    
    
               By the way, I do NOT understand why so much publicity is 
          being given to physicist Stephen Hawking.  The physicists and 
          astronomers seem to be acting as if Hawking's severe physical 
          problem somehow makes him "wiser".  It does NOT! 
    
               I wish the same attention had been given to Physicist 
          Dewey B. Larson while he was still alive.  Widespread 
          publicity and attention should NOW be given to Larson's 
          Theory, books, and organization (The International Society of 
          Unified Science). 
          
          
          
          ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PROPULSION

               I heard of that concept many years ago, in connection 
          with UFO's and unorthodox inventors, but I never was able to 
          find out how or why they work, or how they are constructed. 
    
               I found a possible clue about why they might work on 
          pages 112-113 of the book "BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER", by 
          the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson, which describes part of 
          Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical 
          universe.  I quote one paragraph: 
    
               "As indicated in the preceding chapter, the development 
          of the theory of the universe of motion arrives at a totally 
          different concept of the nature of electrical resistance.  
          The electrons, we find, are derived from the environment.  It 
          was brought out in Volume I [Larson's book "NOTHING BUT 
          MOTION"] that there are physical processes in operation which 
          produce electrons in substantial quantities, and that, 
          although the motions that constitute these electrons are, in 
          many cases, absorbed by atomic structures, the opportunities 
          for utilizing this type of motion in such structures are 
          limited.  It follows that there is always a large excess of 
          free electrons in the material sector [material half] of the 
          universe, most of which are uncharged.  In this uncharged 
          state the electrons cannot move with respect to extension 
          space, because they are inherently rotating units of space, 
          and the relation of space to space is not motion.  In open 
          space, therefore, each uncharged electron remains permanently 
          in the same location with respect to the natural reference 
          system, in the manner of a photon.  In the context of the 
          stationary spatial reference system the uncharged electron, 
          like the photon, is carried outward at the speed of light by 
          the progression of the natural reference system.  All 
          material aggregates are thus exposed to a flux of electrons 
          similar to the continual bombardment by photons of radiation.  
          Meanwhile there are other processes, to be discussed later, 
          whereby electrons are returned to the environment.  The 
          electron population of a material aggregate such as the earth 
          therefore stabilizes at an equilibrium level." 
          
               Note that in Larson's Theory, UNcharged electrons are 
          also massLESS, and are basically photons of light of a 
          particular frequency (above the "unit" frequency) spinning 
          around one axis at a particular rate (below the "unit" rate).  
          ("Unit velocity" is the speed of light, and there are 
          vibrational and rotational equivalents to the speed of light, 
          according to Larson's Theory.)  [I might have the "above" and 
          "below" labels mixed up.] 
    
               Larson is saying that outer space is filled with mass-
          LESS UN-charged electrons flying around at the speed of 
          light! 
    
               If this is true, then the ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PROPULSION 
          fields of spacecraft might be able to interact with these 
          electrons, or other particles in space, perhaps GIVING them a 
          charge (and mass) and shooting them toward the rear to 
          achieve propulsion. (In Larson's Theory, an electrical charge 
          is a one-dimensional rotational vibration of a particular 
          frequency (above the "unit" frequency) superimposed on the 
          rotation of the particle.) 
      
               The paragraph quoted above might also give a clue to 
          confused meteorologists about how and why lightning is 
          generated in clouds. 



          SUPPRESSION of LARSONIAN Physics

               The comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical 
          universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson has 
          been available for more than 30 YEARS, published in 1959 in 
          his first book "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE". 
    
               It is TOTALLY UN-SCIENTIFIC for Hawking, Wheeler, Sagan, 
          and the other SACRED PRIESTS of the RELIGION they call 
          "science" (or "physics", or "astronomy", etc.), as well as 
          the "scientific" literature and the "education" systems, to 
          TOTALLY IGNORE Larson's Theory has they have. 
    
               Larson's Theory has excellent explanations for many 
          things now puzzling orthodox physicists and astronomers, such 
          as gamma-ray bursts and the nature of quasars. 
    
               Larson's Theory deserves to be HONESTLY and OPENLY 
          discussed in the physics, chemistry, and astronomy journals, 
          in the U.S. and elsewhere.  And at least the basic principles 
          of Larson's Theory should be included in all related courses 
          at UW-EC, UW-Madison, Cambridge, Cornell University, and 
          elsewhere, so that students are not kept in the dark about a 
          worthy alternative to the DOGMA they are being fed. 
    
          

               For more information, answers to your questions, etc., 
          please consult my CITED SOURCES (especially Larson's BOOKS). 



               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          IMPORTANT partial summary is ENCOURAGED. 


                                       Robert E. McElwaine
                                       B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
          


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84450
From: lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe)
Subject: Re: On-line copy of Book of Mormon

In article <1993Apr23.163823.24226@ads.com> wmoore@ADS.COM (William Moore) writes:
>Can anyone provide me a ftp site where I can obtain a online version
>of the Book of Mormon. Please email the internet address if possible.

I have a copy.  Why are you interested?

Lance
 
-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Lance W. Bledsoe        lwb@im4u.cs.utexas.edu        (512) 258-0112  |
|  "Ye shall know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall make you free."         |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84451
From: jmeritt@mental.MITRE.ORG (Jim Meritt - System Admin)
Subject: Booze it up, thus sayth the Lord!

Jeremiah:
25:27 Therefore thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of
hosts, the God of Israel; Drink ye, and be drunken, and spue, and
fall, and rise no more, because of the sword which I will send among
you.
25:28 And it shall be, if they refuse to take the cup at thine hand to
drink, then shalt thou say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ye
shall certainly drink.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84452
From: lwb@cs.utexas.edu (Lance W. Bledsoe)
Subject: Re: Who's next? Mormons and Jews?

In article <1f2P02UA40zB01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
>Capser, before you deceive everone into thinking that the latter-day
>saints have undergone undue persecution through the years for just
>believing in their religion, perhaps you would like to tell us all what
>happened in the Mountain Meadow Massacres and all the killings that were
>done under the Blood Atonement Doctrine, at the command of Brigham Young?

I recently watched a an episode of "The Old West" a TV show on the 
Discovery Channel (or perhaps the A&E Network), the one hosted by Kenny
Rogers.  This episode was all about the Mormons and how they settled Utah,
etc.

