Religion and Philosophy

in one day remains.

18002. Jimmy Page - 6/26/2002 9:09:24 AM

Good Morning all.

Congrats on the millenial, Mr. Jones.

OK, you've got the Aztec taste for human fleash, you've got the viking raids on northern Europe, you have the various and sundry Old World Empires, whether Eastern or Western, that relied upon conquest to grow. The point is that man, as a race, has been and continues to be violent - no one people can claim innocence in that regard.

Some seem to want to wallow in the misery of the past, others to forget, others to wallow in the guilt while proclaiming "but I myself am so different, not like the rest of THOSE americans."

Sorry, you're all one of us now.

I think it's nonsensical to claim that no lessons have been learned from the past.

I also think, that despite certain claims made about racism in the US (which certainly still exists) that the problems in the US are less than those elsewhere. Look, how large this country is and how diverse, and compare the problems here with those of Europe/Africa/Middle East.

And ivan, saying that you have no choice but to stay in the US is simply false. Many an immigrant TO the US (my father included) came with nothing but the clothes on their backs and managed to do quite well. If it's so much better elsewhere, go. There is truly nothing that stops anyone.

And sak- your ackowledgement, that you don't want to help or be part of society as the world moves by you says volumes. Fine, you prefer bitterness and sniping to anything constructive. Continue to be blue.

And on that note, time to get to work. Later.

18003. godlessclif - 6/26/2002 9:10:00 AM

ivan osokin: you think the west's genocide of the indigenous population was purely motivated by greed? please. and i suppose the holocaust was motivated by economics. sheesh.

Albert Speer asked, "How can we divert resources from the war effort to your evacuation of jews?"

"The Fuehrer has ordered the physical extermination of the Jews and only a Jew would count the cost." -Obergruppenfuehrer Reinhard Heydrich

18004. ivan osokin - 6/26/2002 9:30:06 AM

And ivan, saying that you have no choice but to stay in the US is simply false. Many an immigrant TO the US (my father included) came with nothing but the clothes on their backs and managed to do quite well. If it's so much better elsewhere, go. There is truly nothing that stops anyone.

JMPage:

i agree with that partly. but I'm not saying i can't go anywhere else (i could), i'm saying there is nowhere else to go. when your parents (or my grandparents, etc.) left their countries to come here, they assumed they were leaving their province for a new (and presumably better) one. however, my point was that i can't go anywhere to escape this province because its tentacles are everywhere. my grandparents, for instance, came over from sicily...even in Catania, where they lived, it was drastically different from the US. what's more, Catania did not have influence over the US. now, if i were to want to emigrate to, say, Germany, i'd find that things like the healthcare system and the various efforts to "rebuild" the infrastructure are, in fact, mirroring (or starting to) the united states models. america has managed to convince people that it works better than they do...what i really think is that people are starting to understand that resistance is futile and they're making the best of it.

and, it used to be better elsewhere...now there is no "elsewhere".

18005. godlessclif - 6/26/2002 9:37:54 AM

I love it. The Anglo Credo" we won in the past. We did so because we were more violent and less human than you.

we own the world. we were able to own it because we screwed you and everyone that looks like you with systematic bigotry and prejudice. We made you knuckle under at gunpoint and taught your children they were stupid and inferior.

Now don't wallowing in it or expect to be treated equally or even fairly because we will use our economic advantage to keep cheating you forever and there is nothing you can do about it.

I don't feel guilty about my special priviledges and don't give a #$%^ about you and hate and despise everyone that looks like you."

The answer to that attitude on the part of the anglos in the twin towers is suicide bombing. It is the attitude that made irishmen blow up pubs and people die for a chance to kill you and everyone that looks like you.

Jesus.

18006. iiibbb - 6/26/2002 9:41:10 AM

nd that things like the healthcare system and the various efforts to "rebuild" the infrastructure are, in fact, mirroring (or starting to) the united states models. america has managed to convince people that it works better than they do...

I don't know how America is covincing people of anything. It's our 'success' that they want to model. Our way makes money. I'm not saying that's right. Our system is all about pushing they systems limits. It's what brought us great successes as well as some problems.

But for the players... both success and failures can be pretty darn lucrative.

18007. sakonige - 6/26/2002 9:41:17 AM

Message # 17994

Delete the whole fucking thing, for all I care. It's just chat. You people take this shit too seriously.

18008. Indiana Jones - 6/26/2002 9:44:25 AM

Posts like 18007 are going to cause me to have a stroke.

18009. sakonige - 6/26/2002 9:45:08 AM

The point is that man, as a race, has been and continues to be violent -no one people can claim innocence in that regard.


But there are degrees of violence. Some people commit genocide, and some don't. Some people can claim innocence of genocide, others can't.

18010. iiibbb - 6/26/2002 9:50:50 AM

Well we're all 'dirty' for our inherited responsibility for the genocide of the Neandertals.

Funny all the prehistory we don't have the benefit of microanalysis of.

Could be that the 'Native Americans' weren't so native... or that one tribe committed genocide on another... but we don't have the benefit of history to 'chat' about it here.

18011. sakonige - 6/26/2002 10:06:58 AM

There is indisputable evidence that the New World nations that had the capacity to commit genocide didn't. Western anthropologist have made an effort to discover evidence of mass exterminations, but all they find is organized ritual sacrifice and 'mysterious' disappearances of entire cities where people just got up and walked away.

18012. sakonige - 6/26/2002 10:11:58 AM

Message # 18002

Being American means not giving a damn about anything but my own immediate self interest. So that's what I do when I interract with you.

18013. PelleNilsson - 6/26/2002 10:12:08 AM

ivan

I think the picture you paint of Europe is of your own making, not a representation of how things really are. Yes, if you visited Sweden you would see Starbucks and McDonalds on every street corner, you would note that the cinemas mostly show American movies that there is a lot of American stuff shown on TV, and that young people look more or less like American youths. You would perhaps think, then, that Sweden is just like America except that public transport is a bit better and most houses a bit older. But if you moved here and got to know the mechanics of Swedish society and what makes it tick you would understand that there are big differences. I'm not saying that things are 'better' here, but they are certainly different. And if you moved to Germany or Ireland you would find that things are different there too, but in other ways.

18014. iiibbb - 6/26/2002 10:15:19 AM

I don't know if I could live in a place where there is a McDonalds and Starbucks on every corner.

18015. PelleNilsson - 6/26/2002 10:23:32 AM

Poetic license, you know.

18016. iiibbb - 6/26/2002 10:26:32 AM

American movies have for the most part always been better than the rest of the world's... although Europe and Asia have been putting out better and better stuff.

If you put aside the criticisms (I think all cultures have problems with racism etc.) I think what defines America's culture (or lack thereof) is the fact that it has always been such a melting pot. There is a lot of pride in heritage, but at the same time you adapt to all the sub-cultures around you.

18017. Jimmy Page - 6/26/2002 11:19:20 AM

Clif-

I recommend medication.

Sak -

But there are degrees of violence. Some people commit genocide, and some don't. Some people can claim innocence of genocide, others can't.

I can claim innocence of genocide. I'd betcha some decent bucks or beads or whatever you'd like that you won't find too many Americans alive today guilty of genocide.

Perhaps you'd like to blame someone's great great grandparents. Sorry mine weren't here. And I'll give you double or nothing on the money I win on the above bet, that you won't find too many Americans in power related to the people you blame either in your guilt by relation several generations removed approach.

I don't know if "new world" "nations" committed genocide or not. Neither do you. Some of those nations were fairly small. The point is that even if your great great great granduncle was the great poobah of a tribe that wiped out another small tribe, it doesn't bloody your hands today. If evidence of it were found today we could all learn from it. The reason it's important to keep the memory of the holocaust alive is so that we can learn, and where possible try to prevent a similar occurrence, not to punish every living German for the next 300 years.

18018. Jimmy Page - 6/26/2002 11:20:41 AM

ivan -

forget your objections to the healthcare system. There's another reason not to move to germany. sak would blame your grandchildren for the holocaust and tell them that they stink.

18019. sakonige - 6/26/2002 12:49:29 PM

I can claim innocence of genocide.

You can't claim you didn't profit from it.

18020. sakonige - 6/26/2002 12:59:07 PM

by the way, the transgressions North American native nations committed against eachother have all been resolved and forgiven long ago. We New Worlders are way ahead of the rest of the world in exonoration.

18021. sakonige - 6/26/2002 1:02:36 PM

It's one of the coolest and most enduring features of our character, the way we can just stop fighting and forget about it. There are no thousand-year-old grudges over here, except the ones brought here from the Old World.

18022. Jimmy Page - 6/26/2002 1:03:06 PM

Sak -

You can't claim you didn't profit from it.

Sure I can.

We New Worlders are way ahead of the rest of the world in exonoration.

The above is laughable to the extent you intend to include yourself in any way, shape or form. Just go back and read your own words for a refresher.

18023. judithathome - 6/26/2002 1:25:56 PM

American movies have for the most part always been better than the rest of the world's... although Europe and Asia have been putting out better and better stuff.

This is patently untrue. "Movies" started before the 1970s. You do know this, right?

18024. iiibbb - 6/26/2002 1:44:37 PM

I'm entitled to my opinion... I don't necessarily go for the modern movies. I'm a big fan of classics and think most of the best movies ever made were pre-1970.

A short list of some of best Movies ever made... many pre-1970

Rear Window
Cassablanca
Gone With The Wind
Little Big Man

... I'd have to sit down with Maltin's book to remind me of them all.

Some of my favorite foreign films

Amilie (French)
Eat Drink Man Woman (Japan)
The Pathfinder (Sweden I think)

18025. judithathome - 6/26/2002 1:50:10 PM

Sorry...I'm a foreign movie snob. Old ones, to boot.

Didn't mean to be so combative! ;-)

18026. Rama - 6/26/2002 2:01:01 PM

so in a nutshell, rama disagrees for the sake of disagreement and tries to reverse the position by tossing back an allegation of racism.

No, I pointed out blatant nonsense, item by item and I pointed out your clearly demonstrated racism.

18027. iiibbb - 6/26/2002 2:02:03 PM

So what do you recommend? Maybe I will rent something.

18028. iiibbb - 6/26/2002 2:03:03 PM

sorry to be off topic too... you can tell me in movies... I forgot where I was.

18029. judithathome - 6/26/2002 2:03:15 PM

I think the movie stuff ought to go to movies, for one thing. ;-)

18030. judithathome - 6/26/2002 2:03:46 PM

Ha! x post!

18031. iiibbb - 6/26/2002 2:04:53 PM

I can bring it back to topic...

God! I really liked that movie Little Big Man!

18032. DanDillon - 6/26/2002 3:37:19 PM

Nobody bless America

Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional

18033. jexster - 6/26/2002 4:33:27 PM

GodlessCliff FYI....

I will be leading the Mote in the Pledge of Allegiance followed by a recitation of the Most Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary tonight at 7:00 PDT.

18034. jexster - 6/26/2002 4:34:06 PM

Judith bring Cllr

18035. Jenerator - 6/26/2002 8:04:15 PM

Ivan,

Re:Message # 17918

I have to admit, I don't really see that much difference between Crowley and Satanism. I don't think he did either. Sure, he might have had his peaceful moments in the OTO and writing poetry, perhaps he even had some altrusitic intentions, but overall, we're talking about a man who called himself a "fiend" and identified with the Great Beast 666. His lifestyle definitely emulated this, too...pedohilia, bestiality, drug addiction, and insanity.

18036. Jenerator - 6/26/2002 8:05:11 PM

Sakonige,

I smell like soap.

18037. sakonige - 6/26/2002 8:22:26 PM

Yeah, right.

18038. sakonige - 6/26/2002 8:25:54 PM

I'll bet you actually smell like plastic and burned gasoline, but that's ok.

18039. jexster - 6/26/2002 9:31:49 PM

I bet Jen smells like Yardley's.

18040. jexster - 6/26/2002 9:34:16 PM

Let's get started, Cliff and Cllr won't show..


I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America...one nation under God etc.

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

I believe in God the Father Almighty and in Jesus Christ his only son Our Lord...and the resurrection of the body and the Life everlasting. Amen..

Hail Mary full of grace, the lord is with you....

18041. ivan osokin - 6/26/2002 10:04:52 PM

Jen:

Crowley never declared himself a satanist or dwelled on "satan". i've read over 20 of his books and references to the words lucifer, satan, the devil or related words is infinitessimal. for instance, in his 900+ autobiography, there are less than 7 references in the index to any of the aforementioned words...and none of them in any way praising or supporting satan.

there is no worship of satan or ritual designed to invoke satan in his texts.

what happened is that crowley built up his own reputation and hype as a wicked man (his parents were members of the strict Plymouth Bretheren and his mother called him "the great beast"...which is why he sarcastically donned the monicker...he knew it would piss off his mother's ilk). he was a prick, and liked the fact that he upset people.

amazingly, though crowley is considered the cause for just about every "evil" in society, there is little (if any) scholarship devoted to studying him or his work. the closest to it is the opinion of christian detractors.

personally, i think crowley was probably an asshole of a person...he certainly held victorian ideas about women, and he lived off the largesse of others by promoting himself as a guru. the fact that people either misconstrue his work and criticize him based on a superficial glance at it is just as silly as people who worship him as some avatar of spirituality.

i do not consider anything he's written or done to be the equivalent of "satanism" as coined in the modern vernacular. in fact, i don't know that there is any true "satanist" because there is no "religion" about it...every supposed satanist i've ever heard of, or met, is essentially trying to do whatever the opposite of christianity may be. "satanism" is more of a christian taboo than religion...a peculiarly christian fetish. i think satanism is rebellion for the sake of rebellion...pissing off your parents as crowley did to his.

18042. ivan osokin - 6/26/2002 10:05:07 PM

jen...

and his poetry sucked.

18043. ivan osokin - 6/26/2002 10:15:52 PM

an amendment on what i just said above.

i do understand that to many, anyone who purposely defies, inverts, or proposes antagonism towards christianity is doing the work of satan and therefore, is a satanist. so i understand why even an understanding of crowley will bring about charges of satanism by christians. i think that perhaps another term should be used, though, because satanism implies some interaction with satan when clearly one can be anti-christianity but also be anti-satan.

18044. Snowowl - 6/26/2002 10:43:38 PM

I imagine that any atheist must be anti-Satan in the sense that they would give no more credence to the existence of such a being than they do to the existence of God.

In the strictest sense they're neither pro nor anti, since they just don't believe such beings exist.

18045. judithathome - 6/26/2002 10:54:18 PM

Works for me. Thanks, Snow.

18046. Jimmy Page - 6/27/2002 8:42:59 AM

ivan -

I'm certainly no expert on crowley, but your posts re: him are head on with what little I do know. As I understand it, he was more of a pagan, mixing and matching various rites as they seemed to either suit him (or excite him sexually). He wasn't really too consistent in what he said or did either.

From the Christian perspective though, there is one God and one God only. There is also the Devil.

If you're a Christian (or perhaps any kind of monotheist) and you see someone worship someone or something or many someone/somethings that are anathema to the tenets of your religion, then you're probably going to conclude that that other person is worshiping the devil, whether that other person knows it or not. So it's easy for a christian to dump many traditionally pagan/wiccan type religions into the catch-all category "satanic" or "satanism."

From the perspective of the pagan/wiccan, however, who has rejected the idea of one God, being labelled a satanist is probably inaccurate since it implies that the individual knows of the one God, BELIEVES that he exists, and instead CHOOSES to worship the devil. I'd agree that there probably aren't too many of those around. At least not serious ones anyway. They're more likely to be rebellious teens who are trying to show they don't conform so they head over to the nearest store where they can buy some "cool" upside down crucifix jewelry, etc....

18047. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 8:47:57 AM

As a Christian... I spend very little time worrying about what other people are doing, and more about what I need to do for myself.

18048. Jimmy Page - 6/27/2002 8:48:58 AM

Of course then again, there is Anton LeVay and the Church of Satan....

18049. Jimmy Page - 6/27/2002 8:53:59 AM

iiibbb -

Isn'tthat aproach ignoring several Christian priniples though, including Matthew 28:19?

18050. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 9:14:10 AM

I don't think so. I will talk about my beliefs to anyone. Teaching, and coercion are seperate things. Baptism is supposed to be someone's personal choice (or their parents').

I am not equipped to quote chapter and verse... but here's a stab. Mt 7.1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

and their is another place I can't find that essentially says you are not equipped to judge others... only God knows what's in their heart and you are in no position to judge what is a sin and isn't.

As far as prostilizing... I don't know why leading by example isn't effective in it's own way.

18051. Jimmy Page - 6/27/2002 9:33:33 AM

iiibbb -

I wasn't talking about judging, so i misunderstood what you meant. as to proselyzing, by example, I think it works. Some people don't have the gift of openly discussing what they feel (some don't know they don't have it and come across as very heavy-handed).

I'm interested in the statement:

Baptism is supposed to be someone's personal choice (or their parents').

I'm not aware of any biblical basis for the proposition that a parent can make the choice. I know that parents do, but I think the act itself is meaningless if the decision isn't made personally.

18052. ivan osokin - 6/27/2002 9:52:29 AM

j page:

thanks...you have a level-headed view of the crowley/satan issue. personally, i would find it offensive to be called a satanist because i'm a pagan, but i wouldn't be offended at being called a non-christian...which is accurate, at least.

it's also quite an interesting phenomena how crowley's myth far eclipses his rather mundane life. i mean, bestiality? i've never even heard that allegation! pedophilia? same thing.

as an example of how he purposely called such negative attention to himself: he told the british press that he sacrifices hundreds of his own children every year. but he was making reference to wasting his reproductive seed through masturbation. of course, the press made a big deal about it until they could find nothing to show that he killed anyone ever.

fascinating character, over-rated as cause for the evils of the world, and an interesting sociological study if anyone would actually do it without bias.

18053. iiibbb - 6/27/2002 9:54:31 AM

Well yes... ultimately you're the one who decides what you believe. I only said parents not as a biblical basis for it, but the fact that the actual act of babtism is often a decision made by the parents (mine babtised me). Parent's babtise their kids I guess because it's a while before they can make that decision for themselves, and it does fulfill Mt 28:19 that you cited.

It's not surprising that Christian parents want their children to be Christian.

The statement about judging is just that I won't bother worrying about the motives of some writier... whether he's satanic or agnositic or whatever. I think people are better off prostelizing what's good about their Christian experience than what's evil about the world.

If you believe and want God in your life... none of that 'evil' can touch you anyway.

18054. Jimmy Page - 6/27/2002 10:06:58 AM

ivan -

I wouldn't go so far as to call Crowley's lifestyle "mundane," although the myth certainly eclipses reality.

As to pedophilia, wasn't Crowley's view that "the age of consent" is the age at which someone reaches puberty? Since individuals usually reach puberty long before the age of consent set forth in the laws of most "civilized" places, Crowley was seen as supporting pedophilia. Don't quote me on that, but that's what I remember about that issue.

18055. ivan osokin - 6/27/2002 10:49:35 AM

jpage;

you may be right on that. but if so, i suppose anyone in england or the US during the 19th century may have been a pedophile too...same with India.

i don't recall, however, him saying that about the age of consent. i don't recall him saying ANYTHING about the age of consent, though i'm SURE he would think somewhere around the age of 15 or 16 to be acceptable. i've never actually heard of allegations that he cavorted with such young women, however...and considering his reputation, i'm sure that if he did, we'd have known about it.

18056. Jimmy Page - 6/27/2002 11:13:20 AM

but if so, i suppose anyone in england or the US during the 19th century may have been a pedophile too...same with India.

Sure, not to mention several third world countries in the 20th Century where adulthood is defined very differently. The person I consider a child, someone else considers his wife and the mother of his three children....

18057. Rama - 6/27/2002 11:38:01 AM

"That's no baby, that's my wife!"

18058. KuligintheHooligan - 6/27/2002 2:56:50 PM

"If you're a Christian (or perhaps any kind of monotheist) and you see someone worship someone or something or many someone/somethings that are anathema to the tenets of your religion, then you're probably going to conclude that that other person is worshiping the devil, whether that other person knows it or not. So it's easy for a christian to dump many traditionally pagan/wiccan type religions into the catch-all category "satanic" or "satanism."

There would be "man made" religions as a category as well. Clearly Scripture considers some false doctrine as "doctrines of Satan" and such.

Personally, I find it very easy to lump together paganism with Satanism, just because there are so many similarities. However, technically speaking that isn't a correct thing to do.

18059. ivan osokin - 6/27/2002 3:44:08 PM

KtheH:

wow. once again you surprise me. i agree...it's really not a "correct" thing to do. but i understand why christianity might lump them together.

i wish there was a better way to classify this. i know there are people who profess to be satanists and pretend to worship satan and trot around presenting themselves as dark and evil. universally, i have found these people to be morons of the worst kind. at least a christian moron has some doctrinal reason for it (and jesus wasn't a bad guy)...self-professed satanists are taking their cue from a cheap paperback written by a circus buffoon.

so many people in the pagan community want to be distanced from them, but it's hard to convince christianity that the difference is sufficient to add a different category besides 'satanist'.

i prefer "non-christian polytheist" or something like that...at least it doesn't imply that someone's about to sacrifice your children :)

18060. Jenerator - 6/28/2002 6:24:20 PM

Ivan,

I pretty much agree with you. Why I consider (loosely) Crowleyism and Satanism to be essentially the same thing is because they are both so similar. For starters, Satan is used as a metaphor, if used at all. Living life to its fullest, even if it includes moral licentiousness drug abuse, and promiscuity, is the primary goal. Ritual and order are desired and magick is performed to bring a "depth" to the ordinary and mundane. Christianity is the antithesis and should be destroyed because it is against the carnal man.

Btw, had I known you a year ago, I could have purchased two of Crowley's books (1st edition) for you.

18061. jexster - 6/28/2002 10:50:47 PM

Eucharistic Rite,1549 Book of Common Prayer

18062. jexster - 6/28/2002 10:53:37 PM

ALMIGHTIE and everlivyng GOD, whiche by thy holy Apostle haste taught us to make prayers and supplicacions, and to geve thankes for al menne: We humbly beseche thee moste mercyfully to receive these our praiers, which we offre unto thy divine Majestie, beseching thee to inspire continually the universal churche with the spirite of trueth, unitie, and concorde: And graunt that al they that do confesse thy holy name, maye agree in the trueth of thy holye worde, and live in unitie and godly love. Speciallye we beseche thee to save and defende thy servaunt Edwarde our Kyng, that under hym we maye be Godly and quietly governed. And graunt unto his whole counsaile, and to all that he put in auctoritie under hym, that they maye truely and indifferently minister justice, to the punishemente of wickednesse and vice, and to the maintenaunce of Goddes true religion and vertue. Geve grace (O henvenly father) to all Bishoppes, Pastors, and Curates, that thei maie bothe by their life and doctrine set furthe thy true and lively worde, and rightely and duely administer thy holy Sacramentes: and to al thy people geve thy heavenly grace, that with meke heart and due reverence they may heare and receive thy holy worde, truely servyng thee in holynes and righteousnes all the dayes of their life:... Graunt this, O father, for Jesus Christes sake, our onely mediatour and advocate.

18063. ivan osokin - 6/28/2002 11:54:41 PM

I seek refuge in the great Lord, Vinayaka, who is higher than the highest, who is everlasting, who is ferocious to others than those that bow to Him, who is resplendent as the newly rising sun, worshipped by both demons and Gods, the savior of those that bow to Him from all their miseries, the lord of all the Gods, the lord of all wealth, the elephant God, and Ganesvara, the lord of the ganas.

I bow to the resplendent one who bestows peace to all the worlds, who conquered the elephant demon, who has not a small belly, the excellent one who has a beautiful elephant face, who is eternal, who is kind, who is forgiving, who gives happiness, who bestows fame and who satisfies every wish of those that bow to Him.

I worship the ancient elephant God, who shares the misery of the poor, the fit receptacle of all the ancient prayers, the first son of the enemy of the three cities, Siva, the shatterer of the pride of the demons, the fierce destroyer of the worlds, decorated by fire and other elements, and whose elephant cheeks are flowing with must.

I constantly think of Him alone, the single-tusked one, witha lovingly brillian tusk, the son of the destroyer of the sacrifice, Siva, with a form that cannot be comprehended, with no end, who tears assunder all doubts and who is verily like spring to the yogis who hold Him in their hearts all the time.

18064. jexster - 6/29/2002 10:26:24 AM

A Hypertext Book of Hours

18065. robertjayb - 6/29/2002 5:55:13 PM

Thy will be done! And quickly, please!

V A T I C A N C I T Y, June 29 — The Vatican specialist who collaborated with Pope John Paul II on the best-selling book "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" says the pontiff has firmly decided not to retire.

In a front-page article Saturday in the Milan daily Corriere della Sera, Vittorio Messori quoted what he said he had deduced from the pope's thoughts on the subject:

"The force to continue is not my problem but that of Christ, who wanted to call me, though unworthy, to be his vicar on Earth. In His mysterious design, He has brought me here. And it will be He who decides my fate."

18066. wonkers2 - 7/8/2002 7:08:52 AM

From Justice Scalia, A Chilling Vision of Religion's Authority in America

18067. bubbaette - 7/9/2002 10:33:22 PM

Preacher beats the devil out of 11-year-old

18068. KuligintheHooligan - 7/12/2002 3:33:47 AM

> BreakPoint with Charles Colson
> Commentary #020711 - 07/11/2002
> Vindicating the Scouts: Leadership and the Lives of Boys
>
> Last month in Dallas, Catholic bishops adopted a set of policies to address the scandal of sexual abuse by priests. The policy "permanently [removes] from ministry" any priest or deacon who has ever sexually abused a minor.
>
> While it remains to be seen whether this policy or any other measure will restore confidence in the church, there's one unjustly maligned group whose policies have been vindicated by these scandals: the Boy Scouts.
>
> In addition to what is being called a "zero tolerance" policy toward wayward priests, the bishops took steps to prevent future abuse. These
include the adoption of strict standards of conduct for anyone, lay or clergy, working with children.
>
> If the Bishops are looking for an example of such standards, they need look no further than in the basements of many of their churches. That's because the organization meeting there, the Boy Scouts, has a policy that now looks very good in the wake of the travails of the Catholic church. [cont]

18069. KuligintheHooligan - 7/12/2002 3:42:18 AM

> To understand why, it's important to acknowledge the nature of the problems confronting the Catholic church. The scandal cannot be understood or worked out without taking the homosexuality of the accused priests into account. Note that the overwhelming majority of abuse cases in the Catholic church involve men and boys. The best way to avoid these problems in the future is to keep sexually active homosexual men away from vulnerable boys.
>
> And that's exactly what the Scouts have been doing. They prohibit homosexual men from acting as scoutmasters. While this policy isn't a complete guarantee against sexual abuse, it greatly reduces the risk and has so far spared Scouting from what has happened in the Catholic
church. [cont]

18070. KuligintheHooligan - 7/12/2002 3:42:42 AM

> And for acting on what most people would regard as common sense, particularly in light of the Catholic church experience, the Scouts have been vilified and even sued. Their right, as a private
organization, to determine the qualifications for leadership was barely upheld by the Supreme Court three years ago.
>
> Having won in court, the Scouts are still the object of harassment and boycotts. City governments have banned them from public facilities, and major corporations have withdrawn funding. For many of our elites, the Scouts' policy on gay scoutmasters is the embodiment of bigotry.
>
> This is why you won't see many people in the mainstream media drawing the connection between what's going on in the Catholic church and the Scouts. Their worldview, which tells them that any disapproval of homosexual behavior is mere prejudice, won't allow them to see the connection.
>
> As Leslie Carbone recently pointed out in NATIONAL REVIEW, elites who condemn the Catholic church for putting young boys in danger of sexual
abuse are the same ones who condemned the Scouts for refusing to do so. And so they are in the hypocritical position of opposing homosexual priests while demanding homosexual scout leaders.
>
> If our neighbors are going to appreciate how events of the past few months have vindicated the Scouts, they'll have to hear it from us. And let's be fair here: What the media thinks is now good for the Catholic church -- "zero tolerance," no abuse tolerated -- is surely good for the Scouts. Come on, folks -- let's stop harassing the Scouts. They've been right all along.
[END]

18071. wonkers2 - 7/19/2002 4:06:28 PM

The Colson/Leslie Carbone article is pure bullshit!

18072. jexster - 7/23/2002 2:36:09 PM

A friend of our parish rector...

LoNDON –– Welsh archbishop Rowan Williams, a renowned theologian and outspoken opponent of U.S. policies in Afghanistan and Iraq, was chosen Tuesday to be the 104th archbishop of Canterbury, spiritual leader of the world's 70 million Anglicans.

Williams, 52, has been praised in some church quarters as an orthodox Christian and a deep thinker. Desmond Tutu, the former archbishop of Cape Town, describes Williams as "the leading theologian in our communion." But some conservatives have been alarmed that he admitted ordaining a priest whom he suspected of living in a homosexual relationship.

Williams, who was in lower Manhattan on Sept. 11 as terrorist strikes brought down the World Trade Center, has criticized the U.S.-led war on terrorism, and has condemned sanctions against Iraq and the American threats of military action against Saddam Hussein.

Writing recently about the war on terrorism, Williams said, "It is just possible to deplore civilian casualties and retain moral credibility when an action is clearly focused and its goals are on the way to evident achievement.

"It is not possible when the strategy appears confused and political leaders talk about a war that may last for years."

18073. wonkers2 - 7/24/2002 5:23:20 PM

Good pick. Williams is a heavy duty theologian and intellectual who is willing to speak out on a variety of issues, according to NPR. He's written seven books including poetry and theology and speaks five languages. The American Episcopal Church is handicapped by not having a leader, comparable to the Arch Bishop of Canterbury.

18074. Rama - 7/26/2002 12:22:40 PM

Woo-hoo! Tony Blair picks a liberal hypocrite to head the establishedChurch of England. What an amazing surprise.

A much more interesting development is the democratic selection of Fahed Abu-Akel as Moderator by the Presbyterian Church in the US.

18075. Rama - 7/26/2002 12:34:38 PM

BTW, Williams is a hypocrite because he claims to be a disestablishmentarian while heading an established church.

18076. jexster - 7/28/2002 7:55:16 PM

He claims nothing of the sort! You, however, can lay claim to an abundance of igorance.

18077. jexster - 7/28/2002 8:00:57 PM

And of course and as if Rama would let facts get in the way of his prejudices, Tony Blair merely confirmed the first of two elected choices of the COE...

18078. jexster - 7/28/2002 8:02:26 PM

And of course and as if Rama would let facts get in the way of his prejudices, Tony Blair merely confirmed the first of two elected choices of the COE...

18079. jexster - 7/28/2002 8:17:33 PM

Biographical Information

Rowan Douglas Williams was born in Swansea on 14 June 1950. He was educated at Dynevor Secondary School, then at Christ's College, Cambridge, where he read Theology. After research in Oxford (on Christianity in Russia), he spent two years as a lecturer at Mirfield Theological College near Leeds. From 1977, he spent nine years in academic and parochial work in Cambridge. From 1986-1992, Dr Williams was Professor of Theology at Oxford. He was enthroned as Bishop of Monmouth in 1992 and Archbishop of Wales in 2000.

Dr Williams has written a number of books on the history of theology and spirituality and published collections of articles and sermons – as well as two books of poetry. He has been involved in various commissions on theology and theological education. He was a member of the Church Schools Review Group led by Lord Dearing and chaired the group that produced the report ‘Wales: a Moral Society?’

Dr Williams is a Fellow of the British Academy. His interests include music, fiction and languages.

Since 1981, Dr Williams has been married to Jane Paul, a lecturer in theology, whom he met while living and working in Cambridge. They have a son and a daughter.

Details:

Christ's College, Cambridge, B.A. 1971. M.A. 1975
Wadham College, Oxford, D.Phil 1975
College of the Resurrection, Mirfield, 1975
Deacon 1977. Priest 1978
Tutor, Westcott House, Cambridge, 1977-1980
Honorary Curate, Chesterton St George, Ely 1980-1983
Lecturer in Divinity, Cambridge, 1980-1986
Dean and Chaplain, Clare College, Cambridge, 1984-1986
Canon Theologian, Leicester Cathedral, 1981-1982
Canon Residentiary, Christ Church, Oxford 1986-1992
Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford 1986-1992
Enthroned as Bishop of Monmouth on 14 May 1992
Enthroned as Archbishop of Wales on 26 February 2000

18080. jexster - 7/28/2002 8:20:24 PM

The main roles of the Archbishop of Canterbury

Diocesan Bishop of Canterbury
Since 597, the Archbishop’s See has been at Canterbury. The next Archbishop will be the 104th. His diocese in East Kent has a population of 825,000 people and comprises 270 parishes in an area of nearly 1,000 square miles.

Metropolitan for the Southern Province of the Church of England

The Archbishop of Canterbury has what is known as metropolitical authority (that is, a supervisory authority for defined purposes) in relation to all bishops and clergy in the 30 dioceses in southern England. The Archbishop of York has the same authority in relation to the 14 dioceses in northern England.

Primate of All England
The Archbishop has this title in recognition of his lead ecclesiastical role in England. The Church of England has 13,000 parishes and 13,000 full-time parochial and other clergy. He is regarded as the nation’s senior Christian and spiritual voice.

Leader of the Anglican Communion
The Anglican Communion includes all 38 provinces in communion with the See of Canterbury, a total of about 70 million members throughout the world.

Ecumenical role
The Archbishop of Canterbury takes the lead in respect of Anglican relationships with other Christian churches in the United Kingdom and abroad.

Inter faith role
Similarly, the Archbishop of Canterbury leads in respect of Anglican relationships with other faiths.

18081. jexster - 7/28/2002 8:34:34 PM

Visit nurtures relationship between Episcopal Church and Russian Orthodox

The linked article mentions a 1999 visit by PB/Primate William Griswold. During that visit, the Metropolitan of Moscow told Griswold how, in 1906, upon receiving word that the Church of the Advent (SF) had been destroyed in the earthquake, Archbishop Tikon, his predecessor and now a Saint in the Russian Orthodox Church, sent a chalice and ciborium to the parish.

That's my parish. And the sacred vessels are used to this very day on Major Feasts.

TIKHON, SAINT, ENLIGHTENER OF AMERICA
AND PATRIARCH OF MOSCOW

18082. Rama - 7/29/2002 11:23:19 AM

He claims nothing of the sort! You, however, can lay claim to an abundance of igorance.

Jexter, I knew you don't understand politics or history, but I had the impression you knew something about the branch of organized religion you are affiliated with. But it turns out you don't know anything about anything at all. Williams has spoken about disestablishment on many occasions.

18083. Rama - 7/29/2002 11:27:18 AM

And of course and as if Rama would let facts get in the way of his prejudices, Tony Blair merely confirmed the first of two elected choices of the COE...

Jexter, I don't believe even you are that ignorant, so I must believe you are lying on purpose. Blair picked from the offered list. He didn't pick the "first". He picked the politically safest.

18084. jexster - 7/29/2002 12:13:04 PM

He picked the first choice of HM committee on appointments...wanna cite

and I would like your evidence in return....

bring it on...you are challenged.

18085. jexster - 7/29/2002 12:14:52 PM

And as to your point about Blair picking the "politically safest" define your terms...for in fact Blair was subject to intense lobbying from inside and outside England by social conservatives who object to Williams' endorsement of gay ordinations.....


Bring it on....we'll see who's the Moron here just as we have on other threads...

18086. jexster - 7/29/2002 12:18:38 PM

Be mindful, be warned, be careful,not only do I know a good deal from media sources about the new Centaur, my parish rector, as I have said, knows him personally, from when he was at Oxford and from his friendship with the Archbishop of York.

18087. jexster - 7/29/2002 1:14:13 PM

Yo Rama...try this...

Engage brain before typing any more posts!

A master mariner meets the storm
David Edwards


Rowan Williams will preside over a Church of England that is being pulled in different directions and uncertain of its role. How will he respond to these challenges? The former Provost of Southwark Cathedral outlines what can be expected of the new Archbishop of Canterbury – and what cannot.

Do you enjoy being publically humiliated?

18088. jexster - 7/29/2002 1:17:37 PM

The convulsions of our English Church itself, grievous as they are, seem to be as nothing beside the danger of its calm and unobtrusive alienation in thought and spirit from the great silent multitude of Englishmen, and again of alienation from fact and love of fact.”

Rama are you one of that silent multitude?

18089. jexster - 7/29/2002 1:19:28 PM

Rowan Williams thus comes to his throne in Canterbury Cathedral at a time of challenges greater than those which in 1942 confronted William Temple, the greatest of the twentieth century’s Anglican archbishops. The hour then was dark because the war was grim, but the Churches were then comparatively popular, and it was a time of hopes about post-war reconstruction. Archbishop Williams, however, is called to Canterbury at a time of disillusion about all politicians, of moral anarchy in key areas, and of profound uncertainty about the UK and about its role in the world – should it be in the European Union or the junior partner of the United States?

But Williams is better equipped for this job, or more gifted for this ministry, than his greatest recent predecessor – and this is also true about the next greatest, Michael Ramsey

18090. jexster - 7/29/2002 1:54:46 PM

Theologically, +Williams, Centaur is a fellow traveler of the PB of the Episcopal Church, Frank Griswold...

to wit...

Affirming Catholicism: The New Catholic Movement in the Anglican/Episcopal Church

Affirming Catholicism, founded by +Frank Griswold...

Affirming Catholicism began with a conference on Saturday 9 June, 1990, at St. Alban's church, Holborn -just outside the City of London. The clarion call from Rowan Williams, now Archbishop of Wales, was for Anglo-Catholics to affirm tradition 'in its proper and fullest sense', not as a 'lifeboat in which to escape the present' but as 'a crucible in which the experiment of Christian life is constantly tested'.

18091. Rama - 7/29/2002 2:13:21 PM

He picked the first choice of HM committee on appointments...wanna cite

and I would like your evidence in return....



OK, I was wrong.

You are that stupid.

The order of election is no more binding to the PM than the alphabetic order. Blair doesn't get elected by conservatives.

18092. Rama - 7/29/2002 2:20:36 PM

Be mindful, be warned, be careful,not only do I know a good deal from media sources about the new Centaur, my parish rector, as I have said, knows him personally, from when he was at Oxford and
from his friendship with the Archbishop of York.

Be mindful, be warned, be careful, I was in the UK the last three weeks, so I am quite aware of reality, not your delusions.

Also, watch out, because I can read. The link you posted supported what I said, not your disagreement: Williams is a liberal, like the P.M. who selected him, and has claimed to be a disestablishmentarian.

18093. Rama - 7/29/2002 2:24:35 PM

Rama are you one of that silent multitude?

Nope. I'm a noisy American Calvinist.

18094. jexster - 7/29/2002 2:41:27 PM

I know.

I know nothing of the Presbytrs....lots about Catholic denominations...little of the Prots... :)

18095. jexster - 7/29/2002 2:43:26 PM

and I am still waiting for your evidence that Williams is anything but Orthodox unless of course your definition of same involves issues of who sleeps with whom...

The fact that you have offered nothing, means to me at least, you have nothing to offer on the subject

18096. jexster - 7/29/2002 2:55:39 PM

A Statement on the appointment
of Rowan Williams as the next Archbishop of Canterbury



July 15, 2002

I am very pleased with the appointment of Rowan Williams to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury. He is well known and highly respected across the Anglican Communion, in ecumenical circles, and here in the United States.

The combination of a keen mind and a contemplative heart, together with an ability to relate classical Christian tradition to the needs and struggles of our world, make him eminently qualified to take up this important and challenging ministry of service.

The Most Reverend Frank T. Griswold
XXV Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church, USA

18097. jexster - 7/29/2002 3:15:54 PM

The choices BTW FYI one and two are preferential but you are right Blair was no more obliged to take the first than he was the second and in fact had the power to choose neither and send the Commission back..

in this regard his power is no more nor less than that of the Queen...

But its been a while since any of this mattered and even longer since you have demonstrated much intelligence on this subject

18098. jexster - 7/29/2002 3:16:06 PM

The choices BTW FYI one and two are preferential but you are right Blair was no more obliged to take the first than he was the second and in fact had the power to choose neither and send the Commission back..

in this regard his power is no more nor less than that of the Queen...

But its been a while since any of this mattered and even longer since you have demonstrated much intelligence on this subject

18099. jexster - 7/29/2002 3:22:59 PM

I guess Rama wasn't "in england" in late June...

Or else he can't read..

Daily Telegraph..

The Archbishop of Wales, the Most Rev Dr Rowan Williams, is "virtually certain" to succeed George Carey at the Archbishop of Canterbury, it was claimed last night.

Church sources, including a close friend of one of the 13 voting members of the Crown Appointments Commission that met secretly last week to select the names of two candidates to present to Tony Blair, said it was "highly unlikely" the Prime Minister would commend the other, unnamed, candidate for approval by the Queen. The CAC will have presented the names to Downing Street in order of preference and the sources said Dr Williams was in first place"

what an idiot

18100. Rama - 7/29/2002 3:44:28 PM

and I am still waiting for your evidence that Williams is anything but Orthodox

Good grief! I haven't said anything about orthodoxy! Establishmentarianism is a matter of politics, not theology. Of course, he isn't Orthodox, or he wouldn't be Anglican. But as far as I am aware, he is orthodox, though quite liberal.

18102. Rama - 7/29/2002 4:21:32 PM

I guess Rama wasn't "in england" in late June...

No, as I said, I was in the UK the last three weeks. That would be July.

what an idiot

Indeed, you must be, having already admitted I was correct that Blair could pick who he wanted, to continue to embarrass yourself about this issue.

18103. jexster - 7/29/2002 7:56:40 PM

Oh my God.

Disestablishmentarianism, ie the removal of Crown Authority over the affairs of the COE, has EVERYTHING to do with Catholic Orthodoxy!

It has been so since Henry VIII.

What an idiot.

18104. jexster - 7/29/2002 7:58:51 PM

And I never said that Blair couldn't pick whom he wanted. So could the Queen.

I did say that the PM was given two choices in order of preference; that Williams was the first choice, and as far as politically "safe" goes, in point of fact, Williams was a highly risky choice both for his Catholic Orthodoxy and for his liberal social views.

18105. jexster - 7/29/2002 7:59:54 PM

In fact, Blair was under rather heavy lobbying pressure from conservatives to choose the second pick or none at all, which, would have been a disastrous move.

18106. jexster - 7/29/2002 8:00:50 PM

You stick to telling us about Presbyterians and you won't wind up looking so foolish










Maybe

18107. jexster - 7/29/2002 8:01:45 PM

Advice for next round....

Don't let your prejudice against Tony Blair interfere with fact

18108. Rama - 7/30/2002 10:28:20 AM

Disestablishmentarianism, ie the removal of Crown Authority over the affairs of the COE, has EVERYTHING to do with Catholic Orthodoxy!

It is amazing to me that someone who parrots religious texts so often has no idea what orthodoxy is. I doubt it is possible to underestimate your lack of understanding.

There can be no orthodox position on establishment, since there is no orthodox support for the diversity of congregations that gives that concept meaning.

It has been so since Henry VIII.

What nonsense. The Anglican reformation had nothing to do with establishmentarianism, since it merely replaced one established church with another.

What an idiot.

You do not need to keep signing your posts.

18109. Rama - 7/30/2002 10:30:23 AM

In fact, Blair was under rather heavy lobbying pressure from conservatives to choose the second pick or none at all, which, would have been a disastrous move.

Since the conservative provide virtually no support for Blair, their ability to pressure him is also nil.

18110. Rama - 7/30/2002 10:31:21 AM

You stick to telling us about Presbyterians and you won't wind up looking so foolish

I'm afraid the only advice I can give you for not looking foolish is to stop typing.

18111. jexster - 7/30/2002 10:33:00 AM

There can be no orthodox position on establishment, since there is no orthodox support for the diversity of congregations that gives that concept meaning

Perhaps you can tell us what this means!

What nonsense. The Anglican reformation had nothing to do with establishmentarianism, since it merely replaced one established church with another.

Bullshit...the issue of crown control over the Church was at the heart of it...

What a moron

18112. Rama - 7/30/2002 10:33:54 AM

Don't let your prejudice against Tony Blair interfere with fact

What a fantasy world you live in. I quite like Tony Blair, as European politicians go. I posted nothing that isn't a demonstrated fact, and you have posted links that support all of my points.

18113. jexster - 7/30/2002 10:35:57 AM

Characteristics
from the writings of John Henry Newman
Edited by William Samuel Lilly

18114. jexster - 7/30/2002 10:37:16 AM

As Cardinal Newman and others have pointed out over the centuries, state control over the COE is an affront to Catholic Orthodoxy.

Tell us about the Non-Jurors.

Do you know what the term means?

18115. Rama - 7/30/2002 10:41:37 AM

Perhaps you can tell us what this means!

Goodness, I knew Anglicans were weak on theology, but this is ridiculous.

The orthodox position of Christianity is that there is only one catholic, holy and apostolic Church. The orthodox position is that everybody should be a Christian and everybody (including the state) should be supportive of the Church's actions, because she is us, and we are her.

The notion of an established church is only meaningful if there are other churches that are not established. As the existence of other churches is not orthodox, there can be no orthodox position on establishment.

The Anglican reformation replaced the Pope's Church with the King's Church. Both were established.

What a moron

Ah, you have changed your signature block!

18116. Rama - 7/30/2002 10:45:36 AM

Do you know what the term means?

As the descendant of ardent Orangemen, I am quite familiar with the term. Your bringing it up is quite odd. You are mixing Assholes and Oranges.

18117. jexster - 7/30/2002 10:58:42 AM

So tell us...

And while you're at it, tell us how exactly the state controlled the COE prior to Henry VIII's split with Rome.

Other than Napoleon's imposition of state control over the Church, there has never been an instance of "establishmentarianism" save Scotland but the establishment of the heretical Presbyterian Church doesn't count because Calvinists aren't catholic

If you are any indication, not very bright either

18118. jexster - 7/30/2002 10:59:37 AM

St. Tikon forgive me, I forgot the Russian Orthodox

18119. jexster - 7/30/2002 11:16:36 AM

Since Rama has offered nothing, we can only assume that he has nothing to offer.

Cardinal Newman has offered a great deal on the question of the National Establishment and how it stands opposed to Catholic Orthodoxy. Again, this question, dispute is neither novel nor radical. Its been extant for 500 years.

WE must not indulge our imagination in the view we take of the National Establishment. If, indeed, we dress it up in an ideal form, as if it were something real, with an independent and a continuous existence, and a proper history, as if it were in deed and not only in name a {255} Church, then indeed we may feel interest in it, and reverence towards it, and affection for it, as men have fallen in love with pictures, or knights in romance do battle for high dames whom they have never seen. Thus it is that students of the Fathers, antiquaries, and poets, begin by assuming that the body to which they belong is that of which they read in times past, and then proceed to decorate it with that majesty and beauty of which history tells, or which their genius creates. Nor is it by an easy process or a light effort that their minds are disabused of this error. It is an error for many reasons too dear to them to be readily relinquished. But at length, either the force of circumstances or some unexpected accident dissipates it; and, as in fairy tales, the magic castle vanishes when the spell is broken, and nothing is seen but the wild heath, the barren rock, and the forlorn sheep-walk, so is it with us as regards the Church of England, when we look in amazement on that we thought so unearthly, and find so commonplace or worthless.

18120. jexster - 7/30/2002 11:17:03 AM

Then we perceive, that aforetime we have not been guided by reason, but biassed by education and swayed by affection. We see in the English Church, I will not merely say no descent from the first ages, and no relationship to the Church in other lands, but we see no body politic of any kind; we see nothing more or less than an Establishment, a department of Government, or a function or operation of the State,—without a substance,—a mere collection of officials, depending on and living in the supreme civil power.

18121. jexster - 7/30/2002 11:17:28 AM

Its unity and personality are gone, and with them its power of exciting feelings of any kind. It is easier to love or hate an abstraction, than so commonplace a framework or mechanism. We regard it neither with anger, nor with aversion, nor with contempt, any more than with respect or interest. It is but one aspect of the State, or mode of civil governance; {256} it is responsible for nothing; it can appropriate neither praise nor blame; but, whatever feeling it raises is to be referred on, by the nature of the case, to the Supreme Power whom it represents, and whose will is its breath. And hence it has no real identity of existence in distinct periods, unless the present Legislature or the present Court can affect to be the offspring and disciple of its predecessor. Nor can it in consequence be said to have any antecedents, or any future; or to live, except in the passing moment. As a thing without a soul, it does not contemplate itself, define its intrinsic constitution, or ascertain its position. It has no traditions; it cannot be said to think; it does not know what it holds, and what it does not [Note 2]; it is not even conscious of its own existence. It has no love for its members, or what are sometimes called its children, nor any instinct whatever, unless attachment to its master, or love of its place, may be so called. Its fruits, as far as they are good, are to be made much of, as long as they last, for they are transient, and without succession; its former champions of orthodoxy are no earnest of orthodoxy now; they died, and there was no reason why they should be reproduced. Bishop is not like bishop, more than king is like king, or ministry like ministry; its Prayer-Book is {257} an Act of Parliament of two centuries ago, and its cathedrals and its chapter-houses are the spoils of Catholicism.

