Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Well, this sucks...
| Re: Well, this sucks... [message #81635 is a reply to message #81634] |
Fri, 16 March 2007 22:56   |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Yeah, I'm technically self employed as well, I'm a mere consultant for the
office where I work. Still, I'm lucky. I have no debt, rent my apartment
for half what I should pay, and make a nice living. So I can set a budget
for my trip here and that's that. Very sorry it's almost over though, I'd
love to have another month here.
If things go right in my life I might seriously think about retiring here.
The weather is miserable for a few months per year, but that's why air conditioning
exists.
TCB
"DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>Man...I'd love to go to Thailand for a while. I could spend a lot of money
>that I'm not making because I'm on vacation and then worry the entire time
>because while I'm enjoying myself on vacation, the bills continue to roll
in
>because they do not go on vacation and therefore I could spend my entire
>vacation worrying about spending money that I'm not making while I'm
>spending just as much money on bills that are not stopping.
>
>Self employment is sooo cool sometimes.
>
>;o)
>
>
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:45fb64e8$1@linux...
>>
>> Yeah, she sure sounds like an awful person, and your individual experience
>> matches up with what people write about her. Which has precisely zero
to
>> do with me, by the way.
>>
>> Good luck with the pups, the one (single, only, solitary) bad thing about
>> this trip is that I miss my four legged friend back home. But I'll be
>> seeing
>> him on Monday when a very jetlagged and probably slightly hungover TCB
>> will
>> be returning to Connecticut, which I hear is currently under six inches
of
>> snow.
>>
>> TCB
>>
>> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>>>> And the O'Hare person. I never heard of her before you mentioned her
>>>> name
>>>> and for some reason because she was an awful person you think that
>>>> anyone
>>>> who has any of the same beliefs must also be awful and bitter and likely
>>>> to be murdered. That makes no sense.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Thad.......I met her on a few occasions back in the 70's when I was a
>>>student at University of Texas and afterward. I don't know if she was
>>>awful
>>
>>>because she was an atheist, or because she was an antheist who felt like
>> she
>>>was being oppressed by the religious right (and there isn't much of that
>> in
>>>Austin..it's always been a liberal minded place for the most
>>>part).........or because she was just mean......but she was one of the
>>>most
>>
>>>singularly unpleasant people I've ever had the misfortune to meet, more
>>
>>>then once.........so from my perspective, this extreme unpleasantness
>>>seems
>>
>>>to have been consistent thing. I never said anything to provoke this
>>>person.
>>
>>>As for her being murdered, if one subscribes to the theory that people
>>>attract to themselves those who are of of like mind, then she certainly
>>
>>>could have found herself up to her neck in a swirling brew of negative
>>>personalities.
>>>
>>>Glad you're having good experiences in Thailand. It's springtime here,
>>
>>>skunk season has arrived, the hounds are estatic and I am a bit fatigued
>> due
>>>to having to do the "skunkcheck" for these guys prior to letting them
>>>outside at night when they alert that the property perimeters have been
>>
>>>violated by some creature that has come out of hibernation and is foraging
>>
>>>for food. Unsupervised boundary patrols by the dogs can be disastrous
at
>>
>>>this time of year.
>>>
>>>Now back to the seach for giant, combative cephalopods......
>>>
>>>;o)
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Well, this sucks... [message #81639 is a reply to message #81593] |
Sat, 17 March 2007 04:28 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must
be silent."
How's about THAT for some liberation!
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>I don't pick fights with Don anymore, but I will respond when I am haughtily
>>treated and mocked. I don't expect to change his mind, but it does chafe
>>my ass to be told that depression is a 'choice' by someone who clearly
doesn't
>>understand anything about it.
>
>http://www.depressionisachoice.com/
>
>You may not agree, but it is you who is ignorant of this topic.
>
>
>>But I still find it to be a humanity
>>hating religion, particularly if one happens to be a woman or enjoys having
>>sex with members of one's own sex.
>
>These are lies. Paul was the great liberator of women, and
>while the Bible presents homosexual acts as sinful, it clearly
>expects the sinner to be respected as much as the porn addict,
>tax cheat, or infidel. Love the sinner, hate the sin. It's basic
>Christianity for everyone I know. And even hating the sin is not
>supposed to be a public act.
>
>You are welcome to you own opinion, bigoted as it may be,
>you are not welcome to your own facts.
>
>DC
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Well, this sucks... [message #81640 is a reply to message #81614] |
Sat, 17 March 2007 04:34 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I never let anyone dictate my reading lists, but I'll make you a trade. If
you write me a two page book report proving you actually read the new Richard
Dawkins book I'll read up to 500 pages of anything you tell me to and write
one back.
BTW - to anyone who is reading this, you MUST read Charlie Wilson's War.