A large portion of the broadcast was about the "Mountain Meadows Massacre".
The program very specifically pointed out that Brigham Young knew nothing
about the incident until long after it had happened (before telegraph), and
it occured as a result of several men inciting a bunch of paronoid Moromn
settlers into what amounted to a mob.  All participants in the incident were
prosecuted and eccomunicated from the LDS Church.

I suggest you watch a rerun of that episode (they play them over and over) 
and see what they (non-Mormons) have to say about it.


Lance



-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Lance W. Bledsoe        lwb@im4u.cs.utexas.edu        (512) 258-0112  |
|  "Ye shall know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall make you free."         |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84506
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is

In article <lefty-260493134641@lefty.apple.com>, lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>
> These particular Tibetans are advocating increased violence against 
> the Chinese occupiers.  Are they wrong?

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.

> Clearly the occupation of Tibet _has_ been largely ignored.

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.

> Are Tibetans currently "people of peace"?  Do they serve themselves 
> well or badly by being so?

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?

> Would an increased level of violence make them "terrorists"?

The Chinese would certainly refer to them as terrorists, just as
the Hitler regime used to refer to European resistance movements
as terrorists.

> Assuming that the group advocating this course is correct, and 
> greater attention is focussed on the occupation of Tibet by the 
> Chinese, are the Tibetans better off as "people of peace" or
> 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?

jon.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84507
From: cutter@gloster.via.mind.org (cutter)
Subject: Re: Biblical Backing of Koresh's 3-02 Tape (Cites enclosed)

netd@susie.sbc.com () writes:

> In article <20APR199301460499@utarlg.uta.edu> b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen
> >For those who think David Koresh didn't have a solid structure,
> >or sound Biblical backing for his hour long tape broadcast,
> 
> I don't think anyone really cares about the solid structure of his
> sermon.  It's the deaths he's responsible for that concern most people.
> 

And I think we ought to hold Christ accoountable for all of his followers 
who died at the hand of the Romans also. It was their own fault for believing.

God, this society reminds me more of the Roman Empire every day; I guess
I'll just log off and go watch American Gladiators.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
cutter@gloster.via.mind.org (chris)     All jobs are easy 
                                     to the person who
                                     doesn't have to do them.
                                               Holt's law

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84508
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Is it good that Jesus died?

In article <1993Apr26.215627.24917@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes:
>A baby's innocence has nothing to do with whether the baby
>is a sinner.  Innocence and the sin nature are two different attributes. 
>The baby is innocent, yet the baby is a sinner.   
>You have two arms and two legs?  Why?  Because your parents did.
>Why? Because their parents did.  Etc.  Did you do anything to get them?

The thing is, I know what arms and legs are.  It's therefore generally easy to
tell whether or not someone has arms and legs.  This "sinful nature", since it
does not require that the baby actually perform any sins, seems to be totally
invisible.  As far as I know, maybe half the babies have a sinful nature and
half don't--it'd look exactly the same, since there is no way to tell the
difference.

>We are born sinners.  We are born sinners because our parents
>were born with it.  We got it from them.  We did nothing to earn
>the title "sinner".  We get it because our parents had it, their
>parents had it, their grandparents had it, etc, infinitum.

So what's so bad about a sinful nature, then?  I could understand it being
bad if it always results in people committing sins, but babies can have it,
never commit sins, die, and they still have it.  So the bad part about can't
merely be that it results in people committing sins--so what _is_ bad about it?
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84509
From: pboxrud@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul D Boxrud)
Subject: Religion and marriage

     I wasn't sure if this was the right newsgroup to post this to, but I guess
the misc is there for a reason.  Here goes...  I am getting married in June to 
a devout (Wisconsin Synod) Lutheran.  I would classify myself as a strong 
agnostic/weak athiest.  This has been a a subject of many discussions between
us and is really our only real obstacle.  We don't have any real difficulties 
with the religious differences yet, but I expect they will pop up when we have 
children.  I have agreed to raise the
children "nominally" Lutheran.  That is, Lutheran traditions, but trying to
keep an open mind.  I am not sure if this is even possible though.  I feel that
that the worst quality of being devoutly religous is the lack of an open mind.

     Anyway, I guess I'll get on with my question.  Is anyone in the same 
situation and can give some suggestions as to how to deal with this?  We've 
taken the attitude so far of just talking about it a lot and not letting 
anything get bottled up inside.  Sometimes I get the feeling we're making this 
much bigger than it actually is.  Any comments would be greatly appreciated.  
Also, please e-mail responses since I don't get a chance to read this group
often.  :-(

Paul

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84510
Subject: Re: [rw] Is Robert Weiss the only orthodox Christian?
From: brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615)

>I'm curious to know if Christians ever read books based on critique
>on the religion, classical text such as "Age of Reason" by Paine,
>or "The Myth Maker" by Jacobi. Sometimes it is good to know your
>enemy, and if you want to do serious research you have to understand
>both sides, and not solely the one and only right one.

Yes, one does.  I examined a critique of the Book of Romans by
I think, Benjamin Franklin once, a Deist.  I found it amazing that
Benjamin Franklin missed the whole boat.   I also have the writings
on Thomas Jefferson sitting on my shelf, and it is amazing how
much he missed.  I have studied Plato's Theory of Forms and 
Aristotelian Hylomorphesism.  What a pile of junk.  Jesus
makes Plato and Aristotle look like kindergardeners.  Psychology,
the id, ego, superego by Freud?  Elements of truth, but Jesus
explained it far better and gave reasons.

Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson are mere men.  They
can screw up the Bible just as well as any man.  I do not put these
men on a pedestal.  And if I remember T.J.'s autobiography correctly,
he thought Thomas Paine was the most unread man he ever met.

Here's some more circular reasoning to you.  Paul says to the Corinthians
that "that the gospel will be foolishness to the world, because it is 
spiritually discerned."  And so, people without the spirit of God haven't a
clue to what the Bible is saying.   From your point of view, that's
incredibly circular and convenient.   To me, it is mysteriously and supernaturally
bizarre.   I can see it, but you can't.  This is not arrogance on
my part.  Trust me.  It is as bizarre to you as it is to me.  But nonetheless,
it is a truth, explainable or not.