18122. jexster - 7/30/2002 11:18:08 AM

So much for the blithering Calvanist.

RIP Rama

18123. Rama - 7/30/2002 11:19:55 AM

Other than Napoleon's imposition of state control over the Church, there has never been an instance of "establishmentarianism" save
Scotland but the establishment of the heretical Presbyterian Church doesn't count because Calvinists aren't catholic

This is totally nuts. You obviousely don't know what establishmentarianism is.

Establishment is the support of an official church by the state. Sweden had one, Denmark has one, England has two (COE, COS), the U.S. is prohibited from having one. This is a political action, not a religious one. It is a political action for which there is no orthodox theological direction.

State control of religion is a different matter, and is not what is meant by establishment, nor what is supported by establishmentarians, disputed by disestablishmentarians, or argued about by antidisestablishmentarians.

18124. Rama - 7/30/2002 11:23:17 AM

The Roman Church, by the way, has been quite happy with establishment as a practical matter, when it is the established church, but again, that is as a political organization, not as a theological one.

18125. jexster - 7/30/2002 11:27:38 AM

"I have said all this, my brethren, not in declamation, but to bring out clearly why I cannot feel interest of any kind in the National Church, nor put any trust in it at all from its past history, as if it were, in however narrow a sense, a guardian of orthodoxy. It is as little bound by what it said or did formerly, as this morning's newspaper by its former numbers, except as it is bound by the Law; and while it is upheld by the Law, it will not be weakened by the subtraction of individuals, nor fortified by their continuance. Its life is an Act of Parliament. It will not be able to resist the Arian, Sabellian, or Unitarian heresies now, because Bull or Waterland resisted them a century or two before; nor, on the other hand, would it be unable to resist them, though its more orthodox theologians were presently to leave it. It will be able to resist them while the State gives the word; it would be unable, when the State forbids it. Elizabeth boasted that she "tuned her pulpits;" Charles forbade discussions on predestination; George on the Holy Trinity; Victoria allows differences on Holy Baptism [Note 3]. While the nation wishes an Establishment, it will remain, whatever individuals are for it or against it; and that which determines its existence will determine its voice. Of course the presence or departure of individuals will be one out of various disturbing causes, which may delay or accelerate by a certain number of years a change in its teaching: but, after all, the change {258} itself depends on events broader and deeper than these; it depends on changes in the nation. As the nation changes its political, so may it change its religious views; the causes which carried the Reform Bill and Free Trade may make short work with orthodoxy."

(Newman, Anglican Difficulties, p. 4.)

You offer nothing because you do not know what you are talking about

18126. jexster - 7/30/2002 11:29:43 AM

In a nutshell that is what "establishmentarianism" means today and has meant for 500 years in the COE

18127. jexster - 7/30/2002 11:37:24 AM

and also the relation of "disestablishmentarianism" to Catholic Orthodoxy.

The Oxford Divines clearly understood this. +Williams, centaur, clearly understands this. The "evangelical" (in the US "protestant") wing of the COE has always understood this and has always supported state control of the COE as a defense against "the Papists". That is why the COE's "official" and unused Book of Common Prayer dates from 1662. That is why the current liturgy and hymnal are not official.

Its a long dispute. Too much for you to digest unless you wish to convert in which case, you now have vastly greater knowledge than you did 24 hours ago!

18128. jexster - 7/30/2002 1:42:00 PM

The Issue of National Establishment in the United States...


A crucial date for members of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America is the consecration of the first Bishop of the Anglican Communion in the United States. During the colonial era, there had been no Anglican bishops in the New World; and persons seeking to be ordained as clergy had had to travel to England for the purpose. After the achievement of American independence, it was important for the Church in the United States to have its own bishops, and an assembly of Connecticut clergy chose Samuel Seabury to go to England and there seek to be consecrated as a bishop.

However, the English bishops were forbidden by law to consecrate anyone who would not take an oath of allegiance to the British Crown. He accordingly turned to the Episcopal Church of Scotland


Consecration of Samuel Seabury, bishop
(Bestowal of the American Episcopate)
14 November 1784 (from the Anglican Calendar)

18129. jexster - 7/30/2002 1:47:47 PM

34156. bubbaette - 7/30/02 5:00:37 PM

"Conversing" with Rama is like hitting oneself with a hammer -- it's painful, pointless, and it feels so ood when you stop.


When the Roman Catholic king James II was deposed in 1688, some of the Anglican clergy (including some who had been imprisoned by James for defying him on religious issues) said that, having sworn allegiance to James as King, they could not during his lifetime swear allegiance to the new monarchs William and Mary. Those who took this position were known as non-Jurors (non-swearers), and they included almost all the bishops and clergy of the Episcopal Church in Scotland. Accordingly, the monarchs and Parliament declared that thenceforth the official church in Scotland should be the Presbyterian Church. The Episcopal Church of Scotland thereafter had no recognition by the government, and for some time operated under serious legal disablities. However, since it had no connection with the government, it was free to consecrate Seabury without government permission, and it did. This is why you see a Cross of St. Andrew on the Episcopal Church flag.

18130. Rama - 7/30/2002 6:01:45 PM

In a nutshell that is what "establishmentarianism" means today and has
meant for 500 years in the COE

Nonsense. That is, in fact, a discussion of the Roman position regarding the schismatic Anglican Communion. The problems it describes are in reality the problems of all churches where the overseers rule, be they princes or bishops.

18131. Rama - 7/30/2002 6:04:40 PM

has always supported state control of the COE as a defense against "the Papists".

Clearly demonstrating that this is a political issue, not a matter of orthodoxy.

It is truly amazing the lengths you will go to in order to aviod admission of error.

18132. jexster - 7/30/2002 6:05:25 PM

Redefining your terms to save your sorry ass.

That is in fact a discussion of what has been happening in the COE since Henry VIII. Which side of the Tiber those facts bring a person is an entirely different question.

Manifestly from Newman to Bp Seabury to Elizabeth to the Non-jurors the National Establishment means the establishment of the COE as national church subject to Parliament enactments.

18133. jexster - 7/30/2002 6:12:19 PM

To Anglicans and indeed to the First Presbyterians, the term "national establishment" and its relation to Catholic Orthodoxy have always been clearly understood as any number of cites above indicate.

What happened to Rama?

I think Bubbs suggests the answer...

He got hit in the head once too often, twice too hard

18134. jexster - 7/30/2002 6:13:17 PM

oath of allegiance to the Crown = national establishment.

18135. Rama - 7/30/2002 6:43:29 PM

Redefining your terms to save your sorry ass.

Nonsense. I have only used the terms in their actual meaning:

establishment

disestablishmentarian

objective review of modern history of Christianity

18136. Rama - 7/30/2002 6:44:01 PM

oath of allegiance to the Crown = national establishment.

Rubbish.

18137. jexster - 7/30/2002 7:48:26 PM

An opponent of an established order, especially one who opposes state support of an established church

• the English bishops were forbidden by law to consecrate anyone who would not take an oath of allegiance to the British Crown
  
• When the Roman Catholic king James II was deposed in 1688, some of the Anglican clergy (including some who had been imprisoned by James for defying him on religious issues) said that, having sworn allegiance to James as King, they could not during his lifetime swear allegiance to the new monarchs William and Mary. Those who took this position were known as non-Jurors (non-swearers), and they included almost all the bishops and clergy of the Episcopal Church in Scotland
  
• WE must not indulge our imagination in the view we take of the National Establishment
  
• Elizabeth boasted that she "tuned her pulpits;" Charles forbade discussions on predestination; George on the Holy Trinity; Victoria allows differences on Holy Baptism [Note 3]. While the nation wishes an Establishment, it will remain, whatever individuals are for it or against it;
  
  
  

18138. jexster - 7/30/2002 7:51:21 PM

And THAT is and always has been the question of Establishment in the Church of England.

Now this whole discussion began as a discussion of precisely the dispute over Establishment currently and in the past in the COE.

That is where you have now by your own definition ended it.

18139. jexster - 7/30/2002 8:01:09 PM

As if more hammering was really needed..

Canon Law in the Anglican Communion
nisi quod lex tua delectatio mea forte perissem in pressura mea
First Act of Uniformity 1549 (2 & 3 Edward VI, c. 1)

18140. jexster - 7/30/2002 8:18:54 PM

COE - The National Establishment

Henry VIII died on January 28, 1547, and was succeeded by the boy king, Edward VI., who was completely in the hands of the party of reform; and now changes came in rapid succession. The Royal Injunctions, issued in the first year of the new reign, ordered among other things that for the future the Epistle and Gospel at High Mass should be read in English; Compline was sung in the Royal Chapel in English; and the First Book of the Homilies was published. In the following year a step even more significant than any of these was taken by the abolition of one of the abuses which was attracting most attention, viz., the denial of the cup to the laity at the administration of the Holy Communion This reform was ordered by an Act of Parliament for receiving in both kinds (1 Edw. VI. c. i.), and for the purpose of carrying out the Act an "Order of the Communion" was prepared and issued by a Royal Proclamation dated March 1548.

18141. wonkers2 - 7/30/2002 9:13:48 PM

Jex, you're wasting your time.

18142. jexster - 7/30/2002 9:30:17 PM

I will continue to serve Rama's need to be humiliated until it is fully sated.

18143. jexster - 7/30/2002 9:30:42 PM

Your Servant of the Servants of God ;)

18144. wonkers2 - 7/30/2002 9:54:24 PM

Don't hold your breath.

18145. wonkers2 - 7/30/2002 9:55:06 PM

He's stepped on his dick so many times he can no longer feel it.

18146. Rama - 7/31/2002 9:14:21 AM

I realize it must be highly embarrassing to you to have made such a gross error on a topic that is clearly important to you. But posting a series of non sequitor statements will not change that.

The Anglican Church is the established Church in England. It is supported by the government. The government discriminates against other churches. This is, as is most state sanctioned discrimination, a bad thing for both the Anglicans and the other churches. Williams has spoken out against establishment on several occations, and is thus a disestablishmentarian. But now he has accepted being appointed by the Prime Minister as the head of that established Church, which is an odd thing for a disestablishmentarian to do.

Random cut and past on English history won't change any of that, or change what the words mean.

Though I doubt that will cause you to stop.

18147. Rama - 7/31/2002 9:15:51 AM

Jex, you're wasting your time.

Wonkers, your cowardice astounds me.

18148. jexster - 7/31/2002 10:03:54 AM

No it won't Rama for the following reasons:

- Every lay person, clergyman I know who belongs to the COE, and I know more than a few, voice their wish that somehow the COE could be relieved of the BURDEN of Parliamentary control

- Though opposition still remains from "evangelicals" who fear that the "Papists" (like +Williams Cantaur) will wind up running the Church back to Rome if that happens most are concerned about things like PM's controlling ecclesial appointments, the Parliament having to approve liturgical changes etc. (COE hasn't had an approved BCP since 1662 etc)

- +Williams is not some sort of disestablishment radical and is not on record as calling for the imminent divorce of Crown and Church...his views on the subject are no more radical than the views of most Churchmen on this point

- To the extent that you "heard" carping about his disestablishmentarian "views" you have failed and refused to produce any evidence whatsoever on this point

- To the extent that you heard such criticism, I strongly suspect that it came from "evangelicals" and was a disguised criticism of his Catholic Orthodoxy and liberal social views

- I have asked you to produce, and you have failed to produce any evidence..your arguments reveal a profound ignorance of COE ecclesiology and some sort of bias against Tony Blair, who was, in reality, a non-issue in the selection.

18149. jexster - 7/31/2002 10:06:05 AM

I have "cut and pasted" large portions of authoritative texts, linked hundreds of pages and linked in fact the very Act of Parliament that is at the root of a debate that has gone on in the COE for 500 years.

All you have to do is read. And you've a great deal of that to do.

18150. Rama - 7/31/2002 5:21:49 PM

- Every lay person, . . .

Which has absolutely nothing to due with the hypocracy of disparaging establishment and then accepting the job of being boss of the established organization.

- Though opposition still remains

Which has absolutely nothing to due with the hypocracy of disparaging establishment and then accepting the job of being boss of the established organization.

Williams is not some sort of disestablishment radical and is not on record as calling for the imminent divorce of Crown and Church.


Which only speaks to the degree of hypocracy, not the type.

To the extent that you "heard" carping about his disestablishmentarian "views" you have failed and refused to produce any evidence whatsoever on this point

18151. Rama - 7/31/2002 5:23:19 PM

I have "heard" anything. I have read items like:

" He has advocated "disestablishment" - ending the church's privileged position as England's legally established church, whose supreme governor is the monarch." From http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-07-23-archbishop-canterbury_x.htm

"Williams, too, has publicly supported breaking ties with the state." From http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0724/p08s01-woeu.html

"A recent Guardian/ICM poll showed that 48% of British voters now believe that the Church of England should be disestablished and that the Prime Minister should have no role in selecting the next Archbishop of Canterbury. Only 36% of voters want to keep the status quo. This is the first time a poll has shown a majority for disestablishment, which is also supported by Archbishop of York David Hope and Archbishop of the Church in Wales Rowan Williams. Supporters of the established church say that breaking the link with the state would suggest that religion no longer matters and point out that the Church of England's special status is generally welcomed by the Roman Catholic, Muslim and Jewish communities. (Alan Travis The Guardian 23 January 2002)" from http://www.kbr30.dial.pipex.com/x00100.shtml

"The poll result also mirrors a change of mind among some leading members of the church itself, including the Archbishop of York, David Hope, and the Archbishop of the Church in Wales and a contender for the top job, Rowan Williams, who have both supported disestablishment." From http://politics.guardian.co.uk/polls/story/0,11030,637927,00.html

18152. Rama - 7/31/2002 5:23:40 PM

"Likewise with disestablishment. True, Dr Williams has previously said "The notion of the monarch as supreme governor has outlived its usefulness", and would like the Queen to have the same relation to the Church of England as she does to the Church of Scotland. But privately he has told friends that disentangling ties between church and state would be a long and delicate business which would take place not by one great act but "by a thousand cuts" -one of which might be replacing the role of the Prime Minister in senior clerical appointments with an electoral college." From http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=316598

To the extent that you heard such criticism,

Nonsense. What I have read is reflected above. The person with obvious bias here is you.

- I have asked you to produce,

Bullshit. That he is in favor of disestablishment is a widely reported fact. That he has accepted the job of head of the established church is a widely reported fact. That this is hypocracy is an interpretation of those too facts.

some sort of bias against Tony Blair, who was, in reality, a non-issue in the selection.

Typical PC error of physchologizing. Tony Blair is a liberal. He chose the most liberal of the candidates. I am not surprised. No animus toward Blair or Williams is required.

18153. jexster - 7/31/2002 5:43:18 PM

Your quote is nothing - meaningless. It is as I have repeatedly said a rather standard gripe of COE churchmen. The Crown control accounts for the fact that there has been no liturgical change since the 1662 prayerbook precisely because of the anachronism of Crown control. Williams was chosen, as cited above, "cope and mitre above" all other choices, probably the best choice for Cantaur since William Temple.


Tony Blair chose the first candidate, the first preference, a fact you disputed, until, as with everything else, proved grossly wrong.

I am psychologizing nothing. Your luddite views are well known and your reading meaning where none exists, is blatant for all to see.

18154. jexster - 7/31/2002 5:52:30 PM

FYI, the COE uses something entitled Forms for Common Worship which "are used alongside" the 1662 BCP.

This oddball situation arises directly from the Establishment of the COE under Crown authority, a matter of dispute since before the enactment of the Act of Uniformity in 1549. Churchmen in my sister church (mine mind you not yours) object broadly to this state of affairs where an Act of Parliament is required to change liturgical texts, where the PM is asked questions during Question Hour about whether it is right and proper for the words
"grant that by the power of your Holy Spirit
these gifts of bread and wine
may be to us his body and his blood;"

Should precede the words of consecration as they do in the Roman Rites or follow as they do in the Episcopal Church (USA).

And most galling of all, your shameless pretense and ad hominem claim that I know nothing of Anglican theology or ecclesiology.

You are a dunce.

18155. jexster - 7/31/2002 5:55:51 PM

Still waiting for backup to your claims that "williams has written extensively on disestablishment" or that same "has nothing to do with orthodoxy"

BTW, the Abp of York, who by your quote shares Williams views on this subject with most churchmen and Englishmen, is a close friend of my parish rector as well.

18156. Rama - 7/31/2002 6:01:55 PM

Your quote is nothing - meaningless. It is as I have repeatedly said a rather standard gripe of COE churchmen.

Your participation becomes more and more feable. When presented with facts you post unrelated history and now merely claim that clearly known fact are meaningless. I suspect you will soon be reduced to mumbling at the computer screen.

Tony Blair chose the first candidate, the first preference, a fact you disputed, until, as with everything else, proved grossly wrong.

It is a shame, however, that the Anglicans are represented here by such a liar. And a poor one at that. It is just plain stupid to post lies about what another person has posted when the posts are here to be read by anyone. I don't understand why you do it.

I am psychologizing nothing. Your luddite views are well known and your reading meaning where none exists, is blatant for all to see.

It appears that you don't understand the term physhologizing any more than you do disestablishmentarian.

18157. Rama - 7/31/2002 6:03:48 PM

And most galling of all, your shameless pretense and ad hominem claim that I know nothing of Anglican theology or ecclesiology.

It is neither pretense nor ad hominem; it is merely pointing out the case demonstrated by your posts. It is a fact I have found most surprising.

18158. jexster - 7/31/2002 6:41:17 PM

No its something you launched into rather immediately and is it turns out from your end, most hummiliating for you for as has been amply demonstrated

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You don't know Rowan Williams from the fucking Easter Bunny; the Act of Uniformity from your mother's vagina; Cardinal Newman from the Easter Bunny; Samuel Seabury from Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer; the Scottish Presbyterian Church from the Hari KRishnas, your ass from a hole in the ground

18159. jexster - 7/31/2002 6:44:32 PM

Tony Blair chose the first candidate, the first preference, a fact you disputed, until, as with everything else, proved grossly wrong.

It is a shame, however, that the Anglicans are represented here by such a liar. And a poor one at that. It is just plain stupid to post lies about what another person has posted when the posts are here to be read by anyone. I don't understand why you do it.

Church sources, including a close friend of one of the 13 voting members of the Crown Appointments Commission that met secretly last week to select the names of two candidates to present to Tony Blair, said it was "highly unlikely" the Prime Minister would commend the other, unnamed, candidate for approval by the Queen. The CAC will have presented the names to Downing Street in order of preference and the sources said Dr Williams was in first place"

Or a lie from the truth.

You pathetic pile of shit and poseur.

Piss off pissant

18160. jexster - 7/31/2002 6:45:48 PM

or keep coming with your crap and I will keep shoving back up your fat ass until comes out of your mouth.

Your choice asshole

18161. jexster - 7/31/2002 6:46:49 PM

can you feel your dick NOW Rama? Can you find it?

18162. Rama - 7/31/2002 8:03:44 PM

I was wrong. Instead of mumbling incoherantly at your computer screen, you are posting incoherantly on this thread.

Putting random words in a different font color doesn't make them begin to make sense.

Church sources, including a close friend of one of the 13 voting members of the Crown Appointments Commission that met secretly last week to select the names of two candidates to present to Tony Blair, said it was "highly unlikely" the Prime Minister would commend the other, unnamed, candidate for approval by the Queen. The CAC will have presented the names to Downing Street in order of preference and the sources said Dr Williams was in first place"

You have already admitted on this thread that the order of the recommendations is in no way binding on the Prime Minister. Why you would bring up errors you have already admitted to is quite beyond me.

18163. jexster - 7/31/2002 8:12:42 PM

I never said otherwise..


I said against your repeated claim that Blair was somehow a factor that in fact he was not, was never...

As against your claim that Williams was not the first choice of the duly constituted COE nominating process, I said that you were wrong and you were

As against your claim that disestablishmentarianism had nothing to do with Catholic Orthodoxy I proved you wrong with sources dating back four centuries

As against your claim that Williams was some sort of disestablishmentarian radical picked to head an Establishment Church, I painstakingly pointed out your folly, with sources dating back centuries

As against your claim to any expertise or knowledge whatever, I offer each and every inane comment you have made for the past days...

You are a dunce....you are a masochist clown who apparently enjoys public humiliation....

I am only too happy to indulge you

18164. wonkers2 - 7/31/2002 8:39:07 PM

Rama, why don't you tell us about the Pentagon leaks on Iraq or whether Saddam had anything to do with 9-11, instead of sharing your ignorance on other topics?

18165. jexster - 7/31/2002 9:08:02 PM

Bubs is right...the guy is mental

18166. Rama - 7/31/2002 10:26:18 PM

I said against your repeated claim that Blair was somehow a factor that in fact he was not, was never...

Goodness, you do want it both ways, don’t you. Having the PM appoint the primate is bad, except that it is not a factor. With cognitive dissonance like that, you posting patterns are easily explained.

As against your claim that Williams was not the first choice of the duly constituted COE nominating process, I said that you were wrong and you were

Goodness, I must have erased the post where I said that. Otherwise you could scroll back and find it.

As against your claim that disestablishmentarianism had nothing to do with Catholic Orthodoxy I proved you wrong with sources dating back four centuries

You have done nothing of the sort. You have posted links that indicated the Roman Catholics don't like the Anglican church being established, but that is hardly a matter of orthodoxy. On the other hand, you seem to not grasp what orthodoxy is.

As against your claim that Williams was some sort of disestablishmentarian radical picked to head an Establishment Church, I painstakingly pointed out your folly, with sources dating back centuries

My, you have lost it haven't you. Sources going back centuries regarding Williams? Claims that Williams is some sort of radical? Or are you claiming to have links that show he hasn't been picked to head the Established Church? And is the sky plaid where you live?

As against your claim to any expertise or knowledge whatever, I offer each and every inane comment you have made for the past days...

Against my claim to have read the papers, you have posted gibberish that even embarrasses wonkers.

18167. Rama - 7/31/2002 10:27:57 PM

Rama, why don't you tell us about the Pentagon leaks on Iraq or whether Saddam had anything to do with 9-11, instead of sharing your ignorance on other topics?

You are a sad sack wonkers. To live in a world where maintaining your enemies list is more important than anything else must be a truly desperate life.

18168. wonkers2 - 7/31/2002 10:34:08 PM

I just figure you must actually know something about something. It's just a matter of figuring out what it is. Why not try an update on the repairs to the Pentagon?

18169. Rama - 7/31/2002 10:40:17 PM

I just figure you must actually know something about something. It's just a matter of figuring out what it is. Why not try an update on the repairs to the Pentagon?

What's got you so desperate?

18170. jexster - 7/31/2002 11:28:49 PM

You sorry sack of shit.

is pathetic in the extreme. You pitiful fuck you almost make me feel sorry for you.

-> Goodness, you do want it both ways, don’t you. Having the PM appoint the primate is bad, except that it is not a factor. With cognitive dissonance like that, you posting patterns are easily explained.

It doesn't follow from the premise. In fact, nothing you say makes sense. I can have it both ways - the National Establishment of the COE has interfered in any number of ways over the past 500 years lately liturgics properly cited for you to read. The fact that Blair is an issue is your problem for he wasn't an issue for anyone at anytime in this process. That the PM possibly could BECOME an issue is an argument the COE scholars have made for centuries.



->You have done nothing of the sort. You have posted links that indicated the Roman Catholics don't like the Anglican church being established, but that is hardly a matter of orthodoxy. On the other hand, you seem to not grasp what orthodoxy is.

This is a fabrication. I have quoted former anglican Cardinal Newman, I have summarized for you several hundred years of this dispute. I have succinctly stated why Catholic Orthodoxy is consistent with removal of Parliamentary control and I do not need a fucking delusional Presbyterian telling me anything about Anglicanism or Catholicism for that matter

18171. jexster - 7/31/2002 11:36:19 PM

->The Anglican reformation had nothing to do with establishmentarianism, since it merely replaced one established church with another.

See Uniformity Act 1549...Rama you fuckin moron

->The order of election is no more binding to the PM than the alphabetic order. Blair doesn't get elected by conservatives.

Again, Blair was presented a list in order of preference and selected in that order. This was as expected at the time the Crown Appointments commission made a preferential not an alphabetical choice. Power de jure is not power de facto...that is part of the argument for a change (not Disestablishment BTW) a change in the relationship of the Crown to more resemble that of the Church in Scotland.

You are as mental as you are ignorant.

18172. Rama - 7/31/2002 11:48:01 PM

It doesn't follow from the premise.

Ironically true. It does, however, follow from your statements.

I have quoted former anglican Cardinal Newman,

Who was speaking to a different point.

I have summarized for you several hundred years of this dispute.

None of which had anything to do with the topic.

I have succinctly stated why Catholic Orthodoxy is consistent with removal of Parliamentary control

Which is not the same thing as establishment

and I do not need a fucking delusional Presbyterian telling me anything about Anglicanism or Catholicism for that matter

Well, you need somebody to tell you, because you clearly don't have a clue. You don't understand what the words orthodoxy, disestablishmentarian or liberal mean, and you don't read the newspapers. You disagree with yourself as to whether the Prime Minister had to pick Williams. And you appear to believe the color red provides some rhetorical advantage.

18173. jexster - 7/31/2002 11:54:41 PM

I have succinctly stated why Catholic Orthodoxy is consistent with removal of Parliamentary control

Which is not the same thing as establishment

In the Church of England it is and it has been so since 1549 but you don't know anything about the COE.

Well, you need somebody to tell you, because you clearly don't have a clue. You don't understand what the words orthodoxy, disestablishmentarian or liberal mean, and you don't read the newspapers.

Put or shut up. Enough of this airy fairy crap.

I have already explained what disestablishmentarianism means. I have used your defintion to do it. I have already told you how and why the Church of England's subjection to the Crown by the Act of Uniformity is contrary to Catholic Orthodoxy as understood by Anglicans.

You disagree with yourself as to whether the Prime Minister had to pick Williams. And you appear to believe the color red provides some rhetorical advantage.


No it was hoped that colors might be more what you are used to. I did not contradict myself. I never, ever ever claimed that the PM was required to pick the first choice as a matter of law but rather that practically, as a matter of reality, that is in fact so.

18174. jexster - 7/31/2002 11:55:04 PM

so put up or shut up dipshit

18175. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:00:12 AM

"The poll result also mirrors a change of mind among some leading members of the church itself, including the Archbishop of York, David Hope, and the Archbishop of the Church in Wales and a contender for the top job, Rowan Williams, who have both supported disestablishment"

Again, this controversy involves Parliamentary/Crown control over liturgics and canonical matters including appointments and has been raging for centuries. It is hardly "hypocritical" for a member of the Church to support what is widely understood to be a desireable change in the way the Church relates to the secular authority!

18176. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:02:54 AM

oath of allegiance to the Crown = national establishment.

Rubbish

Some statements are so obviously ludicrous that they can speak for themselves.

18177. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:06:57 AM

State control of religion is a different matter, and is not what is meant by establishment, nor what is supported by establishmentarians, disputed by disestablishmentarians, or argued about by antidisestablishmentarians.


Uniformity Act of 1549
Refusal of English Bishops to consecrate Samuel Seabury
Spectre of Liturgical interference by parliament, BCP 1662,,

The list is lengthy and ignored repeatedly.

18178. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:10:01 AM

ad hominem = Jexter, I don't believe even you are that ignorant, so I must believe you are lying on purpose. Blair picked from the offered list. He didn't pick the "first". He picked the politically safest

18179. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:13:04 AM

As against your claim that Williams was not the first choice of the duly constituted COE nominating process, I said that you were wrong and you were

Goodness, I must have erased the post where I said that. Otherwise you could scroll back and find it.

Message # 18083

You are welcome

18180. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:15:25 AM

Sure color doesn't make it easier?

18181. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:18:19 AM

has always supported state control of the COE as a defense against "the Papists".

Clearly demonstrating that this is a political issue, not a matter of orthodoxy.

Huh?

Let's see the question of whether the COE should be more Catholic or less catholic, say more presbyterian, is a political issue? And if it is a political issue haven't you then conceded the meaning of National Establishment as I have described it?

I don't want you to claim you forgot you said this. Maybe color would help?

Want red or blue...what do they use in your kiddie bible school?

18182. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:20:42 AM

Every lay person, . . .

Which has absolutely nothing to due with the hypocracy of disparaging establishment and then accepting the job of being boss of the established organization.

Come again?

The sensus fidellium has everything to do with your fatuous claim of "hypocrisy".

Chase your tail for us...like a dog in heat...

18183. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:20:47 AM

Every lay person, . . .

Which has absolutely nothing to due with the hypocracy of disparaging establishment and then accepting the job of being boss of the established organization.

Come again?

The sensus fidellium has everything to do with your fatuous claim of "hypocrisy".

Chase your tail for us...like a dog in heat...

18184. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:22:49 AM

You can't be a member or a prelate in the Church of England who does not believe that secular goverment should have anything whatever to say about liturgics of your Church without being a hypocrite?

What are you drinking?

18185. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:24:13 AM

Typical PC error of physchologizing. Tony Blair is a liberal. He chose the most liberal of the candidates. I am not surprised. No animus toward Blair or Williams is required

What does this drivel mean?

PC? Psychologizing? Are you daft? (THAT IS MY "PSYCHOLOGIZING)

18186. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:24:36 AM

Maybe hot pink?

18187. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:50:40 AM

The orthodox position is that everybody (including the state) should be supportive of the Church's actions, because she is us, and we are he

Crimminy!

18188. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:55:57 AM

"The anglican reformation replaced the pope's church with the king's church, both were established"

Says who? Based on what? The National Establishment upon which you level your silly charge against Abp Williams WAS ESTABLISHED AS THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND precisely by the Anglican Reformation begun by Henry the VIII. Until that time no Catholic Church, other than arguably the Russsian Orthodox was subject to State control in any and all of its affairs.

Since that time only Napoleon I and the Jacobins in France ever did similar to any Catholic Church,, save the Orthodox under Peter the Great.

18189. jexster - 8/1/2002 12:57:52 AM

Even the Period of the Avignon papacy was not a National Establishment of a Catholic Church.

18190. jexster - 8/1/2002 1:03:16 AM

Sheesh Rama I thought it was just me but it appears that to paraphrase the Psalmist

You are the talk of those who sit in the gate,
and the drunkards make songs about you.

18191. Rama - 8/1/2002 8:50:57 AM

See Uniformity Act 1549.

The same uniformity was required previousely, but it was Roman Catholic uniformity. Tell me about all the Celtic tonsures or Orthodox congregants you saw in 1548.

Again, Blair was presented a list in order of preference and selected in that order.

Quite naturally, just as Thatcher selected a conservative. As I said, big surprise!

Power de jure is not power de facto...that is part of the argument for a change (not Disestablishment BTW) a change in the relationship of the Crown to more resemble that of the Church in Scotland.

It is actually the opposite of the argument, but I am glad you are reading the articles I posted.

18192. Rama - 8/1/2002 8:58:32 AM

In the Church of England it is and it has been so since 1549 but you don't know anything about the COE.

That is simply not true. But I think I understand what is going on. The only place you had ever heard reference to establishment was in discussions of the pernitious effect it has had on Anglican praxis, so you misunderstood cause and effect. Happens all the time. And now you are to embarrassed to admit it. Shame on you.

I have already explained what disestablishmentarianism means.

You have, but you got it wrong.

I have used your defintion to do it.

I wish.

I have already told you how and why the Church of England's subjection to the Crown by the Act of Uniformity is contrary to Catholic Orthodoxy as understood by Anglicans.

Do you really not understand what a crazy statement that is? Catholic Orthodoxy as understood by Anglicans? Do you really have no idea what orthodoxy means?

I never, ever ever claimed that the PM was required to pick the first choice as a matter of law but rather that practically, as a matter of reality, that is in fact so.

When it clearly is not a fact that the PM must pick the first choice. If the PM picked either of the two choices, there would be no more about it.

18193. Rama - 8/1/2002 9:01:07 AM

Again, this controversy involves Parliamentary/Crown control over liturgics and canonical matters including appointments and has been raging for centuries. It is hardly "hypocritical" for a member of the Church to support what is widely understood to be a desireable change in the way the Church relates to the secular authority!

Williams was a member of a non-established Anglican Church. He declaims establishment, but accepts being the head of an established Anglican Church. The non-hypocritical response would be to turn down the job because it would be contrary to his stated principles.

18194. Rama - 8/1/2002 9:03:29 AM

Some statements are so obviously ludicrous that they can speak for themselves.

That is so true. Your equating "oath of allegiance to the Crown" to "national establishment" is one such. Since the established churches in Denmark and Russia do not require an oath of allegiance to the Crown, such an equation is clearly rubbish.

18195. Rama - 8/1/2002 9:09:57 AM

Jexter, I don't believe even you are that ignorant, so I must believe you are lying on purpose. Blair picked from the offered list. He didn't pick the "first". He picked the politically safest.

I new you were ignorant and confused, but I didn't know you can't read. Those words don't "claim that Williams was not the first choice of the duly constituted COE nominating process". No wonder you misunderstand disestablishmentariasm, when you can't read a simple statement regarding Blair's choosing the candidate least likely to cause him problems without interpreting it as a comment on an administrative process which you know isn't binding on him.

There is little need to cast dispersions on your intellect, as you do it yourself.

18196. Rama - 8/1/2002 9:14:19 AM

Let's see the question of whether the COE should be more Catholic or less catholic, say more presbyterian, is a political issue?

Yes, it is a political issue. How not?

And if it is a political issue haven't you then conceded the meaning of National Establishment as I have described it?

No, it is a matter that you have disputed. You claimed it somehow reflected on the orthodoxy of Williams beliefs. I always said this was a political decision (a liberal picking a liberal).

You really need to make up your mind what you are pretending your objection is.

18197. Rama - 8/1/2002 9:17:19 AM

The sensus fidellium has everything to do with your fatuous claim of "hypocrisy".

That’s a snappy rejoinder. You post nonsense, I point out it is nonsense, you repeat the nonsense without defense. It must be true because jexter posted it? Or is it supposed to be magic? You say the ritual words and abra cadabra others will agree with you?

18198. Rama - 8/1/2002 9:19:00 AM

You can't be a member or a prelate in the Church of England who does not believe that secular goverment should have anything whatever to say about liturgics of your Church without being a hypocrite?

I'm sure you could be. That isn't what happened here. But I think you are beginning to actually understand the issue. There may be hope for you yet.

18199. Rama - 8/1/2002 9:25:17 AM

What does this drivel mean?

I don't know what part you don't understand. Psychologizing is an error where one projects a particular motive or mental state on a disputant, rather than addressing the issue at hand. It is one of the most common behaviors of a class of chatterers who use a particular pattern of rhetoric that is commonly called Politically Correct, and abbreviated as PC. Tony Blair is the head of government of a small country in Europe. He is politically a liberal. He selected, as head of the government sponsored church, another liberal. Appointed government officials with similar political positions is a common practice, not in any way limited to liberals.

Are there other words you don't understand?

18200. Rama - 8/1/2002 9:31:06 AM

Says who? Based on what?

Says the definition of the word, as you claim to be using it. Establishment is the support of a particular church by the government. Of course, that which the state supports it also controls. That is why the Roman Catholic Church has had to withdraw to the tiny Vatican State.

Until that time no Catholic Church, other than arguably the Russsian Orthodox was subject to State control in any and all of its affairs.

That demonstrated a complete lack of awareness of European history.

Since that time only Napoleon I and the Jacobins in France ever did similar to any Catholic Church,, save the Orthodox under Peter the Great.

That list is only the beginning. You are being absurd and I believe you may be beginning to realize it.

18201. Rama - 8/1/2002 9:36:03 AM

You are the talk of those who sit in the gate,
and the drunkards make songs about you.

The drunkards being you and the PC chorus. How apt scripture can be, even when quoted by the self-intoxicated.

18202. jexster - 8/1/2002 11:13:43 AM

There you go again with that PC Chorus drivel...

I should be flattered or I should I be insulted?

If it were intelligible, I could decide which.

18203. jexster - 8/1/2002 11:17:40 AM

Look idiot...I have beat your sorry head with this sledgehammer quite enough. I have even tried using colors for Calvin's sake.

I have explained what the issue of National Establishment was in the Church of England at the Break and over the 500 years since. You think all of that's irrelevant and I suppose it is - to you.

And that's all one needs to know isn't it? That you have conjured some fantasy about Orthodox Catholic Theology; declare the history of the COE irrelevant; grossly overstate the role of the current PM in the selection based on NO EVIDENCE whatever, and continue to rant on about PC Choirs is surely enough to confirm that you are fuckin nuts

Pardon my french

18204. jexster - 8/1/2002 11:42:26 AM

I've had a strange feeling Rama...beginning to feel sorry for you...

You think its my fine AngloCatholic upbringing beginning to kick in?

Calvinist perspectives always welcome...

18205. Indiana Jones - 8/1/2002 1:02:48 PM

The Kiss

18206. Rama - 8/1/2002 3:14:47 PM

I have explained what the issue of National Establishment was in the Church of England at the Break and over the 500 years since.

You have discussed on aspect of the results of having an established church, as it is viewed from on political position.

You think all of that's irrelevant and I suppose it is - to you.

No, it is irrelevant to what I posted, that you irrationally objected to.

And that's all one needs to know isn't it?

No, one actually needs to know what the words mean, and how the world really works.

That you have conjured some fantasy about Orthodox Catholic Theology;

What an odd projection: I haven't used the term Orthodox Catholic Theology at all.

declare the history of the COE irrelevant;

To the selection of a liberal by a liberal? To the hypocracy of taking a job one claimed shouldn't exist? Of course the history of the COE is irrelevant to those things.

Not at all: grossly overstate the role of the current PM in the selection based on NO EVIDENCE whatever,

I stated nothing but the object truth.

and continue to rant on about PC Choirs is surely enough to confirm that you are fuckin nuts

You brought them up. Or who were you referring to with your scriptural citiation?

18207. Rama - 8/1/2002 3:15:25 PM

You think its my fine AngloCatholic upbringing beginning to kick in?

More likely your medications.

18208. jexster - 8/3/2002 8:24:25 PM

You have discussed on aspect of the results of having an established church, as it is viewed from on political position.

Quite the contrary, I have given a 10 cent tour of National Establishment as it relates to ecclesial issues - the Uniformity Act of 1549, the inability of bishops of the COE to consecrate Samuel Seabury even though he went to England and secured the agreement of three bishops to do it; how Elizabeth I referred to the pulpits as "her pulpits"(!!!); how Parliamentary control has prevented the COE from reforming its liturgy since 1662...etc etc etc.

Rather YOU are the one who tried in vain to turn this discussion to political matters with your specious claim that the appointment of one of the most emminently qualified and robust theological minds in Anglicanism was political on no other evidence than "Blair is liberal and Williams is liberal"

Its no wonder you prevaricate and distort for you must lest you be forced to admit that your charge that the new Abp is a "hypocrite" is fatuous, insulting, and fundamentally dishonest.

You must wallow in your ignorance in order to maintain the conceit of your deceit.

You are pathetic not only or even chiefly because you are stupid or even because you are such a manifest dullard. You are a sad sack because you wallow like a pig in your shit. You are not worthy intellectually much less morally to accuse a man of Rowan William's stature of dishonesty when you roll in it like some fat sow.

You are a sad, sad fool.

18209. jexster - 8/3/2002 8:34:51 PM

Says the definition of the word, as you claim to be using it. Establishment is the support of a particular church by the government. Of course, that which the state supports it also controls. That is why the Roman Catholic Church has had to withdraw to the tiny Vatican State.

Boy you and history...two ships passing in the night!

The Roman Catholic Church lost the Papal States. Vatican City is a vestige of that. Never, ever outside of Jacobin France and a brief spat with NIII has any Western Catholic Church been subject to National Establishment such as the COE since Edward. Russian Orthodoxy suffered a similar fate beginning with Peter and then under the USSR with a vengeance that almost wiped it out.

That is a matter of fact, not opinion and for a Catholic, such state control is an abomination. Williams is most decidedly an orthodox catholic and in urging that Presbyterians and Wiccans in Parliament no longer be allowed to vote on matters that touch and concern the Catholic Faith is neither "political" nor does it have a thing to do with your woeful and willful ignorance of history.

You are a sad, sad pig's fool

18210. jexster - 8/3/2002 8:48:07 PM

Williams was a member of a non-established Anglican Church. He declaims establishment, but accepts being the head of an established Anglican Church. The non-hypocritical response would be to turn down the job because it would be contrary to his stated principles.


What a runny runny shit!

By such reasoning, most of the COE would have to leave! Hypocrisy in your febrile imaginings! By such reasoning, no prime minister could ever advocate any change in the monarchy, by such reasoning the Magna Carta is a farce and fraud. Inasmuch as the COE's established status is at best irrelevant and anachronsitic and at worst pernicious, demonstrably so, I submit that it would be hypocrisy most rank NOT to take the job.

I would not expect a simple shit Calvinist to understand but the establishment of the COE is by no means a principle of the One Holy Catholic and Apo Church of which the Anglican Communion is a part. Whatever benefits the scheme of 1549 had back then for the Church, at no time was Establishment ever remotely a matter of principle but rather more clearly an obstacle.

let me clue you. You are the farce. You are the fraud.

18211. jexster - 8/3/2002 9:04:47 PM

Finally, nowhere is your dishonesty more rank than in your fallacious reasoning Blair liberal, Williams liberal - decision political based on liberal affinities(fallacy of assuming the consequent).

The fallacy is lit in neon. That's gross enough but more so is the fact that you have no evidence whatsoever to support your claims. Indeed the evidence is to the contrary without exception.

Apart from the fact that the PM's approval in recent times is purely a ministerial formality, and that no PM has rejected a choice in recent times, how in the name of Crazy Calvin do you know that the politics of the second choice weren't liberal as well?

Fact is you don't because no one knows who that person was except the Crown Commish and the PM.

This is a fair warning....if you ever, ever again address to any matter of interest or concern to me, no matter how slight, it may be, I will slice and dice your sorry ass.

I will fuck you up
I guarantee it.

18212. jexster - 8/3/2002 9:05:53 PM

get it...got it...good

18213. jexster - 8/3/2002 9:23:14 PM

Fallacy of assuming the consequent

All Commies are atheists. Cal is an athiest. Cal is a communist.

If it's raining then the streets are wet.
The streets are wet.
Therefore, it's raining.

Blair is a liberal. Williams is a liberal. Blair "chose" Williams. Therefore, Williams is Abp of Canterbury for liberal, political reasons.


After a week the only proposition that can be sustained here is that Rama hates Blair, Rama hates liberals, Rama doesn't like the Church of England, Rama doesn't know what he is talking about and doesn't care that he doesn't.

18214. Indiana Jones - 8/4/2002 10:44:08 AM

jex and Rama: Enough.

jex: Post 18210 is threatening. Stop.

18220. jexster - 8/4/2002 10:16:50 PM

For a genuinely Christian approach to the issue of war without end, the kind you won't find at Liberty U..

Moral clarity anyone?

The Christian Just War Doctrine and Bush's Adventure in Iraq - The use of force to remove Saddam Hussein is not a moral option - +Richard Harries, Bp of Oxford

18225. Indiana Jones - 8/5/2002 8:48:27 PM

18214-18218 and 18220-18223 moved to the Inferno.

18226. Indiana Jones - 8/5/2002 9:03:57 PM

If we are told, moreover, that after death we go to another world that the same architect designed, our best bet--thinking scientifically, of course--will be that this other creation of the same designer will be much like this one. If the just suffer and the unjust flourish in this world, that is probably how it will always be. Suffering worlds are what this architect does, judging from the one sample of his work that lies in view. Naturally enough, Hume concludes that so "wild and unsettled" a system of theology is in no way preferable to none at all. Or as Wittgenstein was later to say, nothing will do as well as something about which nothing can be said.

An Unbeautiful Mind

18227. vonKreedon - 8/6/2002 12:57:15 PM

Indy - Very interesting statement, and one to which I would certainly agree.

A couple of other interesting quotes from the review:

In other words, although Polkinghorne is officially using history as evidence for theology, he is actually using theology to determine how to read the history. This is always so.

Indeed, if one starts from the position that God must exist and can be seen "scientifically" then one quickly moves to perverting the scientific method.
Self-deception, in short, is the human lot. And one wonders if Polkinghorne the scientist would take the hesitation and the uncertainty and the lack of agreement that attended certain laboratory observations to be confirmations of their accuracy. It is true that there are occasions when agreement is suspiciously perfect, and many frauds have been detected because of it; but this does not turn a confusion of witnesses into a reliable indicator of anything.

There is also the innocent tactic of taking the very improbability of a historical narrative as a reason for placing confidence in it. What could possibly explain the peoples' acceptance of such wild stories as those of the biblical miracles except that they are true? Polkinghorne refers patronizingly to Hume, but he never refers to Hume's quotation from the Cardinal de Retz that there are many things in which the world wishes to be deceived.

This I think is the clue to the belief in the perfect diety; this "Vale of Tears" is at times so unfair that we humans, or at least many of us, have a need to deceive ourselves that their is a reason for our suffering and an eventual reward for our good behavior.

18228. Ms. No - 8/6/2002 1:20:25 PM

What could possibly explain the peoples' acceptance of such wild stories as those of the biblical miracles except that they are true?

The same perversity of human nature that lets people believe that some guy rode an office door down the hot air currents in the stairwell from the 88th floor of the WTC safely to the ground. We want to believe that even when doom is certain we might be saved.

18229. judithathome - 8/6/2002 1:31:57 PM

What could possibly explain the peoples' acceptance of such wild stories as those of the biblical miracles except that they are true?

I can think of many reasons...people believe what they want to believe. Why do you think so many go on diets that promise weight loss while they sleep?

18230. jexster - 8/6/2002 4:34:08 PM

When Jexster saw Rama then Indy, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.

18231. jexster - 8/6/2002 4:36:54 PM

Say Indy tell me, you wouldn't happen to be of a catholic basher? One of those Indiana Kluxsters eh? GranPappy Jones wuz Grand Cyclops of Kokomo?

Or are you just a garden variety PuritanProt?

18232. vonKreedon - 8/6/2002 4:45:02 PM

Jex - Shut the fuck up, pretty please.

Thank you for your cooperation.

18233. vonKreedon - 8/6/2002 4:46:09 PM

I mean, please shut the fuck up unless you have something to say other than gratuitous and stupid personal attacks.

18234. Cellar Door - 8/6/2002 7:51:16 PM

Transcript of Law's deposition to be released to the public

18235. Indiana Jones - 8/7/2002 9:40:57 AM

vonK: Of course I don't agree with most of what the article says, but I've been reading a lot lately about the struggle between believers who are trying to link science and religion, and (mostly) nonbelievers who will have none of that. So I thought the article was worthwhile as a volley from the "other" side.

[T]his "Vale of Tears" is at times so unfair that we humans, or at least many of us, have a need to deceive ourselves that their is a reason for our suffering and an eventual reward for our good behavior.

Well, there a lot of unanswered questions in that statement. Why do we have such a sense of unfairness? It's a chicken and egg thing: unless we have the idea of justice--which you're saying our Vale of Tears experience doesn't demonstrate--then we can't sense injustice, right? Moreover, I don't think the same concept of justice is universal to all religions, or the idea that good will be rewarded and evil punished in the afterlife. The concept of "God as a super-powerful or all-powerful being" would appear to come before the concept of "God as all good," especially since the two together create the complexity of needing to explain why evil exists. The first alone doesn't.

18236. Indiana Jones - 8/7/2002 9:51:50 AM

(cont.)

The examples of wishful-thinking diets and survival myths could be examples of similar phenomema, but still not explanations. Why do people engage in wishful-thinking? Why has the human mind developed in such a way?

One of Kurt Vonnegut's works supposedly offers the theory that our over-developed cerebrum--which results in consciousness--is the result of an evolutionary accident and is actually a defect. Does anyone know which book or short story that is?