Whether you a leftie or a rightie or a commie doesn't matter, it's one of
those 'Truth is WAY stranger than fiction' books. As much as I think I know
about American imperial ways I had _no idea_ just how deeply we were into
Afghanistan by th end of that war. And our tax dollars literally paid for
the same AKs and mortars and RPGs being used to blow NATO soldiers.
TCB
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>
>"Doug Wellington" <doug@parisfaqs.com> wrote:
>
>>Yes, it seems obvious that Don does not have first hand knowledge of the
>
>>subject.
>
>Wrong. You have no idea.
>
>
>>(Not that I would wish that for anyone...) And yet, shouldn't we
>>take this opportunity to treat him as the un-knowing child-like spirit
that
>
>>he is and to help him learn the truth?
>
>Doug.. really... You really have no clue here.
>
>Okay, both you and Thad need to read this book:
>
>http://www.depressionisachoice.com/
>
>and the new one Brainswitch. She is getting quite startling
>results. It is something you both need to be aware of before
>you apply such silly little characterizations to anyone...
>
>Until you read it, the ignorance is not mine.
>
>
>>a chance exists that we can help Don understand that his opinion of his
>
>>perception of the one true reality might not be the same as yours or mine
>
>>is,
>
>Oh, that is a given here, and never in doubt. We will stipulate
>to different perceptions.
>
>
>
>>and to realize that each one is as valid as the other...)
>
>If this is true, then neither is valid, since there is no objective
>reality and both are therefore delusions.
>
>But, both are actually truth claims. As such, at least one is
>wrong. Thad certainly thinks mine is wrong. See, that is the
>thing about atheists. Many of them are diehard modernists
>and are quite certain that there is an objective reality and they
>know it, at least the part about a deity...
>Different realities, based upon subjective perception,
>is a postmodern conceit to them, as it is to me. Thad
>claims that there is no objective basis upon which to believe
>in God. You believe that there is no objectivity, other than
>one that we have no apparent access to. There really is no
>common ground here. It is quite best if we all talk about
>something else at this point.
>
>
>
>>DC wrote:
>>> These are lies. Paul was the great liberator of women,
>
>>Interesting that Mohammed was also considered the great liberator of women.
>
>Do you know the difference? Where did Mohammed say anything
>like this:
>
>Galatians 3:28
>There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for
>you are all one in Christ Jesus.
>
>I can show you dozens or maybe even hundreds of texts
>denying this in the Koran.
>
>
>>> while the Bible presents homosexual acts as sinful, it clearly
>>> expects the sinner to be respected as much as the porn addict,
>>> tax cheat, or infidel.
>
>>Don, in my reading of your messages, it seems to me that you do not show
>
>>respect for Thad. Why the disconnect?
>
>He hates Christians. He derides us every chance he
>gets, and is functioning as an advocate for hate.
>
>Here's some quotes:
>--------
>I just despise closed minded holy roller US fuckheads that
>much more.
>
>P.S. While my hatred of the stateside twice born remains intact...
>--------
>
>There have been many more over the years. Now imagine,
>instead of the anti-Christian slurs, you insert the N-word
>or an anti-arab slur? Oh, this place would be up in arms...
>
>But it is perfectly OK to hate Christians?
>
>Bull. And I will stand in his face and tell him enough... If you
>call that lack of respect, then you don't get it.
>
>
>>> Love the sinner, hate the sin. It's basic Christianity for everyone
I
>
>>> know.
>>> And even hating the sin is not supposed to be a public act.
>
>>This makes me wonder even more about all of your public messages...why
do
>
>>you attack Thad so much? Are you not yet Christian enough to love him?
>
>I love him dearly actually. He reminds me of so many lost
>souls trying to comfort their shouting consciences with hate.
>
>He quite reminds me of myself at times, and worse he reminds
>me of my uncle-the-atheist on his deathbed dying of leukemia
>asking us for a reason to believe in God...
>
>(He found one, BTW)
>
>See, if I am wrong, I am just a silly cultist and you can all think
>I am stupid. I can live with that. Because if I am right, then we
>are living in the end times, and each of you will one day point
>a finger at me and scream "why didn't you TELL us?? You KNEW!!
>You knew, and you didn't tell us!" So, listen, or turn the page,
>but enough with the hate because of my faith in my Lord.
>It's pathetic and makes those who indulge in it look disturbed,
>and I will never back down in the face of this bigotry.
>The fact that some people are so offended that I care enough
>to tell them the truth, even if I am wrong, casts serious
>aspersions on their own beliefs and souls.
>
>If a Hindu said to you that through good living, we can come
>back as higher beings in the next life, and through an evil life
>we will come back as bugs, some would listen, some would not,
>but few would insult the Hindu for his beliefs. But Christians?
>Yeah we're just a bunch of fuckheads...
>
>Shame on you.