Are any of you color blind to red and green?  I am.  Remember those
dot tests they do at the optomologist's?  They put pictures in front
of you and you are supposed to identify the pattern in the dots?  If
your eyes are perfectly normal, you can see letters or numerals
embedded in the dots.  They are a slightly different color and stand
out from the background.  But if you are color blind to red and green,
you will not see anything but gray-shaded dots.  That is how a dot
test appears to me.  I do not see a pattern at all.

A normal seeing person will see the patterns.  And to him, I seem like a
total anomaly.  To him, I appear as if I am missing the universe or something.
It is hard for him to understand why I can't see anything
that to him is as plain as day.

That it what it is like with the Bible, the Word of God, to the believer.
The believer can see the meaning in the words.  I can see how the patterns
fit together.  There is such depth.  Such consistency.   But then, on the
other hand, I notice the non-believer.   He doesn't see it.  He thinks
I am weird because he thinks I am seeing things.   I look at him, and
say, "No, you are weird.  You do not see."   Then it is time for a sanity
check.  I go to another Christian and say, "Do you see this."  And
they go, "Yes.  It is an "X"".  And I say, "Thank God, I see the "X"
too."

It is truly the strangest thing.   It adds a little extra dimension to
the phrase, 

         "He will make the blind see, and the deaf hear."


I am glad that Jesus has enabled me to see.  I wish every non-believer
could see what they are missing.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84511
From: tbrent@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <26APR199315363120@rigel.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>In article <1993Apr26.022246.18294@scubed.com>, wilkins@scubed.com (Darin Wilkins) writes...
>>>In article <C5w7CA.M3s@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tbrent@ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:
>>>>If you check the news today, (AP) the "authorities also found a state-of-the-art
>>>>automatic machine gun that investigators did not know was in the cult's arsenal."
>>>>[Carl Stern, Justice Department]
>
>>In article <1r7hmlINNc6@mojo.eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
>>>Yeah.  In a fire that reportedly burned hotter than 1000 degrees-- hot
>>>enough to make the bodies still unidentifiable-- the authorities found
>>>a gun that was recognizably fully-automatic and state of the art.
>>>Isn't that CONVEEEENIENT?
>
>
>>Assuming the most favorable interpretation of your '1000 degree'
>>measurement (that the temperature is in Centigrade, rather than the
>>more common -in the US- Fahrenheit), you are still laboring under at
>>least 2 misconceptions:
>
>>1.  You seem to believe that steel melts somewhere around 1000 C.
>>    Actually, the melting point of most iron alloys (and steels are
>>    iron alloys) is in the neighborhood of 1400 C.  Even if the gun
>>    were found in area which achieved the 1000 C temperature, the steel
>>    parts of the gun would not be deformed, and it would still be
>>    trivial to identify the nature of the weapon.
>
>	Steel may not melt at 1000C, but it will weaken, expand and deform.
>	If there is enough of a load on the steel, like the load on a steel
>	roof truss, or the pressure exerted by steel parts in a machine
>	trying to expand against each other, the steel can and will
>	deform extensively. For the record, any weapon found in
>	the cult compound should be indentifiable, but it may be
>	impossible to do normal ballistics tests because of the 
>	damage done to the weapon.
 	
If, if, if....  Anyway, the question was if the gun was identifiable, which
it is.

-Tim
>  Mitchell S Todd  \\\\/ /                 _____/__________________________

 _________________________________________________________________________
|				|				       	  |
|       Timothy J. Brent        | A man will come to know true happiness, |
|   BRENT@bank.ecn.purdue.edu   | only when he accepts that he is but a   |
|=========$$$$==================| small part of an infinite universe.	  |
|       PURDUE UNIVERSITY       |			      -Spinoza    |
| MATERIALS SCIENCE ENGINEERING |			    [paraphrased] |
|_______________________________|_________________________________________|

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84538
From: prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb)
Subject: Re: Branch Athiests Cult (was Rawlins debunks creationism)

king@ctron.com (John E. King) writes:


>scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle) writes:

>>   For your information, I checked the Library of Congress catalog,
>>and they list the following books by Francis Hitching:

[...]

>Ahha...Now with the Branch Athiests zealots we have the following:

I think you are mistaken in thinking Tom Scharle to be a atheist.
You will find both atheists and Christians among your opponents on t.o.
Calling your opponents them "Branch Athiests zealots" does nothing for
your credibility.

>Let me try again.

Oh yes, do.

>"The doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude
>of evolutionary biology has inflamed passions.  There is lack of agreement
>even within warring camps.  Sometimes it seems as if there are as many 
>variations on each evolutionary theme as there are individual biologists."

>Niles Eldridge (yes he's a paleontologist); Natural History; "Evolutionary
>Housecleaning"; Feb 1982; pg. 78.

Dear me. This is taken _so_ out of context that it's hard to know where
to start... The quote starts with material from p 78, and ends with material
from page 81!

On page 78, there's the bit that says (the parts left out in John King's
"quote" are marked by <>):
"<...> the doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude
of evolutionary biology<'s last twenty years> has inflamed passions <and
provoked some very interesting thought and research>."

Eldridge goes on immediately following the butchered quote:
"In short, evolutionary biology has entered a phase of creativity that is
the hallmark of good, active science."

The material that is on page 81 that is "quoted" by John King has been
butchered even more severely:

"<I mention this only to illustrate the> **There is**[these words not
in the original text-prl] lack of agreement even within warring camps
<: things are really in uproar these days, and each of the "basic" ways
of looking at evolutionary biology has its minor variants.> Sometimes
it seems as if there are as many variations on each evolutionary theme
as there are individual biologists."

Eldridge goes on:
"But that's the way it should be; this is how science is supposed to operate."

>Jack

And just a few sentences down:

"When they [creationists] misrepresent the exuberant, creative doubt and
controversy permeating evolutionary biology these days, they are actively
promoting scientific illiteracy."

And that, John E. King, is precisely what you have done with Eldridge's
article. Are you personally responsible for the butchery of the text or
have you pulled it out of some creationist propaganda? You owe the people
reading t.o an apology for posting such misrepresentation.

-- 
Peter Lamb (prl@csis.dit.csiro.au)

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84552
From: Lynn Anderson <dba+lynn@cs.cmu.edu>
Subject: Revised Easy-to-Read BoM available!