Finally, many people believe in God while not considering this existence a Vale of Tears. I guess it's another chicken-and-egg problem, but does their belief in God allow them to view the world as pleasant, or does this fact demonstrate the two aren't cause and effect at all (i.e., because people believe in God without believing the world is a horrible existence, the belief in God doesn't result from an attempt to feel better about an otherwise horrible existence)?

18237. jexster - 8/7/2002 12:06:31 PM

Catechism of the Catholic Church Article V - 2THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
You shall not kill.[54]

You have heard that it was said to the men of old, "You shall not kill: and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment."

But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.[55] 309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

18238. jexster - 8/7/2002 12:16:12 PM

2327 Because of the evils and injustices that all war brings with it, we must do everything reasonably possible to avoid it. The Church prays: "From famine, pestilence, and war, O Lord, deliver us."

2328 The Church and human reason assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflicts. Practices deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes.

18239. Cellar Door - 8/9/2002 10:32:39 AM

Ennablers.

18240. Cellar Door - 8/10/2002 10:20:09 AM

Abuse-O-Rama

18241. jexster - 8/10/2002 4:44:28 PM

Times of London...
August 06, 2002

Harps and trumpets welcome new Druid
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent



ROWAN WILLIAMS, the Archbishop-designate of Canterbury, became a Druid yesterday. As the sun rose through Avalonian mists on the coastline of his native Wales, Dr Williams was inducted into the Gorsedd of Bards, an historic order of Druids, with pagan roots.

To receive the honour, Dr Williams passed between two portal stones set in alignment with the passage of the sun on the summer and winter solstices. He was one of dozens of bards and Druids who arrived for their initiation along an avenue of spectators.

During the ceremony he laid his hands on a giant sword before being escorted by a Druid Handel Morgan to the heart of the circle, where he was awaited by the spiral-mouthed Corn Hirlas or cornucopia, the “Horn of Plenty”.

Earlier, a fanfare of trumpets blew first to the east, then to the south, west and north. Llio Penri, a Welsh harpist, played the Gweddi’r orsedd, a prayer and Cerdd dant, traditional Welsh music.

Dr Williams took as his Bardic name Ap Neurin, which means “Son of Aneurin”. The name is singularly appropriate for one who describes himself as a “hairy leftie”. It alludes to his father and to a 6th-century Welshman, Aneurin, who was, like Dr Williams, a poet.
As Dr Williams stood on the Logan stone at the heart of the circle, Dr Lewis read a citation. “You have got the award for what you have done, not what you might do in future,” he said.

18242. jexster - 8/10/2002 4:44:46 PM

The citation included reference to Dr Williams’s two books of poetry, numerous theological works and to his becoming Archbishop of Wales, Bishop of Monmouth and most recently, Archbishopdesignate of Canterbury.

Afterwards, Dr Lewis defended the Gorsedd against charges of paganism. “Three Archbishops of Wales have been members. This was not a pagan ceremony this morning.”

The only firm membership rule is that Druids and bards must be Welsh-speaking in order to be considered for nomination. The Queen is the only member of the Gorsedd who does not speak Welsh.

18243. jexster - 8/10/2002 4:57:13 PM

VK...

I feel your pain.

Hail Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope...to you do we cry poor banished children of Eve, to you do we send up our cries, mourning and weeping in this Valley of Tears...."Salve Regina"

Truly, "Jerusalem" name we that shore,
city of peace that brings joy evermore;
wish and fulfillment are not severed there,
nor do things prayed for come short of the prayer.

There, where no troubles distraction can bring,
we the sweet anthems of Zion shall sing;
while for thy grace, Lord, their voices of praise
thy blessèd people eternally raise.

Now, in the meantime, with hearts raised on high,
we for that country must yearn and must sigh,
seeking Jerusalem, dear native land,
through our long exile on Babylon's strand.Hymn O quanta qualia

Life's a bitch then you die Bumper Sticker

18244. Indiana Jones - 8/11/2002 11:14:16 AM

I was reading up on Opus Dei because of a link PoJ posted in the Inferno. Here's also a link from a critic:

Leopards in the Temple

18245. Cellar Door - 8/11/2002 11:21:02 AM

Great link, Indy. That's a very important article.

Scalia and Thomas are both members of the Opus Dei cult.

18246. jexster - 8/12/2002 1:34:19 PM

Rama...FYI and for no other purpose than Your I

will Rowan [Williams] seek to impose his personal views on the Church of England? Or the Anglican Communion as a whole?

Here his books provide a clear answer: No.

In a highly significant 1982 article on ‘Authority and the Bishop in the Church’, Rowan spoke – perhaps prophetically? – of the "connecting, bridge-building, figure of the bishop." The authority of a bishop is "an authority to unify". As Rowan explains this: "The bishop does not make decisions, doctrinal or disciplinary, alone: the Church decides, and the bishop’s unique role is to guarantee all that the Church decides."

Writings of Rowan Williams Uncovered - Part 2 of 2- Church of England Newspaper

18247. jexster - 8/12/2002 1:41:41 PM

Archbishop Rowan Williams has appealed to the controversial Lambeth Conference resolution which rejected homosexual ‘marriages’ and ordination of practising homosexuals, as a clear declaration of the mind of the Anglican Communion.

In a letter to Anglican Primates written on the day his appointment to Canterbury was announced, Dr Williams decisively moved to reassure Third World Primates that, despite his personal views as a theologian on homosexuality, he accepted the authority of the 1998 Lambeth declaration, which he voted against as Bishop of Monmouth.

Dr Williams told Primates that an Archbishop of Canterbury is not elected to fulfil a “manifesto of his own devising, but to serve the whole Communion”.

He argued: “He does not have the freedom to prescribe belief for the Church at large.” Acknowledging his writings on theology and sexuality, he described these as his own contribution to the continuing discussion, but added, “my ideas have no authority beyond that of an individual theologian.”

Archbishop backs Lambeth resolution

18248. Cellar Door - 8/15/2002 12:15:28 PM

That's Personal.

18249. Cellar Door - 8/16/2002 7:53:10 PM

The Altar Boy Strikes Back.

18250. Cellar Door - 8/17/2002 11:18:49 AM

The L.A. Times FINALLY goes after Mahoney

18251. jexster - 8/17/2002 2:25:33 PM

Back in the StoneAge of Stonewall, SF drag queens protested police closure of a bar in North Beach singing "God Save Us Nellie Queens"

And their prayer pierced the heavens...

Were Here Were Queer Get Used to It!

CHICAGO -- Many Roman Catholic priests in the United States say there's a homosexual subculture in their dioceses, religious orders or seminaries, according to a survey released Friday.

In the mail survey of 1,279 priests conducted by researchers at the Catholic University of America, 19% of respondents said there was "clearly" a gay subculture in their dioceses or religious orders, and 36% said there "probably" was. Asked the same question about the seminaries they attended, 15% said "clearly" and 26% responded "probably."

The survey was reported by Jacqueline Wenger of the Catholic University at a Chicago convention of the Assn. for the Sociology of Religion, a group of Catholic sociologists. Wenger and colleague Dean R. Hoge conducted the study for the National Federation of Priests' Councils.

18252. Cellar Door - 8/17/2002 3:05:17 PM

All the gay ones "probably" have Sondheim collections.

Or is it "clearly"?

18253. jexster - 8/17/2002 3:40:18 PM

and do killer Norma Desmond imitations...wish they were ever Queer As Folk...are moved to tears by Billie Holliday tunes...think Marilyn Monroe was the Goddess Incarnate...and Barbara Striesand Her Archangel

18254. Cellar Door - 8/17/2002 5:13:09 PM

Not to mention Bette Midler

18255. jexster - 8/18/2002 8:20:34 PM

Reflections on Covenant and Mission - Consultation of the National Council of Synagogues andthe Delegates of Bishops Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs
August 12, 2002

18256. jexster - 8/18/2002 8:26:45 PM

From the point of view of the Catholic Church, Judaism is a religion that springs from divine revelation. As Cardinal Kasper noted, "God's grace, which is the grace of Jesus Christ according to our faith, is available to all.

Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the Jewish people to God's irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises."xxi

This statement about God's saving covenant is quite specific to Judaism. Though the Catholic Church respects all religious traditions and through dialogue with them can discern the workings of the Holy Spirit, and though we believe God's infinite grace is surely available to believers of other faiths, it is only about Israel's covenant that the Church can speak with the certainty of the biblical witness.

This is because Israel's scriptures form part of our own biblical canon and they have a "perpetual value . . . that has not been canceled by the later interpretation of the New Testament."xxii
The Church believes that the mission of the Jewish people is not restricted to their historical role as the people of whom Jesus was born "according to the flesh" "Rom 9:5) and from whom the Church's apostles came.
from Catholic Reflections

18257. Cellar Door - 8/20/2002 3:42:28 PM

Send in the Clones -- For The Lord's on Our Side.

18258. jexster - 8/23/2002 8:01:53 PM

The Angelus is a traditional devotion of the Church, which is prayed in the morning, 12 Noon, and 6 PM. It is adapted here for use during the present grave crisis in Iraq, by adding the Memorare, Prayer to St. Michael, the Our Father, and the Preface to the second Eucharistic prayer for masses of reconciliation.



The Angelus in Time of War

18259. Cellar Door - 8/28/2002 3:07:45 PM

The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys

18260. Cellar Door - 8/28/2002 8:54:14 PM

And you thought the priests were bad -- wait until you hear about the nuns!

18261. wabbit - 8/30/2002 3:50:44 PM

I've recreated this thread in hopes that this past week's error message problem will be alleviated. Please see Message # 4064 in thread 27. The same has been done here.

18262. jexster - 9/3/2002 2:05:12 PM

To any who may be so incline, I ask, of your charity, your prayers for my nephew and godson now in the middle of a ten hour operation at Texas Children's Hospital to correct a serious leftward curvature in spine. Involves some shit with bone taken from hip, fusion involving 12 or so lumbar vertebrae and steel rod...poor kid

18263. jexster - 9/4/2002 1:59:24 PM

Fr. Mychal Judge - Modern Day Gay Martyr

On September 11, 2001, thousands of innocent people from many walks of life were murdered by terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center in New York. The first official casualty of that attack was Fr. Mychal Judge, the chaplain of the New York City Fire Department as well as a devout, outspoken and progressive Franciscan priest. He died, struck by debris, while anointing the bodies of a firefighter and a woman who had fallen onto the firefighter from one of the burning towers above.

The word "martyr" derives from the Greek word for witness. Fr. Mychal Judge, a martyr for our times, not only died but also lived bearing witness to God's beneficence and mercy. In his life, he had ministered tirelessly to the firefighters of New York City, to recovering alcoholics, to those suffering from AIDS, to the gay community, to the homeless and to Franciscans preparing to make vows.

The compelling legacy of Fr. Mychal Judge, the joyful Franciscan friar from New York, challenges us to bear witness to God's kindness and mercy in our own lives.

18264. glendajean - 9/9/2002 10:46:26 AM

PSB's Frontline series did a program last week on people's spiritual response to the 9/11 attacks.

The program was broken down into The Face of God, The Face of Evil, The Face of Religion and Ground Zero.

It started out following a few people's individual stories on that day when they lost children, spouses or parents.

They talked their reaction to God during this. For some it was a test of their faith. For others, they sought solace from their faith.

The program then widened out to a variety of people across the spectrum, including atheists, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Budhists, and Protestants. From what I remember, there was not any evangelical Christians, and I thought that was a huge ommisson.

For the most part, it was very thoughtful, where articulate people talked about their responses to this tragedy. One rabbi has taken the transcripts of the phone conversations and voice mail messages left by those who died and he chants them as part of his daily prayers.

18265. jexster - 9/14/2002 1:17:22 PM

I dunno how we got it but we do -

on this Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, an authenticated in Rome splinter of the True Cross Titulus Crucis sits in a bejeweled monstrance on the Altar of my Episcopal parish.

18266. Cellar Door - 9/14/2002 2:02:54 PM

Thrills and chills with Gary Wills.

18267. Cellar Door - 9/21/2002 2:56:08 PM

Celebrity Atheists

18268. ronski - 9/22/2002 5:30:20 PM

Is there a Celebrity Deist List?

18269. judithathome - 9/22/2002 7:30:24 PM

Probably everyone not on the Atheist list, doncha' think?

18270. ronski - 9/22/2002 10:52:03 PM

Then it's: Deism, the faith that dare not speak its name.

18271. Cellar Door - 9/22/2002 11:04:28 PM

Deism is the faith that won't shut the fuck up.

18272. ElliottRW - 9/23/2002 1:28:59 AM

Athe•ist n: a person who believes there is no God.

be•lief n 1 : a feeling sure that a person or thing exists or is true or trustworthy 2 : religious faith : CREED 3 : something that one thinks is true.

So atheism can, using my Merriam Webster's Elementary Dictionary be one of three things: 1 a feeling, 2 a religious doctrine, or 3 a reasoned conclusion.

1. Now, if someone is an atheist based upon a unreasoned feeling, however powerful, there is little to distinguish them from baptists and jedi knights. Still, such people cannot properly be called hypocrites.

2. On the other hand, if someone is an atheist because it is the policy of her group, but otherwise is ambivalent or indifferent, then how is atheism any different to her than predestination to a presbyterian, or purgatory to a catholic?

3. Finally, suppose an atheist is so because she has thought it through and has concluded that it is the most reasonable belief. To do this, the atheist must first have some concept of God to deny or, more broadly, some category of propositions to deny. We will denote this concept or category, ?.

Here we must distinguish the atheist from someone who denies that the truth or falsehood of ? can be known. For the atheist to think that not(?), he or she accepts that it is possible to have knowledge (of some sort) about ?.

18273. ElliottRW - 9/23/2002 1:31:43 AM

But surely this person would not claim to be an atheist for this reason alone. Should not an atheist worthy of the name a more general statement make? Perhaps one like the following:

18274. ElliottRW - 9/23/2002 1:32:32 AM

Before we address that particular question, let us take a closer look at reasons 1 and 2. It has been pointed out (in this forum?) that religious belief often tracks self-interest, that religious sects can serve as proxies for political parties, religious doctrine as a proxy for a party platform that cannot otherwise be coherently or politely expressed. For this purpose, the truth or falsehood of a religious belief is much less important than whether or not the doctrine that follows from the belief actually serves the interests of the believers. Indeed, if a religious sect serves the interest of its believers better than any (other?) political party, can we call that a fault of the sect? Knowing how strongly people take their politics, is it any wonder that they might be a type 1 believer or a type 2 believer? Surely this applies to atheists as well: would it not be natural for some people to avow atheism because that's what's best for themselves, or their team?

Now, this is just to say that a type 3 atheist cannot lay claim to political interests, or for that matter any consequences as justification for atheism. This atheist cannot say "I am an atheist because I'm gay, and religion is anathema to true gayness," but rather must say, "I am gay, and acknowledge that atheism is therefore in my best interests as a gay person, but that is not the reason I am an atheist" or "I am gay, and even though atheism is not in my best interest as a gay person, I am yet an atheist." A type 3 atheist (like a type 3 buddhist) must explicitly deny the influence of (unenlightened) self-interest on her belief.

(cont...)

18275. ElliottRW - 9/23/2002 1:38:29 AM

So what, then can an atheist say? Well, one thing an atheist can say is probably. An atheist can relinquish any claim to a priori knowledge and say something like "it is my reasoned belief that not(?) with probability very very close to 1." Less dramatically, but similarly, she could say, "All the evidence suggests not(?)."

This, for lack of a better word, "inductive" atheism is a significant thing. Of course, such an atheism still accepts the possibility that, despite the evidence, ? is actually true. And, of course, any evidence presented is subject to critical analysis. What is meant by "probability very very close to 1" or "all the evidence"? In fact, some people are making similar claims for their religious beliefs (arguments from design rest on the idea that the natural world supports, rather than denies, some notion of god).

Now where, you may ask is all this going? Well, for now, I will simply make the following statement: "I have yet to see any argument made against religious belief in general that cannot also be made against atheism, specifically." I hope that someone will challenge this statement. As a matter of fair play, I will say that I am a type 1 ("sure feeling") non-atheist.

18276. Cellar Door - 9/23/2002 11:03:15 AM

That's a nice little Three-Card Monte game you've got going there Elliot.

And if you think I'm going to play you're an even bigger fool than I think you are.

18277. alistairconnor - 9/23/2002 11:23:24 AM

Now, it is insufficient to say, "? is bunk," at least for this person; she must also say "because ..." and state her reasons

Bullshit.

I'm not happy with applying the term "atheist" to myself, in any case. It implies, as you are explicitly doing here, Elliot, being shut into a definitional box.

I'm not any sort of "ist" with respect to religion. I have no religious beliefs, which makes me quite distinct from those who have religious beliefs. The whole business is alien to my frame of reference.

18278. Ms. No - 9/23/2002 1:40:09 PM

Elliot,

Your difficulty is that you're coming at atheism from a theistic perspective. You are in the position of trying to explain how someone might deny the existence of a being you fundamentally believe to exist.

I don't know that there's any way of getting around this, but consider for a moment the last time anyone was taken to task for not believing in giant, man-eating, Marshmallow Peeps. Nobody asks for a reason because everyone already knows there's no such thing. Nobody questions one's integrity or reasoning ability for disbelieving in such a thing.

There is no more empirical reason to believe in the existence of a supreme being than there is to believe in the existence of giant, carnivorous Peeps, and, yet, millions of people do believe. (in God, that is, not man-eating Peeps)

The existence of God will never be proven or disproven in debate. It doesn't work like that. That's the test of Faith. In this modern day when belief in God is so widely accepted and even expected I think people forget that Faith itself is not to be taken for granted. If you have it, you got it by divine grace, not because you reasoned yourself into it. Faith and reason are antithetical.

It's a product of our modern minds that we so devalue that which is not starkly, coldly logical. It gives the theist a difficult task: he feels compelled to logically explain that which is not based on logic. It also drives this doomed endeavor to try and "prove" atheists are somehow lacking or wrong. You'll never do it. Logic and reason are on the side of the atheist.

Nobody ever said belief in God would be easy. If you could prove it, you'd hardly need Faith, would you?

18279. ElliottRW - 9/23/2002 6:49:26 PM

re: 18277

I have no religious beliefs, which makes me quite distinct from those who have religious beliefs. The whole business is alien to my frame of reference.
Fair enough.

re: 18278

I will address this later.

18280. Cellar Door - 9/23/2002 8:10:51 PM

Actually if one actually follows Religion, God IS a giant, carnivorous marshmellow Peeps.

18281. betty - 9/24/2002 11:02:57 AM

CD,

I meant to ask when you firt brought this up...do you know Warren Allen Smith? He's a friend of a friend and I think ya'll are about the same age with similiar political leanings and were in NYC at the same time...

I love his gossipy celebration of athiesm.

Anyway, I'm using "God is a giant, carnivorous marshmellow Peep" as my tag line from now on.

18282. alistairconnor - 9/24/2002 11:22:39 AM

Elliot : Fair enough.

Jeezus! What do I have to do to get an argument around here!

(cue Monty Python sketch)

18283. Ms. No - 9/24/2002 11:56:01 AM

You didn't really want an argument.

18284. arkymalarky - 9/24/2002 12:18:09 PM

Yes he did.

18285. Cellar Door - 9/24/2002 12:23:52 PM

Sorry, don't know Warren Allen Smith. But he sounds like fun.

18286. PelleNilsson - 9/24/2002 12:29:09 PM

alistair

Arguments will cost you, payable in advance(cue Monty Python sketch).

18287. KuligintheHooligan - 9/24/2002 3:22:45 PM

"There is no more empirical reason to believe in the existence of a supreme being than there is to believe in the existence of giant, carnivorous Peeps, and, yet, millions of people do believe. (in God, that is, not man-eating Peeps)"

This is nonsensical. Of course there is more empirical rason to believ in the existence of a supreme being than there is to believe in the existence of giant Peeps. And that is why millions of people do believe in a supreme being, and you can't find anybody that believes in your giant Peeps. In your very own post you refute your own statement, for crying out loud!

18288. KuligintheHooligan - 9/24/2002 3:24:23 PM

"Faith and reason are antithetical."

This is highly debatable.

18289. Ms. No - 9/24/2002 3:55:18 PM

Kuligin,

If you have empirical evidence of the existence of God then you are the first man in the history of the world to do so. What your post actually indicates is that you don't really know what empirical evidence is.

And that is why millions of people do believe in a supreme being

No, Kuligin, millions of people believe in God because they have Faith.

They have Faith in a loving God despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They have Faith in a loving god when all around them is suffering and death. When their children go missing, when they're struck with debilitating illness, when they lose their homes to flood and fire, when their enemies prosper. When they are beat down lower than a dog they have Faith in God and that is not logical or reasonable.

It's not a Leap of "here are the provable facts, you're risking nothing". It's a Leap of Faith.

18290. PelleNilsson - 9/24/2002 4:02:53 PM

What your post actually indicates is that you don't really know what empirical evidence is.

So very true.

18291. ivan osokin - 9/24/2002 4:15:00 PM

these last few posts have brought out a number of interesting points...of course, i'm going to comment :)

i think kuligan makes some good points (surprised?). we'd differ because i don't think christianity is superior to any other religion. but i think that there is an a priori motivation to behave in ways that are essentially religious...to inquire about that "other" thing we cannot grasp...to seek the answers to mysteries...to schematize the hierophanies we constantly feel.
i think kuligan is right when he refutes the use of "empirical" proof in matters of religion (though, again, he's got one particular agenda). there is a distinct, non-rational component that makes religion differ from other seemingly irrational things like music and love. you cannot prove "love" empirically, but you accept its validity.

18292. concerned - 9/24/2002 4:20:48 PM

...i don't think christianity is superior to any other religion.

Is this a complete abdication of religious ranking in terms of social merit in general, or just a putdown of Christianity by equating it to the least desirable alternative?

18293. ivan osokin - 9/24/2002 4:22:48 PM

Ms.No points out: They have Faith in a loving God despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

first, the mistake is to assume a loving god as the only possibility. human attributes are constructions of convenience. god could be a prick too...albeit a loving one. there's a funny fringe-zen notion of "grandmotherly kindness"...the kind where she smacks you in the head when you start to drink Drain-O.

second, you do not know that anyone has actual belief in something religious. it's not "empirical" to say people have faith in anything. that's a judgment. some might say they have faith, but ask 100 of those people what they think faith is and they'll describe different answers. this is because it's not faith, it's motivation towards something other. calling it faith is a convention, not an explanation...it quantifies the varieties of motivation into a necessarily vague term.

finally, if they DO have "faith", it's not necessarily that things will be fixed NOW. they have faith in an expectation that things will be better. it's actually more like trust. your partner may fuck up once in a while, but you don't assume they always will. if you assume such, you don't trust them. and trust is all based on how motivated you are for the end to be harmonious. highly motivated? highly trusting. if you're motivated to become rich, you'll trust in things that seem to work for others (the market, real estate, etc..).

it's a thorny issue. i have no affinity for institutional religions, most especially those in the "old testament/new testament/koran" matrix. so i'm not trying to defend them. it just irks me when atheists pretend that religion is a sign of stupidity. religion may not be the best thing to happen to our species, but it's not a sign of ignorance in the same way that saying you feel love is a sign of ignorance.

18294. ivan osokin - 9/24/2002 4:25:42 PM

concerned....

after you read enough religious theorists (mainly christians like Rudolf Otto, for example), you start seeing a similar idea: that christianity is superior to other religions. this may have changed a bit in society over the last 100 years, but the scholarship hasn't.
having to explain my disdain for it would not be worth the dozens of posts i'd have to write. my statement is a reaction to such treatment by theologians.

18295. concerned - 9/24/2002 4:33:11 PM

IO -

I'd honestly like to read some of or see a few references to these sources which influenced your religious opinions.

Personally, I'm not partial to religious writings of any stripe that I've yet seen.

18296. ivan osokin - 9/24/2002 4:36:34 PM

There is no more empirical reason to believe in the existence of a supreme being than there is to believe in the existence of giant, carnivorous Peeps, and, yet, millions of people do believe. (in God, that is, not man-eating Peeps)

but there is a difference between belief in God and a belief in a giant Peep as a god: we can determine the source of the Peep. There is no "mysterium" to it. it is this reason which separates fans of the simpsons from performing a "simpsons religion"...just doing the physical actions is not the same. i can pretend to play violin, but that doesn't mean i'm making music.

people turning Peeps into a religion would not be possible because Peeps do not contain any element of sacrality...they're iconic, but not religion. in most religions, there is a basic conception of something deific, but it tends to be the point from which things begin. even buddha is not the first "buddha". religions which have "cyclical" time do the same thing...time gets reset. the originating moment is the divine moment and the primal moment...it can recur regularly, but it's always considered the primal point. peeps have no cosmogonic importance.

18297. concerned - 9/24/2002 4:43:36 PM

I really evaluate most conventional religions in terms of their overall societal impacts. If a religion is almost exclusively subscribed to by societies which obdurately persist in being closed and repressive, for instance, I suspect that the religion is probably partly responsible for that. Such things are not matters of political differences, FWIW.

18298. Cellar Door - 9/24/2002 4:47:52 PM

"god could be a prick too...albeit a loving one."

18299. Cellar Door - 9/24/2002 4:49:07 PM

"people turning Peeps into a religion would not be possible because Peeps do not contain any element of sacrality"

You obviously have never taken Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.

18300. Ms. No - 9/24/2002 4:56:49 PM

Ivan,

Responding out of order here, but I think you've misunderstood my post. Either that or you've let Kuligin's comments about my post influence your interpretation of it. What I said was extremely straighforward. Without regard to any formal religion or practice, belief in one thing that cannot be proven is, at root, no different from belief in any other thing that cannot be proven --God, Giant Peep, Aliens, Nessie, Honest Politicians.

btw, you are mistaken about love. From a scientific standpoint it's a verifiable chemical and electrical process of the human brain.

18301. Ms. No - 9/24/2002 5:12:13 PM

first, the mistake is to assume a loving god as the only possibility

Except that my post doesn't assume that. My post simply uses those who believe in a loving god as the example. There are all kinds of gods that people believe in and some of them are nicer than others. Some Christs are nicer than others, to be honest, but I'm not interested in talking about the vagaries of every single belief system that exists nor is that necessary to demonstrate my point.

second, you do not know that anyone has actual belief in something religious

No I don't. You don't know for certain if anything but your own consciousness exists, but for the sake of debate we're all operating under the assumption that we're not alone here talking to ourselves. For the sake of discussion if we do not accept a priori that people really do have religious beliefs, then there's no point in the discussion. I wouldn't have thought it would be necessary to state up front the entire list of things that we must take as a given in order to even address another supposed human being.

finally, if they DO have "faith", it's not necessarily that things will be fixed NOW

Who said it was? Certainly not me.


Ivan, I understand what you're saying, but there are some very specific things being addressed here and while, in essence, I belive that nothing truly means anything anyway----ask PE what a horrid little relativist I am----that isn't very helpful in dealing with the world in which I live nor does it appeal to my moral sensibilities in a real life sense. IOW, the fact that everything is meaningless is inconsequential.

18302. concerned - 9/24/2002 5:24:23 PM

Does not being a relativist imply that one is naive?

18303. Ms. No - 9/24/2002 5:29:29 PM

Not at all. Why would it?

18304. concerned - 9/24/2002 5:32:35 PM

I can imagine somebody reasoning that way as a latter step in a process of moral and ethical deconstruction.

18305. concerned - 9/24/2002 5:49:01 PM

Someone can correct me on this to some extent, probably, but it has occurred to me that the government and military of Turkey, a determinedly secular, but almost entirely Muslim country, is forcibly marginalizing the more 'devout' Muslims politically as a means of maintaining its political stability and status as a forward looking Western style country, all of which probably doesn't go down too well with the Wahhabi Lobby.

Turkey's example may provide some useful lessons for managing their evolving social situations by certain Yourapeon countries with burgeoning Muslim soon not to be minorities.

18306. concerned - 9/24/2002 5:50:16 PM

Yourapeon=Youradhimmi soon?

18307. Cellar Door - 9/24/2002 6:02:33 PM

Actually what you've pointed out about Turkey is true of most "Moslem" countries. The "religious" populace is general not reflected in their "cosmopolitan" rulers who for the most part aren't athiest, but aren't all that deeply involved in religion either. Extremists like Bin Laden exploit this disparity by proclaiming themselves and their lunatic ideas to be the "true" exemplars of the Muslim faith.

18308. Ms. No - 9/24/2002 6:17:45 PM

Concerned,

I suppose one could, but it's not a tactic I'd be inclined to take. I mean, relativism is only so useful as a life strategy unless one is a sociopath. How can one argue any particular point if it's already agreed that the outcome is inconsequential? On the other hand, I have no problem accepting an essential relativism but also recognizing that I have a personal sense of what is right and wrong that I'm willing to uphold and promote.

18309. ronski - 9/24/2002 7:36:22 PM

Cellar: Deism is the faith that won't shut the fuck up.

I believe you are confusing Deism with Theism.

I see very few people claiming they are Deists these days.

18310. ivan osokin - 9/24/2002 11:27:45 PM

Sayeth Cellar Door...
You obviously have never taken Holy Communion in the Catholic Church

actually, not only was i an altar boy for a few years, but i WORKED in the church...for years, setting up for masses, working in the rectory, selling mass cards, etc..

i ate the wafer when it came in a plastic bag, stuffed in a box from teaneck, new jersey...and i consumed the eucharist.

but i'm not clear on your point.

18311. ivan osokin - 9/24/2002 11:29:46 PM

Ms No:
btw, you are mistaken about love. From a scientific standpoint it's a verifiable chemical and electrical process of the human brain.

so is religion. there are a number of books on the subject. some that come to mind are: "Cognitive Models and Spiritual Maps" by Jensine Andreson and Robert Foreman, and the book (can't remember the title) by D'Aquili and Newberg (from U of Penn). Walter Burkert, a scholar on mystery religions, wrote "Creation of the Sacred: Tracks of Biology in Ancient Religion" (i think that's the title).

18312. ivan osokin - 9/24/2002 11:35:23 PM

Ms No...

you reminded me of a quote i read in William James' "Varieties of Religious Experience"...

"God is real since he produces real effects."

i don't necessarily agree, but i just thought i'd share it.

18313. Cellar Door - 9/25/2002 12:34:17 AM

i ate the wafer when it came in a plastic bag, stuffed in a box from teaneck, new jersey...and i consumed the eucharist.

but i'm not clear on your point.

Tastes just like Peeps!

18314. Ms. No - 9/25/2002 7:02:51 PM

Ivan,

I didn't say there's no such thing as religion. I haven't even said there's no such thing as God. The existence of religion, however, does not prove the existence of God any more than an accelerated heart rate and rushing adrenaline prove the existence of the closet monster.


"God is real since he produces real effects."

The concept of God produces real effects. Movies produce real effects but that doesn't mean that the characters depicted in them are any less fictional.

I haven't said anything radical here. The fact that one cannot prove the existence of God is as old as the very concept of God. What I don't understand is why people argue about it. One either believes or doesn't believe. Attempting to prove something unprovable makes a man look like a fool and he will always lose the argument.

Admitting that one believes without proof and in the face of reason is scary. Religious Faith is not an easy thing. It's one of the most difficult things in the world. Why would anyone try to cheapen or diminish it by trying to argue that it is provable?

Anyone can believe in the empirical. Where is the courage or the strength required for that? That challenge is believing in the fantastic.

18315. arkymalarky - 9/25/2002 8:05:31 PM

I like that post a lot.

18316. KuligintheHooligan - 9/26/2002 8:30:03 AM

"If you have empirical evidence of the existence of God then you are the first man in the history of the world to do so."

Ms. No, if God revealed himself to a person in some tangible way, would this not be "empirical evidence?" If so, then your comment above is wholly wild and ignorant.

You are simply pitting "faith" against "reason" which need not at all be done. And I am not saying anything new. To the contrary, this debate has issued for centuries. If you don't know that, you are again ignorant of some very important information in this matter. And that is, perhaps, why you have made wholly uninformed comments about them.

18317. KuligintheHooligan - 9/26/2002 8:32:03 AM

"They have Faith in a loving God despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."

But this is far, far different than this statement:

"They have faith in God despite NOT EVIDENCE."

The two statements are entirely different, and this is my contention with Ms. No. She seems to imply (correction needed if I am wrong here) that "faith" necessary EXCLUDES "reason." That I wholly disagree with.

18318. KuligintheHooligan - 9/26/2002 8:34:02 AM

"Anyone can believe in the empirical."

Not true. Many people do not believe in the empirical, even when it is right there in front of them.

"Where is the courage or the strength required for that?"

Who cares about courage?? That has nothing to do with epistemology and is just a red herring, no matter how much arkymalarky may have liked the comment! :-)

"That challenge is believing in the fantastic."

Again, who cares about challenge? That has nothing to do with this debate.

18319. KuligintheHooligan - 9/26/2002 8:38:20 AM

In short, my Christian belief in God has very much to do with reason AS WELL AS faith. The two are not mutually exclusive but rather work in tandem.

If I can try at a feeble attempt at analogy.

Suppose I hear a knocking in my closet. There may be many reasons why there is that sound in there. I assume that my cat is in there, but because I don't see the cat, I can't be entirely certain. I may be wrong of course.

Now then, absent of any evidence at all that my cat is in there, and absent of any noise coming from therein, if I then believe my cat is in there, it is indeed an act of "faith."

In the first scenario, it is a combination of faith and reason. That is my belief in God. There are real reasons to believe in his existence (and those reasons may prove to be wrong, but nonetheless, the reasons exist) but because he hasn't spoken in a audible voice to me or done any "empirical" (if that is what Ms. No is meaning by it) I must also act in faith. The two - faith and reason - work in tandem, not in contradiction.

Perhaps that helps a bit. Maybe not.

18320. KuligintheHooligan - 9/26/2002 8:40:54 AM

And thus my original comment. Show me similar evidence for Peeps. You cannot. And the fact that millions believe in the existence of God is not because there is a lack of evidence. To the contrary, many believe (I cannot, of course, speak for all of them!) precisely because THERE IS evidence for God's existence. There is, however, no such thing for your Peeps, and thus, there are no Peeps worshippers (unless, of course, Ms. No is one of them!).

18321. KuligintheHooligan - 9/26/2002 8:51:53 AM

I am reminded of a Bertrand Russell comment, when, upon dying, if he did indeed stand before God and God asked him why he never believed, Russell would shake his head and say, "Not enough evidence. Not enough evidence."

I always laugh at that one. Russell just chose to ignore the evidence he did see. In fact, why didn't he say, "No evidence, no evidence." He did not.

If you choose to ignore the evidence that is there for the existence of God, then it is your own fault. Because every morning when you wake up and look outside the window, you see it and just choose to ignore it.

18322. ivan osokin - 9/26/2002 9:44:07 AM

The existence of religion, however, does not prove the existence of God any more than an accelerated heart rate and rushing adrenaline prove the existence of the closet monster.

you used the example of love, which has measurable effects...i merely point out that the experience of religion produces measurable effects as well. why is it that love can be said to exist but feelings of the holy cannot? they are both measurable.

The concept of God produces real effects. Movies produce real effects but that doesn't mean that the characters depicted in them are any less fictional.

of course not...but there is a physical movie that IS real. there is the thing you see, the thing you thread through the projector, the performers and creators, etc.. you can hold the film itself to skeptical inquiry and realize it's "meaning" is subjective, but you cannot deny the film's existence as an entity of machination. and it's not even worth the argument! perhaps i didn't see the film because i slept through it or because i didn't want to or because i was blind. the fact that i cannot verify your experience of a movie doesn't mean that you are relying on faith and i'm relying on direct observation, it means that i cannot verify your belief through my own frames.

What I don't understand is why people argue about it.

i agree. hindu philosophers essentially say you can ONLY describe what God isn't. you realize what god is through metaphor.

18323. ivan osokin - 9/26/2002 9:44:27 AM

Admitting that one believes without proof and in the face of reason is scary.

and yet you say,

That challenge is believing in the fantastic.

i am very motivated to believe in the fantastic. i think it's one of the joys of existence. but you say it's scary to believe without proof, then you say that it would be nice to believe in the fantastic. i'm confused.

personally, one aim i have in my graduate studies, will be to analyze methods for approaching some fictional texts by considering the approaches taken in hindu tantric texts...to discover hierophanies only possible through a different kind of reading.

i'm interested in why we read a novel as entertainment but scripture like an instruction manual. i know it seems simple, but it isn't always. people have started religions based on novels.

anyway, i'm ALL for the fantastic. i just don't think that faith in them is scary. to me, it's scarier to have faith in something that is dangerous, but which is proven to exist (i.e., the american government).

18324. jexster - 9/28/2002 8:15:30 AM

A conservative evangelical network in the Church of England has challenged the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, to denounce gays or quit.

It is believed to be the first time an archbishop has been asked to resign before he has taken up office. The present archbishop, Dr. George Carey, does not retire until the end of next month, and Williams does not officially take over until the new year.

Reform, made up of 1,500 members, including 500 clergy and a bishop, made it clear they do not accept Williams and his liberal views, which they see as "non-biblical."

Reform's ruling council made it clear it had been "shocked" by the appointment of Williams, who has made no secret of the fact that in the past he has ordained a gay man.

A statement from Reform urged Williams to endorse the 1998 Lambeth Conference resolution that described homosexual practice as incompatible with scripture.

It asked Williams to affirm the teaching that church members "abstain from sexual relations outside holy (heterosexual) matrimony," to support "appropriate discipline" where necessary and to ordain only those who uphold and live by this teaching.

The statement continued: "Regretfully we ask Rowan Williams if he is unwilling or unable, personally and publicly, to make these affirmations, to withdraw his acceptance of the nomination to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury

NOTE: The Fundie Wing wants a degree of centralized authority that, on any other facts, they unhesitatingly would blast as "papist" horror but which in any case is practically unknown in National Church polities in the Anglican Communion and unheard of in the Communion as a whole where collegiality takes the place of Rome's Magesterium.

18325. jexster - 9/28/2002 8:19:16 AM

OTOH, if these nutters are serious and simply shameless hypocrites, I for one would be delighted to trade the wandering priestly penis for the problematic Catholicity of these crackpots.

18326. jexster - 9/28/2002 8:19:37 AM

and not

18327. jexster - 9/28/2002 8:20:44 AM

and require priestly celibacy

18328. jexster - 9/28/2002 8:33:56 AM

The existence of religion, however, does not prove the existence of God any more than an accelerated heart rate and rushing adrenaline prove the existence of the closet monster

I am sure that there is a better metaphor than this for religious belief has persisted explicitly throughout the entire history of homo sapiens and, as I have argued before, persists even among those whose confession is an apparent negation, an unequivocal and eternal "NO" being equally available to all.

In a strict ontological sense, "proofs for the existence of God" do not exist in the first place at least in the sense that I can "prove" my identity with a driver's license or place of birth with the certificate of it or even the fact of my birth by typing this for that matter.
It is not possible to prove the existence of that which is at one and the same time radically, inexhaustably, infinitely transcendent and immanent, that which is both the irreducible ground of being and infinitely OTHER to it.

18329. jexster - 9/28/2002 8:34:21 AM

Its a faith thing

18330. PelleNilsson - 9/28/2002 11:05:09 AM

Yes. And in everyday life, faith in something that is not proven, and never can be, is usually called gullibility.

18331. Edmund Dantes - 9/28/2002 11:34:37 AM

one aim i have in my graduate studies, will be to analyze methods for approaching some fictional texts by considering the approaches taken in hindu tantric texts...to discover hierophanies only possible through a different kind of reading.

But isn't that the aim of all graduate students?

Besides correcting the capitalization problem, another goal of your university years should be to learn that you don't separate a subject from its verb with a comma.

i'm interested in why we read a novel as entertainment but scripture like an instruction manual.

Of course some people read scripture and mythology as entertainment. Or they make films about it (e.g., Ten Commandments, Clash of the Titans). And a few people do get very serious about novels and entertainment, as you mention, learning the "language" of Klingons for example. I call those latter people "strange" and "odd."

It wouldn't surprise me, however, to discover you can indeed write a dissertation on how peculiar it is that people treat recipes as cooking directions and fiction as "stories." But outside academia it's not nearly as deep and "interesting" a question as why people don't bury newly weds and spray-paint hearses with "Getting lucky tonight!"

18332. Cellar Door - 9/28/2002 12:00:30 PM

They're "more religious" -- they just don't bother with church.

18333. jexster - 9/28/2002 2:02:44 PM

Well Pelle if you wish to insult, insult. If you wish to be vapid and insulting at the same time, well congratulations are in order for a job well done.

Faith is not gullibility. The "faith" you speak of is not faith at all. Perhaps, you do not know what I am speaking of - this "faith thing". If that is so, then you should be silent about things about which you know nothing.

If, however, as I suspect is the case, you actually DO know and CAN know and in fact, might even be said to LIVE by faith, then I have no quarrel except that you might consider working on being impolite and insulting. You aren't terribly good at it.

No I believe you know exactly what I meant:

18334. jexster - 9/28/2002 2:05:41 PM

Hebrews
1] Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
[8] By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go.
[9] By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise.
[10] For he looked forward to the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

[13] These all died in faith, not having received what was promised, but having seen it and greeted it from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.
[14] For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland.
[15] If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return.
[16] But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.

18335. ivan osokin - 9/28/2002 2:16:45 PM

Pelle:
Yes. And in everyday life, faith in something that is not proven, and never can be, is usually called gullibility

i cannot prove that there are other planets, but i'm taught to believe there are. i cannot see democracy work, but i'm supposed to have faith that it does. faith in something that is not proven belongs to 99% of our actions. perhaps because you are an academic, you don't see the difference. but what a scientist in a lab, a mathematician at a blackboard, or an astronomer at an observatory can do is take advantage of our "gullibility" by substituting our own experiences for their proofs. i don't feel that numbers on a blackboard account for any reality, so they don't prove anything. an image in a mechanical instrument is only believable to me out of laziness and inability to verify. science proves the effects of science, in the same way religion proves the effects of religion.

thus, science is the possession of scientists only...if the rest of us could perform scientific experiments, we might not be so likely to conform to the academic group delusion.

18336. jexster - 9/28/2002 2:20:59 PM

No what you so blithely pass off as gullibility isn't faith, it is psychosis.


The faith of which I speak you know, you have experienced it, you may supress it, you may resist it, you may and you do sneer at those who openly profess to live by faith and that not entirely without justification for faith as I speak of it is a radical and demanding thing indeed.

31] It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
[32] But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings,
[33] sometimes being publicly exposed to abuse and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated.
[34] For you had compassion on the prisoners, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one.
[35] Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward.
[36] For you have need of endurance, so that you may do the will of God and receive what is promised.
[37] "For yet a little while,
and the coming one shall come and shall not tarry;
[38] but my righteous one shall live by faith,
and if he shrinks back,
my soul has no pleasure in him."
[39] But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and keep their souls.

18337. jexster - 9/28/2002 2:27:34 PM

Its very hard for Pelle to resist his a swipe at Christians and doubly so a shot at me...That is the sum and substance of it such as it is.

18338. ivan osokin - 9/28/2002 2:32:01 PM

dilleDantes:

Besides correcting the capitalization problem, another goal of your university years should be to learn that you don't separate a subject from its verb with a comma.

how many publishing credits do you have? how many books have you edited? i didn't realize you were both strunk AND white.

i write this way for expediency, not to cause grammatical erections in observers. if i make an error, it's probably a minor editing flaw, not a misunderstanding of usage.

18339. ivan osokin - 9/28/2002 2:32:17 PM

It wouldn't surprise me, however, to discover you can indeed write a dissertation on how peculiar it is that people treat recipes as cooking directions and fiction as "stories."

i don't expect that you understand anything about texts like finnegans wake or der glasperlenspiel, nor do i expect that you know a thing about sanskrit or hindu tantric texts, nor do i expect that you have a background in cognitive science, so you only gave an ignorant interpretation of what i wrote.

maybe these things are pedantic, but since i've had to live in the "real world" for most of my life, i think that taking a diversion into academia is a cushier way to earn a living than operating a lathe. if i wanted to be an armchair scholar, like you, i'd operate the lathe and spend the rest of my lonely time clogging my arteries and blaring my own idiocy on the Mote.

But outside academia it's not nearly as deep and "interesting" a question as why people don't bury newly weds and spray-paint hearses with "Getting lucky tonight!"

so? outside the Mote, does anyone care what YOU say? in fact, how many INSIDE the mote care? i don't care about academia. i'll do my time, get my papers, then i'll write the popular books on why people with major inadequacies like to attach themselves to cyberia in order to be virtually annoying instead of going out and getting laid, becoming a newlywed (instead of being jealous of them), or moving out of their mother's house after 40 years.

18340. jexster - 9/28/2002 2:40:49 PM

Let not your heart be troubled Ed, cause I CARE what you say even though I suppose that saying so doesn't say much for me

18341. Edmund Dantes - 9/28/2002 5:41:36 PM

Ivan Badenoff, your intellectual insecurity is showing. Quit waving that big, brainy dick quite so hard, okay?

i think that taking a diversion into academia is a cushier way to earn a living than operating a lathe.

Now it wasn't so hard to be honest, was it?

Much better than all that mumbo-jumbo about "to analyze methods for approaching...the approaches taken in hindu tantric texts...to discover hierophanies only possible through a different kind of reading."

A lathe would likely produce something more useful than the typical dissertation, but I can overlook a jargon-spouting ivory-tower type who states his real goal is a cushier job.

18342. Cellar Door - 9/28/2002 5:51:10 PM

I'll do the dick-waving around here if you don't mind!

18343. PelleNilsson - 9/29/2002 3:41:39 AM

My Message # 18330 was ill-considered and .. yes .. stupid. My apologies to jexster.

18344. jexster - 9/29/2002 1:49:28 PM

S'ok Pelle, I knew what you were doing and was OK by me...no sweat

Attended a friend's requiem (Jack Horak) yesterday..he was older guy but as the preist put, leaving always seems "impertinent"

Wisdom 3
But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God,
and no torment will ever touch them.
2In the eyes of the foolish they seemed to have died,
and their departure was thought to be a disaster,
3and their going from us to be their destruction;
but they are at peace.
4For though in the sight of others they were punished,
their hope is full of immortality.
5Having been disciplined a little, they will receive great good,
because God tested them and found them worthy of himself;
6like gold in the furnace he tried them,
and like a sacrificial burnt-offering he accepted them.
7In the time of their visitation they will shine forth,
and will run like sparks through the stubble.
8They will govern nations and rule over peoples,
and the Lord will reign over them for ever.
9Those who trust in him will understand truth,
and the faithful will abide with him in love,
because grace and mercy are upon his holy ones,
and he watches over his elect.

18345. jexster - 9/29/2002 1:50:04 PM

absolve

18346. Jenerator - 9/29/2002 1:56:56 PM

Ivan,

Re Message # 18339. I think that's the eight time you've mentioned sanskrit, hindu tantric texts and obscure references. You're lying when you say you don't care about academia. You use your credentials to back up your own perceived academic authority to blast people in this thread and about religion (specifically Christianity). Enough already, have a discussion without self-promotion!

18347. bubbaette - 9/29/2002 2:08:23 PM

Hi Jen! Long time no see. Come to the Cafe and tell me what you've been up to.

Bubs

18348. judithathome - 9/29/2002 2:17:55 PM

I find Ivan's writing ten times more interesting than that blowhard Dantes. If you're upset about people attacking others, Jen, just hang around long enough to get in his sights and you'll see a master at work.

18349. PelleNilsson - 9/29/2002 2:23:09 PM

Thanks, jexster.

18350. Edmund Dantes - 9/29/2002 2:40:46 PM

"Blowhard"? Another word Judy@TheHome doesn't know the meaning of.

That yammering twit can't find one post in the entire Mote of which I've boasted of my personal accomplishments (other than my well-endowed man meat).

Of course her station in life may cause Judy to think that someone's acknowledging he is gainfully employed is "blow-harding."

18351. judithathome - 9/29/2002 2:46:35 PM

You brag everytime you post by acting as though you are the only "thinking" person here and that everyone is of a lesser intellect. Except for the few who agree with you, you put down everyone else quite often.

18352. Edmund Dantes - 9/29/2002 2:55:54 PM

My dictionary doesn't give disagreeing with other people and correcting their frequent factual mistakes as a definition for blow harding, Judy.

And I sure wouldn't think of bragging or boasting because I thought I was smarter than you or the usual gaggle of maroons that agree with you. No sirree. That's not something I'd brag or boast about. If I thought it.

I don't boast about being able to run an eight-minute mile, either.