>
>DC
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Well, this sucks... [message #81654 is a reply to message #81639] |
Sat, 17 March 2007 10:58 |
Doug Wellington
Messages: 251
Registered: June 2005
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA
|
Senior Member |
|
|
TCB wrote:
> "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must
> be silent."
Sigh... The discovery of the Gospel of Mary Magdelene and the more
recent discovery of the Gospel of Thomas have not been greeted with
approval by many people because of the role that Mary played in Jesus'
life. She was his primary disciple and the first person he appeared to
after the resurrection...
It's interesting to make a comparison to Mohammed, his treatment of
women, and the first people to embrace Islam. I may be a bit off, but I
think I remember reading that 23 of the first 60 Muslims were female...
I believe that the teachings both of Jesus and of Mohammed have been
twisted over the years to further a patriarchal agenda...
> How's about THAT for some liberation!
I was married in the Roman Catholic church. It was very interesting
going through the pre-marriage program with them. While some of it was
very informative and enlightening, I found the gender role expectations
surprising. I'll dig up the actual quotes if necessary, but I found the
whole concept that a girl grows up underneath the control of her father,
and then transfers that control to her husband when she marries is
abhorrent! And some of those "observations" were even spoken of during
the marriage ceremony itself! (IIRC, most of it was quotes from
Deuteronomy and Numbers.)
After I got divorced :( nine years later, I was involved with a woman
who was an extremely devoted Baptist. We attended the "Newly Marrieds"
group at Tucson Baptist Temple for the year I was with her. There were
very defined expectations, both implicit and explicit, for her behavior.
[Side note: One of my favorite moments was on a night that I had a
drinking binge with a buddy of mine. I came home ABSOLUTELY PLOWED, to
find that the Newly Marrieds Pastor and his wife had come to call.
Well, being me, I walked right up to him, shook his hand and overwhelmed
him with the stench of my alcohol breath! They never came back for some
reason. Could never understand why...]
It is possible to find good and bad in any of our religious texts if you
try hard enough. I know some will disagree with me, but I believe that
all of our religious texts, no matter what the inspiration, were still
all written by human hands, with human frailties, desires and agendas.
And all of those texts have been reinterpreted, reevaluated and
reemphasized to further various causes over the years.
I believe the measure of someone's spiritual enlightenment comes from
how much they are willing to embrace the good points of any and all
faiths, instead of how successful they are at rationalizing, proving,
and evangelizing their own...
Doug
http://www.parisfaqs.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Well, this sucks... [message #81655 is a reply to message #81654] |
Sat, 17 March 2007 11:25 |
Aaron Allen
Messages: 1988
Registered: May 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
We agree. The single largest issue with religion as a whole is that man
appointed himself to interpret and distribute the rules.
AA
"Doug Wellington" <doug@parisfaqs.com> wrote in message
news:45fc2c60@linux...
> TCB wrote:
>> "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she
>> must
>> be silent."
>
> Sigh... The discovery of the Gospel of Mary Magdelene and the more recent
> discovery of the Gospel of Thomas have not been greeted with approval by
> many people because of the role that Mary played in Jesus' life. She was
> his primary disciple and the first person he appeared to after the
> resurrection...
>
> It's interesting to make a comparison to Mohammed, his treatment of women,
> and the first people to embrace Islam. I may be a bit off, but I think I
> remember reading that 23 of the first 60 Muslims were female...
>
> I believe that the teachings both of Jesus and of Mohammed have been
> twisted over the years to further a patriarchal agenda...
>
>> How's about THAT for some liberation!
>
> I was married in the Roman Catholic church. It was very interesting going
> through the pre-marriage program with them. While some of it was very
> informative and enlightening, I found the gender role expectations
> surprising. I'll dig up the actual quotes if necessary, but I found the
> whole concept that a girl grows up underneath the control of her father,
> and then transfers that control to her husband when she marries is
> abhorrent! And some of those "observations" were even spoken of during
> the marriage ceremony itself! (IIRC, most of it was quotes from
> Deuteronomy and Numbers.)
>
> After I got divorced :( nine years later, I was involved with a woman who
> was an extremely devoted Baptist. We attended the "Newly Marrieds" group
> at Tucson Baptist Temple for the year I was with her. There were very
> defined expectations, both implicit and explicit, for her behavior.
>
> [Side note: One of my favorite moments was on a night that I had a
> drinking binge with a buddy of mine. I came home ABSOLUTELY PLOWED, to
> find that the Newly Marrieds Pastor and his wife had come to call. Well,
> being me, I walked right up to him, shook his hand and overwhelmed him
> with the stench of my alcohol breath! They never came back for some
> reason. Could never understand why...]
>
> It is possible to find good and bad in any of our religious texts if you
> try hard enough. I know some will disagree with me, but I believe that
> all of our religious texts, no matter what the inspiration, were still all
> written by human hands, with human frailties, desires and agendas. And all
> of those texts have been reinterpreted, reevaluated and reemphasized to
> further various causes over the years.