I am pleased to announce that a *revised version* of _The Easy-to-Read Book
of Mormon_ (former title: _Mormon's Book_) by Lynn Matthews Anderson is now
available through anonymous ftp (see information below). In addition to the
change in title, the revised ETR BOM has been shortened by several pages
(eliminating many extraneous "that's" and "of's"), and many (minor) errors
have been corrected. This release includes a simplified Joseph Smith Story,
testimonies of the three and eight witnesses, and a "Words-to-Know"
glossary.

As with the previous announcement, readers are reminded that this is a
not-for-profit endeavor. This is a copyrighted work, but people are welcome
to make *verbatim* copies for personal use. People can recuperate the
actual costs of printing (paper, copy center charges), but may not charge
anything for their time in making copies, or in any way realize a profit
from the use of this book. See the permissions notice in the book itself
for the precise terms.

Negotiations are currently underway with a Mormon publisher vis-a-vis the
printing and distribution of bound books. (Sorry, I'm out of the wire-bound
"first editions.") I will make another announcement about the availability
of printed copies once everything has been worked out.

FTP information: connect via anonymous ftp to carnot.itc.cmu.edu, then "cd
pub" (you won't see anything at all until you do).

"The Easy-to-Read Book of Mormon" is currently available in postscript and
RTF (rich text format). (ASCII, LaTeX, and other versions can be made
available; contact dba@andrew.cmu.edu for details.) You should be able to
print the postscript file on any postscript printer (such as an Apple
Laserwriter); let dba know if you have any difficulties. (The postscript in
the last release had problems on some printers; this time it should work
better.) RTF is a standard document interchange format that can be read in
by a number of word processors, including Microsoft Word for both the
Macintosh and Windows. If you don't have a postscript printer, you may be
able to use the RTF file to print out a copy of the book.

-r--r--r--  1 dba                   1984742 Apr 27 13:12 etrbom.ps
-r--r--r--  1 dba                   1209071 Apr 27 13:13 etrbom.rtf

For more information about how this project came about, please refer to my
article in the current issue of _Sunstone_, entitled "Delighting in
Plainness: Issues Surrounding a Simple Modern English Book of Mormon."

Send all inquiries and comments to:

    Lynn Matthews Anderson
    5806 Hampton Street
    Pittsburgh, PA 15206

    dba+lynn@cs.cmu.edu


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84553
From: kltensme@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: [rw] Is Robert Weiss the only orthodox Christian?

In article <C5vGyD.H7s@acsu.buffalo.edu> psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>In article <93111.074840LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET>, LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET writes...
>
>Rick Anderson writes:
>
>ra>   Robert, you keep making references to "orthodox" belief, and saying
>ra> things like "it is held that..." (cf. "Kermit" thread).  On what
>ra> exact body of theology are you drawing for what you call "orthodox?"
>
>     "Orthodox" is a compound word. It comes from 'orthos' (straight, true, 
>     right) and from 'doxa' (opinion, doctrine, teaching). I use orthodox to 
>     refer to 'right teaching.'

   As opposed to Universal or Catholic or "FourSquare Gosple". I think that
   the Greek Orthodox Church would take high offense at your misuse of the
   word. Your version of Christianity is neither mainstream nor bible derived
   you make claims of bible-centricity that are not derivable soley from the
   Bible.  About six-seven months ago, you claimed that your primary objection
   to the LDS was that "our" doctrine was not bible-derived, And now this
   (and other) claims can be shown, are also not bible interpeting bible.


 
>                                Right teaching is derived from letting God 
>     speak to us through the Bible. This can be from reading simple truths 
>     in the Scriptures and by using the Bible to interpret the Bible.
>
	Simple truths... oh for example?   

>ra> Who is that "holds that" Luke meant what you said he meant?
>
>     I think that it is apparent from reading the Scriptures that are
>     pertinent.
>
>     Luke 23:43 records Christ's promise to the repentant thief who hung on
>     an adjacent cross: "Truly I say to you, today you will be with Me in
>     paradise." But was it not until later that Christ rose from the dead
>     and ascended to heaven? If Christ Himself was not in heaven until
>     Sunday, how could the repentant thief have been there with Him? The
>     answer lies in the location of "paradise" when Jesus died.
>
>     Apparently paradise was not exalted to heaven until Easter Day.


       "paradise exalted to heaven"

	paradise wasn't equal to heaven and _now_ it is? Yet you claim that
 	peeple can not be exalted to heaven, nicht wahr?

>
>     Jesus refers to it in the middle of the story of the rich man and 
>     Lazarus as "Abraham's Bosom," to which the godly beggar Lazarus was
>     carried by the angels after his decease (Luke 16:19-31).  Thus
>     "Abraham's Bosom" referred to the place where the souls of the redeemed
>     waited till the day of Christ's Resurrection.

	When I read the story, I found that  "Abraham's Bosom" wasn't so much
	a place, but somewhere the rich man could see and talk to Abraham?
>
>     It was not yet lifted to heaven but it may well have been a section of 
>     hades (Hebrew: Sheol), reserved for believers who had died in the faith
>     but would not be admitted into the glorious presence of God in heaven
>     until the price of redemption had actually been paid on Calvary; or
>     even that none would precede the presence of Jesus back to glory with
>     the Father.

	Gee this is fairly close to what the LDS call spirit prison, and what
        you have called false doctrine...
>
>     Doubtless it was the infernal paradise that the souls of Jesus and the
>     repentant thief repaired after they each died on Friday afternoon. But
>     on Sunday, after the risen Christ had first appeared to Mary Magdalene
>     (John 20:17) and her two companions (Matthew 28:9), presumably He then
>     took up with Him to glory all the inhabitants of infernal paradise
>     (including Abraham, Lazarus, and the repentant thief). We read in
>     Ephesians 4:8 concerning Christ: "Ascending on high, He led captivity
>     captive; He gave gifts unto men." 

    [ vers deleted reproduced below quoted from the SunSpot Gopher Archive ]

 
>                                             Presumably He led the whole
>     band of liberated captives from hades (i.e., the whole population of
>     preresurrection paradise) up to the glory of heaven.

   This part is _not_ supported from scripture, nor does it support your
   claim that the "paradise" where Christ descended was exalted.