18353. Edmund Dantes - 9/29/2002 2:57:50 PM

Now if I could generate cartoons and pictures with my computer, that would be something to make me preen like a peacock.

18354. betty - 9/29/2002 4:14:48 PM

I think that's the eight time you've mentioned sanskrit, hindu tantric texts and obscure references

there are more "hindus" in the world than there are baptists. so, who's obscure?

Let's see, sanskrit is a dead language, but it's also the language of the vedas...so i suppose no one should try and learn latin or greek or aramiac(sp?) so that they can get a better understanding of the bible?

and i know that ivan can expound upon this for hours, but i'm rather sure that hindu tantra has informed all of the vedic traditions, and therefor a significant portion of the globe's population is concerned with the matter.

Now, what other obscurities are we talking about? Finnegan's Wake? Joyce is considered by many to be the most important modern author in English, does that make his work obscure? Probably, to the illiterate.

Or was it Hesse that you felt was obscure? Again considered to be one of the finest modern authors. Exactly where is this obscurity? Or is "obscurity" the tag you give everything that you are personally ignorant of?

Now, maybe it's just that I happen to hang with literate, intelligent people, but amongst our friends, ivan's hardly obscure. Just because ivan's talking about subjects you are woefully ignorant about does not mean he is self-promoting, rather he's trying to find someone who also knows about these things so that he can exchange ideas.

Imagine that, people interested in dialogue.

and just because I've got a long memory, I remember you, Jen, asked for ivan's credentials at one point. Don't deny it, because I will waste some of my work time going back through the thread looking for the post. I am part Irish after all.

18355. Edmund Dantes - 9/29/2002 4:33:58 PM

i know that ivan can expound upon [how hindu tantra has informed all the vedic traditions] for hours

Lucky gal, you. The rest of us will just have to gnash our teeth and envy you your afterglow pillow talk. O but to be a fly on the wall during one of Ivan's multi-hour lectures on analyzing methods for approaching approaches to discover hierophanies through a different kind of reading!

a significant portion of the globe's population is concerned with the matter.

What significant fraction of the globe would you estimate has read Finnegans Wake?

Joyce is considered by many to be the most important modern author in English.

Not because of Finnegans Wake. (Note the lack of apostrophe in the title--if you consider it such an important book, you might want to learn its correct name.) Joyce took 17 years to write it, by the way, and supposedly wanted readers to take that long to read it. Maybe Ivan has that kind of time, but most people don't.

but amongst our friends, ivan's hardly obscure.

Most people's friends know who they are.

18356. jexster - 9/29/2002 4:48:40 PM

Feast of St. Michael and All Angels - Sept. 29

The names of the 4 archangels carry the suffix "el" - God. Micha-el means "Who is like God?" Not a declarative, a question...the question points beyond itself to the radically immanent, infinitely transcent One and as such gives St. Michael the Archangel his great power...


Factum est silentium in caelo

There was silence in heaven
Whilst the dragon joined battle
With Michael the Archangel
a cry was heard -
thousands of thousands saying
Salvation and honor and power
Be to Almighty God
Alleluia!

Holy Michael Archangel defend us in the day battle....

18357. jexster - 9/29/2002 4:49:06 PM

day of

18358. ivan osokin - 9/29/2002 4:50:03 PM

Jen:

betty makes a good point. when i started here, you IMMEDIATELY asked me about my credentials. second, dantes criticized my punctuation and such because it's his way of presenting a superior face over his inferior mind. i mentioned my grad school direction because it related to a post, not because i just like talking about it.

and to reiterate: hinduism predates christianity by 2000 years, as do the vedas (at least that long, if not longer), and exists primarily on one of the most populous parts of the world in an unbroken tradition. if it's "obscure", it's because american christians are narrow-minded in their regard for any other religions.

from the first times i posted here, i made note of how completely dominating christianity was here and, if you recall, i suggested calling this thread "Christianity" but the christians didn't want to seem exclusive. yet, nothing has changed. if you bring up another religion, you're accused of being obscure.

i'll tell ya what's obscure...the umpteen hundred posts that quote from christian scripture, discuss local bishops, and argue over piddly pseudo-calvinist/pseudo-lutheranist theology. out of the 18,000 posts here, probably less than 10% regard religions other than christianity. AGAIN, i suggest the name should be changed.

18359. ivan osokin - 9/29/2002 4:57:52 PM

What significant fraction of the globe would you estimate has read Finnegans Wake?

only the ones who are capable, which i guess you aren't.

Joyce took 17 years to write it, by the way, and supposedly wanted readers to take that long to read it. Maybe Ivan has that kind of time, but most people don't.

bullshit. stupid argument. most people watch TV for far many more years than that. also, christians spend much longer dwelling on a much less interesting text. maybe joyce was making a statement about the illiterate and lazy readers in the modern world. perhaps one should take time to read good texts in the same way one shouldn't gulp down a bottle of fine wine. maybe if people DID, instead of grabbing shit off a google search, they'd actually KNOW things instead of parroting them.

18360. Edmund Dantes - 9/29/2002 5:11:59 PM

most people watch TV for far many more years than that.

But think how much you could improve your skill with a lathe if you did neither.

You know what's a bullshit argument? The either/or fallacy that the choice is between reading Finnegans Wake and watching TV. You know what else is a bullshit argument? That the people who spend 17 years watching television could read Finnegans Wake and understand it instead.

C'mon, Ivan. Not every unemployed couch potato is as smart as you. Let me ask you something: Do you honestly think the world would be a better place if more people would spend 17 years reading Finnegans Wake? How many of those people would see improvement in their individual lives?

perhaps one should take time to read good texts in the same way one shouldn't gulp down a bottle of fine wine.

Well, I intend to drink more than three or four bottles of fine wine during the course of my life--and I don't intend to drink it so slowly that it evaporates before I've taken more than one or two sips.

if people DID, instead of grabbing shit off a google search, they'd actually KNOW things instead of parroting them.

Critical thinking regardless of the source is, of course, essential. Otherwise you have people repeating false quotations "from Shakespeare" and attributing their monikers to French painters rather than the correct English writers. Nevertheless, the Internet has an information-gathering tool has much utility for those who don't have a spare 17 years to waste.

18361. Edmund Dantes - 9/29/2002 5:14:33 PM

"as an information-gathering tool"

18362. Jenerator - 9/29/2002 5:21:44 PM

Betty,


I find that when people reference obscure German sources, they're generally trying to appear authoritative and/or intelligent. I can easily hold my own on a discussion about Church History, but I'm not going to reference some pamphlet that a German scholar referred to in the 17th Century as though it really has any relevance in the discussion.

I'm glad Ivan likes tantric hinduism, I'm glad he likes sanskrit, but does it make him an expert on everything? No.

Lastly, I asked for Ivan's background because I was interested in what he was studying. It wasn't as though I was asking him to show me his diplomas, that would have been pointless and irrelevant.

18363. Jenerator - 9/29/2002 5:28:35 PM

In case you're not understanding what I'm saying, imagine me entering every theological discussion by saying that your ideas were counterituitive, illigical, boring, and full of errors. When asked upon what authority I based my declarations on, I replied that I held two bachelor's degrees; one in behavioral psychology and the other in Danish peasant revolt theology as formed in the tulip fields of the Johannesen families, and that I was well versed in Nomadic Eskimo folk stories.

18364. Jenerator - 9/29/2002 5:34:04 PM

pardon the typos, I'm always too busy to proof.

18365. ElliottRW - 9/29/2002 7:43:27 PM

Ms No:

I said earlier that I would respond to your post "later." Perhaps I am too late, now: my comments would hardly add anything to this conversation.

At any rate, thanks for your reply. I do have more thoughts on these matters, but I find it hard to find the time to actually write them down. Lucky me!

Cheers,
Elliott

18366. ivan osokin - 9/29/2002 8:33:00 PM

In case you're not understanding what I'm saying, imagine me entering every theological discussion by saying that your ideas were counterituitive, illigical, boring, and full of errors. When asked upon what authority I based my declarations on, I replied that I held two bachelor's degrees; one in behavioral psychology and the other in Danish peasant revolt theology as formed in the tulip fields of the Johannesen families, and that I was well versed in Nomadic Eskimo folk stories.

jen:

So we come back to what i've said all along: this group is NOT "religion and philosophy", it's "Christian Theology".

Apparently, to you, no significant discourse can occur if we consider aspects of other relgions when discussing any other. Your inflexibility in the manner is typical of the American ruse of "think locally but pretend to look globally".

this list pretends to be about "religion and philosophy", but since you do not consider other religions as comparatively valid in a discourse, you limit the discussion to focus only on pedantic christian theological issues. there may be MANY reasons why bringing up "eskimo folk tales" might be relevant in a discussion of any particular religion. have you ever considered opening your window? looking outside? i can't believe someone as narrow-minded as you are could be a moderator of a thread with such a broad and inclusive-sounding, but completely fraudulent, title.

18367. ivan osokin - 9/29/2002 8:41:20 PM

Jen:

I find that when people reference obscure German sources, they're generally trying to appear authoritative and/or intelligent.

are you referring to Hesse (which i mentioned)?

if so, let me first scratch my head and wonder if you've ever been to a bookstore.

second, let me remark that Hesse is a very widely read author. his novel, Siddhartha, is in MANY high school and college courses on buddhism, religion, or fiction, and is probably in it's 20th or so printing. it's quite common to see people reading this book, which influenced the beats in the 40s and 50s, the hippies in the 60s, countless others later. he wrote other popular books including "Steppenwolf" and "Narcissus and Goldumnd" and i don't think most literate people would consider him obscure.

but if you're looking for an obscure German philosopher, read the work of Hans Vaihinger, who formulated the philosophy of Als Ob ("As If") in the 19th century ;)

(there...i just HAD to make myself sound authoritative AND intelligent, after all).

18368. ivan osokin - 9/29/2002 8:45:32 PM

Edmundantzes:
Not every unemployed couch potato is as smart as you

for the record: i DO have a job, AND i am a full-time student, AND i am a full-time husband and father. as i write this, i'm taking a break from studying, not stuffing porkrinds down my gullet and watching Nightline.

your personal jabs are just about as annoyingly ignorant as your intellectual ones.

18369. betty - 9/29/2002 9:00:31 PM

Jen, you ignorant slut,

ivan beat me to the punch, but the discussion was about religion and proof of god, it was not about Christian Theology on the matter, he was offering the tantric "hindu" perspective on the subject at hand (ie, proof of god). A subject that you have completely disrupted because you wanted to try and get a jab in. Making yourself look rather foolish in the process, i might add.

Nice job thread host, you've managed to completely de-rail an interesting topic for the sake of your own intellectual vanity. Of course you have to have a thought in your pretty little head before you can be vain about it.

Oh and DANTES, you'll forgive me for writing quickly and including that faux pas apostrophe in the title of Finnegans Wake. It's usually understood around here that people make spelling and grammer and punctuation errors, even when they know better, as most of us don't have a Chicago Manual of Style shoved up our asses.

18370. Jenerator - 9/29/2002 9:21:21 PM

Ivan,

I took exception to this flavorful nugget of yours:

i don't expect that you understand anything about texts like finnegans wake or der glasperlenspiel, nor do i expect that you know a thing about sanskrit or hindu tantric texts, nor do i expect that you have a background in cognitive science, so you only gave an ignorant interpretation of what i wrote.

It's dripping with condescension and self-promotion.

While *you* might find Helms in NY, his Siddhartha book isn't on ANY required reading lists in ANY of the schools in the surrounding school districts. Then again, most districts shy away from teaching any religion other than Greek mythology. I'm a teacher Ivan, and I have a bachelor's degree and a master's degree (and a teaching certificate) so while my teaching experience is limited to Texas, my education is not. I'm not living in a windowless closet as you implied. Secondly, what you fail to recognize, is that in your self-aggrandizing posts, you come across just as narrow minded as you accuse me of being! I challenge you to discuss anything with a conservative Christian without using the words 'boring', 'fraudulent', 'illogical', nonsensical', 'close-minded' and 'ignorant'. It will be a bigger challenge than you think.

As for your fights with Edmund, that's your business, I just wanted you to realize that some of us know for the millionth time that you study hindu tantric texts, sanskrit and psychology, you don't have to keep shoving that down our throats.

18371. Edmund Dantes - 9/29/2002 9:34:26 PM

your personal jabs are just about as annoyingly ignorant as your intellectual ones.

Ivan the Terribly Sensitive, you seem to forget that both you and your groupie of a wife have threatened me with physical violence. That's aside from the "personal jabs" you glop out like an irritated tyke who can't seem to be popular with the "in" crowd. So don't try to take some intellectual high road now, guttersnipe.

I note in passing that you have ignored all rebuttal of your feeble whimperings in 18359.

18372. Edmund Dantes - 9/29/2002 9:36:21 PM

i DO have a job, AND i am a full-time student, AND i am a full-time husband and father.

Yowza! Yet you still have time for 17-year wine sippings?

What a man.

18373. Edmund Dantes - 9/29/2002 9:44:27 PM

as most of us don't have a Chicago Manual of Style shoved up our asses.

Personally, I recommend a nice, thick copy of Finnegans Wake--and wager that will give you more genuine pleasure than reading it.

18374. ivan osokin - 9/29/2002 10:18:08 PM

I just wanted you to realize that some of us know for the millionth time that you study hindu tantric texts, sanskrit and psychology, you don't have to keep shoving that down our throats.

i brought up something in relation to an earlier post, because eddantes must always find some way to argue with me with ignorant sarcasm, so i retorted with more detail about what i was referring to. i can't help it if, despite what you claim, you don't like the idea that anyone who posts here may be interested in something other than christianity.

in regards to your idea that i argue with conservatives minus any of those words, i flip the question back and ask if conservatives care about anything OTHER than their narrow view? it's very hard to take someone discussing RELIGION seriously if they limit theirs to only ONE particular viewpoint, WHICH EXCLUDES THE IDEAS OF ANY OTHERS AND DOESN'T ACKNOWLEDGE THEM AS VALID.

so you find me a conservative who will discuss hinduism with me without being condescending, ignorant, or just plain hostile, and we'll talk. when i pick up the latest theological books, the same bias is there...the same closed-mindedness. you may pretend to respect them in the name of tolerance, but you still disregard their validity.

IN ADDITION, while i can say i have read the bible, attended catholic & christian schools for 11 years, have read christian books from the "greatest minds in christianity", i cannot find a conservative christian who has read anything of hinduism. and they don't because they think it is nothing more than polytheistic heathenism, not because they don't have access. so i am limited to their ignorance. it's not like hinduism is some new, obscure cult...and it's not like there hasn't been at least 100 years of scholarship in the west...it's not like it has been closed off to the west!

18375. RustlerPike - 9/29/2002 10:21:59 PM

Jenerator:

The Jews have 613 mitzvot, and I'm pretty sure "answer your friends' e-mails" is one of them.

18376. betty - 9/29/2002 11:07:08 PM

Jen,

I'm rather disappointed that you are being such a twit. I found you to be one of the more palatable christians in these parts. I'd really like you to go back, read the discussion you completely trashed and see how ivan's comments were anything but dialogue on the topic of knowing god.

and see how easy it is to try and pull your credentials out..."I have a bachelor's degree and a master's degree (and a teaching certificate)"...that type of stuff is relevant to a discussion. and for christ's fucking sake, the man's name is Hesse!!! He is one of the most significant writers of the 20th century, I don't know anyone who has gone through their undergraduate degree in the last 40 years without reading the man. I mean maybe at Podunk Bible College or where ever it is that you stuffed your head up your ass, they ignored him, but we are talking about Herman Hesse here, I mean how could any self-respecting individual miss the man's entire body of work?

Let's try this again, Herman Hesse is the author, the book (Das Glasperlenspiel, translated as The Glass Bead Game or, unfortunately, as Magister Ludi) ivan referenced is readily available at every single used book store I've ever been in. I just don't understand how you could get through college without having at least heard his name. It's a good thing I know Judith and arky, otherwise I'd start believing all those nasty stereotypes about southerners.

Good god woman, get a library card, check out Siddhartha (as it's the easiest of his books to read), and slowly, being careful of the suction that has built up, pull your head outta your ass.

Too bad you had to come around and fuck up a really interesting conversation.

18377. judithathome - 9/29/2002 11:45:55 PM

Jen, go to Amazon and type in Herman Hesse...they have quite a few of his books listed. I read Siddhartha and Steppenwolf several years ago.

18378. concerned - 9/30/2002 6:44:14 PM

The Fatwah's in the fire now: Death Sentence for Gay Playwright who disses Christ

To the resident PC types, especially the ones who get their rocks off describing how stupid and dastardly Christians are: Describe precisely how it's more acceptable for Islamists to sentence people to death for defaming Christian icons than it would be for Christians to do so (not that they have for oh, say, 300 years now or so).

18379. Cellar Door - 9/30/2002 7:51:19 PM

"When "Corpus Christi" opened at the Manhattan Theatre Center three years ago, Christian conservatives marched in protest and carried angry signs, but no religious authorities threatened the playwright or his actors with punishment."

Medved is, as usual, a lying piece of shit.

Terence McNally was subject to a barrage of death threats, as did Martin Scorsese for The last Temptation of Christ.

As a matter of fact I was personally threatened with death by several different parties for giving Marty's film a favorable review.

18380. ronski - 9/30/2002 8:46:31 PM

Medved says no Christian "religious authorities" called for McNally's punishment (death). He may well be a lying piece of shit at other times, but he is not being one here.

18381. Al D - 10/1/2002 11:31:42 PM

I have just finished reading the Koran and Karen Armstrong's Islam. I found it tedious, repetitive, and not illuminating about the Islamic religeon. Could any of you suggest further reading about Shariah (Islamic law) or sunnah and ahadith?

After readin Armstrong's book, I can not conclude that Islam is a religeon of peace.

18382. concerned - 10/2/2002 3:22:58 AM

AlD -

Are you aware that when Muslims call their religion one of 'peace' that they are using a very peculiar, in fact, unique definition which has little to do with peace as civilized people think of it? In this context, 'peace' refers to the condition of being subjugated to Islam as opposed to the state of perpetual religious war against all infidels.

So, when a Muslim calls his religion one of peace, it's his way of saying that he endorses forcible religious conversions or murder of those who will not allow themselves to be forced to convert to Islam.

18383. jexster - 10/5/2002 9:30:42 PM

Christian leaders and ethicists who represent a broad swath of the nation's Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox and African-American churches are speaking out against war with Iraq, a chorus of opposition that prompted five conservative evangelicals yesterday to announce their support for the president.

Evangelical Figures Oppose Religious Leaders' Broad Antiwar Sentiment



Rt. Rev William Swing, Bishop of California
Very Rev. Alan Jones, Dean Grace Cathedral


Anglican Consultative Council

Oct 1 Statement of the House of Bishops ECUSA

18384. jexster - 10/5/2002 9:46:10 PM

Rabbi Ismar Schorsch, chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary in Manhattan:

"If we do this unilaterally, it sets us back in terms of international relations to the days of the jungle."

18385. concerned - 10/6/2002 4:12:50 AM

Idiot Rabbi doesn't know that Great Britain, among other countries, will participate with the US in any Iraqi military action, apparently thanks to Leftist media lies and misdirection. The US will not be 'going it alone' in Iraq, regardless of what the pathetic lying media says.

18386. jexster - 10/6/2002 2:06:36 PM

In an interview with 60 Minutes to be shown Sunday at 7 p.m. ET/PT,Jerry Falwell all but declares war on Islam.

"I think Mohammed was a terrorist. I read enough... by both Muslims and non-Muslims, [to decide] that he was a violent man, a man of war... Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses, and I think Mohammed set an opposite example." As CBS reports, "Many Fundamentalist Evangelicals believe
there will be catastrophic events on earth, some occurring already, including the turmoil in the Middle East, culminating in the Battle of Armageddon in which Christ will triumph and begin ruling the earth. At this point, they believe, non-believers will be destroyed,
good Christians saved and any remaining Jews converted to
Christianity.

Says Ed McAteer, a founder of the Moral Majority and known as the godfather of the Christian Right, 'I believe that we are seeing prophecy unfold so rapidly and dramatically and
wonderfully, and, without exaggeration, [it] makes me breathless.'"

Looks Like Concerned Has Found His Spiritual Sceptic Tank er....Home

18387. jexster - 10/6/2002 2:09:14 PM

Thomas Merton, Trappist Monk and poet: "If we attempt to act and do things for others or for the world without deepening our own self-understanding, our own freedom, integrity and capacity to love, we will not have anything to give to others. We will communicate nothing but the contagion of our own obsessions, our aggressiveness, our own ego-centered ambitions."

We, in solidarity with Rowan Williams, the newly appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, along with numerous other communities of faith, including the Executive Committee of the World Council of Churches, believe that unilateral action on the part of the United States against Iraq would be immoral and unwise.... Initiating war against a sovereign country where no triggering event warrants such action establishes a precedent that could invite chaos among nations in the future. A pre-emptive strike that initiates a war is not in keeping with the history of our country; nor is it even in conformity with a religious understanding of a "just" war. To go to war now would require nothing less than the consensus of the world's nations.

The Right Reverend William E Swing, Bishop of California

18388. jexster - 10/6/2002 10:41:07 PM

Learn about how the Bible, according to "christian" fundies, teaches that 2/3 of all Jews must die. The other 1/3 with blood up to their necks will accept Jaysus as Lord. Precepts for Life

18389. Jenerator - 10/7/2002 1:20:47 PM

Jexster,

I watched 60 Minutes last night and I didn't find Falwell's comments to be that fantastic as your hype suggested they would be. As for Christian prophecy unfolding, it doesn't take anyone special to see that it, infact, is.

Out of curiosity, is there a Family Christian Bookstore in your town?

18390. jexster - 10/7/2002 3:54:37 PM

Falwell's weren't the most egregious relative to others, for instance that woman from Precepts for Life who when asked how could she call for the deaths of millions of Jews in order that the remnant might accept Jesus, said "its not me calling for it, its God"

We have a difference of opinion not simply as to whether Christian prophecy is being fulfilled Jen but what that prophecy is in the first place. As far as I am concerned, as far as my beliefs are concerned, I do not accept that Fundamentalists are christians other than in name only.



I assume that there is such a thing Jen. I go to Kauffer-Stadler & Paulist Sisters Catholic bookstores...also to Grace Cathedral -Reconnecting Your Spirit Without Disconnecting Your Mind

18391. Jenerator - 10/7/2002 5:30:26 PM

As far as I am concerned, as far as my beliefs are concerned, I do not accept that Fundamentalists are christians other than in name only.

That's a pretty harsh assumption to hold for millions of people, just based on your feelings.

18392. Jenerator - 10/7/2002 5:37:52 PM

Also, it's unbiblical for you (and for me and for any believer) to pass unjust and presumptuous judgments on believers, which is what you're doing wrt "fundamentalists."

18393. Cellar Door - 10/9/2002 8:22:34 PM

That's a pretty harsh assumption to hold for millions of people, just based on your feelings.

Well Fundamentalists have had pretty "harsh assumptions" about the likes of me and jex, Jen.

One of my favorite "Don't Panic" T-Shirts is "Jesus, Protect Me From Your Followers."

18394. jexster - 10/10/2002 2:38:47 PM

From the Good Friday Solemn Collects -

Let us pray for all who have not received the Gospel of Christ;

For those who have never heard the word of salvation

For those who have lost their faith

For those hardened by sin or indifference

For the contemptuous and the scornful

For those who are enemies of the cross of Christ and persecutors of his disciples

For those who in the name of Christ have persecuted others

That God will open their hearts to the truth, and lead them to faith and obedience.

Silence

Merciful God, Creater of all the peoples of the earth and lover of souls: Have compassion on all who do not know you as you are revealed in your Son Jesus Christ; let your Gospel be preached with grace and power to those who have not heard it; turn the hearts of those who resist it; and bring home to your fold those who have gone astray; that there may be one flock under one shepherd, Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

18395. jexster - 10/10/2002 2:43:50 PM

Letter to Bush -Iraq War

Holy Michael Archangel defend us in the day of battle....

18396. Jenerator - 10/10/2002 5:32:08 PM

Cellar,

I understand what you're saying, but does that make it right?

18397. Cellar Door - 10/10/2002 5:50:06 PM

The ball is not in my court, Jen.

18398. Cellar Door - 10/13/2002 11:46:41 AM

Pedophile-Enablers to the Rescue!

18399. jexster - 10/15/2002 3:55:00 AM

PS 42:9
One deep calls to another in the noise of your cataracts; *
all your rapids and floods have gone over me

The Giants win the Pennant! the Giants win the pennant!

18400. jexster - 10/15/2002 4:03:57 AM

PS 62...

God has spoken once, twice have I heard it, *
that power belongs to God.

The Giants Win the Pennant..."

18401. jexster - 10/15/2002 4:04:27 AM

18402. Jenerator - 10/16/2002 4:54:12 PM

Jexster,

Billy Graham is going to be here this weekend...

18403. jexster - 10/20/2002 2:09:53 PM

Jim Winkler, responsible for the application of the [Methodist] church's teachings to social policy, said war against Iraq was 'without any justification according to the teachings of Christ'.

After careful study of Christian doctrinal writings on Just War, Winkler said he was 'told flatly' by the church's scholars, 'that they simply did not apply to this situation'.

Winkler said 'we keep the lines of communication open' to the White House, but added: 'I regret that the lines have been one way. I hope and pray that the President has considered the church's teachings.'

Winkler's sentiments have an impact beyond the usual circles of dissent in a church-going society that, for the most part, supports Bush.

From the Bush heartland, from Kansas, where they teach the creation instead of evolution in schools, come surprising voices of objection. The Kansas City Star ran a long account of 'voices of opposition from people of faith', quoting Winkler at length, saying: 'United Methodists have a particular duty to speak out against an unprovoked attack. It is inconceivable that Jesus Christ would support this proposed attack.

18404. wonkers2 - 10/22/2002 11:41:27 AM

"PRIESTS DESERVE TO HAVE SOME FUN ONCE IN A WHILE, TOO" says Bishop John McCormack of New Hampshire

"A priest was dead in circumstances that suggested a tawdry sexual liaison, and an ecclesiastical cleanup crew was dispatched to his rectory to scour for anything that might further embarrass the church.

"Searching through clothing, furniture and closets, priests found artificial genitalia, leather thongs, sex-enhancing drugs and scores of pornographic videos, which the monsignor leading the operation ordered removed and destroyed.

"The church kept these 1999 events secret until a priest made the public earlier this year in an unusual lawsuit he is pursuing against the Bishop of Manchester, John B. McCormack. Those events and other revelations have led New Hampshire newspapers and many Roman Catholics to demand Bishop McCormack's resignation."
More here.

18405. wonkers2 - 10/22/2002 11:49:40 AM

Meanwhile, doubt has been cast on the Roman Catholic Church's belief in the "perpetual virginity of Mary" by the discovery of a stone ossuary (burial box)carved with the inscription "James, Son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus." Here

18406. wonkers2 - 10/24/2002 9:16:04 AM

French Author Acquitted of Charges for Anti-Islam Content

Michel Houellebecq was acquitted by a Paris court of charges of inciting racial hatred when he declared in an interview last year that Islam was "the most stupid religion."

Mr Houlelebecq won support from British writer Salman Rushdie and Martin Amis who was quoted as telling the Times of London that "it seems to me that the key to radical Islam is that it is quivering with male insecurity." and he added, "There's a huge injection of sexuality--men's sexuality--in radical Islam."

In a case parallel to Mr. Houellebecq's, also currently before French courts, the Italian Journalist Oriana Fallaci is facing charges of inciting racial hatred for the assertion in her post-Sept 11 book, "The Rage And The Pride," that Muslims "multiply like rats."

The Paris court acknowledged that Mr. Houellebecq's remark was "without a doubt characterized by neither a particularly noble outlook nor by the subtlety of its phrasing." But the court said it was not a punishable offense. "This remark does not contain any intent to abuse verbally, show contempt for or insult the followers of the religion in question." Full Text

18407. wonkers2 - 10/24/2002 9:23:36 AM

Martin Amis's comment that extremist Islam "is quivering with male insecurity" is correct. Other religions also strike me as overly preoccupied with sex, for example Roman Catholicism's doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity, the evils of masturbation, etc. Protestant fundamentalist sects also are characterized by an unhealthy preoccupation with the evils of sexuality as in the Southern Baptists prohibition against "sex standing up because it might lead to dancing." Seems to me that these beliefs and attitudes from the Dark Ages lead to all kinds of mischief.

18408. judithathome - 10/24/2002 9:51:27 AM

Evidently many Baptists ignore the prohibition against vertical sex because they dance like crazy.

18409. wonkers2 - 10/24/2002 5:22:40 PM

True enough. Where are all the fundamentalist, sex-phobic Christians and Muslims? We don't seem to be able to get a rise out of them. I thought Martin Amis's observation about the "male insecurity" component of radical Islam was right on. And that the same component can be found in the RC church hierarchy and doctrines and in the fulminations of Thumpers like Falwell as well.

18410. arkymalarky - 10/24/2002 8:36:40 PM

It's like Bob's preacher from childhood whom he described as frothing at the mouth in talking about the sin of women showing their legs and arms. I hate it when he imitates that transparently lecherous creep--which of course makes him love doing it.

18411. wonkers2 - 10/24/2002 10:24:47 PM

I'd love to see it. They're sickos. Congrats to you both, btw!

18412. arkymalarky - 10/25/2002 4:39:20 PM

Thanks Wonk.

18413. PelleNilsson - 10/28/2002 6:41:53 AM

Sunset at Mount Nebo where Moses first saw the promised land and then died.

The water is the Dead Sea. Jerusalem is approximately where the sun appears to set.

18414. PelleNilsson - 10/28/2002 6:50:07 AM

Sorry. Here is the picture.

18415. judithathome - 10/28/2002 6:53:49 AM

You should post a picture of the eruption of Mt. Etna...after all, it's a manisfestation of the Goddess Madam Pele's dissatisfaction with how things are going in the world toady.

18416. Cellar Door - 10/28/2002 3:54:37 PM

Ideas and Opinions

18417. jexster - 10/29/2002 11:22:09 AM

CAIRO, Oct. 28 — Inside a run-down building in a middle-class Cairo neighborhood, a hybrid group of eager young dot-commers and idealistic religious messengers produces one of the Islamic world's leading Web sites, Islam-Online.net.

"We all consider this an act of jihad, how to liberate people's minds from ignorance," said Ahmed Muhammad Sa'ad, using "jihad" in its sense of spiritual struggle. Mr. Sa'ad is a recent religious school graduate and a prize-winning reciter of the Koran who helps channel readers' requests for religious rulings, or fatwas, to Islamic legal scholars around the world.NyT

18418. wonkers2 - 10/30/2002 12:09:11 AM

Priestly pedophilia is a dead PR issue. They can return to screwing all the altar boys they want and nobody'll notice. Funny how issues like this or the corporate accounting scandal peak with the public and then fizzle out.

18419. kuliginthehooligan - 10/31/2002 12:42:52 PM

Which is exactly what I said several months ago would happen when people like CellarDweller and others (in fact, one was you wonkers) was predicting that this would be the end of the RCC.

Hey, is this what this thread has come to? Nothing but the occasional trite "Baptists having sex standing up" jokes and other nonsense? That's too bad. I tried to get a discussion going on the faith versus reason argument, but even Ms. No who originally posted the nonsensical "faith and reason are antithetical" didn't have the nerve to debate the issue. Too bad. They should RIP this thread.

18420. Cellar Door - 10/31/2002 12:46:27 PM

"Priestly pedophilia is a dead PR issue. They can return to screwing all the altar boys they want and nobody'll notice."

Except maybe the altar boys.

But of course they don't count. Never have.

"Funny how issues like this or the corporate accounting scandal peak with the public and then fizzle out."

You're confusing the media with the public. Not atall the same thing.

"I tried to get a discussion going on the faith versus reason argument"

but then all this talk of priests raping children came up and got us off course.

A totally trivial issue, no?

18421. wonkers2 - 10/31/2002 4:39:26 PM

Kuligan would get more traction with me if he weighed in once in a while on issues like the scandal in the Catholic Church. I don't recall predicting that it would mean the end of the Church. I may have said that the scandal is just another sign of its decline along with its positions on women's role in the church, celibacy for priests and its opposition to medical research which could save lives or reduce suffering for millions. Like other monolithic, hierarchical organizations such as General Motors, the Catholic Church's strong suit is not its ability to clean its own house or to adapt to changes in the temporal world. (GM is probably in better shape on both counts than the Catholic Church, however.)

18422. Cellar Door - 10/31/2002 5:13:45 PM

Revisions.

18423. kuliginthehooligan - 11/1/2002 5:05:50 AM

Wasn't there a separate thread on this whole RCC issue? Where is that thread now?

18424. arkymalarky - 11/1/2002 10:20:50 AM

It was a current issues thread that went on mostly while the topic was making headlines, and it's archived now.

18425. Cellar Door - 11/2/2002 5:33:17 PM

Another September 11th to remember.

18426. kuliginthehooligan - 11/6/2002 2:12:56 PM

As Newsweek has recently reported, the Catholic Church is looking to ban the ordination of homosexuals. As one theologian put it, "You don't hire an alcoholic to be your bartender." I'm not so sure you don't (!!), but that's beside the point. The ban will not, however, be retroactive. If that were the case, I wonder how many priests the RCC would lose?

18427. Cellar Door - 11/6/2002 2:34:28 PM

All of them.

18428. Cellar Door - 11/6/2002 2:35:12 PM

If they're really and truly serious about this, then the Catholic Church has decided to kill itself.

18429. kuliginthehooligan - 11/6/2002 4:32:18 PM

That's an interesting view. Of course, I know there is some hyperbole therein, but do you think the "vast majority" of priests in the RCC are homosexual?

As a slight aside, I really am not sure how many of the recently publicized pedophilia cases in the RCC involved female children as opposed to male children? Does anybody have any idea?

18430. Cellar Door - 11/6/2002 4:41:16 PM

That's an interesting question. All kidding aside there are a substantial number of cases involving women and girls. But the culture being what it is, girls were accused of "seducing" the priestly predators involved. There was even a local case in which the priest (now fortunately defrocked) got the girl an abortion.

For decades these matters were hushed up because sexual matters weren't spoken of directly in this culture. I can rememebr how the film of Anatomy of a Murder was consired off-the-charts "adult" and groundbreaking" because it dealt with rape.

Full disclosure of how many cases involve women may be hard to come by, but I'm sure that SNAP has all the relevant information.

18431. Cellar Door - 11/6/2002 4:44:46 PM

The bottom line is that the priest is more than just an Adult "Authority Figure." He's supposed to be a representative of God on Earth. What is a child supposed to think when such a person violates him or her? It's truly monstrous.

We can argue from here to the moon about whether celibacy should be gotten rid of or whether gay priests are the "real" problem. The fact of the matter is when any priest violates a child he should be prosecuted by the authorities -- not hidden by the church.

18432. Cellar Door - 11/6/2002 4:46:17 PM

Had the Church turned over it's predator priests as a matter of course whenever such incidents came to light in the past, it wouldn't have the problems its having today.

It's really that simple.

18433. kuliginthehooligan - 11/8/2002 9:14:07 AM

"The fact of the matter is when any priest violates a child he should be prosecuted by the authorities -- not hidden by the church."

coupled with this

"Had the Church turned over it's predator priests as a matter of course whenever such incidents came to light in the past, it wouldn't have the problems its having today."

leads me to ask the simple and obvious question, Why didn't they hand them over when discovered? The chilling answer may be because so many of them were also participating in the heinous activities. In other words, you don't report it when the finger may ultimately point at you as well.

18434. Cellar Door - 11/8/2002 11:17:58 AM

Not if the offense was reported in a timely fashion. Had that been the case no one would be faulting the Church as an institution for any offense. It would have acted responsibly for the good of all. But the Church hierarchy seemed only to be thinking of the Church's "good" ie. its "image." That priests would behave in such a fashion was considered "unthinkable," therefore the fact that some of them did was rendered an "unthought." Now everyone is paying the price.

18435. anomieme - 11/8/2002 10:42:43 PM

It's time to give some thought as to whether religion in general is abusive to children, especially the calvinistic and Christian teachings that begin with telling a child he is unworthy, etc... Sexual exploitation is but one aspect of making our children subservient to perverse ideas.

I think we could make a case that some religious practices are abusive and children in such environments should be protected. I would include most Christian sects in the abusive groups, and ceratainly the Amish et al, and Christian Scientists.

18436. kuliginthehooligan - 11/9/2002 1:53:05 AM

Then of course you would also have in include the teaching of Jesus in that "abusive" realm as well. Of course, he was just telling people the truth, but what do you care about the truth, eh anomieme?

18437. Cellar Door - 11/9/2002 11:47:49 AM

What did Jesus ever say or do to encourage the abuse of others?

18438. kuliginthehooligan - 11/9/2002 2:03:13 PM

Well, let me ask it this way: would calling people hypocrites, liars, and a "brood of vipers" constitute the tolerance-loving Jesus the modern world talks about?

And actually, what anomieme is saying is nothing new from his posts, and my comment now takes into account ALL his has said in the past in this vein. So, he has said before that to tell people they are sinners is "abuse," and of course, Jesus did that more often than he talked about the love of God. So according to anomieme's objections, both present and past, Jesus was "abusive."

Quite humorous actually.

18439. kuliginthehooligan - 11/9/2002 2:05:08 PM

BTW, anomieme is not alone. Robert Schuller, probably the most listened to Reformed pastor in the world today (about 10 million listeners weekly) has said a similar thing. He says that in his Crystal Cathedral he NEVER talks about sin, judgment, wrath, hell, and so on. These are much to negative for his tastes and turn people off from the church.

Of course, then he isn't telling the message Jesus told, but who cares, right?

18440. kuliginthehooligan - 11/9/2002 2:06:17 PM

Once a person truly recognizes the gravity of his sinfulness before a holy God, then and only then can he be set free from it. The message of man's sinfulness is a message of grace. anomieme and others would prefer that the church just lie to people in this regard.

18441. judithathome - 11/9/2002 2:27:50 PM

So, telling a child it was born in sin and is sinful until in a state of grace is not abusive? Sparing the rod and spoiling the child is not abusive?

Do you use a rod on your children when they misbehave, Kuigan? How do you know when to stop before it becomes abusive, if you do so?

18442. PelleNilsson - 11/9/2002 2:39:53 PM

To say that Christianity is inherently abusive of children is to go far too far. "Let the children come to me ..." said Jesus.

18443. judithathome - 11/9/2002 2:47:45 PM

I didn't say it was inherently abusive but telling a chld it is sinful doesn't seem too loving.

18444. anomieme - 11/10/2002 10:06:06 AM

Kuligin,

Yes we've been over this before and I conceded that truth would be a defense. But what about all the other religious people who don't don't share your version of the truth. That stills leaves a lot of kids being indoctrinated into a culture of lies.

Celler's post about sexual abuse started me thinking about why parents entrust their kids to the teachings of a church in the first place. What do we expect our lids to learn there? I find the Christian culture of sin and sacrifice, ritual and Satan to be mentally abusive. Hidious, then to top it off with physical abuse.

Religion should be restricted to an adults-only activity.

18445. anomieme - 11/10/2002 10:09:44 AM

Kuligin,

"....to tell people they're sinners...."

What nice language you use. How bout ...All mankind is depraved and destined to hell...

Sunday school leads up to this gently, I suppose. Nice way to start a young life.

18446. anomieme - 11/10/2002 10:19:43 AM

Pelle,

I'd agree that some sects are worse than others. But the general message of Christianity should wait for adulthood. Children can't discern truth from absurdity. If the Christian message is true, it should survive the delay.

18447. Cellar Door - 11/10/2002 10:57:18 AM

I guess "Love thy neighbor as myself" and "Do unto others as you have them do unto you" don't mean much, hunh?

18448. anomieme - 11/10/2002 11:16:45 AM

Cellar,

Not sure who you're addressing, but these ideas sound very human to me and don't need a Christian framework to be taught. Don't ask me to prove it, but they probably pre-date Christianity as so many ethical concepts do.

18449. anomieme - 11/10/2002 11:26:05 AM

Kuligin,

Doesn't Schuller put on the passion play, or Easter program depicting the human sacrifice and resurrection? I would think his congregation would be curious about the need for salvation. He must hint of a sinful nature somehow.

18450. Cellar Door - 11/10/2002 11:32:29 AM

They doubtless do, which is why Christianity is so popular.

You already know it.

"Christians," however (the "official" kind), are far more interested in torturing their neighbor than loving him or her.

18451. anomieme - 11/10/2002 11:50:38 AM

Well, the "Elect" get mansions in the sky. Torture for the rest.

Good kiddie concepts - huh?

18452. kuliginthehooligan - 11/11/2002 12:57:35 PM

"telling a chld it is sinful doesn't seem too loving."

That would depend, of course, on whether or not it is actually true. If it isn't true at all, then telling a child a lie isn't too loving. But if it IS true, then telling the child that is the most freeing, gracious thing you could do. Certainly as opposed to hiding said truth from him.

Jesus never hid the truth of our sinfulness. Neither should "well meaning" Christians today.



Schuller doesn't speak about sin AT ALL. That's his words, not mine.

18453. kuliginthehooligan - 11/11/2002 1:00:06 PM

"What do we expect our lids [sic] to learn there? I find the Christian culture of sin and sacrifice, ritual and Satan to be mentally abusive."

That's too bad that you find it "mentally abusive." Jesus certainly didn't. So I suppose you are just about as different from Jesus as can be, at least in this regard. Which is your right, of course, so speak proudly of that difference.

What do we expect kids to learn? Well, the truth for one thing. Go to any church and ask them how many of them became Christians before the age of 12, and you'll see the majority of hands go up. Waiting until they are adults is probably the worst piece of "advice" I have ever seen on this matter.

18454. kuliginthehooligan - 11/11/2002 1:04:30 PM

To take my own family as an example, I have five children aged 10 and under. They all know who Jesus is. They know he performed miracles. They know he did many good things for people. They know some of his teachings. They know of the existence of Heaven and Hell. They know Jesus died on the cross, a bloody, painful death which is simply historical fact.

And my children are not "abused" by such knowledge at all. In fact, they love Jesus, pray to him, and have a very healthy understanding. Children are very smart, at least mine are. :-) I do not underestimate their ability to understand even deep concepts such as sin and God's holiness.

As opposed to Schuller and others, I prefer to teach them what the Bible says about Jesus, not the watered-down version preferred by our modern society. They know that sin leads to death. They know that God punishes sin. And they know that Jesus loves them and died for them so they could avoid this judgment.

It may be the most freeing, kind thing I could ever teach them.

If you knew someone in prison, would you lie to him about his state, or give him the keys to get free anomieme? I merely teach them what Jesus taught, nothing else.

18455. kuliginthehooligan - 11/11/2002 1:07:20 PM

"Christians," however (the "official" kind), are far more interested in torturing their neighbor than loving him or her.

whatever.

18456. kuliginthehooligan - 11/11/2002 1:12:25 PM

As someone has already pointed out, Jesus himself wanted the children to come to him. It was people precisely like anomieme who attempted to stop the children from coming to him. No doubt they also thought the message Jesus had was for "adult viewing only." But Jesus thought better. He wanted them to hear the truth, something people like Judithathome do not want them to hear. She'd prefer them to live in a lie than in the truth of the teaching of Jesus Christ. That's a pity, but very stupid indeed.

"Do not fear him who can destroy the body. But fear him who can destroy both the body and soul in Hell."

These are the words of Jesus. Who am I to exclude them from people, to consider myself better than Jesus and pick and choose which of his words I prefer to use, while excising the rest? Shame on those people who do.

Jesus had a real world view. He knew the truth and his loved us too much to NOT share it with us. Others in this thread talk about love, but really haven't a clue what it means. They prefer to serve their own self-seeking ways than to share the truth. And they denigrate others who do share the truth. They speak of love, but only after they have redefined it for their own purposes.

Jesus loves us. His message was one of truth. And I love my children enough to share that message with them. So call me 'abusive' for doing so all you like. You are fools, nothing less. I'll pick Jesus and his teachings over anomieme and Judithathome any day, let me tell you!

18457. judithathome - 11/11/2002 1:42:18 PM

He wanted them to hear the truth, something people like Judithathome do not want them to hear. She'd prefer them to live in a lie than in the truth of the teaching of Jesus Christ. That's a pity, but very stupid indeed.

I don't care how they live but I hope you are prepared for your good Christian children, or at least one of them at minimum, to leave the fold after they are grown and are thinking for themselves. Assuming they ever DO reach a point where they are allowed to think for themselves. If they are as smart as you think, and I've no doubt they are, they most assuredly will start thinking for themselves at some future date.

I don't care what you teach your children to believe or what anyone else teaches their children....I am not the one saying they must believe one thing and one thing only. I think children should be exposed to all religions, not just one, and study what others believe and compare what they are exposed to. It's the "one way, MY way" teaching that I'm opposed to...what is your fear, that you only teach them one belief and want to shield them from other religious teachings??

18458. judithathome - 11/11/2002 1:46:23 PM

I'll pick Jesus and his teachings over anomieme and Judithathome any day, let me tell you!

But that is the difference in us...WE aren't asking you to teach your children what WE believe. Speaking for myself, because unlike you, I can't speak for others, I would never be so arrogant as to suggest you believe as I do or teach your children to believe as I do.

18459. kuliginthehooligan - 11/11/2002 1:47:40 PM

judith

Of course you actually DO care what I teach them, otherwise you wouldn't have posted your earlier nonsense. So let's stop the backtracking now, shall we?

As for your latest post, of course at some point in time they will begin to "think for themselves." And I am confident that I have taught them who Jesus is and what he did for them. Then I leave it up to God. That they will begin to look into the teachings of other religions I will ultimately encourage, when the time comes, because then they can see the lies the other religions embody for themselves. But for the moment, I will teach them about Jesus. He is the way, the truth, and the life. Buddha, Mohhammed, and all the other fakes simply are not.

If you lost a slipper, would you keep looking for it judith? Of course not. So why should I expose them to the lies of the other fakes, when Jesus is the truth? You can expose your own children to all the lies you want to. I prefer Jesus Christ.

"It's the "one way, MY way" teaching that I'm opposed to"

Which means you are opposed to Jesus and his teaching about himself, nothing else. Fine. Live in the darkness. I prefer to expose my children, though, to the light of Christ.

18460. kuliginthehooligan - 11/11/2002 1:51:28 PM

"I would never be so arrogant as to suggest you believe as I do or teach your children to believe as I do."

More hogwash. Be honest for crying out loud. You have already implied and/or agreed with people who have said that to teach my children that they are sinners in need of God's forgiveness isn't loving and may border on "abuse." Now you want us to believe that you really don't care what I teach them? Hogwash. You'd much prefer that I teach them precisely what YOU believe about this matter, or else you wouldn't be criticizing me.

At least be consistent. If you don't care, then shut up. As for me, I do care what you teach your children and wish you'd teach them what Jesus taught. And that is why I oppose your nonsense.

By the very fact that you denigrate my beliefs as you have done ample times in the past, you expose the lie to your above comment. You are "arrogant." Horrible. And so am I. The difference is, I admit it, and you try to hide it.

18461. judithathome - 11/11/2002 1:52:43 PM

I am not opposed to Jesus...I'm sure he was a good man. But I am not opposed to those you are so sure are FAKES and LIARS, either. I think there is room enough in this world for many good men to influence followers.

I think I'm actually much more tolerant than you and for you to assume I'm some sort of devil for being so is amusing to me.

18462. kuliginthehooligan - 11/11/2002 1:53:10 PM

"they most assuredly will start thinking for themselves at some future date."

Something I constantly encourage in my children, as well as my seminary students. And I am confident that the teaching of Christ will guide them richly.

18463. kuliginthehooligan - 11/11/2002 1:56:25 PM

"I am not opposed to Jesus...I'm sure he was a good man. But I am not opposed to those you are so sure are FAKES and LIARS, either. I think there is room enough in this world for many good men to influence followers."

Sure you oppose him, or you are just ignorant of his teaching. Because you have in your posts today ALREADY opposed what he taught, a fundamental teaching from which everything else in his teaching flows. You oppose who he said he was and what his message meant. That is clear. Again, you are talking in circles, which I attribute more to your ignorance of his message than anything else. No, I don't think you are a "devil" and you are already starting to put words into my mouth. But you are in the darkness, that is for sure. You are blinded. The teaching of Jesus is meant to free you from that blindness. So don't listen to me, go to Jesus and read what he had to say. Read it closely.

"The truth will set you free." Those are his words, not mine.