>
> I believe the measure of someone's spiritual enlightenment comes from how
> much they are willing to embrace the good points of any and all faiths,
> instead of how successful they are at rationalizing, proving, and
> evangelizing their own...
>
> Doug
|
|
|
|
| Re: Well, this sucks... [message #81657 is a reply to message #81639] |
Sat, 17 March 2007 13:58 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
There were two issues in play in terms of women in
the church in the 1st century. One of them was justice, one of
them was decorum. In early churches, women,
understanding that they really were equal in the eyes of God,
felt free to speak up in church and participate.
One problem, the only women who did that
in their culture were prostitutes. This became a stumbling block
for new believers and non-believers attending for the first time.
Paul told the women of his time to be silent in church in the
name of saving souls, a higher goal even then equality. He gave
similar advice to slaves to not rebel as you may know.
Social change is always to be less valued than salvation, that is
if you are a Christian. Nonetheless, he laid down the operating
principle of social justice in Galatians 3:28:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female,
for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
The advice to women to not speak in church was specific advice
to a 1st century middle-eastern culture, while Galatians 3 is the
principle that is timeless.
It is clear God intends equality in these times when you simply
read Acts 2.
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
And of course the leading abolitionists were Christians too.
DC
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must
>be silent."
>
>How's about THAT for some liberation!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Well, this sucks... [message #81658 is a reply to message #81640] |
Sat, 17 March 2007 14:02 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Funny that. No one dictates your reading list? Ok, mine neither...
I have no confidence that you have any interest here in anything
other than denigrating Christians. I think it makes you feel better.
This is why you are in danger of ending up like O'Hair. Hopefully
not murdered, but bitter and proud of your hate.
I'm pretty familiar with Dawkins mein kampf. Frankly, he and
Sam Harris and the rest are embarrasing the crap out of most
scientists who want no more of their religion than they want of mine.
DC
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>I never let anyone dictate my reading lists, but I'll make you a trade.
If
>you write me a two page book report proving you actually read the new Richard
>Dawkins book I'll read up to 500 pages of anything you tell me to and write
>one back.
>
>BTW - to anyone who is reading this, you MUST read Charlie Wilson's War.
>Whether you a leftie or a rightie or a commie doesn't matter, it's one of
>those 'Truth is WAY stranger than fiction' books. As much as I think I know
>about American imperial ways I had _no idea_ just how deeply we were into
>Afghanistan by th end of that war. And our tax dollars literally paid for
>the same AKs and mortars and RPGs being used to blow NATO soldiers.
>
>TCB
>
>"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Doug Wellington" <doug@parisfaqs.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Yes, it seems obvious that Don does not have first hand knowledge of the
>>
>>>subject.
>>
>>Wrong. You have no idea.
>>
>>
>>>(Not that I would wish that for anyone...) And yet, shouldn't we
>>>take this opportunity to treat him as the un-knowing child-like spirit
>that
>>
>>>he is and to help him learn the truth?
>>
>>Doug.. really... You really have no clue here.
>>
>>Okay, both you and Thad need to read this book:
>>
>>http://www.depressionisachoice.com/
>>
>>and the new one Brainswitch. She is getting quite startling
>>results. It is something you both need to be aware of before
>>you apply such silly little characterizations to anyone...
>>
>>Until you read it, the ignorance is not mine.
>>
>>
>>>a chance exists that we can help Don understand that his opinion of his
>>
>>>perception of the one true reality might not be the same as yours or mine
>>
>>>is,
>>
>>Oh, that is a given here, and never in doubt. We will stipulate
>>to different perceptions.
>>
>>
>>
>>>and to realize that each one is as valid as the other...)
>>
>>If this is true, then neither is valid, since there is no objective
>>reality and both are therefore delusions.
>>
>>But, both are actually truth claims. As such, at least one is
>>wrong. Thad certainly thinks mine is wrong. See, that is the
>>thing about atheists. Many of them are diehard modernists
>>and are quite certain that there is an objective reality and they
>>know it, at least the part about a deity...
>>Different realities, based upon subjective perception,
>>is a postmodern conceit to them, as it is to me. Thad
>>claims that there is no objective basis upon which to believe
>>in God. You believe that there is no objectivity, other than
>>one that we have no apparent access to. There really is no
>>common ground here. It is quite best if we all talk about
>>something else at this point.
>>
>>
>>
>>>DC wrote:
>>>> These are lies. Paul was the great liberator of women,
>>
>>>Interesting that Mohammed was also considered the great liberator of women.
>>
>>Do you know the difference? Where did Mohammed say anything
>>like this:
>>
>>Galatians 3:28
>>There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for
>>you are all one in Christ Jesus.