   Making such claims on this little "evidence" ignores the witness of the
   scripture
>
||Sun||Ephas:
||Sun|| 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity
||Sun|| captive, and gave gifts unto men.
||Sun|| 
||Sun|| (X-REF Psalms 68:18)
||Sun||  Thou has ascended on hight, thout hast led captivity captive; thou has
||Sun||  recieved gifts for men; yea for the rebellious aslo, that the LORD God
||Sun||  might dwell amoung them
||Sun||
||Sun||Ephas:
||Sun|| 4:9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first
||Sun|| into the lower parts of the earth?  4:10 He that descended is the same
||Sun|| also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all
||Sun|| things.)  4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and
||Sun|| some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 4:12 For the
||Sun|| perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the
||Sun|| edifying of the body of Christ: 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of
||Sun|| the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man,
||Sun|| unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 4:14 That we
||Sun|| henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about
||Sun|| with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning
||Sun|| craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 4:15 But speaking the
||Sun|| truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head,

   Using this to argue that paradise or spirit prison, is now changed from
   a Pre-Easter postion to post-easter by God postion is not supportable.
 
   Makeing such a claim requires more evidence than you have given here...



>ra> Whenever your personal interpretation of Biblical passages is
>ra> challenged, your only response seems to be that one needs merely to
>ra> "look at the Bible" in order to see the truth, but what of those who
>ra> see Biblical things differently from you?
>
>     I think that this characterization is faulty. Whenever my 'personal 
>     interpretation' is questioned, I usually give a reason.

  Yes, and your reasons are in general not supported by any direct reading
  of the scriptures. You have demonstrated that you claims to scriptural 
  "proof" need to be cross-checked. The referencs that you supply often do
  not support your postion, if they are read in the context of the scripture.


>
>     As for those that see things differently, please, put forward where
>     there is a valid difference, and we can discuss it. 
>
>     I seem to be seeing from you the notion that any difference in how one 
>     views the Bible is somehow legitimate, except, or course, for the stuff 
>     that I glean from it. Put forward a contrary view and perhaps we can 
>     have a discussion on that topic. But to decry something that I put 
>     forward, without putting forward something else to discuss, and to 
>     dismiss what I put forward while giving credence to other alleged views
>     that have yet to be put forward is simply being contentious.

	How about that those who have been in paradise, and have accepted
	the gosple will be judged of Jesus Christ, and then return to the
	presence of God. Is that somehow different from your expressed view
	that the paradise spoken of (or "Abraham's Bosom")
>
>ra> Are we to simply assume that you are the only one who really
>ra> understands it?
>
>     If you believe that something that I have drawn from Scripture is 
>     wrong, then please, show me from Scripture where it is wrong.  Simply 
>     stating that there are other views is not a proof. Show it to me from 
>     Scripture and then we can go on.
>
	Should we go back and discuss your view on why the Angle of the Lord
	is the Lord again... ;-)
>
>=============================
>Robert Weiss
>psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu



-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   kltensme@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84554
From: ktikkane@phoenix.oulu.fi (Kari Tikkanen)
Subject: Re: Burden of Proof

Mark McCullough (mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu) wrote:
: >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 !
----------------------- ktikkane@phoenix.oulu.fi -------------------
  Kari Tikkanen      !   .  . -#- !      b        !   begin  
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84555
From: kltensme@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: Who's next?  Mormons and Jews?

In article <1r7os6$hil@agate.berkeley.edu> isaackuo@spam.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo) writes:
>In article <C5wIA1.4Hr@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:
>
>>    BD's were not contemplating suecide, and there is no reason 
>>    to believe they committed one.
>
>No reason?  How about these two:
>
>1.  Some of the survivors claimed that BD members poured fuel along the
>	corridors and set fire to it.  The speed at which the fire spread
>	is not inconsistent with this claim.

	This morning on CNN (tues April 27), Texas Cops say Arson is suspected
	because of two falsh points. CNN also stated that  _all_ surviors
	claim the fires are FBI set.  Your argument are made-up, untrue
	and unverified at best.
>
>2.  There was certainly a fire which killed most of the people in the compound.
>	There is a very very good possibility that the FBI did not start this
>	fire.  This is a good reason to believe that the BD's did.

    The day of the attack the FBI claimed to have seen two BD'ers setting
    the fire outside of the compound. Yesterday, the arson squad said two 
    flash points at the or near the tank entry points

    Not good evidence for the FBI hit squad.
>
>3.  Even if the BD's were not contemplating suicide, it is very possible that
>	David Koresh was convinced (and thus convinced the others) that this
>	was not suicide.  It was the fulfilment of a profecy of some sort.

  is there a difference between thinking that you won't survive a confrontation
  with the FBI (parnoia?) and committing suicide?

>
>There are three possibilities other than the BD's self destruction:
>
>
>B.  The fire was started by an FBI accident.  This is possible, but it would be
>	foolish of us to declare this outright until more evidence can back it.
>	Sure, it's possible that the armored vehicle knocked down a lantern
>	which started the fire (why was there a lit lantern in the middle of
>	the day near the edge of the complex?).  It's anecdotal evidence that
>	has been contradicted by other escapees.

	No, claimed by the escapees  not contradicted

	What I'm finding interesting is the conflicting reports. FBI says
	that bodies have been found with bullet wounds and the Texas Cornuers
	(sp) says that they haven't yet found any bullet holes..
>
>-- 
>*Isaac Kuo (isaackuo@math.berkeley.edu)	*       ___


-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   kltensme@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84557
From: frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer)
Subject: Re: Tieing Abortion to Health Reform -- Is Clinton Nuts?

In article <1993Apr26.163627.11364@csrd.uiuc.edu> g-skinner@uiuc.edu writes:
#I find myself unable to put these two statements together in a
#sensible way:
#
#>Abortion is done because the mother can not afford the *pregnancy*.
#
#[...]
#
#>If we refused to pay for the more expensive choice of birth, *then*
#>your statement would make sense.  But that is not the case, so it doesn't.
#
#Are we paying for the birth or not, Mr. Parker?  If so, why can't the
#mother afford the pregnancy?  If not, what is the meaning of the
#latter objection?  You can't have it both ways.

Birth != pregnancy.  If they were the same, the topic of abortion would 
hardly arise, would it, Mr. Skinner?