I hope you are amused, but by the truth of the teaching of Jesus. It is so liberating it DOES bring amusement! :-)

18464. judithathome - 11/11/2002 1:57:37 PM

At least be consistent. If you don't care, then shut up.

See? How tolerant is that? And while we're at it, I have one child and he learned about Jesus and he learned about Buddhaa and all the others and he decided for himself what to take from each religion. I don't have to defend my child's beliefs and neither do you have to defend yours.

We both did the best we could and if you think only one of us did so, that's your misunderstanding and lack of tolerance and of choice.

18465. kuliginthehooligan - 11/11/2002 1:59:22 PM

"I think I'm actually much more tolerant than you"

This I would whole-heartedly agree with, to a point. But what I am opposing is not your "tolerance" per say (and in some instances you are horribly intolerant, but that's another matter altogether) but the fact that you oppose the teaching of Jesus. That you say you do not only displays your ignorance of his teaching, that's all.

Because Jesus was "intolerant" in every way you think of the word. He basically said, "my teaching or the highway." Read John 14:6. Don't praise your tolerance, judith, when it only leads you to error IF it means you turn from Jesus. That's my point.

18466. kuliginthehooligan - 11/11/2002 2:01:17 PM

"We both did the best we could and if you think only one of us did so, that's your misunderstanding and lack of tolerance and of choice."

All I can say about that, judith, is that if you find teaching your child about Buddha a good thing, we will never see eye to eye. That you "did the best you could do" I don't doubt for a minute. That you purposefully turned your child from the teaching of Jesus is a dark shame that, hopefully one day, you and you child will recognize.

18467. kuliginthehooligan - 11/11/2002 2:03:43 PM

"See? How tolerant is that?"

You are the one making a big deal about tolerance, not me. I have NEVER claimed to be tolerant concerning these matters, never. I simply look to Jesus Christ as THE truth, not one of several. You are a pluralist, a product of your culture. You love tolerance and glory in it.

But truth is not "tolerant." In fact, truth negates error and will have none of it. Jesus was like that, entirely. So you may glory in your self-proclaimed tolerance all you like, but again, if it means turning from Jesus, you have made a grave error.

18468. judithathome - 11/11/2002 2:04:24 PM

you are already starting to put words into my mouth. But you are in the darkness, that is for sure.

Well, I hardly think calling people "horrible" and "ignorant" is a way to bring them into the light. And you are charging me with putting words into YOUR mouth? That is really funny.

I hope you hold your students in higher regard than you hold those of use who have the gall to disagree with you here. I'm sure they are less argumetative, though.

18469. kuliginthehooligan - 11/11/2002 2:05:33 PM

"I have one child and he learned about Jesus and he learned about Buddhaa and all the others and he decided for himself what to take from each religion."

Obviously he or she is older than my kids at this point, I assume. At some point my children will begin to investigate the claims I have made about Jesus and the Word of God, and they will look for themselves concerning those matters.

But Jesus left no room for Buddha in his teachings. None. And I don't either. Buddha is a fake, wanna-be. Jesus is the real thing. Why would I waste my time and the time of the children pointing them to a fake?

18470. kuliginthehooligan - 11/11/2002 2:08:28 PM

"I'm sure they are less argumetative, though."

Actually, no. They are very stubborn.

Judith, you are ignorant, at least concerning the teaching of Jesus. That's just a fact displayed in the few posts today you have posted, but also in the ones you have posted in the past. You should recognize that ignorance and use it for your benefit, i.e., go and see for yourself. You are so big on "thinking for yourself," so why don't YOU actually do it. You obviously haven't to a point, at least as far as the teaching of Jesus is concerned. Otherwise, you'd actually know what he taught [or you just have a bad memory! :)]

18471. judithathome - 11/11/2002 2:09:24 PM

My son is 40 years old and he thinks I did an excellent job of "teaching" him about religions. He isn't confused at all and he is a good and kind man. You would be amazed at the charitable work he does and how he lives his life, considering he came from such a "darkened" upbringing.

People are capable of goodness without religion, whether you believe it or not.

18472. kuliginthehooligan - 11/11/2002 2:10:59 PM

There is a song that one of the local churches here sings. In it they talk about the angels bowing before Jesus. Then in one verse they say, "Even Buddha bows before him." I really like that line.

Why should I bother following creatures when I can follow the Creator? It is the lie of Satan to have us running after others, when Jesus stands there with his arms wide open for us.

"You are a sinner in need of forgiveness." That is his message. You find it offensive and so you run off to follow others and their teachings. And that is what Jesus said. "Light has entered the world, but men loved the darkness."

18473. judithathome - 11/11/2002 2:12:21 PM

Kuligan, I was raised in the church, learned the scriptures, can recite more than I care to, and went to bible study twice a week until I was 19...I am not ignorant of Jesus or his teachings. I am just not in thrall to him or them.

18474. kuliginthehooligan - 11/11/2002 2:13:54 PM

"My son is 40 years old and he thinks I did an excellent job of "teaching" him about religions. He isn't confused at all and he is a good and kind man. You would be amazed at the charitable work he does and how he lives his life, considering he came from such a "darkened" upbringing."

I don't doubt it. Even a tree can flourish in the desert at times. That he is "kind and good," though, doesn't cut it with Jesus. In other words, that's not the whole story. You son is still a sinner in need of forgiveness that only Christ can give. The same fact applies to me and you as well.

There were many kind and good people Jesus spoke to, but they were all sinners just the same. That an atheist can be ethical isn't questioned by me. That he is truly set free as Jesus taught it, well, that simply doesn't apply to him.

We are just talking past each other on that topic, judith.

18475. kuliginthehooligan - 11/11/2002 2:15:53 PM

"I am not ignorant of Jesus or his teachings."

Then let me rephrase. You have said these two things (I paraphrase for sake of speed)

1) I opppose the teaching that there is only one way
2) I do not oppose the teaching of Jesus

The two statements are incompatible. Jesus himself taught there was only one way! Thus my point.

I apologize for using the word "ignorant," but you should know me by now! :-)

18476. judithathome - 11/11/2002 2:16:37 PM

Yes, we are, and I think I will take my sinful self into the laundry room and do something a bit more constructive.

Have a nice day, Kuligin.

18477. kuliginthehooligan - 11/11/2002 2:17:02 PM

I'll come back in a bit. "Homocide" is on, the only show worth watching on Namibian TV each week, despite it being reruns that I have probably already seen!

18478. judithathome - 11/11/2002 2:18:47 PM

The 2 statements you paraphrased are consistant because I am not ignorant of Jesus' teachings but I simply don't believe they are the be-all and end-all of everything.

18479. kuliginthehooligan - 11/11/2002 3:03:43 PM

"I simply don't believe they are the be-all and end-all of everything."

Then you oppose his teaching. You know it, you just choose to not accept it. That is what I mean by "oppose." If the problem here is semantics, then let's call it a day.

18480. anomieme - 11/11/2002 3:27:41 PM

BTW...Hi Judith! And thanks for your invite back to the mote. I finally got a new computer and ISP and whole weekend at home to watch some videos and read the Mote a bit.

18481. anomieme - 11/11/2002 3:31:10 PM

Kuligin,

Let it never be said you lack focus and certainty. It's clear you have an inside track on the "truth", so your kids are just fine, I'm sure. Would you agree with me then that all those OTHER kids (Buddhists, Hindus, Catholics, etc) are being mentally abused? It may be well intended by all those other parents who think THEY know the truth, but it's abuse anyway, isn't it?

18482. anomieme - 11/11/2002 3:34:49 PM

Kuligin, Can you suggest to us a standard of proof parents should use in deciding what is true? You seem to know a lot about Jesus, but I can't imagine where you got your information about him from, other than second-hand narratives of uncertain authorship. And even then, why do you interpret his words and wisdom as having any application to you in 2002? Seems a stretch. As far as we know he was talking to a particular people at a particular time.

18483. kuliginthehooligan - 11/11/2002 3:50:30 PM

"Would you agree with me then that all those OTHER kids (Buddhists, Hindus, Catholics, etc) are being mentally abused? It may be well intended by all those other parents who think THEY know the truth, but it's abuse anyway, isn't it?"

No I would not call it "abuse" and think that is disingenuous a use at best of the term. Parents make mistakes all the time in raising their children, teaching them things in error, etc. That isn't "abuse."

Surely, with your use of the word, then teachers and other figures in a child's life can "abuse" children in this way, correct? Come to think of it, you probably have done so yourself. In fact, I think your teaching on this topic, as you have presented it in the Mote, is a form of "abuse" given your loony definition and use of the term.

18484. kuliginthehooligan - 11/11/2002 3:54:41 PM

"You seem to know a lot about Jesus, but I can't imagine where you got your information about him from"

Scripture, the Bible, God's Word.

"other than second-hand narratives of uncertain authorship"

If by this you refer to the Bible, perhaps you can open up a discussion about its reliability. How much do you know about this topic?

"why do you interpret his words and wisdom as having any application to you in 2002? Seems a stretch. As far as we know he was talking to a particular people at a particular time."

Because they clearly have application for other cultures and eras as well. His wisdom is timeless, eternal, lifechanging, and that has been factually attested to by the millions of people around the world throughout the ages. If you want to disagree with the empirical data of the lives you have been positively affected by the wisdom of Jesus, so be it. Or if you want to claim that the teaching of Jesus has no relevance for today, then stand in the pittance of a minority who would agree with you.

18485. PelleNilsson - 11/11/2002 4:14:34 PM

Kuligin

Please enlighten us about the ultimate fate of the children brought up in the Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim tradition. Are they condemned to burn in hell?

18486. marjoribanks - 11/11/2002 4:16:37 PM

Hmm, is this entry into discussion wise, I wonder.

Hooligan,

His wisdom is timeless, eternal, lifechanging, and that has been factually attested to by the millions of people around the world throughout the ages.

Billions of people around the world, throughout the ages, have attested to the opposite, that the wisdom of Christ is not timeless, or eternal, or in the slightest bit lifechanging. You Christians are a historical minority, and you fundies a tiny sliver of that minority to the point that you can still be characterized as a newish phenomenon yet to outgrow flash-in-the-pan status.

If you want to disagree with the empirical data of the lives you have been positively affected by the wisdom of Jesus, so be it.

But it is you who are ignoring the far more significant empirical data of lives which either ignore or rebut the wisdom of Christ, as well as the vast data offered by lives which have been ruined by application of that "wisdom" by adherents.

You have an axe to grind, Hooligan, grind it unduplicitously. Don't turn to infantile uses of history to buttress your fundamentalist sloganeering.

18487. anomieme - 11/11/2002 4:19:34 PM

Kuligin,

The point is, (as I'm sure you know, but choose to avoid), you have no proof of anything you believe or teach about Christ. You love to review your studies of biblical history and dogma. I think yuo do this to avoid the simple, child-like questions for which you can offer no answers and no proofs.

Your ideas are no more provable than Ms No's "Peeps" (whatever a Peep is - Ha!)

I'm sure you'd love to point out my lack of biblical knowledge, as you have done to me and to others in the past. But that's simply a way of avoiding the real issues.

If you really believe what you say you believe, then why on earth would you let all those other parents lead their kids to doom without some protest? Call it anything you like, abuse or mistakes, the result is still harmful to children. (although we have our different reasons for thinking so)

18488. anomieme - 11/11/2002 4:24:36 PM

Kuligin,

Others here (A5, I believe) have demonstrated how you must add your own interpretation to anything in the bible so as to put its applicability in doubt. Even I, with my limitations as pointed out by you, can understand that. So, you can only assert you opinion about what Christ said, why, and to whom. You can't prove anything.

18489. Cellar Door - 11/11/2002 7:06:42 PM

Coming Soon to the Internet!

18490. Cellar Door - 11/11/2002 8:52:02 PM

Christians at Work

18491. kuliginthehooligan - 11/12/2002 8:12:44 AM

Let’s see, where to begin. I’ll start with my fine Indian friend.

Dear marjori,

Thanks for your posts. Your comments, unfortunately, were way off the point. If I can quickly paraphrase, anomieme basically asked me, “Why on earth would you want to follow the teaching of a guy who lived so long ago, in a different time and culture? I doubt there’s anything of relevance to his wisdom.”

To which my basic response was, There is relevance and many, many people have found that relevance, no matter when or where they lived.

Then comes along marjori, pointing out that “billions” of people have attested the opposite.

Which of course, is a non-sequitor. Who cares how many haven’t agreed. That’s a worthless point to make given the discussion. Let me try explaining with this simple example.
Suppose I said I like apples. They are really a great fruit. But anomieme can’t believe I would think that way. “What good are apples?” he asks. To which I reply that not only myself, but countless other people from around the world and from all ages have attested to the worth and tastiness of apples.

To which non-sequitor marjori retorts, “Yeah, well, there are LOTS of people who don’t like apples! So there!” Which is of course pointless. In other words, all I really had to do to refute anomieme’s objection was to point to ONE person in the twenty-first century who has found the wisdom of Jesus to be relevant and worthwhile, and I would have disproved his original contention. But I chose to note that millions of people have done what he seemingly finds unreasonable to do. So to you marjoribanks, try to follow the argument a little more closely in the future. This is not like you to miss the simple point and flow of a discussion.

18492. kuliginthehooligan - 11/12/2002 8:13:18 AM

To marjori, I also want to add, if you think that a 2000-year old faith which has been held by millions and yes, billions of people around the world, is a “flash in the pan” and a “historical minority,” well, don’t expect me to come to you for any more “expert” historical opinions! You are clearly acting in your typical knee-jerk fashion on that one my boy. Then you have the nerve to call my posts “infantile uses of history,” when 1) you missed the point entirely, and 2) you are the one with an axe to grind, i.e., no matter how wrong you are, people who point to Christ and have real faith in him are bad people. To anomieme’s question about how on earth I could find Jesus to be relevant, I have merely pointed out that tons of other people have as well. You blustering fool, marjoribanks. If you are going to bluster, at least follow the discussion and points of debate!

18493. kuliginthehooligan - 11/12/2002 8:14:34 AM

Dear anomieme,

I’ll yawn right from the start, but this comment almost put me to sleep:

“The point is, (as I'm sure you know, but choose to avoid), you have no proof of anything you believe or teach about Christ.”

Of course I have proof! You have made a typical hyperbolic statement. Jesus Christ lived as an historical person as surely as tons of people have. Your problem is that you don’t understand, seemingly so, what “historical fact” entails. Did the astronauts land on the moon anomieme? PROVE it to me. You cannot PROVE it in the way you use that term. Yours is the most tiresome, old, trite, banal argument there is, used by people too lazy or to ignorant to investigate things for themselves.

So, let’s get off the PROVE IT nonsense. Jesus is an historical person for which there is ample historical “proof” about him. I’ll tell you what. PROVE to me that Buddha existed. Start there anomieme, and stop wasting my time.

18494. kuliginthehooligan - 11/12/2002 8:14:58 AM

“I think yuo [sic] do this to avoid the simple, child-like questions”

If you are referring to your posts and comments, then you are correct in categorizing them as “child-like.”

18495. kuliginthehooligan - 11/12/2002 8:16:54 AM

“Your ideas are no more provable than Ms No's "Peeps"”

If that were truly the case, then I wonder why Ms. No didn’t accept my challenge to her equation of Peeps with God? Honestly, are you truly going to say that belief in God has just as much proof as belief in Santa Claus, for example? Do you read ANYTHING at all, anomieme, or just spout the same, old, tired arguments that have been dealt with for centuries now? I swear, I wonder if you aren’t from the Dark Ages come to the future, with no knowledge of what has happened in scholarship the last millennia.

“I'm sure you'd love to point out my lack of biblical knowledge”

Your lack of knowledge seemingly doesn’t end with the Bible, unfortunately. Ever read Aristotle, for crying out loud?

You hide behind your ignorance by referring to people like A5, who I haven’t corresponded with for at least a year if not two! To put it another way, you haven’t the where-with-all to argue points yourself, so you hide behind points made by others, points I might add that most of us can’t even recall they were so long ago. If YOU have objections to my beliefs, then YOU should address them YOURSELF. Don’t hide behind the work of others. You give the impression, the very real impression, that you are stupid and can’t fend for yourself.

18496. kuliginthehooligan - 11/12/2002 8:19:54 AM

“So, you can only assert you opinion about what Christ said, why, and to whom. You can't prove anything.”

This is just dumb. I can point to what Jesus said, and I can point you to what Jesus said. The words are on paper. And I can tell someone, like Judith, that what she is saying contradicts what Jesus taught. It ain’t rocket science, my boy. If you disagree, come out from behind that tree and fight for yourself. Tell me where I am wrong about the teaching of Jesus. Point it out. I assume you can get your hand on a Bible, right? Then why not do it for a change, instead of using tired, overused and long-since debunked arguments that make little sense.

You strike me as a person who believes the world is flat, and no matter what others say, that is what you will believe. And when others invite you to take an around-the-world cruise you decline, because, well, you already know that such a thing isn’t possible, because others say so.

18497. kuliginthehooligan - 11/12/2002 8:20:55 AM

What Jesus said is easy for you and I to see. Have you read the Gospels anomieme, or have you just read books by people who supposedly read them and didn’t like them? Have you done first-person analysis yourself? Or do you rely on second-hand analysis? Ironic, isn’t it? The very things you claim against me, you have done yourself!
So tell us, so we all can read it for ourselves. Where have I – IN YOUR OPINION – misunderstood the teaching of Jesus? I would like some evidence that you have actually looked at and read the teaching of Jesus, before I will sit here and listen to your objections about my conclusions. Please, don’t hide behind the thoughts and ideas of others. Give us YOUR OPINIONS.
It really is that simple anomieme. Ever argue about a Shakespearean play, and what Old Will meant when he said such and such? A real waste of time, isn’t it? I mean, really, it only boils down to opinion, and if you think he was talking about a young maiden from Holland, and I think he was talking about an alien who lives on the moon, it really doesn’t matter, does it, because we can’t PROVE anything, right?

18498. kuliginthehooligan - 11/12/2002 8:21:55 AM

Which brings us round to the original reason why I chose to post in this thread the other day. Anomieme said that the Christian teaching about sin and forgiveness is “mental abuse.” I pointed out that Jesus himself taught these things, therefore, according to anomieme’s definition, Jesus majored in mentally abusing people.

And what is anomieme’s response to my rebuttal? He tells me I can’t really know anything, and that what I have to say about Jesus is just my opinion, something which cannot be proved. This is hardly a response of scholarly proportion.

anomieme, from the TEACHING WE HAVE OF JESUS as found in the Bible, do you believe that Jesus practiced mental abuse, as you have used that phrase? Please substantiate your conclusions by actually pointing to his teaching.

18499. anomieme - 11/12/2002 8:46:03 AM

My goodness Kuligin, what a rant. You're going to a lot of trouble to avoid the simple question, which is...What is your standard of proof for religious truth? I've already admitted that truth would be a defense for scaring little kids. You take it for granted that Christianity is true, so I wonder what factors or standards you use to determine truth. What standard should others use?

I don't have a lot of time this morning to respond to many of your comments, but I'll say briefly that my credentials or lack thereof matter not a whit to the question at hand. If you could prove anything about your beliefs, you would stop throwing barbs and just do it.
Nevermind whether I can prove Buddha existed. I'm not trying to.

Christ's words are on paper? Really? So are Harry Potter's. Chuckle.

18500. kuliginthehooligan - 11/12/2002 10:36:16 AM

And so you continue to dodge the point. In your opinion, do you believe the teaching of Jesus to constitute "mental abuse" as you have used the term? Please substantiate your claims, one way or the other. That is where this discussion started, and before I go down your merry trail of red herrings, we will deal first and foremost with that issue. After such time as I am satisfied you have answered the above, then and only then am I willing to go on your tangents.

18501. kuliginthehooligan - 11/12/2002 10:38:33 AM

And I agree, your "credentials" are of no significance. However, that you actually can display some knowledge - I mean, ANY knowledge would be nice -about this matter, that would be great.

Recall, YOU are the one who started this discussion with your "mental abuse" comments concerning the tenets of the Christian faith. So I am asking you to substantiate said claims.

And yes, the words of Jesus are on paper. If you want to debate Harry Potter, so be it at a later time. For now, though, let's try to stick to the main issue, shall we? An issue you originally addressed and have since that time attempted to run away from.

18502. kuliginthehooligan - 11/12/2002 10:43:15 AM

Also, once you are done that, you can get to the first of your red herrings, your seeming disbelief at the historical reliability of the existence of Jesus Christ. Thus my Buddha comment.

In short, do you believe that Jesus existed as a real, historical person? If so, PROVE it. If not, PROVE it. If you are unsure, PROVE it. If you don't care, PROVE it. If there is more reason to believe in Peeps than in the historical veracity of the existence of Jesus, PROVE it. If you like chocolate more than vanilla ice cream, PROVE it.

Okay, okay, you get my point, I think at least you do. And my point is, you are missing the point. Let me say this slowly so you can follow. When two people are debating about the words of Jesus, one saying "He said God has three heads" and the other saying that he didn't, all we need to do is go to the words of Jesus and see who is correct. Whether one of them can put forth historical evidence for his existence is pointless for that debate. This is what you have now done.

So stick to the issue, the one YOU first introduced. Stop it with the red herrings and references to people who haven't posted for over a year in this thread!

18503. RickNelson - 11/12/2002 10:47:09 AM

kuligin,

Your points are well made. Proof is a common issue for those who have contempt prior to invetigation.

I find the practice of maintaining ones ignorance via avoidance of obtaining pertinent information the habit of habitually immature individuals. Now, the effects of this problem are reversable upon the realization of the individual understanding the word ignorance does not imply stupidity, on the contrary it's an opportunity to learn and reflect.

18504. RickNelson - 11/12/2002 10:48:33 AM

invetigation = investigation

18505. jayackroyd - 11/12/2002 11:16:09 AM

It's kinda funny, because I've been thinking about you, KtH, in the last few weeks. Not too long ago, I was at a funeral, in church for the first time in a very long time. It was a pretty high church Episcopal service, and at one point in the service there was a recitation of the Nicean creed.

And I said to myself, "Does anyone actually believe this stuff?" I mean, they say they do, and all, but do they really believe it? And when they studied it, and discovered that, in this case, the language evolved out of an intensely political discussion, represented compromises among people arguing about events that were several generations removed, and that, prima facia, are nonsensical, did they still believe it?

And then this James ossorium thing got found, which really ratcheted up my belief that there really was a guy named Jesus, whose father was Joseph and who was the source of some of the stuff in the Gospels.

But the trouble is that the more concrete this stuff gets, the harder it is to hold onto what I would call the nonsense. For example, finding pieces of James highlights the problems with the whole virgin mary business.

And so, I have been wondering, do people really believe this stuff? Adam, Eve from the rib, or them both from dust? The burning bush? The pillar of salt? 7 days to make the universe? Methusalah's lifespan? Fully human, fully divine? Of one substance with the Father? Father??? He's a guy? An omnipotent, infinitely lived guy?

The objections that nine-year-olds raise in Sunday School are hard to deal with.

So do people really believe this stuff? Do you?

18506. kuliginthehooligan - 11/12/2002 2:57:31 PM

"The objections that nine-year-olds raise in Sunday School are hard to deal with."

This is a hoot! I recall seeing something TV show where one kid in the Sunday School class was asking really "hard" questions, which were actually very, very good ones. Like, "Who did Cain marry?" and stuff like that. The pastor at one point pulled him aside, gave him a quarter and told him to call his mother. He was nothing but a trouble maker.

That's the typical media portrayal of pastors, and sometimes it is right! But I love questions like that. I would have had fun with that kid, having a good discussion about the "difficult" questions that would normally crop up if anybody stops and gives this stuff some thought.

jay, yes, I do believe the Bible. 7 "days" to make the universe, that is up for debate since the Hebrew for the term can also mean a span of time not necessarily a 24-hour day. But yes, I believe the Bible to be inspired by God and as such, fully trustworthy in all it reports.

btw, the Nicean Creed is a very nice creed, but went under some refinement a council or two later.

18507. kuliginthehooligan - 11/12/2002 3:02:23 PM

Hi Rick, thanks for your post. I should short-circuit some of the discussion with anomieme by saying this. My objection to his comment about proof was his use of hyperbole. He said I can't prove ANYTHING that I believe about Jesus. But that isn't the case. Jesus is provable as an historical person as much as any other historical person can be "PROVED."

But with this I will agree. *Some things* I believe cannot be proved, others can be. Again, the vast majority of what we learn comes from others. In other words, we are not first-hand, eye-witnesses to a large amount of knowledge we gain. We trust others to give it to us. And as far as that source is trustworthy, so also is the information we get from that source.

"Prove it!" is just a waste of time with people who have already made up their minds to not investigate things for themselves, as far as that it possible. My knowledge of Jesus and who he is comes from historically reliable data, as reliable as any data from that time. Prove Josephus lived. Who knows? Somebody could have made him up and produced the writings supposedly written by him. Such conspiracy theories can fly about concerning any historical person or event.

18508. kuliginthehooligan - 11/12/2002 3:04:32 PM

jay, if my original premise that God exists is true, then all things are possible and not as improbable as first thought. Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt is not problem for the God who created salt, and women for that matter. The miraculous is not an issue if one grants the existence of God.

18509. Cellar Door - 11/12/2002 3:17:29 PM

jay you're nothing but a troublemaker.

Faith trumps all.

I have faith that God is a gigantic carniverous Peeps and nothing will shake it. Anyone who doesn't share my belief is Going to Hell!

18510. PelleNilsson - 11/12/2002 3:18:06 PM

Your premise is your weakness when you aim to prove the "truth" of the Bible and the Christian doctrine.

18511. jayackroyd - 11/12/2002 5:02:02 PM

<"The objections that nine-year-olds raise in Sunday School are hard to deal with."

This is a hoot! I recall seeing something TV show where one kid in the Sunday School class was asking really "hard" questions, which were actually very, very good ones. Like, "Who did Cain marry?" and stuff like that. The pastor at one point pulled him aside, gave him a quarter and told him to call his mother. He was nothing but a trouble maker.

That's the typical media portrayal of pastors, and sometimes it is right! But I love questions like that. I would have had fun with that kid, having a good discussion about the "difficult" questions that would normally crop up if anybody stops and gives this stuff some thought.>

Well, I have to first note that you didn't deal with the questions. Where did the women Cain and Abel married come from? Why are there two creation stories, and which one is right?



And the Methusalah years are compressed? And where again did the God guy stand? What does "inspired" mean? "Not literally true"?

But you say you really do believe this stuff. Is that right? I can quote passages, and you will say, yes, that's true, that's what happened?

18512. RickNelson - 11/12/2002 5:06:48 PM

Weaknesses of individuals are short-sighted thought processes. To claim an individual cannot have a faith without a provable truth is closed minded.

The short of my faith is that God is what it is, has little direct connection to the outcome of my life, does not have my life written nor manipulate me to some end. God is creation to me, has an omnipotent power to do and know anything, but chose to end the manipulation after Jesus' death. There is only a connection now in the faith of what Jesus means. That is all there is to me. Believing all the rest is not as necessary as the manipulative religious nuts make believe.

There is deep significance to me personally in having faith about Jesus. There is also a connection to me that other faiths may have similar connections to their people, which may be parallel to that of Jesus. Therefore the xenophobia which almost all christians exhibit does not connect with me. It is senseless to portray my faith as the one and true way to connect with God.

I've mentioned much of this before and Kuligin you likely read it back when bloodnfire was active.

18513. RickNelson - 11/12/2002 5:11:44 PM

Cellar,

"God is a gigantic carniverous Peep"

Yellow or pink? It might make a difference to someone.

18514. jayackroyd - 11/12/2002 5:13:11 PM

>jay, if my original premise that God exists is true, then all things are possible and not as improbable as first thought. Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt is not problem for the God who created salt, and women for that matter. The miraculous is not an issue if one grants the existence of God.<

Yeah, that's my question. I agree that if you posit the notion of some male entity creating the universe in some limited time, and hanging around forever intervening in arbitrary, sometimes wacky ways, then the pillar of salt thing is trivial.

But do you really believe it? Do you really believe that this guy decided that his persona was not compelling enough, and chose to light a bush on (non-consuming) fire? Or that he made himself flesh, (fully human, fully divine) in order that he could really be killed so that he could be resurrected to save us from our sins? And that he kinda closed his eyes, and ignored his divinity, omniscience and omnipotence while he really (fully human) died for our sins? Do you really believe that?

I am really asking these questions sincerely. I don't see how anyone could actually believe this stuff. That was the feeling I had at the church service listening to the Nicean Creed, and I still find it baffling.

18515. RickNelson - 11/12/2002 5:15:03 PM

By the way,

I read almost the entire Old Testament and nearly all the New Testament in the 80's. I do not believe all that the Old has to offer. The Creation story in particular. Therefore, I am not a literalist Christian. I reject any notion that I'm not a true Christian.

18516. jayackroyd - 11/12/2002 5:19:16 PM

Rick--

I did talk about these issues with a priest I know, and his line was to acknowledge that the slope is slippery, and that your faith had best not depend on any particular fact being literally true or not. I think that's right, but it is a very slippery slope.

18517. RickNelson - 11/12/2002 5:19:54 PM

"Or that he made himself flesh, (fully human, fully divine) in order that he could really be killed so that he could be resurrected to save us from our sins? And that he kinda closed his eyes, and ignored his divinity, omniscience and omnipotence while he really (fully human) died for our sins? Do you really believe that?"

jay,

I hope my input doesn't detract from your discussion with Kuligin.

What I believe in of your question is that God allowed the Holy Spirit to indwell as the human form Jesus. This is why the trinity is so important to me. God allowed the Spirit to be as one with Jesus, letting the will of God be played out and the real manifestation of what God desired as the plan for humankind. Therefore I say, no that Jesus was God incarnate upon the Earth. It was his precense via the Holy Spirit in the human form of Jesus. Amazing shit really.

I blieve this, I have faith in this it is absolute to me.

18518. RickNelson - 11/12/2002 5:21:36 PM

presence not precense.

18519. jayackroyd - 11/12/2002 5:22:19 PM

18515

One of my motivations for raising this discussion was reading that something on the order of half of Americans surveyed believe the bible is literally true. To my mind, that is a political statement, not a religious one, but I am curious as to whether I am wrong about that.

18520. jayackroyd - 11/12/2002 5:27:38 PM

>What I believe in of your question is that God allowed the Holy Spirit to indwell as the human form Jesus. This is why the trinity is so important to me. God allowed the Spirit to be as one with Jesus, letting the will of God be played out and the real manifestation of what God desired as the plan for humankind. Therefore I say, no that Jesus was God incarnate upon the Earth. It was his precense via the Holy Spirit in the human form of Jesus. Amazing shit really<

So you buy the whole Nicean Creed thing? Fully human, fully divine, of one substance with the Father, born, not made? You believe, fully divine and fully the Father, he suffered and died just like any other person would have, that his presumed knowledge of his resurrection was not an issue in his sacrifice. And you buy this Father notion as compatible with the creator and maintainer of the universe?

18521. RickNelson - 11/12/2002 5:28:54 PM

It's a fine line to me jay.

Between the political and religious desires of the teacher, preacher, pastor or speaker. Of any Religion for that matter.

The manipulation of a populace via the means of religious dogma is easily shown throughout history. I cannot believe I need report upon an example. This will include the political agenda of someone or cause. This kind of religion it seems to me allows for polemic degradations to thrive.

I aspire to openness and acceptance that there are parallels which I don't have to believe for myself, but which can produce like results for those adherents.

18522. RickNelson - 11/12/2002 5:33:56 PM

1)"fully the Father", 2)"And you buy this Father notion as compatible with the creator and maintainer of the universe?"


jay,
The first is not my belief. I explained that it was the Holy Spirit manifesting what God intended. Not the literal presence of God. The second I partly believe. Creator as I believe it to be, yes. Maintainer, no.

I do not see God as maintaining the Earth. It is a place for the people to manage. God's intercedence ended with Jesus in my opinion. There is a lot of Dogma to argue against me. The creation story is very complicated from my interpretation.

The short is that God's days of six creation and one rest do not correspond to the human conception. A day could be a billion years. Could it not?

18523. jayackroyd - 11/12/2002 5:34:09 PM

Yeah, he also said stuff like that. But these religions tend be pretty prickly about what happens to the other folks. At least in their sacred texts. And, again, my question is whether you believe the texts. And if you don't where are you? Why one faith over another, or for that matter, any faith?

18524. RickNelson - 11/12/2002 5:40:11 PM

'Why one faith over another, or for that matter, any faith?"

Jay,

Very simply, my culture. I'm a Upper midwesterner, raised in the Lutheren Church. I was confirmed and later Baptized within the Baptist Religion. That was the early 80's when my faith was forming. I read and studied often. I started with a strong desire to confirm my belief which included the entire biblical text. However, over time my education and personality rejected literalism. I have made choices which confirm my faith as a Christian, yet do not contradict the culturally acceptable religions of others. Also, I have reconciled the facts of evolution with my faith.

18525. jayackroyd - 11/12/2002 5:42:03 PM

Rick--

Well, this Holy Spirit thing is a complicated problem in and of itself. The God thing is pretty concrete. Male. Powerful, and so forth. The pnuemos thing seems very dicey to me. But you buy that over the God made flesh thing? And you reject the Trinity?

Again, seems like a slippery slope to me.

18526. RickNelson - 11/12/2002 5:45:38 PM

No, I accept the Trinity. I said that in post 18517.

I also reject the idea that God is any gender. Genderless is more like it. That's why I declared God an it.

18527. RickNelson - 11/12/2002 5:47:14 PM

The trinity allows the Holy Spirit to indwell Jesus' life. It allowed everthing that Jesus was. God didn't need to leave the omnipresent state and become a humanly acceptable form because it had the Holy Spirit to do it.

18528. jayackroyd - 11/12/2002 5:49:39 PM

Rick--

This evolution thing is a problem. The priest I talked to noted that, like heliocentrism, it illustrated the importance of not tying your faith to any particular fact.

So yeah, I buy what your saying, and what he was saying, up to a point. But, at the end of the day, you still have to say, what is true? His response was to say that the real truths are fogged by ambiguity, and that trying to penetrate that fog is counterproductive. Again, I buy that to some degree, but aren't you essentially bailing when you say that? While it may be that some stuff is too deep for us to get, does that mean you have to believe in burning bushes? And if you don't believe in those, when do you stop not believing things?

18529. RickNelson - 11/12/2002 5:50:13 PM

That Jesus was male was culturally significant and allowed for acceptance. Humans everywhere have more male gendered dieties than female. It was a cultural choice or manipulation. A wise choice for the times and future. The world finds it easier to accept the facts given Jesus is male.

18530. jayackroyd - 11/12/2002 5:53:27 PM

Rick--

Sorry, I did not read 18517 carefully. Yes, I see that you acknowledge the Trinity, but can't resist noting that you're doing so heretically. And that's back to my original question. I sat in a room with several hundred people reciting the Nicean Creed. And I wondered whether any of them actually believed it.

18531. RickNelson - 11/12/2002 5:54:41 PM

Good question.

You stop believing when it becomes rediculous and unecessary. If the idea seems superficially attached to the belief and that it detracts from the stance which hones the belief for me personally, I reject it. It's fine tuning.

There is a necessity to have faith as part of your personality. If that doesn't exist then belief in a faith isn't going to come easy. Faith to me equates open-mindedness. It allows me to reflect upon the unnatural state of many things. The need of my human personality to have a grounded foundation. There are human traits which accomplish faith.

18532. jayackroyd - 11/12/2002 5:54:47 PM

Yeah,Jesus had to be male, but why is God?

And, again, doesn't this raise problems? I mean, heck, why should our divinities care about our cultural tendencies?

18533. jayackroyd - 11/12/2002 5:57:12 PM

Rick--

Thanks. It happens you're reiterating what the priest was saying, that faith is beyond reason, and that if you don't get that, you don't get faith anyway, and that mere facts are trivial. I do buy that.

But it still weirds me out that people chant stuff they don't believe.

18534. RickNelson - 11/12/2002 6:08:15 PM

Me to jay.

I don't like to see the televangelists heal people. It's so out of this world. And the speaking in tongues stuff is weird too. It might happen in some sense or another, but I don't believe in it if there is no-one there who can interpret it at the same time. That's what I was taught.


As for the Nicaean Creed. It's pretty old stuff. I just did a Google search to see what's up.

I don't think I'm far off the Creed. I don't hold that Jesus was God on Earth and it is the same with the Creed. I say that the Holy Spirit indwelt Jesus and it's the same in the Creed. The problem starts with trying to interpret more depth as to the form of Jesus.

18535. RickNelson - 11/12/2002 6:11:44 PM

I also thank you jay. Your questions and comments interest me. I'll check in again.

18536. anomieme - 11/12/2002 7:24:12 PM

Rick, To any extent your remarks about being reticent to learn were aimed at me, let just say I have no objection to learning anything about any religion, but what Kuligin was asking was not relevant to the topic at hand.

As a compliment to Kuligin he is a master at quoting scripture and I very much enjoy reading his posts, but such minutia often confuses the simple topic at hand.

18537. anomieme - 11/12/2002 7:26:25 PM

Kuligin,

I enjoyed your conversations with A5 as I enjoy most of your posts, but I won't bring it up again. I understand.

With me here, however, you've quoted me incorrectly. You paraphrased my root question in such a way as to distort my meaning and added implications I never made. Why'd you do this - to divert attention from the question I really asked?

And Jesus! Talk about being disingenuous, why do you keep asking me to prove assertions about Jesus and Buddha that I never made? FWIW, I think Jesus was probably a real person. I don't think he's irrelevant. I never said he's irrelevant. I'd be a fool to deny the impact of Christianity. I think people through the ages people wrote alot of things about him and attributed sayings to him. But I can't be sure he really lived or that he ever said the things attributed to him. And I certainly can't prove he wasn't God. I can't prove Peter Rabbit isn't God!. So your requests for proof are just inane.

And since you can't prove anything either, just stop the nonsense and stop adding insidious implications to my argument by misquoting me as this gem of a paraphrase does:

“Why on earth would you want to follow the teaching of a guy who lived so long ago, in a different time and culture? I doubt there’s anything of relevance to his wisdom.”

This is not what I said. Notice the implied concession that Jesus actually lived, and the assertion of the irrelevance of Jesus in your reconstruction of my remarks. Not to mention the fact that I never asked "Why on earth would you...." You simply made this up to deflect the real question. Shame on you.

18538. anomieme - 11/12/2002 7:27:12 PM

Now, Kuligin...let's keep it simple and on topic as I go over it once more in my own words.

- I said religious teaching amounts to mental child abuse, some religions being worse than others.

- I then tried to evade your predictable methods of obfuscation by agreeing with YOUR assertion that " truth" would vindicate those who engaged in such religious teaching.

Most pointedly and finally...

- I asked you what "standard of proof" we should require of those asserting "truth". This is the question you have avoided by ranting and raving and going way off topic, and by misquoting me.

As your standard of proof for religious "truth" so far you've offered three things: Numbers of believers; Duration of belief; and Words on paper.

Have I missed anything?

But of course this is silly and we needn't go on really. You know as well as I that you can't come up with any criteria that would overcome even a minimal amount of critical thinking. OTOH, I have no way of disputing the truth of your personal experience.

So, we're left with my opinion that religious indoctrination should be reserved for adults, and you're free to disagree. But if you assert "truth" as a defense, you've failed to demonstrate a practical way of judging what's true and what's abusive (or mistaken, if you prefer).

18539. anomieme - 11/12/2002 7:27:57 PM

Late comment: I may have been quick to say you couldn't prove "ANYthing" about Jesus, so short-circuit this as you will. I'll modify that to say "You can't prove anything except the superficial and mundane fact that he is a literary character of some interest". Your attempt to prove anything beyond this would interest me very much, but I won't hold my breath.

18540. anomieme - 11/12/2002 7:31:54 PM

Rick,

You probably can't tell from these posts, but I try not question a person's faith. I may ask questions about their faith and I appreciate it when they explain what they believe and why. I'm fascinated by it, really. But when someone starts pushing their beliefs on all others, I feel free to comment at will.

18541. anomieme - 11/12/2002 7:33:58 PM

..and Rick,

If I'd think before writing, I would have explained that I addressed that last post to you because I enjoyed reading you posts about what you believe. I predict you can expect a thrashing from Kuligin, however.

18542. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 9:05:00 AM

"I don't hold that Jesus was God on Earth and it is the same with the Creed."

The Nicean Creed is the confession that in fact DID profess Jesus to be fully God, homoousios with the Father as it says. I'm not sure, then, why you say the above Rick?

18543. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 9:12:47 AM

"With me here, however, you've quoted me incorrectly. You paraphrased my root question in such a way as to distort my meaning and added implications I never made. Why'd you do this - to divert attention from the question I really asked?"

Anomieme, I paraphrased in such as way as I thought would still convey your original meaning, without going back to actually look for the one post where you said what you said. That you think I did that to divert from the question is laughable, but understandable, being you are a conspiracy person at heart. But I assure you that if I did misrepresent what you said, I did so unintentionally. I will have to go back and actually see if your current claim, though, is correct!

"I mean, heck, why should our divinities care about our cultural tendencies?"

jay, to communicate with us so that we can understand what is is they are communicating.

18544. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 9:18:22 AM

"I don't see how anyone could actually believe this stuff."

Yes, jay, I do believe this "stuff." I don't agree with a fair amount of what Rick is saying, though, particularly his understanding of the Trinity and the Holy Spirit, but as far as your question concerns me, yes, I believe God actually did the things the Bible said he did.

18545. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 9:19:56 AM

"I have faith that God is a gigantic carniverous Peeps and nothing will shake it. Anyone who doesn't share my belief is Going to Hell!"

This is very interesting. I'd like to see the reasons why you believe such a thing as this. Could you take the time to post a list of some of the reasons why you believe the above?

18546. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 9:25:28 AM

anomieme

I'll try it once again. Do you believe Jesus Christ and his teachings as found in the Bible, particularly Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were "mentally abusive" as you claimed certain religious teachings were? Either way you answer, please explain or substantiate your claims/opinion.

Please answer this simple question.

18547. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 9:29:42 AM

anomieme

Okay, here's your original words (post #18482) from which I produced my paraphrase:

"You seem to know a lot about Jesus, but I can't imagine where you got your information about him from, other than second-hand narratives of uncertain authorship. And even then, why do you interpret his words and wisdom as having any application to you in 2002? Seems a stretch. As far as we know he was talking to a particular people at a particular time."

I think my paraphrase was actually fairly accurate, as paraphrases can be. You seem to be in "awe" of the fact that I find Jesus to be relevant, which is what I said you said or at least implied. Had you not put in "seems a stretch" I may have thought differently, but those are your words.

18548. judithathome - 11/13/2002 9:32:53 AM

Anomieme, I paraphrased in such as way as I thought would still convey your original meaning, without going back to actually look for the one post where you said what you said.

Just yesterday you were accusing me of putting words in your mouth and now you admit to doing same but have a perfectly good excuse for doing so. One set of rules for the heathens and another for the good guys, huh? ;-)

And before you go off on me and start in with hurling insults at me, that was meant as a good humored joke.

18549. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 9:34:23 AM

Here's my paraphrase, the one you said was disingenuous and most likely fabricated by me to skirt the issue:

"Why on earth would you want to follow the teaching of a guy who lived so long ago, in a different time and culture? I doubt there’s anything of relevance to his wisdom."

I think it is a very fair paraphrase of what you said. I thought so then, and I think so now. If not, restate your original comment. You said it seems a stretch to interpret the words and wisdom of Jesus to have any application to me in 2002. My paraphrase very much reflects your original statement.

Soooo, since you so vociferously object to my paraphrase, I can only conclude, as you did with my paraphrase, that you are simply skirting the issue. Now you say this:

"I don't think he's irrelevant. I never said he's irrelevant. I'd be a fool to deny the impact of Christianity."

No, he's not irrelevant according to you, you just find it a stretch that I can find any of his teaching or wisdom as applicable.

"Not applicable" versus "irrelevant"

Hmmmm, I'm having a tough time seeing the difference.

18550. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 9:35:34 AM

I'm glad you explained yourself in your last comment, judith, because you would have indeed experienced my wrath!

18551. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 9:38:43 AM

"You can't prove anything except the superficial and mundane fact that he is a literary character of some interest".

No, anomieme, he is an HISTORICAL character, not simply literary like Hamlet. Historical. There is a vast difference between the two. I'll assume, just for kicks, that you understand that difference.

What do you know about historical "proof?" You say you aren't really sure Jesus even existed. Why not? Do you believe Buddha really existed, or Mohammed, or Josephus or Abraham Lincoln? Why not Jesus Christ? At what point do you stop believing historical data, considering it to be unreliable?

18552. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 9:42:21 AM

In short, I'll leave you with this anomieme:

1) State whether or not you believe the teaching of Jesus as found in the Bible constitutes "mental abuse" per your definition, and display why or why not you believe this.

2) The issue of historical reliability is your first and foremost problem. Forget the content of the teaching for now (other than to address the above question). You aren't even sure Jesus ever existed. You talk about "proof" but obviously you use that term inappropriately, because there are not doubt tons of people you believe to have existed who have even less substantiation for their existence than does Jesus. Why do you doubt the historical data concerning the existence of Jesus? What is your specific problem with it?

3) If you think my paraphrase of your original comment was disingenous, please restate your original comment, or show very clearly how my paraphrase is so off base as you have you imply I am lying just to cover up something horrible thing I believe.

18553. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 9:49:54 AM

For the lazy at heart:

anomieme's original comment:

"You seem to know a lot about Jesus, but I can't imagine where you got your information about him from, other than second-hand narratives of uncertain authorship. And even then, why do you interpret his words and wisdom as having any application to you in 2002? Seems a stretch. As far as we know he was talking to a particular people at a particular time."

My insidious, evil, meant-to-skirt-the-issue paraphrase:

"Why on earth would you want to follow the teaching of a guy who lived so long ago, in a different time and culture? I doubt there’s anything of relevance to his wisdom."

18554. RickNelson - 11/13/2002 10:06:03 AM

This site Gave a short clear explaination of the Nicaean Creed origin and belief.


From this site I do not see a direct quote stating that God is Jesus on Earth. There is a scripture passage from the Old Testament stating "Isa. 9:6
"For to us a child is born, to us a son is
given,...and He will be called,... the Almighty God, the
Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace..."". From this one could make the claim, but Jesus did not call himself God, but referred to the Father. The Trinity relates The three as the essence of each other. The one part of the whole, yet the Godhead being only God. It's not stating there is one Supreme and two subordianate.

The following are pertinent excerpts which I think give the shortest statement of the facts.

Everyone taking an interest would do well to read the link or my short excerpts. Otherwise read your own source.






"The word Trinity obviously does not appear in the
Bible. It is fairly clear and evident that the original
apostles, including Paul did not really have a clear,
concise, well thought out and formulated doctrine of the
Trinity that they taught in the churches. If they did it
is not clearly stated in their writings. Yes, Paul
believed in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, yet,
according to church history as we know it, the Trinitarian
doctrine was formulated later."


"These men often approached their thinking from a more
philosophical approach rather than a theological stance."

end part(I) of three parts

18555. RickNelson - 11/13/2002 10:08:30 AM

"A Roman named Tertullian was born around AD
160. He was trained as a lawyer and teacher and practiced
both. By nature he was a fiery sort of guy with a
fighting spirit. He became a Christian and due to his
academic background and zeal became one of the most well
known Apologists of our faith."



"Tertullian was the first known person to give clear
definition to the doctrine of the Trinity."


"Tertullian was the first known person to give clear
definition to the doctrine of the Trinity."

"Theophilus of Antioch who
wrote in Greek seemed to be the first one to actually use
the word Trinity in AD 181, but with little development of
the idea behind the word."

"The method which the church took to formulate its
thinking was through Councils, which were called and
overseen by the Emperor of Rome. The Council of Nicaea,
AD 325 was the first real time in church history that the
State was in charge of church affairs and overseeing the
decision process."


"The first great division came over the doctrine of the
Trinity"

"To say that there was a bitter dispute over the
Trinity would be an understatement of the problem."


"At the Council of Nicaea there were three different
ways of thinking concerning the Trinity."


"The main issues dealt with the Deity of Christ, and
His relationship to the Father."

End part II of three parts

18556. RickNelson - 11/13/2002 10:12:44 AM

"The first viewpoint at the council stated that Christ
was not eternal, that He was created before time as we
know it. It said that Christ was created out of nothing.
People holding to this viewpoint said that Christ was of a
different essence and substance than the Father, somewhat
subordinate, yet still He was divine, yet not deified.
They said that Christ was not co-equal, not co-eternal,
and not consubstantial with the Father. In short they
were saying that Jesus was a lesser of two gods, separate
and apart, holding to a divine nature due to creation, yet
not of the same essence of the Father. He then, really,
was not God."