>>
>>I can show you dozens or maybe even hundreds of texts
>>denying this in the Koran.
>>
>>
>>>> while the Bible presents homosexual acts as sinful, it clearly
>>>> expects the sinner to be respected as much as the porn addict,
>>>> tax cheat, or infidel.
>>
>>>Don, in my reading of your messages, it seems to me that you do not show
>>
>>>respect for Thad. Why the disconnect?
>>
>>He hates Christians. He derides us every chance he
>>gets, and is functioning as an advocate for hate.
>>
>>Here's some quotes:
>>--------
>>I just despise closed minded holy roller US fuckheads that
>>much more.
>>
>>P.S. While my hatred of the stateside twice born remains intact...
>>--------
>>
>>There have been many more over the years. Now imagine,
>>instead of the anti-Christian slurs, you insert the N-word
>>or an anti-arab slur? Oh, this place would be up in arms...
>>
>>But it is perfectly OK to hate Christians?
>>
>>Bull. And I will stand in his face and tell him enough... If you
>>call that lack of respect, then you don't get it.
>>
>>
>>>> Love the sinner, hate the sin. It's basic Christianity for everyone
>I
>>
>>>> know.
>>>> And even hating the sin is not supposed to be a public act.
>>
>>>This makes me wonder even more about all of your public messages...why
>do
>>
>>>you attack Thad so much? Are you not yet Christian enough to love him?
>>
>>I love him dearly actually. He reminds me of so many lost
>>souls trying to comfort their shouting consciences with hate.
>>
>>He quite reminds me of myself at times, and worse he reminds
>>me of my uncle-the-atheist on his deathbed dying of leukemia
>>asking us for a reason to believe in God...
>>
>>(He found one, BTW)
>>
>>See, if I am wrong, I am just a silly cultist and you can all think
>>I am stupid. I can live with that. Because if I am right, then we
>>are living in the end times, and each of you will one day point
>>a finger at me and scream "why didn't you TELL us?? You KNEW!!
>>You knew, and you didn't tell us!" So, listen, or turn the page,
>>but enough with the hate because of my faith in my Lord.
>>It's pathetic and makes those who indulge in it look disturbed,
>>and I will never back down in the face of this bigotry.
>>The fact that some people are so offended that I care enough
>>to tell them the truth, even if I am wrong, casts serious
>>aspersions on their own beliefs and souls.
>>
>>If a Hindu said to you that through good living, we can come
>>back as higher beings in the next life, and through an evil life
>>we will come back as bugs, some would listen, some would not,
>>but few would insult the Hindu for his beliefs. But Christians?
>>Yeah we're just a bunch of fuckheads...
>>
>>Shame on you.
>>
>>DC
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Well, this sucks... [message #81675 is a reply to message #81661] |
Sun, 18 March 2007 03:24 |
Doug Wellington
Messages: 251
Registered: June 2005
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
> And I hope that works for you. It is, of course, all purely
> human "creative activity". We have a name for that. Heresy.
Heresy - "theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition,
or held to be contrary, to the Roman Catholic or Orthodox doctrine of the
Christian Church" -OED
(Compare and contrast to "Apostasy"...)
"given wide currency by Irenaeus in his tract Contra Haereses (Against Heresies)
to describe and discredit his opponents in the early Christian Church."
(See just about any discussion of the first 400 years of Christianity, especially
the struggle between the Gnostics and the Orthodoxy for control of the church.
For extra credit, discuss why Irenaeus chose the particular set of writings
he did to create the New Testament. Bonus question: when did the church
vote to finally fix the selection of writings included in the Bible? See
"Council of Trent". How did this list compare to the contents of Jerome's
"Vulgate" Bible?)
"the term "heresy" has no purely objective meaning: the category exists only
from the point of view of speakers within a group that has previously agreed
about what counts as "orthodox"."
So, Don, are labeling me a heretic? [SHRUG] Seems accurate enough if we're
going by the definition above. (BTW, are you Roman Catholic? If not, it
would seem that you're a heretic too...) Joan of Arc, Copernicus, da Vinci,
Newton, Einstein and many others were considered heretics. Not a bad crowd
to be associated with IMHO... Hmmm, wasn't even Meister Eckhart on the verge
of being tried for heresy (because he dared preach not in Latin, but in the
local language that the flock could understand) by John XXII before God conveniently
called him home?
Indeed, a majority of the world can not be considered to be Roman Catholic
(since all Christians make up somewhere around 1/3 of the total earth's population
and Roman Catholicism is a subset of all Christianity), so it would seem
to me that there are a lot of heretics out there. Interesting to note is
that as a pure percentage of total world population, Christianity is on the
slow decline and Islam is on the rise, with Islam expected to take over as
the dominant religion of the world sometime later this century...
> The good news is that we are to love you, not persecute you
> for it.