-- 
Frank O'Dwyer                                  'I'm not hatching That'
odwyer@sse.ie                                  from "Hens",  by Evelyn Conlon

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84558
Subject: Re: Albert Sabin
From: rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota)

In article <1993Apr15.012537.26867@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com>, sharpe@nmesis.enet.dec.com (System PRIVILEGED Account) writes:
>
>In article <C5FtJt.885@sunfish.usd.edu>, rfox@charlie.usd.edu (Rich Fox, Univ of South Dakota) writes:
>|>
>|>In article <1993Apr10.213547.17644@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) writes:
>|>
>|>[earlier dialogue deleted]
>|>
>|>>|> Perhaps you should read it and stop advancing the Bible as evidence relating 
>|>>|> to questions of science.  
>|>
>|>[it = _Did Jesus exist?_ by G. A. Wells]
>|>
>|>>     There is a great fallacy in your statement. The question of origins is
>|>>     based on more than science alone.  
>|>
>|>Nope, no fallacy.  Yep, science is best in determining how; religions handle
>|>why and who.
>|>
>
>Rich, I am curious as to why you and others award custody of the baby to
>theists and religion?

I hope I didn't award custody, Rich.  I purposely used "handle" in order to 
avoid doing so - i.e., that happens to be what religions do (of course there are
aberrations like "scientific" creationism).  I used "best" in part to indicate 
that science currently has a time of it with why and who, so these domains are
mostly ignored.  I also attempted to be brief, which no doubt confused the
matter.  As an aside, for science I should have written "how and when".  Nobody
seems to argue over what.

>Are they [theists, theologians] any better equiped to investigate the "who and 
>why" than magicians, astrologers, housewives [not being sexists], athiests or 
>agnostics.

Seems to me that the answer would vary from individual to individual.  I'm not
trying to be evasive on this, but from a societal perspective, religion works.
On the other hand, sometimes it is abused and misused, and many suffer, which
you know.  But the net result seems positive, this from the anthropological
perspective on human affairs.  You might call me a neo-Fruedian insofar as I 
think the masses can't get along without religion.  Not that generally they are 
incapable; they just don't, and for myriad reasons, but the main one seems to 
be the promise of immortality.  Very seductive, that immortality.  Therefore 
it seems that theologians are better equipped than the others you mention for 
dispensing answers to "who and why".  I suggest that this holds regardless of 
the "truth" in their answers to who and why simply because people believe.  
In the end, spiritual beliefs are just as "real" as scientific facts and 
explanation (CAUTION TO SOME: DO NOT TAKE THIS OUT OF CONTEXT).  

>Do you suggest that the "who and why" will forever be closed to scientific 
>investigation?

No.  In fact, I don't think it is closed now, at least for some individuals. 
Isn't there a group of theoretical physicists who argue that matter was 
created from nothing in a Big Bang singularity?  This approach might 
presuppose an absence of who and why, except that it seems it could be argued 
that something had to be responsible for nothing?  Maybe that something doesn't
have to be supernatural, maybe just mechanistic.  But that's a tough one for
people today to grasp.  In any case, theory without empirical data is not 
explanation, but then your question does not require data.  In other words, 
I agree that theorizing (within scientific parameters) is just as scientific 
as explaining.  So the answer is, who and why are not closed to scientists, but 
I sense that science in these realms is currently very inadequate.  Data will 
be necessary for improvement, and that seems a long way off, if ever.  Pretty 
convoluted here; I hope I've made sense.  

>It seems to me that 200 or so years ago, the question of the origin of life on
>earth was not considered open to scientific enquiry.

I agree generally.  But I prefer to put it this way - the *questions* of how, 
when, who and why were not open to inquiry.  During the Enlightenment, 
reason was reponsible for questioning the theological answers to how and when, 
and not, for the most part, who and why.  Science was thus born out of the 
naturalists' curiosity, eventually carting away the how and when while largely 
leaving behind the who and why.  The ignorant, the selfish, the intolerant, and
the arrogant, of course, still claim authority in all four domains.

>|>Rich Fox, Anthro, Usouthdakota

>Did like your discussion around AMHs, and I did figure out what AMH was from
>your original post :-)

Much obliged.  Funny how facts tend to muddle things, isn't it?  Well, I am
sure there are plenty of "scientific" creationist "rebuttals" out there 
somewhere, even if they have to be created from nothing.

[just for the record, again, AMH = anatomically modern humans] 

Best regards :-),

Rich Fox, Anthro, Usouthdakota

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84559
From: "David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: What part of "No" don't you understand?

On 26-Apr-93 in Re: What part of "No" don't..
user Steve Novak@advtech.uswe writes:
>> = eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>> = Steve Novak writes:
> 
>>>Because, of course, that possibility existed.  Meaning any student who
>>>really gave a shit could have a moment of silence on his/her own, which
>>>makes more sense than forcing those who DON'T want to participate to
>>>have to take part.  What other reason is there for an organized "moment
>>>of silence"?
> 
>>A "moment of silence" doesn't mean much unless *everyone*
>>participates.  Otherwise it's not silent, now is it?
> 
>The whole point is, maybe everyone _doesn't want_ to participate.
> 
>[...]
>>Blindly opposing everything with a flavor of religion in it is
>>utterly idiotic.
> 
>Blindly opposing everything with a flavor of religion in it that is
>supported by taxpayer money is the only way to keep christianity from
>becoming the official U.S. religion.
> 
>Not noticing that danger is utterly idiotic.
Please provide evidence that having a moment of silence for a student
who died tragically costs taxpayers money.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84560
From: neese@cerritos.edu
Subject: Hell

    In the King James Version of the Bible there are three differents words 
translated into the word "hell".  These Greek words have totally different 
meanings.  The words are Hades, Tartaros, and Gehenna.

    In bibical usage, the Greek word Hades is used only 11 times in the 
New Testament, and is roughly the equivalent to the Old Testament word Sheol...
meaning the grave or pit (compare Acts 2:27 with Psalms 16:10).  Hades may be 
likened to a hole in the ground. (In the Bible it has nothing to do with fire!)

    Most modern bibical translators admit that the use in the English word hell
to translate Hades and Sheol are an unfortunate and misleading practice.  

    Why?  Because when seeing the word "hell" many readers impute to it the 
traditional connotation of an ever-burning inferno, when this was never 
remotely intended in the Greek language or in Old English!