"The other view point, quite the opposite, held that
Christ was eternal, having no beginning. He was therefore
co-eternal with the Father. This view also held that the
essence of the Father and the Son were the same. They
were one in essence and substance. This way of thinking
stated that unless Jesus was co-equal, co-eternal, and
consubstantial, He could not logically be the Saviour of
man."


"A quiet mannered man, not liking controversy, named
Eusebius of Caesarea, put forth the third and final
viewpoint as a compromise. This is what was settled on by
the majority of bishops. He taught that Christ was not
created out of nothing, but that He was "begotten" before
the foundation of time. He also said that Christ was of
"like", or "similar" substance to the Father."

"The creed that was finally drawn up at Nicaea was that
which Eucebius had promoted, except it said that Christ
was of the "same essence" as the Father, and not "of like
essence". So the Nicaean Creed was written in AD 325.
Yet this is not the same Nicaean Creed that is read in
many churches today."



End part III of three parts

18557. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 10:16:42 AM

Rick,

It is historical and ecclesiastical fact that the Nicean Creed, formulated in 325 AD, equates the human person Jesus in his very nature and essence and equal to God the Father. Other creeds expanded upon this idea, ultimately the fourth ecumenical council in Chalcedon concluding the following:

Jesus is fully God
Jesus is fully human
Jesus is one person
Jesus has two natures

Post the Nicean Creed here and I'll show you specifically where it says what I am saying.

"The Trinity relates The three as the essence of each other. The one part of the whole, yet the Godhead being only God. It's not stating there is one Supreme and two subordianate."

The doctrine of the Trinity states, simply put, "One God, three persons," or in theological lingo, one ousia but three hypostases. They are not three parts that make up one whole. That is a common misunderstanding of the doctrine.

18558. RickNelson - 11/13/2002 10:25:25 AM

"The doctrine of the Trinity states, simply put, "One God, three persons," or in theological lingo, one ousia but three hypostases. They are not three parts that make up one whole. That is a common misunderstanding of the doctrine."



No, I don't agree. The misunderstanding is to think of them as one entity. The original and not the Chalcedon is more pretinent to me. It is this where we split. I don't think the idea that councils determining our set of beliefs exclueds me from concluding that the three are seperate parts of the same essence.

18559. RickNelson - 11/13/2002 10:28:49 AM

If the whole Creed is available on the net, I haven't found it. I would gladly post a link to the text if I found one. Posting the text however would be unecessarily long. A link is sufficeint

18560. RickNelson - 11/13/2002 10:30:29 AM

Ok I found a link Read this and copy - paste what you wish to discuss.

18561. RickNelson - 11/13/2002 10:34:58 AM

I like this one also, it includes history as my first link does

18562. judithathome - 11/13/2002 10:38:24 AM

This is what makes the whole thing so dicey for me...it is ALL someone's interpretation. If the differing interpretations disagree, well, just call a meeting and make them all jibe and call it the Bible.

18563. RickNelson - 11/13/2002 10:38:33 AM

Ok here is the original I think is pertinent. The Creeds that followed where worded to meet an agenda of the Catholic church. Thus exhibiting the dogma which so many people abhore.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Only begotten of the Father, that is to say, of the substance of the Father, God of God and Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things on earth; who, for us men and for our salvation, came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered and rose again on the third day, went up into the heavens, and is to come again to judge both the quick and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit."

18564. RickNelson - 11/13/2002 10:40:58 AM

judith,

That's the slippery slope that jay was mentioning yesterday.

It's not about interpretation persay. It's more about faith.

Interpretation in my personal walk of faith is slightly open. Open minded that is. I do not espouse dogmatic substande. The views of the scripture I live by are those of the New Testament which I wholely believe are the substance of the Holy Spirit guided writings of John and others.

18565. judithathome - 11/13/2002 10:41:28 AM

The Creeds that followed where worded to meet an agenda of the Catholic church

How does one know the preceeding creeds weren't the product of someone else's agenda? Or that the entire bible wasn't translated according to someone's agenda? We just don't know for sure, do we?

18566. judithathome - 11/13/2002 10:42:49 AM

Yes, it is all about faith and I am too skeptical to have any.

18567. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 10:46:11 AM

"This is what makes the whole thing so dicey for me...it is ALL someone's interpretation. If the differing interpretations disagree, well, just call a meeting and make them all jibe and call it the Bible."

This is unfair, because Rick just doesn't know what he is talking about. The doctrine of the Trinity is not up for personal interpretation, oh, I want to think this way about it and such. It is an historic doctrine to which the RCC, Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy all adhere. Rick just misunderstand what the doctrine states, that's all.

18568. RickNelson - 11/13/2002 10:46:52 AM

Sure we do Judith. I know because of what I posted in 18564.
Clearly my faith in Jesus is based upon scripture. I have faith that the scripture relates the story of Jesus. It's this which makes the whole thing tenable.

The agenda of the original creed in my opinion was to help the controversy of what Jesus was to us. It was an important philosophical need.

It's entirely subjective, but the creed might have been needed to further the faiths growth. Prosecution occured during the first 300 yrs or so. The issue was needed to give the Apologists something to work with when they faced the Roman authority.

18569. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 10:47:37 AM

"The misunderstanding is to think of them as one entity."

No, you are just wrong Rick. The Trinitarian doctrine states that they are one Being. What you are espousing is a form of Tritheism, something the Church obviously rejects.

18570. RickNelson - 11/13/2002 10:50:10 AM

kuligin,

You're just wrong. It's up to me whether my faith allows an interpretation. I am not a follower of dogmatic church led interpretation, such as the Catholic Religion.

The facts are here, I've posted and linked. I am sure that men, a council, a political council of church leaders and the Nicaean leadership put the Creed together. Therefore, what men have done I am going to interpret. As a thinking human being, a person with a conscience and a will to chose good over evil, I am able to interpret my individual choices of what men are trying to teach me.

18571. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 10:50:24 AM

"We believe in One Lord, Jesus Christ the only son of god. God from god, light from light, true god from true god. Begotten not made, of one being with the father, Through him all things were made."

Rick, what you are doing is saying, "Yes, I believe in water. It is two parts oxygen and one part hydrogen." And I am telling you that that is not water.

From the above, Jesus is "one being" or one substance. The original Greek is "homoousios."

But you can't just stop with the Nicean Creed in any event. The Church didn't stop debating there. That is why I posted the conclusions of all four councils. You must go beyond Nicea to ultimately see what the Church confessed about Jesus and his being and person.

18572. RickNelson - 11/13/2002 10:51:27 AM

Which Church rejects it kuligin? I think your answer will be the Catholic Church which rejects anything outside its orthodox dogma.

18573. RickNelson - 11/13/2002 10:53:59 AM

Must I go beyond Nicaea and the New Testament? I haven't seen why? There is a lot of time between the early 80's and now which I have not filled with study. My faith is set in stone. I believe in Jesus as my savior and the trinity as I see it from what I've read and heard from Baptist preachers and Luthern Pastors.

18574. RickNelson - 11/13/2002 10:59:12 AM

The Trinity in my opinion was a need of the church to explain the relationship of Jesus to God and the Holy Spirit.

Ok, I'll conceed on point the Holy Spirit didn't enter the Creed picture until Toledo in 589AD. So if anything, it is important to add that. But, the wording again causes me to stumble back to the Nicaean original. It's like the Catholic Church doesn't give an inch. It has to maintain it's absolute supremecy. It's this type of thing which has become the Catholic Church to appear a stigma to the general population which lives outside that religion.

18575. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 11:03:43 AM

Rick

Let me try to explain. You can say what you want about Jesus. If you think he was just a good man, or a prophet, or a liar, or whatever, fine. Believe what you want to believe.

But you cannot believe what you want to believe when it comes to the confessions of others, in this case, the Church universal (the three main branches of Christendom). They say the Trinity means this: one God, three persons. That is what they mean when they use the word Trinity.

You cannot now come and say you profess the same thing they profess by denying what they profess!

18576. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 11:04:47 AM

Let me put it another way. If you want to say that you believe God is purple and has three heads, fine do it.

Just don't call it the "Trinity," and then refer to Nicea for your substantiation.

18577. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 11:07:03 AM

"I'll conceed on point the Holy Spirit didn't enter the Creed picture until Toledo in 589AD."

No, the Holy Spirit became a very real issue immediately after Nicea, was debated fully by the Capadoccian Fathers up to the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, 381 AD.

I think you are suffering from a general lack of what happened during those years of the Church's history, and a faulty understanding of what the Church means when it speaks of the Trinity.

But, to use your own words, from ignorance comes opportunity, eh? :-)

18578. RickNelson - 11/13/2002 11:08:53 AM

Kuligin,

I haven't stated what you post in 18575.

I have said I believe in Jesus as my savior, that is set in stone.

I have said I believe in the Trinity. That is set in stone.

Where we differ is the exact interpretation of the Creed as it pertains to the definition of the Trinity.

I believe the Trinity to be three in one. I have said this before. You missed it.

I have gone further though and explained that my belief does not go to Jesus being God on Earth, but the essence of God, via the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This is exactly what I have said all along. No changes, no differences.

I think this is a true Trinity. I do not see it as far from your theological definition. Mine is slightly more phylosophical. That is all.

God did not have to come to earth, God's choice was to let his Holy Spirit indwell Jesus, thereby making God's essence a reality upon earth.

18579. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 11:10:36 AM

Let me give you a quick example or two, just because they are fresh in my mind because I am teaching a course on Cults this term.

The Mormons say the Trinity is Jesus, God the Father, and Mary, because God had physical sex with Mary to produce Jesus.

Christian Science, from Mary Baker Eddy, claims the Trinity is life, spirit, and love.

The Unification Church (the Moonies) say the Trinity is God, Adam and Eve.

They obviously use the word "Trinity" to suit their own theology and divorce it entirely from its original intention and meaning in a Christian context.

And that they can do all they want to.

But once they say "This is what Nicea meant when it debated 'Trinity'" then they are historically inaccurate. That is NOT what Nicea meant, and what you are saying Rick is also NOT what Nicea meant, as signified by subsequent councils and debates on the matter.

18580. RickNelson - 11/13/2002 11:12:09 AM

True kuligin, true. I have come out and admitted I am not well studied post early 80's. However, I've been going over numerous text of the Nicaen Creed text for two days now. I've discovered many histories all ready. All the same, but the text of the Creed changes with time and where it is written.

This is then the next step of my education.

18581. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 11:12:22 AM

"God did not have to come to earth, God's choice was to let his Holy Spirit indwell Jesus, thereby making God's essence a reality upon earth."

This is Adoptionism, an early heresy ultimately condemned by the early Church.

18582. marjoribanks - 11/13/2002 11:13:48 AM

Hooligan,

I want this from you.

Three book recommendations on the very early history of Christianity. Not fundamentalist tracts from disreputable publishers but three mainstream books which detail the historical background of your religion to the point where it became Europe's creed.

I invite recommendations from other people as well.

18583. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 11:14:15 AM

Adoptionism, also known as Dynamistic Monarchianism, was espoused by a man names Theodotus around AD 190. It was ultimately rejected by the early Church, particularly Nicea.

18584. RickNelson - 11/13/2002 11:14:23 AM

It's the subsequent debates which open the door to more interpretation.

My desire is to keep it simple and the original is an excellent example of truth. I can grasp its meaning. I believe its meaning.

18585. RickNelson - 11/13/2002 11:15:09 AM

Marj,

Read the links I've posted around 18555. They are very good.

18586. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 11:16:00 AM

marjoribanks,

The first that immediately comes to memory is Jaroslav Pelikan's five volume set, "The Christian Tradition." Well, okay, I am looking at it on my shelf right now! But Pelikan is a foremost authority, and NOT a "fundie" by your use of the term. He comes from Orthodoxy.

18587. RickNelson - 11/13/2002 11:17:37 AM

Reread the Nicaean Creed, or Nicene Creed original which I poste in this forum back in the 18555 posts. It is what I believe.

My interpretation of it that is. I accept your help to see if I am not understanding the meaning exactly.

18588. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 11:18:58 AM

marjori

I have at least twenty works on church history on my limited shelves sitting behind me right now. One monumental work was done by Philip Schaff, at the end of the nineteenth century. It is a work of art in the field, and wouldn't suffer from your "fundamentalist" fears since it was written before the Fundamentalist movement! The 8-volume "History of the Christian Church" should be on your shelves, if you want a comprehensive, thorough treatment of the history of Christianity. Schaff is also known for his 38-volume work cataloguing the writings of the early church fathers up to around AD 600.

18589. RickNelson - 11/13/2002 11:20:48 AM

18563 has the text I'm referring to This Creed is clear and its meaning without doubt.

18590. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 11:21:47 AM

Rick,

The Trinity in a nutshell. God exists in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all equal in essence, yet there is still only one God.

The Second Person of the Trinity or Godhead, the Son, the Logos, becomes the man Jesus Christ on earth. In him we have God incarnate, "in the flesh" if you would. Jesus has two natures, one human, the other divine, yet is still only one person.

The Father did not become a human being. The Holy Spirit did not become a human being. Only the Son did.

The incarnation is not "Jesus filled by the Spirit" or something like that. God himself became a man, that is the incarnation.

18591. RickNelson - 11/13/2002 11:24:31 AM

I agree, and yet we discuss it as if we don't agree.

I'm not sure you've read what I posted clearly enough.

I am just adding that it was not literally God on earth but, via the Holy Spirit, God's essence became one with Jesus, thus allowing that essence of God to dwell upon Earth as Jesus. Jesus being a human form.

I still do not see that I have changed anything I've posted from now to yesterday's beginning.

18592. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 11:25:13 AM

Thus my objection to your earlier comments, particularly this one:

"God did not have to come to earth, God's choice was to let his Holy Spirit indwell Jesus, thereby making God's essence a reality upon earth."

No, the historic Christian faith as espoused by Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism is that God in fact DID come to earth. God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, became a man as surely as I am a man. The early ecumenical creeds attest to this, and all three main branches of Christendom confess it.

Again, you can personally disagree. Just don't say you are agreeing with Nicea when you do so!

18593. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 11:27:06 AM

"I still do not see that I have changed anything I've posted from now to yesterday's beginning."

Rick, I gleened your posts from yesterday with jay, because they weren't addressed to me. So I am not implying you have changed your position. I am objecting to your current posts, from today.

That you don't see a difference between what you are saying and what I am saying is my fault, as I am obviously not being clear enough.

18594. RickNelson - 11/13/2002 11:28:04 AM

All to me are one.

I think it's my explaining the method I perceive as truth which trips us up.

I see a clear method which I take from teachings and the words of Jesus as expressed by the first four books, and that is that Jesus sought to express that God was in him. That they are one is our interpretation based upon council discussion from early christendom. Thus the Nicaean Creed is that very expression of human interpretation.

18595. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 11:29:28 AM

"I am just adding that it was not literally God on earth but, via the Holy Spirit, God's essence became one with Jesus, thus allowing that essence of God to dwell upon Earth as Jesus. Jesus being a human form."

This is a classic statement of Adoptionism. Jesus is just a man, born a man, but at some stage God's Spirit comes upon him, making him something more than just a man.

But this is not Trinitarian theology as espoused by the Church.

Here's the difference. The pre-existent Logos, the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, who is God in essence, completely and entirely God in his Being, becomes a man.

Do you see the difference?

18596. RickNelson - 11/13/2002 11:39:48 AM

Yes I see a difference. But your putting words into what I'm posting. I am not stating Adoptionism. That is not what I am saying. That Jesus later became indwelled with God.(to paraphrase what you think I am meaning)

I do not believe that Jesus was born human first and then indwelled. I believe that the Holy birth was virginal, that the Holy Spirit became part of this fetus, via the miracle that God performed for Mary to birth Jesus. Jesus then from the start was part of God, and was indwelled with the Holy Spirit.

The Nicene Creed I posted in 15863 states this as I see it. Please show me otherwise. I accept that we disagree which Creed is sufficeintly pertinent.

18597. PelleNilsson - 11/13/2002 11:44:16 AM

Rick

Your view of Jesus as man + Holy Spirit does in fact smell of the Nestorian heresy.

18598. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 11:44:45 AM

"That Jesus later became indwelled with God.(to paraphrase what you think I am meaning)"

Okay, that is Adoptionism, which you are saying you do not espouse.

"I do not believe that Jesus was born human first and then indwelled. I believe that the Holy birth was virginal, that the Holy Spirit became part of this fetus, via the miracle that God performed for Mary to birth Jesus. Jesus then from the start was part of God, and was indwelled with the Holy Spirit."

Here's the problem. You are confusing the persons of the Godhead. Yes, Mary was miraculous conceived by the Holy Spirit. But here's my problem with your statement, this one phrase you use:

"that the Holy Spirit became part of this fetus"

No, the Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Trinity, if you would. It was the Second Person, the Son, who became a man. Not the Father, not the Holy Spirit.

18600. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 11:47:41 AM

"Jesus then from the start was part of God, and was indwelled with the Holy Spirit"

Again, as you can understand I am sure, the nuts and bolts are in precise terminology of the doctrine. That you say "Jesus then from the start was part of God" is not precise enough. It lends itself to too much misunderstanding of the doctrine.

Jesus was, in his very essence, God incarnate. He wasn't "part of" God. He was God, fully.

18601. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 11:49:54 AM

Again, the Father was not incarnated. The Holy Spirit was not incarnated. But the Son was incarnated.

The Son is fully equal in essence to God. He is God, the Second Person of the Godhead.

As such, God became a man in the person of Jesus Christ.

Somehow, it seems from your posts, you want to get around the statement "God became a man." I'm not sure why, though.

18602. RickNelson - 11/13/2002 11:52:01 AM

I see what you're saying, but I think it's a confussion of what I mean.

The Holy Spirit to me is a third entity of God. That it became one with Jesus via the birth. I stated via the fetus because it is clearer to my human definitions. The two parts of the three which dwelled upon earth are where we seem to split. To me it's not that they are not one, they are one. However, God technically, or literally, as I see it, did not come into being as Jesus, but that part of God in its three parts which made up Jesus as the son of God. These to me are the two parts of one. The Holy Spirit and the son. This does not mean, at least not to me, that there is a seperation of the three. The essence of God is to me the same as God.

Therefore I am actually contradicting myself. But, I don't think so. The essence is different than the actual. This is my interpretation.

18603. RickNelson - 11/13/2002 11:59:01 AM

Somehow, it seems from your posts, you want to get around the statement "God became a man." I'm not sure why, though.

The why of it is because the sense of it becomes less clear.

Why would God literally come to earth? That is not plainly evident to me.

That his essence would seems more real to me. He let Jesus make some very important choices. That would indicate to me that Jesus was not actually God. As the essence of God, I see clearly that Jesus was a human form. This is why.

18604. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 11:59:15 AM

I'm not sure I entirely follow what you mean. So let me try this.

Had the man Jesus never existed, God would still exist in Trinity: three persons who we call Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Son, the pre-existent Logos, who is also fully God, became the man Jesus Christ.

Again, God exists in three persons. Each person is fully God, yet there is only one God.

One of these persons became incarnate, the other two persons did not.

What I think you are saying is that God exists in three PARTS, and one of these parts, with the cooperation of another part, because Jesus. This, however, would not be the traditional understanding of either the Trinity or the incarnation. Is this a correct understanding of what you believe?

18605. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 12:01:57 PM

When I teach my 'Doctrine of God' course I ask the students to give me some examples of the Trinity. Almost always, someone says, "An apple. Just like an apple has three parts, the core, the flesh of the apple, and the skin, so does the Trinity." Or they use an egg, albumen, yolk, and shell.

But this is not the Trinity. Why? Is the albumen the whole egg? No, it is only part of it. But the Trinitarian doctrine states that the Father is COMPLETELY God. The Son is COMPLETELY God. The Holy Spirit is COMPLETELY God.

I think you are thinking of the Trinity in terms of the analogy of an apple or egg.

18606. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 12:04:11 PM

"Why would God literally come to earth?"

That is the beauty of the Gospel. God did what man could not do. He paid the penalty for our sins, the penalty that was in fact against him. In other words, God loved us enough to 1) satisfy his justice by having the penalty paid for, and 2) paying it himself in the person of Jesus Christ.

18607. RickNelson - 11/13/2002 12:06:10 PM

I see what you're getting at and my meaning is a fine line between "three parts" and the three are one.

No, I do not see the Trinity as three parts.

They are one, yet I use the word essence to indicate how the one can use itself to become human. This is the way I as a human can understand the how of God's method. It is just as the Niaean Council used their discussions to come up with an acceptable creed, I am using my understanding to make sure that the Trinity makes sense to me.

18608. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 12:08:51 PM

Well, nobody ever said it would be easy! ;-)

18609. RickNelson - 11/13/2002 12:10:45 PM

Scripture used literally can trip up meaning for me.

To pick it out, to use what is there, out of the context of the other passages before and after makes its use suspect. That isn't to say that the interpreted meaning of the learned person, a theologian, is wrong. I'm not literaly saying that.

I'm saying it could be used to manipulate, to stear a discussion, to create a way of believing. This is my intellecualization of scripture use in religion. My skepticism takes me to this, because humans fail, where God does not.

I use very strong belief that God is and the Trinity gave me a chance to have salvation. The method is what we are discussing to be sure.

18610. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 12:13:16 PM

"To pick it out, to use what is there, out of the context of the other passages before and after makes its use suspect."

Something else I tell my students when it comes to the rules of Hermeneutics: The First Ten Rules of Hermeneutics:

Context
Context
Context
Context
Context
Context
Context
Context
Context
Context

18611. RickNelson - 11/13/2002 12:14:21 PM

I hope to check in again kuligin. This discussion is helpful. I am not challenging you persay. We believe the same basic thing about Jesus and God. The method and our word choices seem to need further discussion. I've got to get to work on my house, therefore I table this until, next we meet here.

Thanks,

Best regards,

Rick

18612. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 12:14:42 PM

Maybe I should call them "The Ten Commandments of Hermeneutics."

18613. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 12:16:47 PM

Bye Rick. Thanks for the conversation!

18614. PelleNilsson - 11/13/2002 12:17:21 PM

Rick

Why do you "want to understand God's method"? God is beyond understanding. The Nicean creed is not an explanation, it is about defining how the good Christian should view the holy mystery of the Trinity. It draws the line against the many heretic lines of thinking that flourished at the time.

18615. kuliginthehooligan - 11/13/2002 12:52:47 PM

"God is beyond understanding."

Unless, of course, he chooses to reveal things about himself so that we, his creatures, may know him and have a relationship with him. Will we know everything about him? Of course not. But we can know what he has chosen to reveal to us about himself.

18616. PelleNilsson - 11/13/2002 2:23:56 PM

Quite so. My friendly criticism of Rick is that he seems to bring an engineer's mind to doctrine, treating it as a manual to the working of God's mind, which it isn't.

I want to clarify a point. As you know, I'm not a Christian. But for any student of history Christianity and the evolution of its doctrine is of deep interest.

18617. Cellar Door - 11/13/2002 5:21:22 PM

"Will we know everything about him? Of course not. But we can know what he has chosen to reveal to us about himself."

I'm exactly the same way. That's why all my tricks exclaim "You're God!" when nestled in my arms.

18618. anomieme - 11/13/2002 8:13:03 PM

Kuligin,

We may as well stop. The original topic has grown cold and you simply don't want to stay anywhere near it. FWIW, nobody gives a damn about what I think of the historical Jesus. I don't even think you care. I think you just want to rant. So, I'll post this and then I'm finished (worn down by your minutia and bickering), unless you go back to the main topic. You can have the last shout if it pleases you.

- The problem with your paraphrase is that it more strongly implied the actual existance of Jesus than I intended, and it framed an altogether different question to you...and what's more it was taken out of context in the sense that my remarks were made for the sake of a certain argument and not to express my true opinions. It would have been simple enough to use my own words. Why didn't you?

- I think (me, personally thinks) Jesus is a historical figure. I don't think the New Testament is an unbiased account of his life or his sayings, however. As anyone with a general interest on the subject knows, there is scant evidence of his actual persona outside the NT, and even some of those few references are often disputed. But since the risk is low, and we're simply discussing his existence and not his "Godhood", I don't mind adding him to a list of lesser-validated historical figures.

I don't mind saying something like: "NT writers claimed Jesus healed the sick". You, OTOH, simply say: "Jesus healed the sick". I would never agree with a statement like that. Same answer for Buddha and the Hindu God of your choice. Whether you understand me or not, that's the end of my comments on this subject.

18619. anomieme - 11/13/2002 8:16:12 PM

KtH,


Now...my answer to one of your other off-topic questions: If what Jesus is reported to have taught is the truth, then it is NOT abuse (as I've conceded all along!!!).

Now, for the sake of arguing religious "truth" as a justification for indoctrinating children, I can't "prove" his existence, because we haven't agreed on a standard for such that would satisfy you - or me. Nor can I "prove" the truth of anything he is reported to have said.

If you can prove it, have at it and stop talking about Buddha. We'll wait.

You didn't comment any further on your numbers-duration-words-on-paper factors, so I assume you see the weakness of that tack. If you think you have a valid test, standard, or criterion we can use to assess religious veracity, just say so. Otherwise, cut the crap about the "truth", and agree with me that millions of kids are being lied to. I'm making this real easy for you, Kuligin.

18620. anomieme - 11/13/2002 8:23:50 PM

If anyone cares what I personally believe, I BELIEVE mankind is naturally religious. We appear to need experiences and rituals that help us deal with the mysteries of existence and that help us form social groups. I would go along with what Judith said about teaching religion and letting children/people come to their own conclusions.

I HOPE we evolve to the point where we understand the harm caused by some religious beliefs and eventually regard them in a historical and human rights context. Abhorance of racial segregation is an example of something we have start on as a civilization. We could eventually expose certain other unacceptable religious dogma and treat it with similar education and disdain.

...and Pigs won't soon fly, I know.

18621. anomieme - 11/13/2002 8:24:17 PM

it = them

18622. kuliginthehooligan - 11/14/2002 4:42:48 AM

anomieme

Well, that's disappointing. You came in here saying that certain religious teachings constituted "mental abuse," and I have asked you several times if you would categorize the teaching of Jesus Christ, as found in the Bible, as such.

And all you do is say I am skirting the issue, ranting, trying to change the topic, yadda yadda yadda.

I am merely addressing YOUR original comment and asking for further clarification. And you keep dodging it.

Oh, yeah, and you dodge it by basically saying you don't know if Jesus ever existed, that the words in the Bible may not be his, yadda yadda yadda.

Here's the point. GIVEN THE WORDS IN THE BIBLE attributed to Jesus - the words, btw, that Christendom has been built upon -would you constitute them as "mental abuse" given your use of the phrase? There is no changing of topic or ranting here. Just answer the question, on a topic YOUR introduced. Or don't you recall your own posts?

18623. kuliginthehooligan - 11/14/2002 4:45:13 AM

"I'll post this and then I'm finished (worn down by your minutia and bickering), unless you go back to the main topic."

I've been on the main topic and have been on the main topic since you first posts. It is YOU who has attempted to get away from the main topic, not me! There's my question, based on the MAIN TOPIC from your ORIGINAL comments about mental abuse. Why not just answer the simple question, anomieme, instead of all this floundering and posturing? It directly addresses your main comments, to which, btw, I was not the only one who objected. Stop trying to change the topic, just answer my ON TOPIC question.

18624. kuliginthehooligan - 11/14/2002 4:46:50 AM

"The original topic has grown cold and you simply don't want to stay anywhere near it."

The original topic was "religious mental abuse" if I can phrase it that way. And my question, which you have yet to answer, concerns it and the teaching of Jesus. You have tried every thing imaginable to skirt that question, Lord knows why.

18625. kuliginthehooligan - 11/14/2002 4:49:41 AM

Now comes what can only be called a half-hearted answer;

"Now...my answer to one of your other off-topic questions: If what Jesus is reported to have taught is the truth, then it is NOT abuse (as I've conceded all along!!!)."

You have been at best entirely unclear and unhelpful. You have said that belief in sacrifice, in calling people sinners and the like constituted "mental abuse." Now you are telling me that my question about Jesus and this issue is "off-topic," and further, you do NOT think his teaching as found in the Bible constituted mental abuse. Why not?! He spoke of the very things you so much disdain.

I can only conclude, then, that you are completely unfamiliar with the teaching of Jesus as found in the Bible.

18626. kuliginthehooligan - 11/14/2002 4:50:40 AM

"agree with me that millions of kids are being lied to."

If they are being taught the nonsense you spout in this thread, then yes, I agree with you.

18627. kuliginthehooligan - 11/14/2002 4:52:51 AM

On another topic, I read today about Bush's comments directed at those people in America who have had bad things to say about Islam. In fact, I say my first instance of the term "Islamophobia" used in the article. It was only a matter of time, right?

Anyway, Pat Robertson said something to the effect that Hitler wanted to do bad things to Jews, but Muslims want to do even worse. Is this such a bad thing to have said? Are others completely abhored by such a statement as this?

18628. kuliginthehooligan - 11/14/2002 5:06:52 AM

Here's your ORIGINAL comments, to which I originally objected anomieme:

"I think we could make a case that some religious practices are abusive and children in such environments should be protected. I would include most Christian sects in the abusive groups . . . "

"It's time to give some thought as to whether religion in general is abusive to children, especially the calvinistic and Christian teachings that begin with telling a child he is unworthy, etc" (both from post # 18435)

Then this one from a post just a little later:

"What do we expect our lids [sic] to learn there? I find the Christian culture of sin and sacrifice, ritual and Satan to be mentally abusive." (post #18444)

Jesus as found in the Bible spoke of sin, sacrifice, Satan, and so on. So, we can conclude, anomieme, that the teaching from Jesus as found in the Bible is mental abuse, as you categorize it, correct?

18629. anomieme - 11/14/2002 8:40:09 AM

Here's another concession for you, Kulligin. Even if (especially if!) true, the teachings of your Jesus are abusive because he (according to your belief) made the unfair rules he preaches about. Your God and your Jesus, if they exist and if what the Bible says is true, are many times worse than abusers. So, either way, yuo are right, If it's untrue, it's abuse. If it's true, it's worse. You win. I'm sure you'll be laughing all the way to heaven as your fellow humans line up for the furnace.

18630. RickNelson - 11/14/2002 10:09:30 AM

anomieme,

I think there is a problem with your statements about religions being mental abuse. It may take a while to consider if I have a response to it.


If I can use my own words as a statement and question, I wish to see if I understand you.

Religions are mental abuse is the premise, is it not?

The idea being, espousing a set of morals, rules for living, conveyed to the young as if they will be sinners, bound to damnation, elicits fear and perhaps self loathing. I'm wondering if I'm on the right track?

I don't agree, but I wonder if this is where the idea leads?

18631. Cellar Door - 11/14/2002 10:45:32 AM

As Dark as the Inside of a Nun.

18632. judithathome - 11/14/2002 11:19:08 AM

conveyed to the young as if they will be sinners, bound to damnation, elicits fear and perhaps self loathing.

But Rick, I thought the young are "born in sin" leading one to believe thay are sinners from the get-go, without having done one thing wrong. How does one begin to comprehend that attitude, that they are a sinner no matter what they have or have not done?

18633. kuliginthehooligan - 11/14/2002 2:55:15 PM

Thank you for your direct answer (finally!) anomieme. It's a pity, though, that you believe the teaching of Jesus as found in the Bible to constitute mental abuse. That's about the wackiest notion I have run into in quite some time, but hey, who said you were normal?! :-)

Now, if you are interested in comparing religious beliefs and how one determines religious truth, "proofs" if you would, then I'm game. Let's see where the discussion leads.

judith

"How does one begin to comprehend that attitude, that they are a sinner no matter what they have or have not done?"

By the time one could "comprehend" such a notion, the person is obviously old enough to have sinned.

18634. judithathome - 11/14/2002 2:59:55 PM

Oh right...so sinnful, these four or five year olds.

18635. judithathome - 11/14/2002 3:00:59 PM

If you tell a child he is sinful from day one, he will surely believe it and become a sinner. Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb, after all.

18636. theDiva - 11/14/2002 4:30:17 PM

Kuligin, could you talk a little, please, about the age of reason and the age of accountability? I believe it might bring the discussion into focus.

18637. judithathome - 11/14/2002 4:32:10 PM

Diva, does the bible not say we are all born in sin? Or of sin?

18638. theDiva - 11/14/2002 4:53:39 PM

Here's what the CCC says about original sin:

"404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".[293] By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.[294] It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act."

The Church teaches that when an infant is baptized, the sin is washed away from the soul and the child receives the grace associated with the sacrament.

Whether Scripture states that we are born of sin, I am not sure. I somehow doubt it. Vic probably knows.

18639. judithathome - 11/14/2002 4:59:58 PM

Seems odd to me that baptism washes away a sin one is not aware of...but of course, it seems odd to me that people are born sinful, whatever the meaning of the "state" or "act".

I'm going to let it rest...it's clear I disagree with this idea and I doubt I could be convinced to accept it. But thanks for the explanation.

18640. theDiva - 11/14/2002 5:05:31 PM

well, of course it seems odd to you. You don't follow Christian doctrine.

18641. judithathome - 11/14/2002 5:29:08 PM

I know...it probably seems odd to you that I don't, too. ;-)

18642. theDiva - 11/14/2002 5:31:01 PM

No. Different strokes.

18643. anomieme - 11/14/2002 7:11:50 PM

Diva,

The text you quoted seems to blame Adam for our sinful nature, but I think the buck should stop with God. God created the garden and the man, the tree, and the fruit, and the temptor, and the female, and the sin. Therefore, it seems to me, God is the originator of our sinful nature. Adam was a victim, as are all the unsaved.

18644. anomieme - 11/14/2002 7:13:50 PM

KtH,

Wacky - huh? I take that as a compliment coming from you, Kuligin, but please don't make me out to be a more innovative thinker than I am. Western civilization has been tempering cruel, ignorant, rigid, unreasonable religious practices for some time. I dare say even your denomination allows mixed bathing these days.

And, difficult as it was to nudge you on, it's nice to see you're "finally" back on topic.

So, here's where we are: "Truth" was YOUR issue, not mine. All I asked for is your standard (or criteria) for it. I don't think we can construct such a framework, so my question may as well be rhetorical, but feel free to give us your dissertation on how to test for religious truth as regards the indoctrination of children.

18645. anomieme - 11/14/2002 7:24:03 PM

Rick, Yes, you get me, and I understand you don't agree. Cheers to that.

But here's a little more of my opinion. Society regards children as chattel when it comes to religion.

TransientLa posted a great link a while back (I wish I still had it), that describes what I mean to some extent. One example from that article has to do with the language we often use. We say... "Christian children", as opposed to something more accurate like, "Children of Christian parents". We force the religious label on people before they can make up their own minds.

To answer your immediate question, yes I do think teaching kids that they are sinners is harmful. I think Christianity in particular embraces some pretty horrible and objectionable ideas: Predestination (if that's your bag) teaches hopelessness, for just one instance. Worse, some parents withhold medical care. Snake handling is forced on youngsters. The Amish deprive their kids of modern culture. And so on. Some doctrines are designed to scare, control and subjugate people from childhood to adulthood. We teach our kids about the shepherd and the lost lamb, and then have lamb chops for lunch - a PG-13 story at least, I think. The entire idea of a God who would create beings to suffer and to be doomed is absurd. And then... to lead a child into this gruesomeness by telling a sweet Sunday school story about how God cares for one lost sheep while he slaughters the rest is pretty darn weird.

But I wouldn't stop with Christianity. There's ideas like karma, samsara, and dharma. Some say these beliefs help support caste systems that keep people in poverty and misery. There's suicide bombing with the promise of immediate paradise. You get the idea.

18646. anomieme - 11/14/2002 7:24:59 PM

continued...

Religions can adjust to civilized societies, and I wish they would do so more quickly. As I mentioned earlier, Racial segregation is not too popular anymore - (Although it would still be legal to teach our kids whatever we want about it). Christians tend to give women more respect these days. Such improvements often include a reinterpretation of scriptures previously thought sacred. Christians, to their credit, often reinterpret the bible to make needed improvements over the archaic expressions of the past. Perhaps others do too. I think we should encourage more changes and accelerate them as much as possible to bring some of our religions up to date.

So, I say we should protect our kids from religious coersion and let them make up their minds later. That's my wacky take on things.

18647. judithathome - 11/14/2002 9:24:47 PM

anomieme:

I sent you a short message a few days ago. Did you get it and if not, has your address changed?

18648. anomieme - 11/14/2002 11:03:36 PM

Hi Judith,

No, I didn't get it. I switched from MSN to Earthlink. My email's the same name except now it's earthlink.net instead of msn.com

I sent one to your about the 21 thread and didn't get a response. Figured you were busy. I'll try again.

18649. judithathome - 11/14/2002 11:05:57 PM

Oh, please resend...I sent it to the old one!

18650. anomieme - 11/14/2002 11:08:25 PM

Done!

18651. judithathome - 11/14/2002 11:14:59 PM

Also done!

18652. kuliginthehooligan - 11/15/2002 7:40:55 AM

"Oh right...so sinnful [sic], these four or five year olds."

That's correct. The heart of sin is disobedience, and a four or five year old can be very disobedient, know he is being disobedient, and do it just the same. You should have experience with that. Or was your Christian cum Buddhist son never disobedient? ;-)

Diva,

There are several views concerning the sin of Adam and how it is transmitted to the rest of humanity. You have provided one such answer, the "semenal" view if you would, i.e., that all humans were "in Adam" at the time he sinned. Therefore, we sinned in Adam.

However, there is another view called the "federal headship" view which basically states that Adam was our representative and because he fell, we all fell with him due to the fact that he represented all of humanity. Those who find this unfair would then have to find Jesus as our representative equally unfair.

As for the "age of accountability" that does not discount original sin, but only says you aren't held accountable for your sin until you understand what "sin" is (however you then define what sin is). I have seen some people say you aren't held accountable until you reach puberty, but that seems a far stretch. In any event, an age of accountability is difficult if not impossible to support from Scripture.

18653. judithathome - 11/15/2002 7:53:57 AM

Or was your Christian cum Buddhist son never disobedient? ;-)

My son was human and allowed to be. He learned from his mistakes just as we all do and not to be maudlin but he also learned from nature's mistakes that sometimes evil befalls those who are doing nothing to deserve it.

18654. theDiva - 11/15/2002 8:31:16 AM

ano

that's an interesting take on it.


Vic

thanks. I wondered whether there was some Scriptural take on accountability.

18655. theDiva - 11/15/2002 8:31:40 AM

...age of accountability....

18656. kuliginthehooligan - 11/15/2002 10:08:02 AM

judith

Could you give me a brief idea of what your understanding of God is? Do you believe God exists, and if so, what kind of God is he?

I think it may also be interesting given the general discussion that will hopefully ensue about religious belief systems and measuring the trustworthiness of one against the other.

As for your son, of course we make "mistakes." But that can also be a kinder, gentler word to use than "sin." However, in some instances, "mistake" is not the appropriate word, especially when what one does is willful and knowingly wrong to do, something we ALL do. That's the universality of the sinful nature of humans.

18657. Cellar Door - 11/15/2002 11:31:30 AM

The REAL Enemy.

18658. judithathome - 11/15/2002 1:50:29 PM

That's the universality of the sinful nature of humans.

Kuligin, it is my opinion that no one can live without sin. We sin almost every hour in one way or another. I just don't think it's all that earth shattering, myself.

You call people names or let your temper or ego get the best of you and you've sinned. I do the same. But I try to improve myself when I see what I'm doing. I'm sure you pray to be forgiven of any sin you may have committed. I skip the prayer and forgive myself because I'm the only one who can change myself.

I don't believe in God except as something you and other Christians belive in...for me, nature and time move my world. And no, I have no idea who created them; I feel they are things which have always been and if not, it's just not that important for me to pin down how they came to be.

18659. kuliginthehooligan - 11/15/2002 2:04:29 PM

judith, thanks for your response. I think there is (obviously) part of the problem between us. You don't view sin as that big of a deal, mistakes really, and I view it as an affront to a holy God. That makes all the difference, especially when it comes to one's view of Jesus and what he did.

"it's just not that important for me to pin down how they came to be"

Why isn't it important to you? Suppose God does exist and he expects certain things from you? Do you not care? Have you investigated various answers to this age-old issue?

cellardoor, I rarely, if ever, go to your hotlinks, but for some odd reason, I did the last one. Quite interesting, if you are into conspiracy theories and such. Some of the things said therein are off base, but on the whole, it describes well a bunch of kooks who are no threat whatsoever.

18660. kuliginthehooligan - 11/15/2002 2:05:55 PM

cellardoor

Did you see what happened today with several gay translators in the US Army, I think it was (some branch of the armed forces)? They were expelled for being gay, I think at least half a dozen of them. I was surprised how many there were! Does translation work attract homosexual men???

18661. judithathome - 11/15/2002 2:34:37 PM

Suppose God does exist and he expects certain things from you? Do you not care? Have you investigated various answers to this age-old issue?

No, I don't care...I guess the joke will be on me, huh? And yes, I've read quite a bit on the subject.

I view some sins as a big deal and it's funny that you would think I see all sin as the same. I don't. But I don't think a person is "going to hell" for cursing the same as one is "going to hell" for murder. There are degrees of sin just as there are degress of goodness.

18662. judithathome - 11/15/2002 2:35:50 PM

Does translation work attract homosexual men???

No, the military does.

18663. judithathome - 11/15/2002 2:36:37 PM

"An Army OF One (Out Of Ten Are Gay)"

18664. Cellar Door - 11/15/2002 2:39:32 PM

I wish I could be as convinced as you are that these people are "of no threat whatsoever." Many of their thoughts find a tinny echo in Falwell and Robertson.

The translator story is truly amazing. Apparently gays are a greater threat than Al Queda.

18665. kuliginthehooligan - 11/15/2002 2:46:38 PM

"There are degrees of sin just as there are degress of goodness."

We are agreed on this point, at least. However, when the benchmark is perfection, even the "slightest" sin is enough to make one fall short.

cellardoor

If you find people like Falwell or Robertson a "threat" then I see your point. But I don't see them as a threat. I see them more on the fringe. I mean, really, do you honestly believe that our great country will one day chuck democracy for a Christian theocracy?? Hardly!

I'm curious how many Arabic translators they have left?! I failed to point out that "small" piece of information. All these gay translators were Arabic translators! Seems incredibly odd to me.

18666. Cellar Door - 11/15/2002 2:54:34 PM

"I mean, really, do you honestly believe that our great country will one day chuck democracy for a Christian theocracy?? Hardly!"

Wellwe've already got Opus Dei on the Supreme Court.

Bush, thankfully, has distanced himself from Robertson and Falwell's recent attacks on Islam. But most of the time he follows the RR script.

"I'm curious how many Arabic translators they have left?! I failed to point out that "small" piece of information."

Good question. From the artilces I've read I get the impression that good translators are hard to come by. And with so much trouble going on in that region of the world we need all the help we can get, no?

" All these gay translators were Arabic translators! Seems incredibly odd to me."

Blame it on Maria Montez movies!

18667. judithathome - 11/15/2002 3:00:47 PM

However, when the benchmark is perfection, even the "slightest" sin is enough to make one fall short.

Well, that takes me back to Anomieme's point about it being abusive...no one can ever reach perfection. It's usless to try because it can never be attained. Expecting to attain perfection and always falling short of that goal could warp a person...look at anorexic girls. They have a perfect ideal they hope to reach and they can never do it; some die trying.

I think perfection is a dangerous benchmark...the "slightest sin" precludes any hope of being perfect and it's cruel to expect it.

18668. Al D - 11/15/2002 5:07:02 PM

Martk Twain is said to have said Christianity is a wonderful religion. It's a shame no one has ever tried it.If the Bible is correct, we simply need to know that God is love.

And God is a mystery beyond our comprehesion, so when we think we understand God, we are wrong. The most we can do is love, and easy to say, hard to do.

18669. anomieme - 11/15/2002 6:35:32 PM

Al D,

Wouldn't it be nice if that really were the Christian message? Too bad we had to muck it up with sin and all that.

18670. anomieme - 11/15/2002 6:38:38 PM

Cellar,

Great link. I don't share Kuligin's optimism. Note the recent POLITICAL flap about "under God". Then there's prayer in school, and burning witches. Oh wait, maybe they don't want to burn witches anymore -- progress!

18671. kuliginthehooligan - 11/16/2002 4:45:05 AM

Judith

"no one can ever reach perfection. It's usless to try because it can never be attained. Expecting to attain perfection and always falling short of that goal could warp a person...look at anorexic girls."

I think you missed the point, albeit I didn't really bring it up in my post but assumed it. Perfection is indeed the goal, but whereas you think I believe people can attain or should try, I don't. That is the reason why Jesus - God in the flesh - came and took the penalty for us. He did attain perfection, he was without sin, and as such, he earned a perfect righteousness that is given to us as a free gift.

So you see, the "solution" to the perfection problem is not to ignore sin or belittle it, or to keep trying and trying and trying for perfection, hoping to get it. It is simply to surrender to the love and mercy of Christ.

Because nothing short of the perfection found in Christ will be satisfactory to a holy, perfect God.

18672. kuliginthehooligan - 11/16/2002 4:46:18 AM

If telling someone they are a sinner in need of forgiveness, but God has mercifully provided a way for that forgiveness by becoming a man and taking the penalty we deserve - if that is "mental abuse" - then that is about ths fishiest use of that term I have ever seen!

18673. kuliginthehooligan - 11/16/2002 4:51:31 AM

"I don't share Kuligin's optimism. Note the recent POLITICAL flap about "under God". Then there's prayer in school, and burning witches."

Yes, I recall seeing Falwell and Robertson at that witch burning celebration just the other day! You see, that is what people like anomieme must resort to, fear mongering. Otherwise, they really don't haved a leg to stand on.


cellardoor,

"Bush, thankfully, has distanced himself from Robertson and Falwell's recent attacks on Islam."

I don't know why you say "thankfully." You know, even Hitler said some things that were correct. When Robertson and Falwell point out the negative side of Islam, they are dead-on accurate. The things they said about Islam, although I don't know ALL they said, but the things I saw that they said, weren't bad at all. You must keep in mind that Islam is AT ITS HEART a religion of war. When Bush claims Islam is a "peace-loving" religion, I have to laugh. The only "peace" Islam envisions it total conquest. If you do not submit, holy jihad is not suggested, it is commanded.

The thing people need to realize about the Koran and Mohammed and the religion he left behind is that Bin Laden is actually the TRUE Muslim. These moderates have watered down the message of Mohammed. Bin Laden embodies everything correct about Mohammed and his teaching. Those who say otherwise have a large amount of ignorance concerning Islam and what it wants.

18674. kuliginthehooligan - 11/16/2002 4:52:59 AM

"Wouldn't it be nice if that really were the Christian message? Too bad we had to muck it up with sin and all that."

Yeah, I know, that Jesus, what a horrible bloke he was, talking about sin and all that nonsense. I mean, had he only taught the "true" Christian message, we, uh, hey, wait a minute, Jesus Christ is the FOUNDER of Christianity. I forgot that small part!

18675. judithathome - 11/16/2002 9:57:16 AM

The only "peace" Islam envisions it total conquest. If you do not submit, holy jihad is not suggested, it is commanded.

The only way to "peace" Christianity envisions is total submission. If you do not submit, hell and damnation is not suggested, it is commanded.

18676. anomieme - 11/16/2002 10:28:00 AM

That's it, Judith. But while some Christians sling dirt at Islam and other religions, they fail to account for the cruelty at the heart of their own beliefs.

18677. anomieme - 11/16/2002 10:30:19 AM

Is it just me, or did Bush word his statement on Islam very, very carefully? He used words like "this government" and the so on. He never said "I" or "me". This leaves open the possibility we don't know what his personal views on Islam are.

I saw it only only briefly on the news so maybe I missed something.

18678. anomieme - 11/16/2002 10:31:32 AM

Kuligin,

Can you give us just one view on why God burdened us with sin in the first place?

18679. anomieme - 11/16/2002 10:31:36 AM

Kuligin,

Can you give us just one view on why God burdened us with sin in the first place?

18680. anomieme - 11/16/2002 10:32:01 AM

sorry

18681. kuliginthehooligan - 11/16/2002 10:37:18 AM

judith,

I figured I wouldn't have to spell out the difference, but alas, your kneejerk posts continue. So here it is.