All I can say is: Praise God, you're not one of the "domini canes"!
Ladies and Gentlemen, the defense rests...
http://www.parisfaqs.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Well, this sucks... [message #81682 is a reply to message #81675] |
Sun, 18 March 2007 10:54 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Doug Wellington" <doug@parisfaqs.com> wrote:
>Heresy - "theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition,
>or held to be contrary, to the Roman Catholic or Orthodox doctrine of the
>Christian Church" -OED
This is only one definition. In the larger sense heresy is the deliberate
holding and disseminating of false doctrine. If Jesus was who he said
he was, then you deciding to take beliefs from any tradition you wish
and accord them the value you feel to be correct, is heresy, because in
doing so, you accord human opinions a higher place than his.
It's all dependent on your assumptions.
Ironically, there is plenty of evidence that non-christians can be saved.
I do not believe any person who seeks God will be turned away.
That does not make God poetry or human myth making, it is simply
acknowledging the presence of the Holy Spirit in all human souls.
It also does not make all belief equal (and therefore equally worthless
ultimately).
So, I will not condemn you, nor even Thad, despite the fact that I confront
your beliefs and question them. Your salvation is between you and God.
Man looks on the outward appearance, God looks on the heart.
But man was created, there is sin, there is a plan of salvation, and Jesus
is exactly who he said he is. There is no other tradition that offers this,
and the evidence is clear, both in history and in human hearts, that
there was, and is, a Jesus.
So, when I say I hope it works out for you. I mean it.
best,
DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: Well, this sucks... [message #81696 is a reply to message #81682] |
Sun, 18 March 2007 14:06 |
Doug Wellington
Messages: 251
Registered: June 2005
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
> This is only one definition. In the larger sense heresy is
> the deliberate holding and disseminating of false doctrine.
Which of us gets to determine what is false? Irenaeus? Constantine? St.
Dominic? The Pope? Opus Dei? The Moody Bible Institute? Josh McDowell?
Willard? You?
> If Jesus was who he said he was
I'll refer you back to my previous message asking several questions about
that. If he was not, then you have set up a straw man and have no real basis
for your arguments. Will you answer the simple question: What if Jesus
was not who you say he said he was? Or is that unthinkable?
> It's all dependent on your assumptions.
Again we agree.
> Ironically, there is plenty of evidence that non-christians
> can be saved.
[SHRUG] There are many roads to the top of the mountain...
> So, I will not condemn you,
I find it interesting that you presume to have such authority...
> But man was created, there is sin, there is a plan of
> salvation, and Jesus is exactly who he said he is.
To quote someone I respect:
"It's all dependent on your assumptions."
> There is no other tradition that offers this, and the
> evidence is clear, both in history and in human hearts,
> that there was, and is, a Jesus.
I'm not so sure of that clarity you claim. Will you clear up the Synoptic
Problem for me? Or do you deny that the problem exists?
Doug
http://www.parisfaqs.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Well, this sucks... [message #81697 is a reply to message #81696] |
Sun, 18 March 2007 14:27 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Doug Wellington" <doug@parisfaqs.com> wrote:
>Which of us gets to determine what is false? Irenaeus? Constantine? St.
>Dominic? The Pope? Opus Dei? The Moody Bible Institute? Josh McDowell?
> Willard? You?
Jesus. Unless of course, you think all sources are equal, or
the truth cannot be known. Both, of course, rest on the
assumption of atheism.
However, if you consider that Jesus was who he said he was,
than those who have provided the gospel canon to us, and
rejected some of the other writings, may have done so for
a good reason.
What are your assumptions?
>Will you answer the simple question: What if Jesus
>was not who you say he said he was? Or is that unthinkable?
How would you determine this?
>I find it interesting that you presume to have such authority...
I don't! That is my point in witholding condemnation.
That does not mean that authority does not exist.
>> There is no other tradition that offers this, and the
>> evidence is clear, both in history and in human hearts,
>> that there was, and is, a Jesus.
>I'm not so sure of that clarity you claim. Will you clear up the Synoptic
>Problem for me? Or do you deny that the problem exists?
Not enough time. I can refer you to some other readings
later if you like.
DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: Well, this sucks... [message #81706 is a reply to message #81697] |
Sun, 18 March 2007 21:27 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ok, the synoptic problem.
There has been much scholarly debate about the similarities
of Matthew and Luke to Mark, and the suggestion has been
that the others were therefore copied.
This is a problem for the verbal-inspiration folks because
they believe that each word was dictated by God and is
infallible and original.
I am a thought-inspiriation guy and I think it is clear that the
words are the words of men. Hence, it is all very interesting
to me, but the important thing is not the borrowing, if it
happened, but rather the unity and quality of the mesaage.