    In its true bibical usage Hades does indeed refer to the state or abode of 
the dead, but not in the sense of spirits walking around in some sort of 
"shadowy realm."  Hades is simply the abode we call the grave.  All dead go to 
this hell.

    The second "hell" of the Bible, Tartaros, is mentioned only once in 
scripture, 2 Pet.2:4; "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast 
them down to hell (TARTAROS), and delivered them into chains of darkness to be 
reserved unto judgment..."

    Following their rebellion to unseat God from His throne (Isa.14:12-14; 
Rev.12:4), the archangel Lucifer (now Satan) and a third of the created angels 
(now demons) were ejected from heaven (Luke 10:18).  They were cast down to 
Tartaros, a place or condition of restraint that God has imposed on the 
mutinous angels as they await ultimate judgment (Jude 6; 1 Cor.6:3).

    Tartaros, then, is a "hell" that applies only to evil, rebellious angels or
demons (It is interesting that the ancient Greeks used this word to describe 
the place in which Zeus confined the rebellious Titans).  Nowhere in the Bible 
is there any mention of men being put into this particular "hell".

    The the third word that is translated as "hell" in the Bible is Gehenna. It
comes from the Hebrew GAI HINNOM, meaning "valley of Hinniom."  Hinnom is a 
deep, narrow ravine located to the south and southwest of Jerusalem.

    In Old Testament times it was a place of abominable pagan rites, including 
infant sacrifice (It was there that the apostate kings Ahaz and Manasseh made 
their children "pass through the fire" to the god Molech.  The rites were 
specifically celebrated in Tophet, the "place of abhorrence," one of the chief 
groves in the valley).

    King Josiah of ancient Judah finally put an end to these abominations.  He 
defiled the valley, rendering it ceremonially unclean (2 Kings 23:10).  Later 
the valley became the cesspool and city dump of Jerusalem; a repository for 
sewage, refuse and animal carcasses.  The bodies of dispised criminals were 
also burned there along with the rubbish.  Fires burned continuously, feeding 
by a constant supply of garbage and refuse.

    Aceldama, the "field of blood", purchased with the money Judas received for
the betrayal of Christ (Matt.27:8) was also in part of the valley of Hinnom.

    So what does this valley called Gehenna have to do with hell?  

    In Rev.19:20: the Satan inspired political dictator and a miracle-working 
religious figure, the False Prophet, working with him will resist the 
re-establishment of the government of God by Jesus Christ at His Second Coming.
Their fate is revealed by the apostle John: "And the beast was taken, and with 
him the false prophet...  These both were cast alive into a lake of fire 
burning with brimstone."
    
    Where will this temporary lake of fire (this "hell") be?

    The prophet Isaiah wrote of this lake of fire prepared for the Beast: "For 
Tophet (in the valley of Hinnom) is ordained of old, yea for the king it is 
prepared, he hath made it deep and large, the pile thereof is fire and wood, 
the breath of the Lord, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it" (Isa.30:33).

    One thousand years later, Satan himself will be cast into this rekindled 
fiery lake where the Beast and False Prophet were cast! (Rev.20:10).

    But what of the wicked who have died over the millennia?  Does the Bible 
say that they are now suffering fiery punishment for their sins in a lake of 
fire?

    In the sequence of Rev.20 the incorrigibly wicked are resurrected to be 
thrown into the lake of fire after Satan is cast there! (Rev.20:15). What will 
become of these wicked?  Will they writhe in flames for eternity? 
 
    The wicked will be burned up from the intense heat of the coming Gehenna 
fire on the earth.  They wil be consumed, annihilated, destroyed!  This 
punishment will be everlasting (permanent and final).  The Bible calls it the 
"second death" (Rev.20:14; 21:8), from which there is no possibility of a 
further resurrection.

    The Bible does teach eternal punishment, but not eternal punishing.
                           
    The prophet Malachi provides a graphic description. "For, behold, the day 
cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do 
wickedly, shall be stubble, and the day that cometh shall burn them up..."
(4:1).  To the righteous, God says that the wicked shall be "ashes under the 
soles of your feet..."(Mal.4:3).

    Gehenna was a place of destruction and death, not a place of living 
torture!  Jesus was talking to Jews who understood all about this Gehenna or 
valley of Hinnom.  Utter destruction by fire was complete.  Nothing was left, 
but ashes!
 
    Every text in the Bible translated from this Greek word Gehenna means 
complete destruction, not living torture (not eternal life in torment)!  The 
Bible says, in Romans 6:23, "The wages of sin is death", not eternal life in 
torture.  The punishment revealed in the Bible is Death... the cessation of 
life. 
    
    Eternal life is the GIFT OF GOD!

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84562
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: cults (who keeps them going ?)

muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:

>In article <sbuckley.735337212@sfu.ca> sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley) writes:
>>>... bad thoughts these.
>>
>>  well it depends on whether you take the literal dictionary definition of
>>cult and say all faiths are cults, or if you take a more social-context
>>view of "cult which allows you to recognize mainstream religions as 
>>socially-acceptable and cults as groups that involve techniques of brain-
>>washing and all the other characteristics that define oppressive [probly not
>>the *best* word] cult behaviour.

>Yeah, but implicitly the social-context view provides a justification
>for the dictionary definition of a cult; those who follow the mainstream
>pretend while those in cults act based on the very same impulses.  Now
>who is to be taken seriously ? ;-).

  i'm confused.  could you restate what yer saying in "those who follow
the mainstream pretend" and "act based on the very same impulses"?



Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84563
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: What RIGHT ?

joakimr@ifi.uio.no (Joakim Ruud) writes:


>Recently, I've asked myself a rather interesting question: What RIGHT does
>god have on our lives (always assuming there is a god, of course...!) ??

>In his infinite wisdom, he made it perfectly clear that if we don't live
>according to his rules, we will burn in hell. Well, with what RIGHT can god
>make that desicion? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that god creates every
>one of us (directly or indirectly, it doesn't matter.). What then happens, is
>that he first creates us, and then turns us lose. Well, I didn't ask to be
>created. 

  i guess i ought not conclude from this, then, that since you didn't ask to
be created, you don't care if you go to hell.  :)

>Let's make an analogue. If a scientist creates a unique living creature (which
>has happened, it was even patented...!!!), does he then have the right to
>expect it to behave in a certain matter, or die...?