The OFFICIAL position of Mohammed and Islam is to conquer, both spiritually AND physically if need be, all those people who do not submit to the will of Allah. Bin Laden carries out his Muslim beliefs perfectly (at least, he tries to). Those who say Islam is "peace loving" simply don't understand the religion, its founder, or its holy book.

Whereas, with Christianity, the quintessential example is Christ. When Mohammed was opposed for his message and run out of town, he formed an army, came back and killed those people who opposed him. Jesus did the exact opposite. The very heart of the two religions is vastly different.

So when a Christian kills in the name of Jesus, he is doing that which Jesus would have opposed vehemently. But when a Muslim kills in the name of Mohammed, he does that which he is commanded by his founder and religion to do.

Can I make it any clearer, or do you still need to post your kneejerk, snide reactions??

18682. kuliginthehooligan - 11/16/2002 10:39:17 AM

"If you do not submit, hell and damnation is not suggested, it is commanded."

There is a vast difference between what God can do and what man can do. Your use of "commanded" in the above statement, therefore, is totally misplaced and makes you look ignorant, albeit I assume you are just being a jerk.

That God will send you to hell for your sins against him is not a question, especially in the mind of Jesus. That *I* am commanded to kill you so as to send you there sooner than later, well, Mohammed may have liked that notion, but Jesus would have none of it.

18683. kuliginthehooligan - 11/16/2002 10:40:07 AM

anomieme

God did not burden us with sin. We did it ourselves.

18684. judithathome - 11/16/2002 11:27:16 AM

I thought Adam did it.

18685. judithathome - 11/16/2002 11:41:43 AM

Kuligin, one of the things you sorely lack is a genuine sense of humor. There is no need for you condescend to me about the differences in Islam and Christianity. I was messing with you and you chose to look on it as me being a jerk. Fine. I'm a jerk; Cellar is an idiot; Anomieme is an ass...you immediately jump to insults and condescending remarks whenever any of us attempts to insert a little levity into these proceedings.

You needn't be so overbearing; you are not the ONLY intelligent person in this forum and we are not your students hoping for a decent grade. I like reading your posts and appreciate that you know far more than I about your subject but your manner is a huge turn off.

18686. anomieme - 11/16/2002 12:00:19 PM

Kuligin, You must be spinning up to give that proof of truth. Is bashing other beliefs your best start?

18687. anomieme - 11/16/2002 12:02:04 PM

KtH,

God created man, but someone else gave him his sinful nature? Who is this someone else?

God created everything, but not the concept of sin? Who is your other mystery creator?

18688. kuliginthehooligan - 11/16/2002 12:46:56 PM

"you immediately jump to insults and condescending remarks whenever any of us attempts to insert a little levity into these proceedings."

Well, I may not be this way if it weren't for your CONSTANT snide and derogatory comments about my faith and religious beliefs. For all your talk about your self-proclaimed tolerance, you are one of the most intolerant people in this thread when it comes to evangelical Christianity. You CONSTANTLY make mean-spirited, sarcastic, snide comments about my faith. So excuse me if I don't take your little "jokes" lightly.

And btw, I've been here long enough to know when someone is really "joking" and when someone just hides behind the "Oh, I was just joking" line. You do it often enough judith.

Let's see how well you'd do if someone constantly attacked your beliefs and belittled them, oh ye of such tolerance.

18689. kuliginthehooligan - 11/16/2002 12:48:35 PM

anomieme

God created man with a free will to either obey or disobey Him. Man chose to disobey.

And so now, I have to put up with people like you and judith.

ha ha ha ha

That's a joke judith, get it?

18690. kuliginthehooligan - 11/16/2002 12:50:29 PM

To put it another way, anomieme, every time you are asshole in this thread, it isn't because somebody else is forcing you to be. So you can't use the excuse, as you seem fishing to do, "God made me do it." You did it yourself.

The same goes with Adam. God gave him the freedom to choose. Adam wasn't forced to sin. Adam did that which was according to his own will, which was to disobey God and thus to sin against Him. God didn't force him to do it. Adam freely chose it himself.

18691. kuliginthehooligan - 11/16/2002 12:52:07 PM

"Is bashing other beliefs your best start?"

It seems to be what you do best, anomieme. I haven't seen anything constructed come from you since I started posting to you several days ago. Just a constant barage of negativity and sarcasm. So before you attempt to place that shoe on my foot, you ought to try it on yourself first.

18692. kuliginthehooligan - 11/16/2002 12:54:34 PM

I will tell you what Jesus has told us. We are sinners in need repentance and the forgiveness which comes from God. God is holy and demands that sin be dealt with. Jesus taught us that those people who reject this message, his message of sin and repentance, are destined to spend and eternity in Hell.

This is what Jesus told us. If anybody disagrees with Jesus, well, I'm sure that soon enough you will be answering directly to him and you need not be bothered by my intolerance. So continue your snide little remarks, and continue to belittle the message of salvation that Jesus preached. I wish you well, but I'm not so sure God is amused.

18693. anomieme - 11/16/2002 12:58:33 PM

Kuligin, You know I love and appreciate you...

The free will thing -huh? Okay, I have my own free will and I say that sin against my will. Therefore, I will that there be no sin. So, as far as my life is concerned, there was no problem in the garden in the garden at all and everything was good. In fact, I will it for everyone else. No sin.

Can I do that, Kuligin? Just how far does your free-will defense for God go?

18694. anomieme - 11/16/2002 1:02:51 PM

Kuligin, It's your literal take on the bible that, according to you, makes God out to be someone who purposely puts our everlasting (presumambly) souls at jeopardy. Whe you explain that God will make innumerabl souls suffer for an eternity, you can expect some resistance.

18695. anomieme - 11/16/2002 1:04:15 PM

Here's an "n" and an "e" for that last post.

18696. judithathome - 11/16/2002 1:11:23 PM

Let's see how well you'd do if someone constantly attacked your beliefs and belittled them, oh ye of such tolerance.

I think I've been doing quite well, considering your every post to me consists of exactly that.

I've had enough of your lectures and your disdain to last me for awhile so I will leave you to your business.

18697. judithathome - 11/16/2002 1:15:18 PM

You CONSTANTLY make mean-spirited, sarcastic, snide comments about my faith

Just a parting remark: if my sarcasm and mean-spirited snideness is the worst you ever hear in opposition to your faith, then you are truly blessed.

18698. kuliginthehooligan - 11/16/2002 2:18:03 PM

"I think I've been doing quite well, considering your every post to me consists of exactly that."

And here's the heart of your hyperbole, Judith. As of just yesterday, I didn't know what you beliefs were. That's why I had to ask you if you even believed in the existence of God or not. The only thing I do with you in this thread is CONSTANTLY defend myself against your belittling remarks and attacks against my faith. That's all I ever do when it comes to you. Each and every time I see you post here and see a comment my way, it is ALWAYS a sarcastic or belittling remark against my faith and religious beliefs. And that is not hyperbole!

Do you want me really to go back over the last couple of days and add up all the posts you make which belittle my beliefs? Do you even know how often you do this?? It is constant.

So before you get all hurt and bothered, consider yourself for a moment. Consider your intolerance and bitterness. Consider the disdain you exhibit against my faith and my beliefs. Consider your own foul behaviour.

18699. kuliginthehooligan - 11/16/2002 2:18:50 PM

“So, as far as my life is concerned, there was no problem in the garden in the garden at all and everything was good. In fact, I will it for everyone else. No sin. Can I do that, Kuligin?”

Assuming that when you are talking you are “pretending” to be God in your scenario, anomieme, I think you could do that if you were willing to make humans robots or puppets. Adam, though, was neither. He could act and will as he saw fit. That is how God made him.

Now, of course, you may claim that God is at fault anyway for even making Adam with the ability to sin. At that point I’d object. If I make a golf club meant for good use, and you use it to bash in, say, judith’s head, am I as the golf club maker culpable for your ill behaviour? Hardly. Adam’s freewill was a gift from God, and Adam misused it. As humans have been doing ever since.

As for my “literal take” on the Bible, yes, if what you mean is I take the words of Jesus at face value, then that is my “problem” I suppose. And yes, I would expect some resistance from people concerning the message of Jesus on the matter of sin and hell. It is not a comfortable teaching to say the least!

18700. kuliginthehooligan - 11/16/2002 2:21:30 PM

Judith, you live in a world where God may or may not exist, and you just don't care. You are like a child playing on the train tracks, oblivious to the on-coming train. And someone is standing on the side yelling at you to get off before you get smashed.

And of course, you spit at the guy warning you. Who cares if the train actually exists or not, right?

Granted, if the guy were yelling, "Hey, you idiot, get off the track you witch!" I can understand some resistance to the message. :-) However, the train is still coming. That I take these things seriously and you do not is just a sympton of a greater problem on your part.

18701. judithathome - 11/16/2002 4:06:22 PM

It is only a problem to you. You are understandably offended that I don't share your beliefs and it colors every interaction we have. You see every post I make as snide and belittling while I really don't mean them that way.

I don't see any need to carry this any further. I know I will not change and I know you will not...not that there is any need for you to, as I have never suggested that you do so.

And please, if you think your time is better spent calling up posts to exhibit my hatefullness and attacks, which I don't think they are, go ahead and do it. But don't be surprised if others view you as petty and small minded for doing so. The things I've said to you are no more hateful than what others have said but you view them the way you do because I have the audacity to believe something counter to your belief system. What I believe has no sway with you and doesn't threaten your beliefs in any way so let's just leave it at "different strokes" and move on.

18702. judithathome - 11/16/2002 4:22:25 PM

So before you get all hurt and bothered, consider yourself for a moment. Consider your intolerance and bitterness

I can assure you, I am not hurt and bothered and I consider myself quite a lot. The fact I don't think I am intolerant OR bitter is a sample of how far we are from understanding one another.

18703. anomieme - 11/16/2002 6:21:08 PM

KtH,

Just for the record, my questions about sin and free will were serious, and so far you're treating it fairly. But I just wanted you to know I wasn't being sarcastic.

But really, do theologins ever pause to consider God's motives? And why are you so easy on him? Can't you admit to a little chagrin?

If I create a being and purposefully put him in an environment filled with traps, deceit, temptations, misinformation and so on, I would be labeled a cruel person. Even if I gave my created being a "free will", he could exercise it only within the artificial constraints I give him.

Language and analogies break down when we try to apply them to eternal, all-powerful beings, but couldn't we say that all constraints are artificial to God, and therefore he could have created a better environment and still avoided the "robot" problem? But he didn't, and he knew what poor Adam would do.

18704. Ulgine Barrows - 11/17/2002 1:08:55 AM

I clicked on the link because it said Nicene Creed. The seemingly mindless, stupefying, chanting of it has also struck me at times...I think about what you're discussing here almost every time I hear it.

My 3 favorite parts are,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
and
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life
and
He has spoken through the Prophets.

Certain other parts just don't work for me. One line I never say is,
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
but I still don't think I'm a heretic.

18705. Ulgine Barrows - 11/17/2002 2:35:24 AM

Well, you've all moved on somewhat from where I began reading.

So for jayackroyd, 18533 " it still weirds me out that people chant stuff they don't believe."
Perhaps you didn't see what you thought you saw. Imagine if you will, the chanting of the creed, with voices fading in and out as necessary for each person.

anomieme, I didn't read the start of whatever conversation prompted your 18618 reply to kuliginthehooligan. "FWIW, nobody gives a damn about what I think of the historical Jesus."
For me, I've decided he existed, just because of the buzz that was created in a pre-TV, pre-newspaper era, and to last that long, there must have been some truth to some of it. What we have now is, I'm sure, biased. And I liked your post 18620. The mental abuse is done by individuals, IMO; not any certain religion.

Hitler wanted to do bad things to Jews, but Muslims want to do even worse.
Oh, ick, kuliginthehooligan.

Jesus, IMO, was a great prophet because it got clarified down to the Golden rule. Sinning is not doing that: treating others as you would yourself. (I am SUCH a sinner, sob. It's hard.)

I have human nature. 4-5 yr olds will whack another kid over the head for toys, they can understand the giving and recieving concept fairly well. No mental abuse going on here.

anomieme 18643, God also created choice is what I think.

Is Vic kuliginthehooligan?

18706. Ulgine Barrows - 11/17/2002 3:06:35 AM

judithathome, I like your post 18662 on some sins being a big deal and others not. But again, it's the individual's interpretation, and I think all the commandments are distilled into the Golden Rule.

'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain'...does this mean you will rot in eternal hell for saying godammit? or rot because you fight in a 'holy war' against a different religion?

(and on a funny sidenote, I googled for the exact wording of '10 commandments' and the first having anything to do with religion came up 8th in line...is the dogma losing steam....)

Al D, very funny quote, that was.

18707. Ulgine Barrows - 11/17/2002 3:45:36 AM

anomieme, are you just yanking chains with 18693? "Therefore, I will that there be no sin"

Do you really believe there is no 'sin', no 'wrong', you never get a sick feeling in the depth of your heart that something you've done is not correct and you wish to do better the next time you are placed in a similar position?

And in other news, last week my brother and I were having a conversation where I said I thought most people were upstanding, truthful, honest, decent, yada yada, and he boggled and told me with a roll of his eyes that I was full of shit, and a naive twit. Familial jihad ensued.

18708. kuliginthehooligan - 11/17/2002 8:00:44 AM

"The things I've said to you are no more hateful than what others have said but you view them the way you do because I have the audacity to believe something counter to your belief system."

That you don't view yourself and numerous comments as snide and sarcastic leaves me really with only two options; 1) you are lying, or 2) you really are dense. For the latter, all I simply mean is, you type what you type and really have no clue how it affects others. However, I just don't see you as a dense or oblious-to-what-you-are-posting person, judith, so I think option 1 is probably more appropriate. In short, you just aren't being forthright with your intentions for posting the things you post.

That my problem with you stems from "your audacity to believe something counter" to what I believe, well, puhleeze! You never offer anything but snide comments meant to belittle my faith. Nothing else. No alternate belief system. No constructive suggestions. Just sarcasm. That you can't see that - or at least refuse to see it - only shows me how much in the darkness you truly are.

As for your "audacity," don't make me laugh. Unless, of course, you equate ignorance with audacity.

18709. kuliginthehooligan - 11/17/2002 8:04:12 AM

judith, this may be the most shocking of your recent statements:

"I don't think I am intolerant"

If you truly are NOT intolerant, then stop it with the snide, sarcastic comments about evangelical Christian beliefs. Here's what I'll do for you. Each and every time you make an intolerant, sarcastic, belittling comment about the Christian faith, I'll just point it out for you. Then, perhaps, you will begin to see how intolerant you really are, at least of certain Christian views.

Because, if you truly are the bastion of tolerance that you claim yourself to be, we wouldn't see ANY derogatory comments about the beliefs of others. None. Zilch. Nada. Zero. Otherwise, shut yer trap about your tolerance and face facts. There are somethings that even you do not tolerate, and you speak against them. Hallelujah! Revel in your intolerance, Judith. Embrace it! Stop denying your true self.

18710. kuliginthehooligan - 11/17/2002 8:09:23 AM

"You are understandably offended that I don't share your beliefs and it colors every interaction we have."

Actually, I'm not offended in the least! I just consider the source, that's all.

Now then, if you ever came as an inquisitive individual and asked clear, honest questons about the Christian faith, I'd deal clearly and nicely with you. But I have no tolerance for your snide comments spoken in ignorance. Nor do I have any tolerance for your sarcasm made to make my faith look stupid.

Judith, that you are denying you even do this just shocks me. It has been, what, several years that I have had to put up with this from you. Now you are going to deny it even exists??!

Or is this more "joking" from your side? Yeah, right.

You have a disdain for my Christian beliefs that is frightening, not because you simply have them, but because you try to hide them and act like you do not have the disdain. That is what is truly frightening, almost sinister about you and your comments. You pretend you really don't mean it!

So, in the future, if you really are interested in my beliefs and would merely ask straightforward, honest questions about it, I would be more than happy to answer them. Otherwise, don't waste my time. Thank you judith, for your thoughtful consideration.

18711. kuliginthehooligan - 11/17/2002 8:13:49 AM

"If I create a being and purposefully put him in an environment filled with traps, deceit, temptations, misinformation and so on, I would be labeled a cruel person."

Anomieme, I haven't taken your recent questions about God and sin as sarcastic, but rather honest, albeit early comments made by you were obviously meant to be sarcastic. A little sarcasm is okay, but a constant barage is just ridiculous, as some people do in this thread.

I can't agree with the comment above. The choices of words you use I suppose I could bicker with, but let me say this. There is nothing wrong with putting a person in a situation where he must make hard choices. There needn't be anything "cruel" about such a test or difficulty. It may, in fact, be character building and yield even greater fruit. So to excuse the entire Garden of Eden thing as "cruel" I can't agree with.

"And why are you so easy on him [God]?"

As Martin Luther once said, "Let God be God." Certainly, I have my own questions as well of Him. At times I wonder what on earth he is doing. But God is God, and what he does is BY DEFINITION good and right and perfect.

18712. kuliginthehooligan - 11/17/2002 8:17:26 AM

Now then, you can always disagree that what God does is right and good and perfect, and you can wholeheartedly welcome the consequences of such an attitude. That is entirely your choice. And millions of people have done precisely that. They have decided that they don't like God and his ideas of what is good and bad, so they have decided to rebel against him. Again, you have the "right" to do that if you want to. Just spit in his face if and when you get the chance. But just consider the consequences also.

"couldn't we say that all constraints are artificial to God, and therefore he could have created a better environment and still avoided the "robot" problem? But he didn't, and he knew what poor Adam would do."

No, I can't agree with "all constraints are artificial to God." God is limited by his very nature and character. For example, he cannot lie. God can only do what his own nature and character allow him to do.

However, I still see your point. Couldn't he have made humans who would never have fallen into sin? And again, I must say, not if he wanted to make humans with genuine freedom of will.

18713. anomieme - 11/17/2002 9:41:44 AM

KtH,

I meant our constraints (the prohibition against eating the fruit, etc....sin in general), are artificial to God since he could change them at will.

Not to get too personal, but you've brought it before, so here goes. Predestination implies that God created some people who have no hope. This is one of those artificial constraints and says alot about the nature of this particular God.

I could almost buy off on the free will thing if we all had an equal chance and faced the same threats of deception and temptation. But if God has the story written already, what's the point. If the story's finished, there migt as well be no God at all.

18714. anomieme - 11/17/2002 9:47:22 AM

Ulgine,

My statement about free will and sin was hypothetical in answer to KtH.

But to answer your question, No I don't think there is such a thing as sin against God. I don't acknowledge a God who would create such a thing.

I do think there is wrongdoing, crime, and improper behavior although I have never engaged in such myself. Ha!

18715. anomieme - 11/17/2002 10:20:02 AM

Ulgine,

I tend to disagree with you. I think the mental abuse comes from the religious doctrine being taught by well-intentioned individuals passing along what they themselves were taught as a child. I guess I see it more a social problem. I think we're still in the dark ages with regard to religious practice.

18716. judithathome - 11/17/2002 10:50:48 AM

Kuligin, I don't think we can communicate any further.

You think I am constantly sarcastic and snide and belittling and I think your reactions to me are colored by a certain bias you feel that makes you read everything I post in that way. So there is no way for us to continue.

Believe it or not, I am not posting to you to be a thorn in your side but your opinion of me will never change so it's useless to go on. Just remember, ALL of us reveal ourselves by the way we post to others and that's something in which I think you feel protected...by the fact you are a Christian. Who is calling others liars? Who is calling others ignorant and foolish and stupid and on and on? Your posts say a lot about you that I'm not sure you see.

Yes, I have posted sarcasm and things that are snide. There. Have I proven to you I am not a liar? I guess there is no way for me to prove to you I am not dense and since those are the only two options you offered (very revealing)I suppose you can comfort yourself with that one.

Judge not lest you be judged.

18717. anomieme - 11/17/2002 12:53:27 PM

Judith,

Wait. You can't leave me alone with the lions.

18718. Ulgine Barrows - 11/17/2002 1:06:14 PM

Meow!


sorry, couldn't resist.

18719. Al D - 11/17/2002 3:14:47 PM

Never believe or trust anyone who tells you you have only one of two choices.

UB
Thanks for the nice comment. Nice comments are rare on the Religous Thread.

18720. Al D - 11/17/2002 3:18:41 PM

Kulligan
Judith is a hopelesss case. I suspect she is like I, a backslider, who once Loved the Lord and got turned off by all the counterfiet Christians. My sainted Mother asked ne once if I would reject all money because some was counterfiet? I told her I loved money too much to do so.

Judith
I realize I may be projecting, so take no offense.

18721. judithathome - 11/17/2002 3:37:05 PM

Al, I take no offense but think I would be hard pressed to recall a time when I wasn't skeptical about all this religion stuff. I was always asking questions which offended my elders and they could never convince me to "just believe".

And I did have bad experiences with alleged Christians. (no one here, however.) But I was turned off long before that....

I am a hopeless case, however. ;-)

18722. Al D - 11/17/2002 4:17:22 PM

Judith
Would you believe I once thought I would be a missionary? I have travelled to foreign land- Hawaii.

18723. judithathome - 11/17/2002 4:34:55 PM

It's pretty foreign, all right!

18724. Al D - 11/17/2002 4:49:11 PM

Judith
Would you believe I once thought I would be a missionary? I have travelled to foreign land- Hawaii.

18725. Al D - 11/17/2002 4:50:06 PM

What's with these double posts?

18726. judithathome - 11/17/2002 4:55:31 PM

I don't know...they usually happen when you refresh the page but I had one do it when I posted over in Fine Arts...time stamp was exactly the same on each post. Weird.

18727. Al D - 11/17/2002 5:07:20 PM

Weird! No wonder I can't spell, which seems to some my most grevious fault. It's i before e except after c and in words such as neighbor and weigh. How in the name of sweet jesus is weird like weigh?

18728. judithathome - 11/17/2002 5:38:04 PM

I don't know...I'm surprised to see it's spelled correctly myself.

18729. anomieme - 11/17/2002 7:49:55 PM

Judith,

"I was always asking questions which offended my elders and they could never convince me to "just believe". "

My experience exactly. And then I grew old and realized the elders didn't have any answers. This is what I meant when I said Kuligin's responses couldn't satisfy even a childlike curiousity.

18730. RickNelson - 11/18/2002 10:14:50 AM

Kuligin,

I would like to work some of my other ideas into your time, ideas which I've already stated. However, we have not gone over these in a way which shows our differences, yet similarity.

First, we are allies toward our belief in Jesus and what his birth, life and death mean. We have discussed this will looking into the Nicaean Creed. I admit we did not reach an exacting consensus, but we each have total faith in Jesus.

The differences from here will undoubtedly be evident.

I have stated that I've reconciled evolution with God's existence and reality.

This is not an exact science, but a parallel to faith, in that I have given myself permission to believe that God could have created as it desired. There is no absolute in my mind that the words of our Bible is historically accurate. The texts are sometimes interpretations, which require belief, yet are words inspired or accepted as historical witness. Belief therefore has ramifications when it collides with the realities of thinking and science. I am accepting evolution and God as they are known.

It isn't hereacy to my way of thinking. I cannot be swayed by written historical documentation nor theological logic that evolution was not the work of God. It's that simple. I accept it as such, I will always say such and it is fact to me. It seems utterly futile to my thinking that it would be otherwise.

The irony is that my faith is strengthened, yet those who reject what I agree with are vehement and resentful that this could ever be true. It's seems ridiculous that faith does not understand this science and the fact of evolution.

18731. jayackroyd - 11/18/2002 11:25:09 AM

18582. marjoribanks - 11/13/02 4:13:48 PM

asks for early church book recommendations. JND Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines would be a shorter read than KtH's multivolume sets.

Not definitive, but interesting, is Elaine Pagel's Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety.

18732. jayackroyd - 11/18/2002 11:32:12 AM

>Anyway, Pat Robertson said something to the effect that Hitler wanted to do bad things to Jews, but Muslims want to do even worse. Is this such a bad thing to have said? Are others completely abhored by such a statement as this?<

said KtH a couple of days ago. The problem with the statement is it is false. The Yemeni newsdealer I buy my paper from doesn't want to do even worse. "Muslims" don't want to do even worse. There are individuals who do, and there is a lot of overblown rhetoric. But the essentially problem with the statement is that it compares a very large group of people holding a diversity of views with one evil historical figure, and is, thus, false and racist.

18733. jayackroyd - 11/18/2002 11:50:16 AM

UB says:

>So for jayackroyd, 18533 " it still weirds me out that people chant stuff they don't believe."
Perhaps you didn't see what you thought you saw. Imagine if you will, the chanting of the creed, with voices fading in and out as necessary for each person.<

I saw what I saw. But you're now in the same trap that Rick was in. You can't pick and choose, and claim to be, in this case, a member of the Episcopal Church. This is the received doctrine, and you don't get to mess with it.

KtH can correct my recollection, but this Nicean creed thing was a big deal because there were so many different doctrines floating around at the time. The language is very precise, and is designed, very precisely, to declare various heresies out of bounds. You can see how that works in KtH's responses: "No, that's adoptionism, and is a heresy. You're out of the church."

To my mind, in doing so, it becomes incomprehensible, even with study. KtH is echoing what I recall from the coursework and reading I've done. But it still doesn't make any real sense. You gotta just buy it as a whole, with faith that the people who worked out the politics of the problem in the fourth century were getting it right.

What's interesting in the thread is that my gut feeling--that nobody really believes this stuff--is not that far from the truth. KtH, as I knew, professes to believe it all. I'm gonna double-check that when I've finished reading the traffic.

18734. jayackroyd - 11/18/2002 11:52:17 AM

18731

Got the author wrong. Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety is by ER Dodds. Elaine Pagels wrote The Gnostic Gospels, and a book about satan I'm forgetting the title of.

18735. jayackroyd - 11/18/2002 12:09:04 PM

When I started this Nicean creed ruckus, I also asked about belief in the literal words of the bible. Something that struck me on that day is that objections raised by 9 year olds really aren't handled very well. (I remember a couple of Sunday School classes. I was raised a low church New England Protestant.) You know, where did Cain and Abel's wives come from? Which of the two creation stories are right? 7 days to make the universe? Where did He stand?

I heard the "day doesn't really mean day" necessarily argument. But then, in the other direction, you've got the Methuselah years problem. And have you done the arithmetic on 40 days of rain?

And, it seems to me, that once you start denying any part of the work as literally true, then you're back on that slippery slope. And, since the most fundamental premise of the Christianity is the death and physical resurrection of a fully divine human being and his installation at the right hand of the father (Now where are they sitting?), you do want to avoid that slope.

So KtH, when I posed the question of literal belief to a high church protestant priest, his answer was, essentially, no, he didn't believe in the literal words of the bible. But he also said that it was not a well formed question. There is a central mythos that you can't really penetrate rationally.

But that is not your view, is it?

18736. judithathome - 11/18/2002 12:39:52 PM

I could handle the whole thing better if somone had admitted to me that these bibical stories were parables and not menat to be taken literally. Yes, Jesus lived and was a good man but the story of him making a dead man live again meant he enabled the man to find new meaning in life, thus, he made him "live again". Yes, Jonah lived but he wasn't swallowed by a whale, he was overcome by the burdens of his life and became depressed and Jesus led him to a better place by showing him a new way to live...see, all these things make sense when viewed as morality tales or parables.

18737. judithathome - 11/18/2002 12:40:31 PM

menat=meant

18738. anomieme - 11/19/2002 9:10:42 AM

Judith,

That kind of thinking will get you thrown right of Sunday school!

18739. anomieme - 11/19/2002 9:11:42 AM

...right out of...

(Too early in the morning.)

18740. judithathome - 11/19/2002 10:25:13 AM

Ha! It DID!

18741. Jenerator - 11/19/2002 11:05:05 AM

How could Jesus be considered a 'good man' if he was a liar? I mean, if he wasn't who he said he was, and he didn't perform the miracles, how could he be a good man? He'd be a lunatic.

I don't understand the 'Jesus lived and was a great teacher, but that's it schtick.' Would any of us respect and or emulate someone we knew to be mad?

18742. Cellar Door - 11/19/2002 11:48:27 AM

Why do you think he was a liar or mad?

18743. Cellar Door - 11/19/2002 11:59:34 AM

It's not just an American problem.

18744. jayackroyd - 11/19/2002 12:43:32 PM

Genesis 6:13
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Genesis 6:19 - 6:21
And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every [sort] shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep [them] alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every [sort] shall come unto thee, to keep [them] alive.

And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather [it] to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.

Genesis 7:1 - Genesis 7:3
And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female.

Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

------------------------------------------------------------

These passages cannot both be literally true, because they report different animal counts.

They are, of course, consistent with the story that the Pentateuch was composed by four authors, three source authors and an editor who tied it together. Unlike the creation story, the Yahwist ("the LORD") and the Elohist ("God") tell pretty much the same story. So it's kind of ironic that it's here that there an unexceptionable case of "can't be literally true."

The only way this stuff can be literally true is if you start playing Clintonian definition games with the word "literal". Which is what got done when KtH said that "day" didn't mean "day" in the creation story a few days ago.

18745. judithathome - 11/19/2002 12:45:34 PM

No one said he was mad or a liar...and remember, it is others who reported on his life and acts. He left no diaries or writings in his own hand. All things attributed to Jesus are told through other's eyes and after quite a lot of time had passed, too.

Don't put words in our mouths just because we have different views. NO ONE called Jesus a liar or a fraud or insane...

And it wasn't the performing of miracles that made him a "good" man. At least, not to me. I am calling him a good man and a good teacher and a doer of good things because I do believe he lived and was all those things. I have in no way denied that the man Jesus once lived and performed good deeds.

You might feel better thinking that is what I believe but if you do so, you are very wrong.

18746. glendajean - 11/19/2002 2:39:36 PM

Just skimmed back through Jay's posts on the Nicene Creed.

As a point of fact, in the Episcopal Church, low or high church, the Creed is usually said in all eucharist services, and the Apostles Creed is said at daily offices (morning, evening prayer, e.g.) as well as at baptisms.

A neighbor who is a Unitarian told me about friends who joined her church, leaving the Presbyterian Church, because she could not longer recite the creed. They didn't believe in it any more and just couldn't say it one more time.

I was reminded of that when I read your question. I assume that your question was mostly rhetorical, but my answer is, yes, I do believe it. Saying it weekly during a service is a pretty good wake-up call to whether one does believe it or not.

My faith in God is an important part of my life and has almost always been a part of my experience in life's journey.

In the New Testament, there is a scripture that talks about "working out one's salvation with fear and trembling."

That's what life is about, pretty much, struggling, questioning, learning. I am not the same person I was when I was in high school. My understanding of God has changed since then. Since Christianity is based on a relationship with God (Father/Son/Holy Spirit), it is not something one purchases, like a box of soap, and then places it on a shelf satisfied that the right decision was made.

When I was in the third grade, I had a classmate who was a member of a Church of Christ congregation. I attended a Baptist church. At lunch, we would argue over whether her church was right or mine. It was a heated discussion and I am think we finally quit talking about it.

I probably gave up apologetics and arguments of dogma after that.

18747. Jenerator - 11/19/2002 5:12:47 PM

No one said he was mad or a liar...and remember, it is others who reported on his life and acts. He left no diaries or writings in his own hand. All things attributed to Jesus are told through other's eyes and after quite a lot of time had passed, too.

How much time? Are you suggesting that the human characteristics reported are most likely trtue, but the miraculous aren't because the Bible is recorded by men?

Don't put words in our mouths just because we have different views. NO ONE called Jesus a liar or a fraud or insane...

But those are logical conclusions. If Clint Eastwood claimed to be the son of God and Man, and asked that you take up your cross and follow him spreading his message, would you think he was sane? If he didn't perform miracles, did he lie about them, or did the multitudes lie? Why would the authors of the Gispels willingly die for lies then?

And it wasn't the performing of miracles that made him a "good" man. At least, not to me. I am calling him a good man and a good teacher and a doer of good things because I do believe he lived and was all those things.

Excluding the miraculous, what did he do that you like specifically?

I have in no way denied that the man Jesus once lived and performed good deeds.

I know that.;-)

18748. jayackroyd - 11/19/2002 5:23:02 PM

>I assume that your question was mostly rhetorical, but my answer is, yes, I do believe it. Saying it weekly during a service is a pretty good wake-up call to whether one does believe it or not. <

No, glendajean, it was not mostly rhetorical. I am honestly interested in whether people really do believe it. And I think that a weekly wakeup call is a very good reason to a)have it in the service and b)recite it.

Later on, when I'm baiting KtH with issues of literalness there is certainly rhetorical argument going on. But I also have to say that I am sometimes flat amazed that people believe this stuff. The understanding I've come to is that they have a profound faith, and that faith informs interpretations of the words they're reciting, and in some way transcends those words.

But, not having the faith, I don't really understand it.

18749. judithathome - 11/19/2002 5:39:59 PM

But those are logical conclusions

Not necessarily...if someone tells me something and I am skeptical as to whether they are correct or not, I can think any number of things, such as they have received the wrong information or that they misheard the speaker or that they are being duped in some way. I don't arbitrarily jump to the conclusion that they are insane or a liar.

Why would the authors of the Gispels willingly die for lies then?

Maybe they were translated wrong. Maybe they had faith and believed. Maybe they lied. There are any number of reasons one could point to besides "because it was literaly true".

what did he do that you like specifically

I'm willing to concede he lived and had influence over many and did good deeds. I don't think he performed miracles any more than I think Psychic Surgeons perform life saving surgery. But that doesn't mean he didn't live. Then again, he might have been an idea dreamed up by the holy men who decided to start a movement around a mythic being and just ran with it. Who knows?

18750. judithathome - 11/19/2002 5:41:08 PM

Are you suggesting that the human characteristics reported are most likely trtue, but the miraculous aren't because the Bible is recorded by men?

No, I'm just suggesting that I don't believe in miracles.

18751. anomieme - 11/19/2002 7:17:37 PM

Hi Jenerator!

Surely you're "Josh"ing us. Aren't you?

18752. justears - 11/19/2002 8:08:41 PM

I haven't posted here for a while, perhaps because the thread seemed forever occupied by the priest-sex scandal. The issue of the creed is more interesting to me personally. I am also an episcopalian and have struggled in various ways about how to make sense of reciting the creed as a set of belief propositions. At long last I have come to accept that there is virtue in the struggle itself, but mostly I read the creed as one would a poem. Does it make sense to ask whether a poem is literally true? On the other hand isn't there some kind of truth in poetry? God the FATHER is that a metaphor or literally true? Does that preclude the idea that God is also MOTHER? Not in the way I am an Episcopalian. Faith in truth has much in common with art.(ambiguity intended).

18753. anomieme - 11/19/2002 8:44:19 PM

Justears,

Your post, and something Jay said earlier about the ideas transcending the language is something the literalists don't seem to understand.

In discussing the death and resurrection of Christ, it should be obvious that the word "death" can't really describe what purportedly happened at the crucifixtion, for just one example.

18754. Ulgine Barrows - 11/19/2002 10:39:01 PM

anomieme,"But to answer your question, No I don't think there is such a thing as sin against God. I don't acknowledge a God who would create such a thing."

I don't quite understand what you're saying. "wrongdoing, crime, and improper behavior"
Sounds like a rose by any other name. At least the wrongdoing part, I suppose crime & improper behavior falls under social constraints.

I don't believe in predestination. I firmly believe we all make choices.

and also this,
" mental abuse comes from the religious doctrine being taught by well-intentioned individuals passing along what they themselves were taught as a child."

I still think mental abuse comes from individuals and has little connection to religion, it is more a bad use of power and can happen in any situation where there is an imbalance of power. But, I do agree with you about your dark ages comment.

Can you teach morality with religion? (it occurs to me this has already been discussed here, well, I skipped a lot)

Al D, I dunno, you all seem pretty civilized here. Nice discussion. And actually Mark Twain comments came up at lunch time today and I used you, dude, thanks. Another funny quote of his during said lunch encounter was something along the lines of good breeding being able to hide the high opinion you held of yourself and hiding the low opinion you have of others.

18755. Ulgine Barrows - 11/19/2002 10:58:29 PM

The idea of being a missionary just leaves me cold. In some respects it reminds me of politicians, why are they doing that? Are they not satisfied with finding their own way, why do they they feel the need to try to convince someone to their own position? I think a lot of politicians just want to go down in history books, prophets strike me somewhat the same way. There's a reason I'm not in sales.

judithathome, I am such a skeptic.... 'they could never convince me to "just believe". ' Well, sure, because it was their beliefs. Not your own.


jayackroyd,"the essentially problem with the statement is that it compares a very large group of people holding a diversity of views with one evil historical figure, and is, thus, false and racist. "

This is very pertinent. Especially in light of your next post 18733, " This is the received doctrine, and you don't get to mess with it. "
OK, I'm lost now. I believe I do get to mess with it. I have a choice. Your gut feeling that everyone doesn't believe it hook, line, and sinker, I understand that.

18756. Ulgine Barrows - 11/19/2002 11:03:34 PM

"objections raised by 9 year olds really aren't handled very well"
By certain individuals who have not thought things out and can't stand to say, "I don't know."

18757. Ulgine Barrows - 11/19/2002 11:26:46 PM

Cellar Door, what a sad link in 18472. Now I'm even more jaded. I must have another wake-up call to examine if I should continue Catholic.

glendajean, I really liked this: "places it on a shelf satisfied that the right decision
was made. "

And justears, "mostly I read the creed as one would a poem." Mmmm.

Literalists. Well, I think some smart old people wrote the Nicene creed years ago and it doesn't fit anymore, I've had to ask on the poetry thread what things mean when it's outdated language. And if I ask and I don't get intellible answer, I decide myself on it. And if enough people ask in a church I bet it gets changed, too.

I am not talking about cafeteria Catholic which is a phrase I've heard, I'm talking about change because of foreign/archaic language, so to speak.

The Unitarians have done an excellent job of this, they speak capitalistic Christianity to die for, at least in this area. So much depends on the preacher, the lesson gleaned...there is a Presby church I've gone to just because the speaker can relate the old words to the new situations.

18758. anomieme - 11/20/2002 9:10:57 AM

UB,

Maybe I wasn't clear. I think religious indoctrination of any kind is bad for kids. It's the doctrine being taught that shapes the child's view of the world and influences his later abilities. It's true that some adults are abusive, but that's true in any setting. I'm saying religious indoctrination robs a child of the ability for independent thought by using fear and other devices and by teaching lies about self-worth and so on.

18759. Cellar Door - 11/20/2002 10:56:24 AM

"Frosty"

18760. kuliginthehooligan - 11/20/2002 1:37:21 PM

Well, this is what I get for not being able to get here sooner! A lot of back-reading. I’ll try to address things from the start, as best as I can.

1) from Judith, “Judge not lest you be judged.” All I can say is, practice what you preach (or in this case, quote). And besides, it is an understatement to say that I find you, a non-Christian and for all intents and purposes an opponent of the Christian faith, quoting the words of Jesus out of their context to be a hoot and somewhat ironic.

2) From jay’s posts about the Nicene Creed

“KtH can correct my recollection, but this Nicene creed thing was a big deal because there were so many different doctrines floating around at the time.”

Specifically, Arianism was the main obstacle at the time of Nicaea. But the Creed did not just pop up out of a vacuum. It was the result of literally centuries of dialogue and debate about the nature of Jesus Christ. But it must always be understood that from the very earliest traces that we have of Christianity, Jesus was worshipped. All subsequent theological debate must be seen in this light. Nicaea, therefore, didn’t say anything new per se. It merely put into theological jargon what was already the practice of the Church.

As for “the Creed doesn’t make sense, no matter how much you study it” (paraphrase) I disagree. It makes perfectly good sense in a theistic worldview. If you aren’t a theist, of course, then it is just ridiculous, but for someone who actually believes in the existence of God, the Nicene Creed makes perfectly good sense.

18761. kuliginthehooligan - 11/20/2002 1:38:07 PM

3) “So KtH, when I posed the question of literal belief to a high church protestant priest, his answer was, essentially, no, he didn't believe in the literal words of the bible. But he also said that it was not a well formed question. There is a central mythos that you can't really penetrate rationally.

But that is not your view, is it?”

I believe that what the Bible reports as historical fact is indeed historical fact. That what the Bible reports as miracles and the miraculous did in fact happen. And that when the Bible speaks in poetry, it should be understood in the context of poetry; when it speaks in parables, it should be understood in the context of parables; when it speaks in proverbs, it should be understood in the context of proverbs. And so on.

To just say “I take the Bible literally” is just too sloppy a statement for me. More context must be provided to that statement. However, if your stumbling block is the miraculous, for example, I have absolutely not trouble with it. God is God and he can do what he wants to do with and in his creation.

18762. kuliginthehooligan - 11/20/2002 1:38:55 PM

4) judith’s comments about not believing in miracles and the whole Bible as “parable” (post #18736) isn’t anything new. Many people, even theists who draw a picture of God being rather impotent, have been known to say the same thing. Although it has always struck me as “odd” that someone could truly believe in the existence of God and not believe in miracles.

As for the matter of the Bible as parable and not as history, it just doesn’t wash that way. There actually was a dead man named Lazarus and he was raised from the dead by the Son of God, Jesus Christ. This is historical reporting, not historical fiction, a genre of literature that didn’t even exist for nearly two millennia later.

18763. kuliginthehooligan - 11/20/2002 1:39:13 PM

5) jay said this:

“The only way this stuff can be literally true is if you start playing Clintonian definition games with the word "literal". Which is what got done when KtH said that "day" didn't mean "day" in the creation story a few days ago.”

That’s a rather knee-jerk and ignorant statement, jay. It is a matter of what the original HEBREW word meant, not what the English translation “day” means. You should avoid making foolish statements about matters you know little about.

As for the supposed two flood accounts you posted, the matter is easily solved once you realize that in one list all animals taken on the ark are mentioned, and in the other list ONLY the CLEAN animals were mentioned. There is no irreconcilable contradiction here.

Also, the notion that the Pentateuch was written by four separate authors has been thoroughly debunked. You are basically parroting old claims, which even many liberal Christian scholars have now backed away from.

Which brings up my next point . . .

18764. kuliginthehooligan - 11/20/2002 1:39:36 PM

6) Many people in this thread spout old, tired liberal arguments, some that were first posited decades ago, and they act as if nothing has been said since that time. Jay’s offhanded comment about the Documentary Hypothesis concerning the Pentateuch is a case in point, but there have been other instances. The idea that Judith has said that Jesus was a very good man who “performed many good deeds” should also be coupled with her statement that she doesn’t believe in miracles. Of course, tons of “good deeds” Jesus did in the Bible were miracles. So why does she disregard those? And how, outside of the Bible, does Judith know that Jesus performed many good deeds?

There is much to address there. I just want to say that judith’s approach to the Bible (and I am taking Judith as an example of a larger whole who think and act this way) is inconsistent. On the one hand, she doesn’t trust the reporting of the Bible. On the other hand, she really can’t know anything about Jesus and what he did outside of the Bible’s reporting. So, on what basis does she seemingly pick and choose what she thinks is historical and what she thinks is hooey? That question I will leave hanging for the moment.

For now, though, I point people to an excellent, thorough treatment of the Gospels:

Meier, John P. “A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus” (Doubleday, 1991 [volume one], 1994, [volume two]). There is a third volume but I don’t know the year it was published.

Meier is a liberal in the judgment of conservative evangelicals such as myself. Yet he concludes that there is simply no way one can do justice to the text and still claim that Jesus did not perform miracles. That is a quick and dirty statement of what the man takes about 600 pages to study thoroughly! One must be well versed (and interested!) in textual criticism to get anything out of this study.

18765. kuliginthehooligan - 11/20/2002 1:40:10 PM

7) From Judith:

“I'm willing to concede he lived and had influence over many and did good deeds. I don't think he performed miracles any more than I think Psychic Surgeons perform life saving surgery. But that doesn't mean he didn't live. Then again, he might have been an idea dreamed up by the holy men who decided to start a movement around a mythic being and just ran with it. Who knows?”

The idea that Jesus was NOT an historical figure has been thoroughly debunked and is no longer held by ANY reputable scholar. But how does Judith know Jesus did good deeds? Evidently because the Bible reports it. So why, then, deny the miraculous, unless she does so a priori?

Once, I summarized the book of Mark by removing all the miraculous and supernatural elements. In short, what was left could hardly have resulted in his crucifixion.

“Who knows?” We can know about Jesus as an historical person as well as we can know about other historical persons. One needed just shrug one’s shoulders and conclude that anything and everything is up for grabs. Careful study proves otherwise.

18766. kuliginthehooligan - 11/20/2002 1:40:52 PM

8) From justears:

“I read the creed as one would a poem. Does it make sense to ask whether a poem is literally true?”

But that is not the intention of the authors of the Nicene Creed. They debated these things as literal fact, not as allegory or parable or poetry. If you want to regard the Creed as such, then do so. But don’t fool yourself into believing that is what the Creed is all about.

18767. kuliginthehooligan - 11/20/2002 1:41:14 PM

9) From anomieme:

“In discussing the death and resurrection of Christ, it should be obvious that the word "death" can't really describe what purportedly happened at the crucifixion, for just one example.”

Of course that is what “death” means. Prove to me otherwise, from the Koine Greek, because the onus is on you to prove that the word does not mean what it literally means. Or prove it from the context of its usage in the Gospels and the rest of the NT when the authors speak of the death, sacrifice, shedding of the blood, and so on of Jesus.

The Gospels are historical narrative and reporting and should be treated as such. To attempt to say that “death” doesn’t really mean “death” is just a butchering of the text and violates all the rules of interpretation.

What did it mean to the original readers? That is the key. To try to fill it with 21st century meaning is really pointless and abusive to the text. To make a quick example, when Josephus reports that John the Baptist was beheaded by Herod (yes, Josephus reports that), do you take the death of John the Baptist to be figurative, or parabolic, or poetic in nature? Of course not. To do so would be to ignore the context and purpose of the writing of Josephus, let alone the language he uses to report it.

The Synoptic Gospels are historical literature by every understanding of that phrase, as understood in their first century context. Words mean something, and you cannot just make them mean anything you want to make them mean, regardless of the context in which they are spoken or written.

There is nothing “obvious” at all about your statement, other than the obvious fact that you haven’t studied Hermeneutics.

18768. kuliginthehooligan - 11/20/2002 1:41:50 PM

10) From ulgine:

“The idea of being a missionary just leaves me cold. In some respects it reminds me of politicians, why are they doing that? Are they not satisfied with finding their own way, why do they they [sic] feel the need to try to convince someone to their own position?”

Many Christians are missionaries for no other reason than because Jesus Christ commanded his followers to go to the nations of the world and to teach others about his teaching.

18769. judithathome - 11/20/2002 2:21:50 PM

This is historical reporting, not historical fiction, a genre of literature that didn’t even exist for nearly two millennia later.

Lots of people thnk it did...it's called the Bible.

18770. kuliginthehooligan - 11/20/2002 2:43:06 PM

"Lots of people thnk [sic] it did...it's called the Bible."

My case in point. For those people who think a literary genre existed before it was actually created, there is not much hopeful to say to such people. It would be like treating the Bible like a Michener novel. It is a nonsensical approach. It would be like me going to Isaac Newton and "interpreting" his ideas on Physics as quantum theory or Relativity Theory. You simply cannot go back in time and force on the literature of that day a 21st century mentality or meaning or understanding. It butchers the text.

So people can think what they want to about the Bible. There has never been a shortage on ignorance in this regard. But then they should know they are ignorant. I don't know how many times people have come into this thread and said things that make no sense at all. Did they actually take the time to study things BEFORE speaking? Hardly.

In every other area of knowledge we deride such people, and rightly so. But when it comes to "religion" and especially the Bible, anything seemingly goes. I think it is part laziness, part preconceived conclusions, part stupidity, and part blindness.

18771. kuliginthehooligan - 11/20/2002 2:47:06 PM

"You know, when Einstein concluded E=MC squared, what he really was saying is that electrons equal motion times the circumference of the atom in which the electrons exist."

The above nonsense should be noted as ignorant blather. And if I really meant it, I should be criticised vociferously by physicists who know better.

But people come into this religion thread and, regarding the Bible and the Christian faith, say things tantamount to the other nonsense. And when their ignorance is duly noted, they cry and complain about how unfair it is to say such things to them, and how they have a right to believe whatever they want to believe, and yadda yadda yadda. But the bottom line is their "well-informed" opinions are nothing of a sort, and instead of recognizing their ignorance, they try to hide it.