Should you try to assert that this apparent borrowing supports
some sort of fraud, I would ask what the payoff was, since
the disciples clearly believed what they said, to the extent of
dying horrible deaths, and never recanting their beliefs. They
lived lives of dedication and faith, spreading Christianity all over
the known world with no payoff other than saved humans.
it is clear that they believed what they preached, and they were
there to witness it.
So, the synoptic problem, and the existence or non-existence
of Q, are interesting, but unrelated to the reality of Jesus.
Lee Strobel has some terrific videos on the issue of the
Bible's credibility. Here's one:
http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/Bible/strobelT1041.htm
Watch as many of these as you have time for.
http://www.leestrobel.com/Bible.htm
Your perpective is, of course, as threatened by mine by the
current war on faith. Actually yours is more threatened
because you cannot base your views on anything other than
personal need and choice. The Bible calls this building your
house upon the sand.
Here's something I wrote on the coming war on faith:
http://doncicchetti.blogspot.com/2006/11/assault-on-faith.ht ml
DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: Well, this sucks... [message #81712 is a reply to message #81697] |
Sun, 18 March 2007 22:51 |
Doug Wellington
Messages: 251
Registered: June 2005
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA
|
Senior Member |
|
|
DC wrote:
> "Doug Wellington" <doug@parisfaqs.com> wrote:
>> Which of us gets to determine what is false? Irenaeus? Constantine? St.
>> Dominic? The Pope? Opus Dei? The Moody Bible Institute? Josh McDowell?
>> Willard? You?
>
> Jesus.
So you're basing everything on a self-referential structure? ("Jesus
said that he was Jesus.") Isn't that the same as saying the Flying
Spaghetti Monster said he was the Flying Spaghetti Monster? (See
http://www.venganza.org) Seems to me that using that kind of
self-referential argument "is irrational and allows you to say things
that make no sense", to selectively quote... ;-)
How do we truly know what Jesus said? Aren't we back to the question of
inerrancy of scripture? How can we prove the accuracy of any quotes
from Jesus in the Gospels when the first of the canonical Gospels wasn't
even written until at least 50 CE, and more likely somewhere around 70
CE? And of the four gospels, why is it that only John asserts that
Jesus is God? (Refer back to a previous message when I wondered how the
church would have been different if the Gospel of Thomas had been chosen
by Irenaeus instead of the Gospel of John. But of course he couldn't do
that; he was a fine upstanding member of the Orthodoxy.) Interestingly,
John was the last of the four Gospels, having been most likely completed
somewhere after 90 CE. The Rylands Papyrus, which is the earliest
actual fragment of the John manuscript, dates from about 125 CE. (BTW,
please use "AD" if the more scholarly "CE" offends you.)
> Unless of course, you think all sources are equal, or
> the truth cannot be known.
I don't believe all sources are equal, but again, who is to determine
which source is true or false? When you tell me that Jesus said that he
was Jesus, am I to infer that you are the arbiter of that truth?
> Both, of course, rest on the assumption of atheism.
Are you claiming that all non-Christians are atheists? There are at
least three major religious groups that profess belief in the God of
Abraham, yet not all of them agree on the role of Jesus.
NOTE: If you substitute the word agnosticism for atheism in that
sentence, then there is a possibility that we may be able to agree.
> However, if you consider that Jesus was who he said he was,
Again, how do we truly know who Jesus said he was? Can you prove
inerrancy of scripture content and source?
> than those who have provided the gospel canon to us, and
> rejected some of the other writings, may have done so for
> a good reason.
Absolutely. My belief is that that good reason was and is to control
the masses and indeed, keep them from true enlightenment, since
enlightened individuals rarely make for an orderly society.
> What are your assumptions?
(Since you asked...) :-) I believe I have articulated many of my
assumptions through my questions, but adding to the previous paragraph,
and to put it in the proverbial nutshell, I am not an atheist, I do not
believe in the inerrancy of scripture, I believe that both canonical and
apochryphal writings have been chosen and modified knowingly and
unknowingly by humans over the centuries for various reasons and
agendas, and any cries of heresy are purely protectionist strategies. I
assume that the importance of the Bible is primarily allegorical and I
do not take the resurrection to be a literal event. How's that for a start?
>> Will you answer the simple question: What if Jesus
>> was not who you say he said he was? Or is that unthinkable?
>
> How would you determine this?
*BINGO!* :-) Isn't this the crux of the entire conversation? How can
you/anyone presume to tell me/us that "you" are right and "we" are wrong
without providing a way to determine this?
>> I'm not so sure of that clarity you claim. Will you clear up the Synoptic
>> Problem for me? Or do you deny that the problem exists?
>
> Not enough time. I can refer you to some other readings
> later if you like.
Not enough time? Same reason you haven't answered the vast majority of
my other questions? You seem quite willing to take the time to further
your own agenda, imply that I am a heretic and directly accuse Thad of
being a bigot, but when I ask for justification you don't have enough
time? Can you not "respond to a point I have made"?