>Who is god to impose its rules on us ? Who can tell if god is REALLY so
>righteous as god likes us to believe? Are all christians a flock of sheep,
>unable to do otherwise that follow the rest? 

  i don't consider myself an unthinking sheep.  the bible says god created
us to be in communion and obedience to him.  the first and only rule was
to not eat of a certain tree, or else the punishment is distance from him
and physical death.  god's intention in creating us is to have a relationship
with us.  the bible documents god's attempts to have that relationship
culminating in the person of jesus to bear the consequences of all sin so
that all who accept him can have a relationship with god again: the purpose
of creation.

  who is god to impose rules on us?  he's god and he created us.  i suppose
he has a right based on who he is.  above you mention "In his infinite
wisdom", and that's what i'd say god exemplifies.  but if you were being
sarcastic up there, then this whole discussion is irrelevant, eh?  and if
we believe god is infinitely wise, that belief should inform our relationship
with him.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84564
From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: Religion and marriage

pboxrud@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul D Boxrud) writes:

>     I wasn't sure if this was the right newsgroup to post this to, but I guess
>the misc is there for a reason.  Here goes...  I am getting married in June to 
>a devout (Wisconsin Synod) Lutheran.  I would classify myself as a strong 
>agnostic/weak athiest.  This has been a a subject of many discussions between
>us and is really our only real obstacle.  We don't have any real difficulties 
>with the religious differences yet, but I expect they will pop up when we have 
>children.  I have agreed to raise the
>children "nominally" Lutheran.  That is, Lutheran traditions, but trying to
>keep an open mind.  I am not sure if this is even possible though.  I feel that
>that the worst quality of being devoutly religous is the lack of an open mind.

  just a point, i suppose, if open mind means believing anything can be true
or we can't for sure know what is definitely true, i'm happy to not be open
minded.  if, however, open mindedness means being respectful and tolerant
towards other beliefs, respecting the rights and intelligence and wisdom
of people of other beliefs and giving equal time to alternative ideas, i
try my very best to be open minded.  just a thot in passing.... :)

>     Anyway, I guess I'll get on with my question.  Is anyone in the same 
>situation and can give some suggestions as to how to deal with this?  We've 
>taken the attitude so far of just talking about it a lot and not letting 
>anything get bottled up inside.  Sometimes I get the feeling we're making this 
>much bigger than it actually is.  Any comments would be greatly appreciated.  
>Also, please e-mail responses since I don't get a chance to read this group
>often.  :-(

  not being married, i cannot say too much to you, but from my perspective
having mutually exclusive faiths would be a big enough roadblock for me in
considering marrying someone.  making it much bigger than it is?  i suppose
that depends on how serious each of you is in your beliefs.  lukewarm atheists
and christians for whom religion is of nominal importance probly would feel
the issue isn't very big.  i suppose the more important your beliefs are to
each of you, the more important the issue is.

>Paul

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84565
From: bakerj@gtephx.UUCP (Jon Baker)
Subject: Re: A Message for you Mr. President: How do you know what happened?

In article <1993Apr23.111105.7703@ifi.uio.no>, joakimr@ifi.uio.no (Joakim Ruud) writes:
> In article <C5u5nv.JGs@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> > In <C5sqyA.F7v@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tbrent@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Timothy J Brent) writes:
> > |Probably not.  But then, I don't pack heavy weaponry with intent to use it.
> > Please cite your evidence that he was intending to use it.
> Well, he would be pretty stupid not to, I mean what's the use of spending
> thousands of $$ on something you won't use? (sorry if I'm stepping on the toes
> of any members of some "rifle-association" here...). Rifles bought for
> hunting, I can understand, rifles bought for killing people, or for "just
> keeping" I cannot.
> Just for the record, I am myself a collector of medieval armour & weaponry,
> and I don't just have it hanging around, I use it... (obviously, only in
> fencing practice with friends...)

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?

J.Baker.


Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84568
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Why did they behave as they did (Waco--reading suggestion)

In article <1rc1f3INN7rl@emx.cc.utexas.edu> 
bill@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Bill Jefferys) writes:
>If you would like to understand better the sort of behavior
>that we saw in connection with the Waco tragedy, I'd strongly
>recommend reading _When Prophecy Fails_, by Leon Festinger,
>Henry Riecken, and Stanley Schachter (available as a Harper
>Torchbook). It goes a long way towards explaining how a 
>belief system can be so strong as to withstand even overwhelming
>disconfirmatory evidence. At least, read the first chapter.
>Interestingly, just as the Branch Davidians had roots in the
>Seventh-Day Adventist movement, the SDAs themselves had their
>roots in the Millerite movement of the first half of the 19th
>century--a movement that expected the end of the world in 1843,
>was disappointed when it did not take place, and wound up as
>a church.

That's also how Christianity came to be. The immediate return of Jesus
was expected; when it didn't happen, they formed their own church.

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84569
From: <KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Info about New Age!


In article <1993Apr26.231845.13843@digi.lonestar.org>
qpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)

>The danger of anti-cult groups is that while they can expose a lot of
>deception, they can also become inquisitors.  As one who agrees with
>much of what they say, I am also on the receiving end, and it makes me
>realize the importance of respecting the freedom of belief of every
>individual and also of not jumping to conclusions and making accusations
>based on a priori assumptions about an individual or group.

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.

>On the other hand, the Watchman Fellowship does a good service in
>exposing deceptive practices that are far too common among the
>groups they monitor.

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

Jack Carroll

Newsgroup: talk.religion.misc
Document_id: 84570
From: pharvey@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: I'll see your demand and raise you... (was Re: After 2000 years etc)

In article <C64H4w.BFH@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> 
bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:
>Keith M. Ryan (kmr4@po.CWRU.edu) wrote:
>: [34mAnd now . . . [35mDeep Thoughts[0m
>: 	[32mby Jack Handey.[0m
>: [36mIf you go parachuting, and your parachute doesn't open, and your
>: friends are all watching you fall, I think a funny gag would be
>: to pretend you were swimming.[0m
>Keith, 
>As you must know by now there are no Escape Sequences here (ANSI or
>otherwise). Once you enter here, your terminal beomes dumb. There's
>something significant about all this ...

You are in the village. Many happy returns! Be seeing you!

[your ways and means get reign of the tek!]