18772. kuliginthehooligan - 11/20/2002 2:48:16 PM

The heading for this thread should be:

Religion and Philosophy: Ignorance run amuck.

18773. kuliginthehooligan - 11/20/2002 2:51:11 PM

One of the keys to properly understanding ANY literary work is to recognize its genre. You wouldn't interpret "Hamlet" the same way as you would "Mein Kampf" or "The Guiness Book of World Records" would you?

The Bible should be approached similarly. You do not read Psalms in the same way that you read Romans or Revelation. Careful study takes time but must be done. Many people here take the Forest Gump approach to the Bible, "stupid is as stupid does." If you come to the text as a learner, fine. However, if you come spouting your "expert" opinion yet haven't done squat in studying the text, better to keep your trap shut.

18774. judithathome - 11/20/2002 2:52:55 PM

What do you care what others, whom you deem ignorant, think? It shouldn't matter to you at all and yet you take every single thing said on this thread so personally. Even things meant in jest or things not meant to be taken seriously at all, you just go bonkers over.

Relax or you will have to fight Pelle for the title of "dourest on the Mote" someday.

18775. judithathome - 11/20/2002 2:54:20 PM

better to keep your trap shut.

That approach has more appeal for me with each passing day.

18776. kuliginthehooligan - 11/20/2002 3:09:15 PM

"What do you care what others, whom you deem ignorant, think? It shouldn't matter to you at all and yet you take every single thing said on this thread so personally."

Although I don't take things "personally" I do think it is important to speak against error. Do you expect African-Americans, for example, to stand by quietly while white supremacists spout ignorant statements of "fact" about them, such as black skin is the curse God put on Cain? Of course you don't! But you and I both agree that White Supremacists are ignorant fools.

Yet, standing on the sidelines are people who aren't sure what to think. And some of them are attracted to the "obvious" facts of the White Supremacists.

The same thing happens here. For every ignorant statement made about God, Christianity, the Bible, and so on in this thread, there are some people who just read it and, if nothing is said contrary, may actually believe these "facts" to be true. I have ALWAYS encouraged people to study things for themselves.

So, when jay spouts error about the Documentary Hypothesis, or amomieme says something ignorant about the Bible, or you judith say something stupid about miracles, I should just keep my mouth shut, right?

Oh, you'd LOVE that, and everybody else here who is interested in muddying the waters of truth. If pointing out error makes me "dour" then so be it!

18777. kuliginthehooligan - 11/20/2002 3:09:43 PM

All I can say to 18775 is Hallelujah!

18778. kuliginthehooligan - 11/20/2002 3:18:44 PM

Judith, if a thread on antiques existed in the Mote, and perhaps the topic is discussed in "Arts" I am not sure, and I went in there and started spouting errant after errant after blessed errant statement about antiques, would you sit by quietly and say nothing? Hardly! Even in things you know next to nothing about, you can't keep your mouth shut!

So why should this thread be anything different?

You should take your ignorance of certain things and use that to your benefit. For example, you obviously have read little to nothing about the "historical Jesus" and scholarship on the topic. So why come in here and look like a fool when you say things that have no scholarly basis? Wouldn't it be better to either 1) study up first and then speak, or 2) come in here and ASK QUESTIONS, instead of making statements of ignorant "fact?"

Here's what I would love. I would love to actually have conversations in this thread with people who actually know what they are talking about. No sarcasm to hide their ignorance. No snide comments because they can't say anything of real substance. To actually have non-Christians come in here and ask questions about the Bible, honest questions, or to debate issues on which they themselves have studied up, that would be a breath of fresh air. Instead, it is almost constant nonsense followed up by "Oh, I was only joking!"

18779. judithathome - 11/20/2002 3:20:25 PM

Oh get off it...I'm not interested in muddying any waters about your truth. I thought this discussion was open to anyone. You take up a majority of thread space positing your views and because we don't agree with them, and because we haven't studied to the extent you have, we're just supposed to leave and say nothing?

Get used to the sound of one jaw flapping, KtH.

I'm sure you already are, though.

18780. kuliginthehooligan - 11/20/2002 3:22:50 PM

That people oppose Christianity and the message of Jesus comes as no surprise to me. That people make statements of opinion based on ignorance also comes as no surprise to me.

What DOES actually surprise me, though, is that people who do the above seem oblivious to how stupid they look when they do it!

jay asked an honest question the other day: do people really believe this Nicene Creed? What he didn't do was come in here, deride the faith of the Creed, make knee-jerk statements or belittle Christians. He asked real questions and laid off the easy poke at people of faith. Others in this thread are all too ready to take the pot shot at people of faith and what they believe. It is so much easier to sit in derision and ignorance, than to actually study these things.

18781. judithathome - 11/20/2002 3:23:34 PM

To actually have non-Christians come in here and ask questions about the Bible, honest questions, or to debate issues on which they themselves have studied up, that would be a breath of fresh air. Instead, it is almost constant nonsense followed up by "Oh, I was only joking!"

Good luck on finding someone able to withstand your imperious attitude. There will never be anyone who has studied enough to please you...we are all ifgnorant sheep in need of enlightenment and you are the only one with a candle.

18782. kuliginthehooligan - 11/20/2002 3:24:35 PM

"one jaw flapping?"

From the looks of things, you have several jaws!

And btw judith, get a sense of humor. My "Hallelujah" was meant in jest. Geez, you have such a tight ass sometimes. Lighten up! I only meant it in fun. Don't you have any sense of humor??!!
















Like the taste of your own medicine, judith?

18783. judithathome - 11/20/2002 3:25:06 PM

See? I can't even spell ignorant correctly.

18784. PelleNilsson - 11/20/2002 3:27:08 PM

I suspect Kuligin's true faith is in Hermeneutics rather than in Christianity.

18785. judithathome - 11/20/2002 3:27:41 PM

Yeah, I have a great sense of humor and people continue to tell me so.

I was making a play on "what is the sound of one hand clapping" by the way.

I have enough jaw to feel it drop at some of the things you accuse me of...

18786. kuliginthehooligan - 11/20/2002 3:27:56 PM

"You take up a majority of thread space positing your views and because we don't agree with them, and because we haven't studied to the extent you have, we're just supposed to leave and say nothing?"

Perhaps I take up the "majority" of space because you have nothing intelligent to add to the conversation??

In any event, if you actually followed this thread and its history closely, rarely do I post something that is new to the thread. Instead, I pop in when I see something said that needs rebutting. My recent entrance came in response to amomieme's "mental abuse" comments.

And can't you read judith? I don't want you guys to leave. I haven't said that once. I wouldn't have any fun if you did, to be honest. But what I DO want is for you to at least ask honest questions as an honest inquisitor, and not post as a snide, snip little twit who only has sarcastic comments to poke at Christian faith. But we have already been over this material.

18787. judithathome - 11/20/2002 3:28:57 PM

Pelle, he has a Master's in it.

18788. kuliginthehooligan - 11/20/2002 3:32:30 PM

Okay, judith, here's what I would like to have, if I could have an ideal thread and you in it. If you watch me closely, and I don't doubt that you'd prefer not to, ALL my sour comments are directed at people who do not come in seeking honest answers. They are interested, rather, in potshots, like pelle. All he does is hop in every so often and post something negative and derogatory. I have learned actually to just ignore him, because he isn't worth the time.

But with others, I take pleasure in slapping them back. However, go and find one derisive thing I said to Rick the other day. What he was saying was nothing short of heresy about the Trinity. But he asked honest questions and we had honest interaction.

You and I just don't. No doubt we are both at fault. But from my side, if you actually came in here and asked one day, "What data is available that would make me reconsider my flirtation with the idea that Jesus never really existed but was instead a literary creation?" I would happily interact with you.

For those people, though, who only have snide comments to say about the Christian faith, I hold no quarter.

18789. kuliginthehooligan - 11/20/2002 3:34:31 PM

And now I am off to bed. Thank you for this fun banter today. Believe it or not, I rarely have arguments in real life!

18790. judithathome - 11/20/2002 3:39:55 PM

Sweet dreams! And I mean that sincerely.

18791. justears - 11/20/2002 3:56:16 PM

Too bad we are in such different time zones. I just got around to reading the recent posts. Response to my post on the creed by kth: of course I am not arguing that the classic christian formulation of the creed was not attempting to draw up a list of propositional beliefs. Although, clearly they had to resort to metaphorical language. How else can one really attempt to describe divine reality. Even to call Him "good" is resorting to a word which is relatively impotent before the Reality it attempts to capture. No matter how literally one would like to fix a belief as orthodox, one must still use language and metaphor. I believe that everyone must struggle to understand, and part of understanding is recognizing the limits of language particularly when one's aim is to capture the sublime. I would like to encourage people who struggle with a "classic" set of beliefs to realize that there are many ways to "read" belief propositions and still be within the range of making sense from a Christian point of view. I would advise generally to beware of anyone who wants you to join a club by, like abraham sacrificing his son, to sacrifice one's sense of what is rational. Such a game is called: "Getting you down in the hole he's in". And at its worst extreme is: time to go boys, put on these sneakers, take the poison and fly away on Hale-Bopp.

18792. jayackroyd - 11/20/2002 4:03:23 PM

UB 18755

>This is very pertinent. Especially in light of your next post 18733, " This is the received doctrine, and you don't get to mess with it. "
OK, I'm lost now. I believe I do get to mess with it. I have a choice. Your gut feeling that everyone doesn't believe it hook, line, and sinker, I understand that.<

My point is you don't get to be an Episcopalian if you want to mess with it, in the case of the service I attended. You'd have to join a lower church version of Protestantism, as with glendajean's friend.

But you can't have it both ways. You can't be part of an organization that dictates doctrine, and reject the doctrine.

And, my larger point, is that if you reject some part of the doctrine, doesn't it all become suspect?

18793. jayackroyd - 11/20/2002 4:17:13 PM

Kth writes:

>And that when the Bible speaks in poetry, it should be understood in the context of poetry; when it speaks in parables, it should be understood in the context of parables; when it speaks in proverbs, it should be understood in the context of proverbs. And so on.<

This is a good and useful clarification of my blunter point. Thanks.

18794. jayackroyd - 11/20/2002 4:45:14 PM

KtH says

>Also, the notion that the Pentateuch was written by four separate authors has been thoroughly debunked. You are basically parroting old claims, which even many liberal Christian scholars have now backed away from.<

You've said this before, and I've actually asked around (it happens that I have customers with theologians on staff), because you're a scholar on this subject and I'm not. Read a few books. And as far as I can tell, it is still a widely held view.

For example, I have lying around a book by Jack Miles, called "God: A Biography." This Miles guy is eminently qualified--ex-Jesuit, PhD in Near Eastern Studies from Harvard, stuff like that. And there is no whiff of uncertainity about what he calls historical criticism of the Torah--priestly "redactors" tying together works of the the other three authors. And he writes like a good scholar. Where there is uncertainity, he says so. Unlike your quote above.

And, btw, things that "even many liberal Christian scholars have now backed away from" can't be held to be "thoroughly debunked."

18795. jayackroyd - 11/20/2002 5:01:12 PM

18791

>Although, clearly they had to resort to metaphorical language. How else can one really attempt to describe divine reality. <

You know, this really isn't true. They scrapped and they struggled, and the creed wasn't really widely accepted (I'm told by the priest I had a conversation with about this issue) for another several decades. It is not meant to metaphorical. It is, if you read some of the history of the early church, very serious, to some extent, very personal, and very deeply held. And they really did boot out people who wouldn't accept it-condemning them to a very real hell.

What I said earlier about the precision of the language, I really meant. To some degree, like in any compromise, there was some ambiguity, but it was meant, for real, for every word.

This also summarizes my reason for raising this. The people reciting this in 510AD really did believe it, IMO. (Although most of them were illiterates reciting it in Latin, so maybe I'm exaggerating.) It's hard for me to believe that people today actually believe it in the same way, without introducing metaphor or labeling it as poetry.

18796. jayackroyd - 11/20/2002 5:08:12 PM

This is a very interesting summary of the mess physics is in vis a vis religion and metaphysics:

Physics quandries

Easterbrook also writes the very amusing Tuesday morning quarter column for espn.com.

18797. anomieme - 11/20/2002 7:17:08 PM

Jay,

I think people probably did (and still do) believe the literal words of the creed. The problem is, can we understand exactly what those words relate to in the context of transcendent thoughts? Isn't this the point you made in an earlier post? Perhaps I misunderstood you.

To recite I believe Jesus is fully human and fully God is easy. To understand it, however, we must redefine the words "human" and "god". In our everyday context A human has limitations. God doesn't. If the human "part" of the entity can die, it follows that the God-human of the creed were NOT "one" or "fully" anything. They were in two parts. The words God and human cancel out because of the limitations on the part that is human. What people actually believe in is a mysterious, indescribable entity that transcends the words, I think.

Not being purposefully argumentative. Just trying to understand your earlier posts.

18798. anomieme - 11/20/2002 7:20:08 PM

Kuligin,

Serious questions...genuine curiousity: Are your fellow Christians here on the Mote in grave error and at peril, or are they just a little mistaken? If they are inspired to believe differently from you, is that inspiration demonic, satanic, from a different diety, or is it mere human error.

Does your God allow them to be deceived into believing such error? Either way, who would be the deceiver in these cases? How would you rate the quality of their Christianism? Is it worthy of entrance into heaven, or is it go/no go in the error department.

Or maybe I'm asking if it is a sin to believe as they do?

18799. anomieme - 11/20/2002 7:33:06 PM

KTH,

(Friendly sarcasm alert) Before I talk about the language problem, let me ask you to please stop being silly about hermeneutics and Aristotle and such, at least with me. I could use a refernce library and a spell checker and I'd still ask you the same things, or bait yuo as it were. I was only making a simple point about the limitations of language.

So, back to the subject. Is John the Babtist still dead? Yes. Still? Yes, right there with General Franco. No physical sightings post-death. Just like our normal definition of death. So what's your point about hermeneutics? (don't answer that please). Lousy example, Kuligin. You don't know good analogy from NO analogy.

Now, Is Jesus dead? No? Then why say he "died" EXCEPT to symbolize something else that we don't understand or that we mean metaphorically?

Is Jesus God? Is God dead? Did God die too for 3 days? At what point was Jesus no longer God and allowed to expire? (Here's that nine-year-old again!)

You see? Everyone else who dies is still dead. And they don't even know how long their gonna stay dead. They will no doubt be dead a long, long time. So, it's imprecise to use the same word for DEAD as you use for a 3-days-temporarily- indisposed condition. I think we'd all have a more cheerful outlook on death if we knew we'd be back shaking (showing?) hands in a few days. A bit different that, no?

18800. anomieme - 11/20/2002 7:34:25 PM

KtH continued...

Is murder evil? Yes? Is it evil when God does it, or commands it? No? Why? Because you simply change the word from "murder" to "kill" even though the act in question is the same. Or maybe you redefine evil. Either way, language applies differently to God. Justice. Now there's another one that means one thing for us and something entirely different for God. God's arbitrary killing is Justice, let's call it. And on, and on.

You said:
"What did it (death) mean to the original readers? That is the key."

No that's not the key. Many Christians proselytize that "Jesus died...and rose from the dead...". And they do this in the here and now. It's gobbledygook then and now.

I reckon you'll dismiss me as being behind in Aquinas or some such, but I'd really be curious if you have some straightforward comments for a change.

18801. anomieme - 11/20/2002 7:35:40 PM

"My recent entrance came in response to amomieme's "mental abuse" comments."

My small contribution to the Mote, thankyouverymuch.

Or, I do sin afterall!

18802. justears - 11/20/2002 9:15:01 PM

anomieme: Since Kuligan is fast asleep, dreaming his literalist dreams, I will venture to discuss the resurrection. This is a subject which has evoked in me many different positions in my struggle with faith. I currently believe that Jesus really did 'appear' to the community on several occasions. Which is to say they saw him and his appearance was as if alive. I believe that these appearances constitute some of the best evidence we have that people don't just die and rot with the worms. People are more than their bodies & brains. Whatever that 'more' is must be some kind of surviving spirit. Given the above, it doesn't seem like such a stretch to believe that a great spirit might have the power/permission to appear as real after his/her death in order to prove a point and engender faith. Such a belief seems to me to presuppose a multi-dimensional universe which is much stranger than the current reigning model in physical science, although even these kinds of thoughts don't seem too radical given some recent cosmological speculations.

18803. anomieme - 11/20/2002 10:23:23 PM

Justears,

I think life is so remarkably improbable and inexplicable that I can't disagree with you. Anything is possible. I'm not out to prove something didn't happen. I don't think anyone has any objective evidence that Jesus was resurrected, but perhaps he was. I doubt it. But I can't say your beliefs are not valid for you.

I think Kuligin believes in the physical return of the same body, however.

The point is, it's something other than death as we know it. Especially considering the God-man was in total control of his own demise and return and knew he wasn't really taking any chances. Something totally different from the death you and I will experience.

18804. justears - 11/21/2002 7:28:26 AM

Anonmieme, I certainly don't pretend to understand the actual physics of such 'miraculous' events. But I do believe that whatever the explanation, it is rational and probably isn't actually interupting the laws of physics...only appearing to do so. The only 'objective' evidence of the resurrection would have to be the testimony of several people. I have a friend(who I would describe as a radical atheist and sceptic)whose husband died. One random evening months after his death, she got up and walked into another room and her husband was standing in front of her smiling. She reports that he seemed to be as alive as you or me. She stood there amazed for a couple of minutes and then the appearance dissolved. It is one of those events that she files as anomalous or wondrous or miraculous without much second thought. She is too busy living her life to wonder too much about it.

18805. anomieme - 11/21/2002 9:06:57 AM

Justears,

Anytime Jesus wants to visit me, he's welcome. Til then, he's either got to come through by answering a few prayers in a demonstratable and repeatable way, or pass the James Randi test, or something. Otherwise, I'd say the evidence so far is anecdotal. Kuligin sometimes mentions emperical evidence in that desperate way he has, but there is none unless you're simply counting literary references.

18806. KuligintheHooligan - 11/21/2002 11:05:54 AM

anomieme,

No, "dead" means dead, nothing different. That Jesus came back to life three days makes absolutely no sense unless he was first dead. There is not one iota of a difference between the use of that word with, say, John the Baptist, who didn't resurrect, and Jesus, who did.

"Now, Is Jesus dead? No? Then why say he "died" EXCEPT to symbolize something else that we don't understand or that we mean metaphorically?"

This isn't complicated. Really. Is Jesus dead now according to Christian belief? No. But was he once dead? Yes. And that is all it means when we say he WAS "dead." He was crucified, DEAD, and buried, so says the Apostles' Creed.

18807. KuligintheHooligan - 11/21/2002 11:08:06 AM

"I think Kuligin believes in the physical return of the same body, however."

Yes and no. It was a physical resurrection, yes, and his body although similar was not exactly the same. It was as we call it a "resurrection body." It still had marks and the "look" of his "original" body if you would, but the body also had characteristics that normal bodies do not have, like being able to appear and disappear instantly.

"It's gobbledygook then and now."

To those who do not believe in the existence of God, I suppose so.

18808. KuligintheHooligan - 11/21/2002 11:11:49 AM

"So, it's imprecise to use the same word for DEAD as you use for a 3-days-temporarily- indisposed condition."

Dead is dead. That the person was able, later, to come back to life, doesn't negate the fact that he was first dead. In fact, it only proves the point. You can't speak about coming back to life, resurrecting, and such, if you weren't first dead!

And btw, all people will one day resurrect from the dead, so says Christian doctrine.

"Is murder evil? Yes? Is it evil when God does it, or commands it? No? Why? Because you simply change the word from "murder" to "kill" even though the act in question is the same. Or maybe you redefine evil. Either way, language applies differently to God."

God can do what he wants to do. One shouldn't make the mistake that, just because God does it, I can do it too. God has every right as Creator to command his creatures to do or not do certain things.

Also, be very definition, what ever God does is right and good. You can disagree of course, but who cares ultimately about yours or mine opinion on the matter? God is the Judge of the universe, not you or me.

18809. KuligintheHooligan - 11/21/2002 11:14:29 AM

jay

I will concede the point. I did use hyperbole in my statement about JEDP. Obviously, there are still SOME liberal scholars who spout it, but on the whole, the Documentary Hypothesis has lost considerable steam. What seemed to virtually all liberal scholars two or three decades ago as a "sure thing" is no longer that to the vast majority of them.

But that is typically what happens to liberal theology and hypothesis. They are always backing away from their "solid" conclusions. [and I hope that isn't more hyperbole on my part!]

18810. KuligintheHooligan - 11/21/2002 11:16:13 AM

judithathome,

I feel the need to apologize to you. As you have admitted, some of your comments are obviously meant to be sarcastic, but as you say, not all of them are. I will take you at your word and give you the benefit of the doubt, and attempt in the future to address you in a more open and friendly manner, and attempt to discern when you are being honest and/or humorous as opposed to sarcastic and/or bating.

18811. judithathome - 11/21/2002 12:23:27 PM

Thanks, Kuligin. And in the spirit of fairness, I will try to make fewer sarcastic contributions or at least identify them with an " (s)™ " mark. ;-)

18812. theDiva - 11/21/2002 12:29:58 PM

kuuuummmmbaaaayyyaaaaaahhhhhhh

18813. judithathome - 11/21/2002 12:31:52 PM

Ha!!

18814. arkymalarky - 11/21/2002 6:41:28 PM

What's all this harmony doing in the religion thread?

18815. anomieme - 11/21/2002 8:04:05 PM

Arky,

I think the deal is this. Judith isn't perfect. She's just forgiven!

18816. anomieme - 11/21/2002 8:11:39 PM

Kuligin,

I know you respond to many posters here and it seems you work hard to keep up. I appreciate that whether I happen to be posting to you at the time or not. Considering the number of folks posting to you, I wouldn't expect you to cover every detail. But when you get a chance could you comment on:

If Jesus was fully God, did God suffer death too? If not, when did the separation of God from human occur?

What accounts for the varied beliefs among Christians who interpret the same scripture or creed and who proclaim inspiration from the HS, and what is their risk of damnation?

What's the rationale for God's allowance of deceit since deceit robs a man of his ability to judge and decide correctly?

18817. kuliginthehooligan - 11/22/2002 1:45:47 AM

anomieme

I’ll attempt to briefly answer your three most recent questions:

1) “If Jesus was fully God, did God suffer death too? If not, when did the separation of God from human occur?”

These questions were dealt with in great detail in the history of the early church and the formulation of the creeds, especially when it relates to the first four ecumenical councils of the early church (Nicaea – 325, Constantinople – 381, Ephesus – 431, Chalcedon – 451). The discussions didn’t end there, but these first four councils serve as the basis for any further confessions.

The bottom line is did. Any teaching that claims that the human and divine natures of Jesus separated is heretical according to traditional, orthodox faith. The common question, “Did God die?” can only be answered by saying that Jesus Christ, who was fully human and fully divine, died. Can God die? The answer is obviously no. But can a person who is both fully human and fully divine die? The answer is yes.

That the incarnation embodies a certain level of mystery is not denied. Christian theology has been much more able to say what God and the incarnation are NOT rather than to detail to the finest jot and tittle what they are in their very nature.

In short, then, there was a person – one person – who had two natures, one human and the other divine. That one person did indeed die on the cross. Most likely, he would have bled to death, but he probably died like most crucifixion victims die, by suffocation. His heart stopped beating. His brain stopped functioning. And he no longer breathed.

18818. kuliginthehooligan - 11/22/2002 1:46:49 AM

2) “What accounts for the varied beliefs among Christians who interpret the same scripture or creed and who proclaim inspiration from the HS, and what is their risk of damnation?”

There variety of reasons are too numerous to post, but some of the factors are these:
A) some Christians have no understanding of Scripture and believe something simply because that is what they were taught by others, be it parents, teachers or pastors, and so on. Many disagreements are the result of ignorance on the part of one party or the other.
B) some Christians don’t care what the Bible has to say. They prefer to stick to their perceptions regardless of what the Christian faith may actually proclaim. So, for example, “Jesus would never condemn anybody” goes entirely against the Gospel accounts, but who cares, I like a friendlier Jesus so I will ignore what the Bible says about him.
C) some “Christians” are out and out heretics, false prophets, false teachers, whatever you call them, and are only in it to lead people astray. The New Testament speaks often about such people and warns us against them constantly.
D) some Christians claim to have direct knowledge or revelation from God, via the Holy Spirit, so they don’t need to be tied down to what “the Book” has to say. This false dichotomy between the Spirit and the Word has been the breeding ground of probably the greatest deception to yet hit the church. I know of people who claim they don’t need to study the Bible or even know it, because the Spirit leads them directly.
E) some Christians have honest disagreements among themselves. Even though they are learned, the two groups simply disagree. An issue like believers’ baptism versus infant baptism is a case that immediately comes to mind.

The above is not meant to be exhaustive.

18819. kuliginthehooligan - 11/22/2002 1:47:13 AM

As for the risk of damnation, obviously I will not be the judge of that, but from what Scripture teaches, I would opine this:
A) relatively high, B) higher than A, C) extremely high, D) extremely high, E) minimal to non-existent

18820. kuliginthehooligan - 11/22/2002 1:47:47 AM

3) “What's the rationale for God's allowance of deceit since deceit robs a man of his ability to judge and decide correctly?”

I don’t agree entirely with the last clause of your statement. Take Adam for instance. He knew what God had commanded. He knew that all he need do is obey God. Yet he willingly chose not to.

Deception will always exist. But if you know the truth and know it well, deception will not be a problem. If God had placed man in a situation where ONLY deception existed, then I could conclude with you that deception would rob a man of his ability to judge. But where God has clearly revealed the truth to man AND placed him in a situation where deception exists, I disagree with your assessment.

In other words, your consistent attempts to blame God for the sin of man just won’t stick.

18821. anomieme - 11/22/2002 7:48:03 PM

Kuligin,

I think our back and forth here makes it plain that when, talking about God or Christ, some words are highly imprecise until redefined or amended . You won't admit it outright, but you don't deny the "mystery" that differentiates the two kinds of deaths. I'm happy to leave it there.

BTW, (please correct me Kuligin, if I'm way off on this) not sure if it's true in the original language (Greek?), but the first recursion of the Nicean Creed omits the word "death" or "died". This was added later. I wonder if the authors were side-stepping the problem of their God dying even then.

18822. anomieme - 11/22/2002 7:53:07 PM

KtH,

You have a convenient way of evaluating what deception really is. Tell me why Adam and Eve SHOULD have believed God over the serpent? What special ability did the first humans have for discerning deception? I admit I haven't read Genesis lately but I don't remember God giving Adam a deception detector.

Is there anything biblical beyond an assumption that Adam and Eve weren't truly deceived prior to the sin? Question. Not challenge.

Deception by definition robs a person of his ability to avoid it. If he can avoid it, he is NOT deceived.

And how does one KNOW God is giving him the truth? Did God talk to you, for example? If he did, would you immediately know he wasn't an imposter? Your fall back position on the Bible doesn't work here, I don't think.

God invented sin, so yes, I think we can consistently hold him responsible for it and all its consequences. Thank you for noticing I do. I'm sure the portion of mankind that are damned would have been happier it never existed. But then, they didn't have free will to choose their circumstances.

18823. anomieme - 11/22/2002 7:57:55 PM

KtH,

Thanks for your answer about varied beliefs. I understand why the rebellious or selfish would fall outside the protected realm, but I was asking about the difference among equally sincere believers. But, the last part of your response speaks to that well enough, except that you and I have a years-old conversation (never finished) regarding the problem of inspiration from the HS and why the HS seems so fickle, leading folks to believe such disparate and contradictory doctrines. You seem to hold the individual accountable. The problem is...

- The HS is inerrant and infallible, but the person receiving the inspiration is not. In this case, how can anyone be certain of having the true inspiration? Measure against the bible, you might say. But...

- The bible is inerrant, while the interpretation may not be. Therefore, what is the value of believing the bible to be innerant if you can never be certain as to its interpretation?

It would appear the HS is incapable of inspiring people to believe correctly either because of its own ineffectiveness (you're not buying that one), or because some people are unABLE to receive the correct inspiration. In which case, we have to assume that God WITHHOLDS the very ability needed to believe the correct things.


So Kuligin, how do we keep the chain of inerrancy intact when we have this huge fallibility gap that can be exploited using the tools of Satan, like deception, misinformation, charismatic leadership, cults, etc? No, strike that question. It's clear from the myriad of beliefs that the chain is NOT intact. So I guess my original question about the value stands. What's the value to mankind to proclaim the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible and the HS when it can not be demonstarted in practice?

18824. kuliginthehooligan - 11/23/2002 4:40:50 AM

anomieme

"but the first recursion of the Nicean Creed omits the word "death" or "died". This was added later."

I have never seen an "edition" or version of the Nicene Creed that omits the fact that the Son of God died.

As for mystery, I have never said that the Christian faith does not involve mystery! Of course it does. But what I have said is that the concept of faith does not negate reason. The two work in conjunction, not in contradiction. Thus my objection to Ms. No some time back when she said that faith and reason are antithetical.

18825. kuliginthehooligan - 11/23/2002 4:46:44 AM

As for the issue of "deception," let's be certain that you are using that word correctly. God created Adam and told Adam what not to do. That is good enough for Adam.

Then along comes the Serpent and contradicts God's command.

Adam has a choice to make. "Deception" as you use that term does not rob him of his freedom of will, or his ability to discern. If that is de facto your definition of deception, then we disagree. Thus your statement here

"Deception by definition robs a person of his ability to avoid it. If he can avoid it, he is NOT deceived."

makes little sense in this regard. Deception does not rob the person of his ability to avoid it! How can you even conclude that?! A man can lie to a woman about his HIV/AIDS status, but that doesn't mean she MUST sleep with him because she has no other choice! Is he deceiving her? Yes. MUST she still sleep with him? Of course not.

Adam knew exactly what he was doing. He was disobeying God and did so with his eyes wide open. And that is why he is held responsible for his sin.

18826. kuliginthehooligan - 11/23/2002 4:52:40 AM

"I was asking about the difference among equally sincere believers"

Sincerity, devoid of truth, doesn't cut the mustard.

"the HS seems so fickle, leading folks to believe such disparate and contradictory doctrines"

You'll have to be more specific than this. What contradictory doctrines? Unless the following examples you provided were these?

As for the issue of inerrancy, some of your questions are good, and some rely on misinformation and a misunderstanding of Christian belief. Sure, men are errant, but are they ALWAYS inerrant? Have you never scored a 100 on test?

But in any event, the doctrine of inerrancy guards against human error. That's the point of the doctrine and the inspiration of the HS. So you can't then say that the Spirit could not inspire perfection. The HS is, afterall, God and the Creator of humanity.

18827. kuliginthehooligan - 11/23/2002 4:57:09 AM

For example, this statement of yours makes a logical falacy:

"The bible is inerrant, while the interpretation may not be. Therefore, what is the value of believing the bible to be innerant if you can never be certain as to its interpretation?"

Who said you can never be certain of a particular interpretation? That is your logical mistake. Just because error in interpretation may exist, that does not negate certain in this or that interpretation. The *possibility* of error does not make error automatic.

Is there the possibility that you may cause an accident while driving your car? Of course, because you are not inerrant. But does that mean that you MUST cause an accident? Of course not.

But suppose you have two people, one who has never driven a car and studied the rules of the road, and one who has. Who has the better chance of driving accident free? The second, of course. The same goes with the rules of interpretation.

18828. kuliginthehooligan - 11/23/2002 5:00:49 AM

Here's my experience in the Mote and its predecessor the Fray. The people I argue the most with about interpretation of Scripture are the very ones who haven't read one book on interpretation of Scripture! They have all these fancy arguments for how one can never be sure, but all that is meant to do is hide their own ignorance on the topic.

The more you study the topic of Hermeneutics, the more you realize how much smaller the margin of error is than at first believed.

I think, anomieme, before continuing further on this particular topic, it would help if you read some things on the matter. I don't mean that in a condescending manner. I just don't want to waste my time arguing quantum physics with someone who hasn't read quantum physics.

18829. kuliginthehooligan - 11/23/2002 5:05:25 AM

"It's clear from the myriad of beliefs that the chain is NOT intact."

Again, the myriads of beliefs does not prove anything in regards to inerrancy. All it really proves is that people do not study properly or well enough, or that some people purposefully warp the Bible so as to deceive others, and so on (the list I provided earlier).

You are making the false conclusion that because a variety of interpretations exist, there can't be one right one.

18830. kuliginthehooligan - 11/23/2002 6:44:30 AM

"I think our back and forth here makes it plain that when, talking about God or Christ, some words are highly imprecise until redefined or amended . You won't admit it outright, but you don't deny the "mystery" that differentiates the two kinds of deaths. I'm happy to leave it there."

I am not happy to leave it at that, especially if by the above you act like I have conceded some point on this issue of Jesus and the meaning of "dead." Because I haven't. Just because I recognize there is mystery in the INCARNATION does not mean I profess mystery in his DEATH, because there is none in the sense that Jesus died like you or I will die. Not one iota of a difference. His heart stopped beating, his brain stopped functioning, and his lungs no longer produced oxygen. He was dead, dead, dead.

That he rose from the dead three days later in no way makes his death any different from the death of any other human being.

You attempted to make the word "death" appear metaphorical. That strongly implies no death at all. As judith added, (paraphrase alert) "I felt as if I was dead inside, until I realized the teaching of Jesus. Then I was resurrected or re-born." There is no metaphor in the death of Jesus. The man died, full stop.

As I also said, one day YOU TOO will resurrect. Does that negate your death too, just because later you came back to life?

And lastly, my example of John the Baptist in the writing of Josephus was totally lost on you. Just as Josephus reported a real, physical death of J the B (and it cannot be understood metaphorically without doing serious damage to the text) the same applies to Jesus.

18831. anomieme - 11/23/2002 9:04:57 AM

KtH,

Again, thanks for your comprehensive reply. Just a few short comments befoe starting the weekend.

I know it makes you uneasy to discsuss some subjects without resorting to your quite extensive scholarship on these matters (for which I have a signifigant amount of respect). I have read more than might be obvious at first, but I'm sure you'll acknowledge differences of opinion about funadamental matters even at the highest levels of debate. No, what I'm trying to get you to do is respond to the 9-year-old-like questions you say you enjoy so much, and perhaps expose the basic flaws of Christian thinking. I'm aware that we won't resolve longstanding religious problems here on the Mote.

Your last reply to me sounds like it make sense because the topic is religion. In any other context, say Baseball, it would appear to be obfuscated nonsense. I don't mean that to sound as sarcastic as it seems.

18832. anomieme - 11/23/2002 9:09:00 AM

Keeping it simple. You've shown no proof that Adam knew what he was doing. You've opined and added something to the scripture that's not there.

Adam had no more reason to believe God over the serpent. Show that's not true using the text - not your assumption.

18833. anomieme - 11/23/2002 9:11:36 AM

Oh, before I forget. Your reference to Josephus was not lost on me. It was failed move on your part to get us into a quagmire of textual refernces and their validity instead of staying on topic.

18834. anomieme - 11/23/2002 9:18:11 AM

On the HS. Kuligin, you did the asme thing last time we tried this one -appealed to authority and concentrated on the extreme end of the religious spectrum, and disparaged the sincerity of other believers, and used the "H" word.

You can't account for the Myriad of beliefs among SINCERE Christians. Just admit it.

You know there are profound differences in beliefs. To just nibble your bait, take two doctrinal matters with contradictions among the faithful:

1 - salvation
2 - Authority of the Church (Catholisism)

18835. anomieme - 11/23/2002 9:20:49 AM

KtH,

Your periodic insinuation that I'm not worthy of the discussion reminds me of the pastor shewing away the 9-year-old. Ha! And I thought you LIKED those kinds of questions.

18836. anomieme - 11/23/2002 9:23:58 AM

I read yesterday that the Creed was modified at some point and the versions I read on the internet did not use the word dead or died or death.

"suffered, was buried...." No death.

18837. anomieme - 11/23/2002 9:26:49 AM

KtH,

You didn't comment on the ability to discern the message of the HS and where it comes from. Apparently you have it. Others don't. A tall claim in inself. Is this just God throwing dice when handing out abilities, or the shortcomings of the HS?

18838. anomieme - 11/23/2002 9:32:20 AM

"I think, anomieme, before continuing further on this particular topic, it would help if you read some things on the matter. I don't mean that in a condescending manner. I just don't want to waste my time arguing quantum physics with someone who hasn't read quantum physics."

Kuligin, we could learn how to read the entrails of a goat and it still wouldn't resolve the simple questions you're trying to avoid.

18839. anomieme - 11/23/2002 9:35:22 AM

"You are making the false conclusion that because a variety of interpretations exist, there can't be one right one."

You're not reading me correctly here, Kuligin. I never said there's no right one. My question is about discernment.

18840. anomieme - 11/23/2002 9:39:31 AM

OTOH, quantum physics might explain everything! The uncertainty principle applied at the gates of Heaven.

Kuligin, I think you're on to something here. Keep your fingers crossed.

18841. kuliginthehooligan - 11/23/2002 10:14:57 AM

anomieme

You are beginning to waste my precious time. Please look through your last ten posts. All you do is either 1) throw jabs at me and accuse me of dodging questions, when all the while anybody can see that I am spending a LOT of time answering them thoroughly, and 2) asking MORE questions! Well, until you address the last batch, I'm not going to answer any more. Your general tack seems to be to throw at me about a dozen questions, and when I answer ten of them, concentrate on the two I didn't get to, and then throw another dozen my way. Is this discussion and debate? Hardly.

"It [my reference to Josephus] was failed move on your part to get us into a quagmire of textual refernces and their validity instead of staying on topic."

Then you obviously did NOT get my point. Why should I waste my time further?

"You can't account for the Myriad of beliefs among SINCERE Christians. Just admit it."

I can, and I did, when I provided you with that list yesterday of five very good reasons why diversity exists. You said, "thank you" then asked more questions. Now you are acting like I never answered this one.

18842. kuliginthehooligan - 11/23/2002 10:18:40 AM

Such comments as these weigh on my patience:

"Kuligin, we could learn how to read the entrails of a goat and it still wouldn't resolve the simple questions you're trying to avoid."

Again, you are avoiding the simple fact that you want to maintain a discussion about interpretation, yet know little to nothing about it. And when I honestly address your questions, you don't address the substance of my answers.

Or try this one:

"You didn't comment on the ability to discern the message of the HS and where it comes from. Apparently you have it. Others don't. A tall claim in inself."

I have made no such claim, so now you are resorting to putting words into my mouth.

Anybody can see that I have taken considerable time in an attempt to honestly answer your myriad of questions. I'm happy to do that. What I won't stand for is your nonsense, ignoring of my points, not addressing the substance of my posts but rather creating words for them that I never said, and generally snide remarks. I really haven't the time for this nonsense.

There is virtually no substance to your last ten posts, while mine are chock full of it. Now I have to waste time commenting on your stupid, snide remarks, instead of addressing your sincere, intelligent comments (which are few and far between at this point in the discussion).

18843. kuliginthehooligan - 11/23/2002 10:23:02 AM

"Your periodic insinuation that I'm not worthy of the discussion reminds me of the pastor shewing away the 9-year-old."

Again, you are not being fair to what I have posted. If you want to comment as some sort of expert of interpretation, when at least act like you know what you are talking about. Your questions are far too general, so that whatever I answer, you will just ask another general question. You aren't dealing with specifics at all. Why? Because you can't. You haven't studied Hermeneutics. So stop pretending to be an expert on it!

"I read yesterday that the Creed was modified at some point and the versions I read on the internet did not use the word dead or died or death.

"suffered, was buried...." No death."

Please provide links. If you are attempting to imply that the early Christians did not believe Jesus died, then prove it. Otherwise, from your above, you are insinuating that they buried him without being dead! Do you see how silly your comments are on this?!

"Hey, guys, he's suffering a lot there. Let's put him in the ground!"

18844. kuliginthehooligan - 11/23/2002 10:27:26 AM

anomieme

You want to read an historical narative as metaphor. Be my guest. Try doing it with Josephus, and you'll see how ridiculous it is. I don't know why you continue to miss this simple point.

BTW, let's have a discussion about Shakespeare and how to properly interpret him. I have absolutely no understanding as to how to do that, but who cares, right? Let's do it anyway. Then we can waste our time like we are doing now.

18845. Cellar Door - 11/23/2002 11:31:29 AM

Church Chat.

18846. anomieme - 11/23/2002 11:49:42 AM

Kuligin,

My goodness. You don't just run scared, you throw stones at the same time. Oh well. This is how you deteriorated last time too, several years ago.

I've given you every opportunity to resolve some simple problems with the rationale for YOUR assertions about Christianity and you've failed at every turn.

Yuor repsponses consist of old worn out apologies that skip right over first premises and into your beloved hermenuetics where you'd like to trap people into a twisted labyrinth of equivocations and assumptions.

No, you can't answer simple, forthright questions and so you start slinging random arrows to divert attention from the original question.

Josephus indeed. When did I ASK about J the B? I have no problem with J the B.

Skip right to the Chicago statements of the the late seventies and see if you can finger the leaky dykes of that bunch. The whole business of inerrancy is a ruse to undermine the authority of a central church while hammering the protestant congregagtion with the local interpretation and keep them under control. It doesn't even matter to the inerrant crowd that interpretation can be wrong, they still cling to some trumped up value of declaring inerrancy. It's like saying, "Oh, we're not really sure what it means, but we know it's true". Real clear thinking, that.

Why the hell does someone need a degree in biblical interpretation to observe the simple fact that people disagree? C'mon Kuligin!

I expected better of you. I expected fair play at least. You can't even get out of Genesis without writing your own experience and knowledge brief for Adam. You rely on a great deal of unsubstantiated assumptions. For faith, that's fine. But it's not good reasoning.

I'd be better if you just said it's ALL a mystery to you but you believe it anyway and be done with it. maybe that's what you ARE saying.

18847. anomieme - 11/23/2002 11:55:31 AM

It'd be better off...

I'm out for the weekend. You can have the last word if want it, Kuligin. I'm pretty much finished and I'll just let the discussion stand on its own.

No hard feelings this end, and again, I admire your tenaciousness and appreciate your time. I tip my hat to your theological knowledge and background, but we will eternally disagree. I hope someone else can engage you in an insider's debate to your satisfaction. I would be a fascinated onlooker.

Cheers.

18848. kuliginthehooligan - 11/23/2002 1:20:49 PM

"I've given you every opportunity to resolve some simple problems with the rationale for YOUR assertions about Christianity and you've failed at every turn."

Ask someone else in this thread - ANYBODY else - if I have "failed at every turn." I have over the last couple of days given you good, honest answers which have addressed your questions. Prove otherwise if not.

"Josephus indeed. When did I ASK about J the B? I have no problem with J the B"

For what, the FOURTH time now, I will explain. You said you can read narrative history as metaphor. Others in this thread have claimed to read the Nicene Creed as poetry. My point is to say that you must treat historical narrative as the genre is meant to be treated. Then I brought up the example of another first-century historical narrative. My argument is not too hard to follow, even for someone like you.

Well, apparently it IS too hard for your to follow!

18849. kuliginthehooligan - 11/23/2002 1:21:36 PM

“It doesn't even matter to the inerrant crowd that interpretation can be wrong, they still cling to some trumped up value of declaring inerrancy.”

What you have consistently done is mix inerrancy with interpretation. As you have confused the two categories, you conclude that Christians are saying this:

“It's like saying, "Oh, we're not really sure what it means, but we know it's true". Real clear thinking, that.”

This is just nonsense. It’s like saying that when we say “trinity” we mean God has three heads. It is a complete misunderstanding, an arrogant misunderstanding I might add, of Christian faith. I should say this about you personally. The more arrogant you become, the more ignorant you appear. Or should I say the opposite? The more your ignorance on these topics becomes apparent, the more arrogantly you assert your misconceptions!

Inerrancy is tied into the very nature of God and actually maintains that there IS a correct understanding of the text. You seem to imply that inerrancy is lost because there are various interpretations. I have attempted several times now to address this issue. NOT ONCE have you addressed the substance of my answers. Instead, you huff and you puff but you just can’t blow the house down. Address the substance of my arguments for crying out loud! Then we might actually have a fruitful encounter.

18850. kuliginthehooligan - 11/23/2002 1:22:12 PM

“Why the hell does someone need a degree in biblical interpretation to observe the simple fact that people disagree?”

Observing that several interpretations exist is step number one, and you are still stuck on it. Any ole schmuck can see that people disagree. I have then answered your questions about the “why” of their disagreements. I provided a list of several reasons why. A very good list I might add. And you never addressed its substance.

What you do need is knowledge of biblical interpretation in order to go beyond your simple observation. You come from a position of ignorance and spout the following: (paraphrase alert) “There are so many varying interpretations of the text. This must mean the text is not inerrant.” This is a logical fallacy I have already pointed out. A non-sequiter if you would. The fact of various interpretations does not negate the inerrancy of the text.

18851. kuliginthehooligan - 11/23/2002 1:22:58 PM

“You can't even get out of Genesis without writing your own experience and knowledge brief for Adam.”

How so? Because I stated that Adam knew what he was doing when he disobeyed God? I suppose the fact that he knew God personally doesn’t cut it with you? So please, show me how I am writing my own experience and knowledge brief for Adam? Deal with the SUBSTANCE this time, please. Show it from my posts and words. They are there for all to read.

“You rely on a great deal of unsubstantiated assumptions.”

ALL beliefs systems do. Show me one that doesn’t. We all start with certain assumptions that cannot be proven, no matter who we are.

But in any event, again, show me my unsubstantiated assumptions. List them for me. I need examples, not just empty talk as you run away.

18852. anomieme - 11/23/2002 2:06:54 PM

KtH,

I'm really rushed and I have to hit the road. But real quick. One problem may just be a misundersatnding on both our parts. You think I'm challenging the fact of inerrancy. I'm not. I'm conceding that point.

My question has always been about the VALUE of it. What good is it to the people who aren't blessed with the correct interpretation and will therefore be damned?

You think the solution is to study more and be sincere. I think it's demonstratable that yuo're wrong about that. There exists genuine disagreement among sincere people and some of their beliefs contradict. Please don'r ask me to summarize this last fact for you. I'm sure you were a good student at seminary.

Till Tuseday then if the topic hasn't been lost among all those others here. Ha! have a good weekend.

18853. anomieme - 11/23/2002 2:10:07 PM

PS. What experience did Adam have with knowing God? Why would he equate being the creator with telling the truth? You simply assume knowledge on his part so you can blame him for believing someone else and exonerate God for placing him in such dubious circumstances.

If we stay within your assumptions, Adam loses every time.

18854. kuliginthehooligan - 11/23/2002 4:33:39 PM

Heeeeey, I thought you said I would have the last word! :-) Okay, on to your next batch of questions.

“My question has always been about the VALUE of it. What good is it to the people who aren't blessed with the correct interpretation and will therefore be damned?”

Well, obviously, the doctrine of inerrancy won’t be of any importance to anyone who doesn’t take the Word of God seriously! Plus, I think you think the issue of interpretation is of such importance to me that it may cost someone his or her salvation. I never said that. Salvation is based on simple trust, faith, and hope in Jesus and what he did on the cross. That message is crystal clear in the Bible.

Why is the doctrine of inerrancy generally important? Consider the opposite. If the Bible were not inerrant, you could never know what parts are right and which are wrong. Inerrancy – which again, comes from the very nature of God – allows us to have trust in the words of Scripture. It basically guards us against a cavalier approach to the Word of God, and should cause us to humbly place ourselves under its authority, instead of the other way around.

18855. kuliginthehooligan - 11/23/2002 4:34:02 PM

“You think the solution is to study more and be sincere.”

Just a correction, but you were the one who brought in the issue of sincerity. I think sincerity is of no value if what you believe is wrong.

“There exists genuine disagreement among sincere people and some of their beliefs contradict.”

Again, I don’t care how sincere they are. If I sincerely believe this flask holds a miracle cure for your ailment, but it contains poison, my sincerity is worthless. And besides, which of their beliefs contradict? Who Jesus is and what he did on the cross? If they deny these tenets of the faith, then they aren’t “sincere Christians” at all.

18856. kuliginthehooligan - 11/23/2002 4:34:33 PM

“What experience did Adam have with knowing God?”

Genesis tells us that he met with God and had a face-to-face relationship with him. You claim I am making these things up, so look for yourself.

“Why would he equate being the creator with telling the truth?”

Now that’s an interesting question. It could run along the same line as “How did Abraham know it was God speaking to him and not a demon when he was told to sacrifice Isaac?” or “How did Noah know it was God and no