BTW, do I need to state what I consider to be the obvious? That I have
already indulged in many of those readings? (Or would that be
considered a "credential-comparison" or "establishment of authority"?)
Doug
http://www.parisfaqs.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Well, this sucks... [message #81726 is a reply to message #81696] |
Mon, 19 March 2007 10:44 |
vlad
Messages: 1
Registered: March 2007
|
Junior Member |
|
|
hmmm
for some time now i've suspected Satan lives in my third paris in/out card
vlad
"Doug Wellington" <doug@parisfaqs.com> wrote:
>
>"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>> This is only one definition. In the larger sense heresy is
>> the deliberate holding and disseminating of false doctrine.
>
>Which of us gets to determine what is false? Irenaeus? Constantine? St.
>Dominic? The Pope? Opus Dei? The Moody Bible Institute? Josh McDowell?
> Willard? You?
>
>> If Jesus was who he said he was
>
>I'll refer you back to my previous message asking several questions about
>that. If he was not, then you have set up a straw man and have no real
basis
>for your arguments. Will you answer the simple question: What if Jesus
>was not who you say he said he was? Or is that unthinkable?
>
>> It's all dependent on your assumptions.
>
>Again we agree.
>
>> Ironically, there is plenty of evidence that non-christians
>> can be saved.
>
>[SHRUG] There are many roads to the top of the mountain...
>
>> So, I will not condemn you,
>
>I find it interesting that you presume to have such authority...
>
>> But man was created, there is sin, there is a plan of
>> salvation, and Jesus is exactly who he said he is.
>
>To quote someone I respect:
>"It's all dependent on your assumptions."
>
>> There is no other tradition that offers this, and the
>> evidence is clear, both in history and in human hearts,
>> that there was, and is, a Jesus.
>
>I'm not so sure of that clarity you claim. Will you clear up the Synoptic
>Problem for me? Or do you deny that the problem exists?
>
>Doug
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Well, this sucks... [message #81730 is a reply to message #81706] |
Mon, 19 March 2007 10:49 |
Doug Wellington
Messages: 251
Registered: June 2005
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA
|
Senior Member |
|
|
DC wrote:
> Ok, the synoptic problem.
>
> There has been much scholarly debate about the similarities
> of Matthew and Luke to Mark, and the suggestion has been
> that the others were therefore copied.
>
> This is a problem for the verbal-inspiration folks because
> they believe that each word was dictated by God and is
> infallible and original.
So, you're dismissing the "problem" as something that doesn't concern
you? Is it irrational? Does it not make sense? Is it a non-concern to
all Christians? Should it be? Do you consider verbal-inspiration folks
to be missing something? Can they be considered Christians? (In the
C.S. Lewis sense of the word...)
> I am a thought-inspiriation guy and I think it is clear that the
> words are the words of men.
Do we agree that the bible is full of the "words of men" then? This
would seem to be at odds with the attitudes of many Christians. For
example:
http://www.bible-infonet.org/bin/short_articles/Bible/Verbal .htm
Asking as a non-believer, which of you Christians should I listen to?
Which of you is right? How do I determine that?
> Hence, it is all very interesting
> to me, but the important thing is not the borrowing, if it
> happened, but rather the unity and quality of the mesaage.
It seems to me that many different religions can be thought of to have a
"unity and quality of the message". I don't see any religion as having
a right of exclusive use on that concept... ("...hello? US Patent and
Trade Mark office?")
> Should you try to assert that this apparent borrowing supports
> some sort of fraud,
I personally wouldn't use the word fraud. For me, it is merely a
question of certainty. If I can't be certain about one part of the
Bible, can I be certain about another? (These are "unity and quality"
issues of course...)
> it is clear that they believed what they preached, and they were
> there to witness it.
The same can be said of the Jews, the Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists, and
Hindus, right?
> So, the synoptic problem, and the existence or non-existence
> of Q, are interesting, but unrelated to the reality of Jesus.
From a philosophical point of view, I would say that you are absolutely
correct. I might be so bold as to make the conjecture that the
existence or non-existence of the entire Bible is interesting but
possibly unrelated to the reality of Jesus...
> Lee Strobel has some terrific videos on the issue of the
> Bible's credibility. Here's one:
>
> http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/Bible/strobelT1041.htm
Interesting. Short, sweet, touches on all the things that many people
WANT to believe. "Do you know of any other book that matches the
credentials of the Bible?" [SHRUG] In a word, yes... To pick one
example, we know way more about authorship of the Quran than we do about
authorship of the books of the Bible. ...but wait, I thought we weren't
going to compare credentials?
I've watched a few of those videos - I particularly like Ben
Witherington's assertions about myth. He seems to have not heard of
Osiris for example...
I continue to think that it is a self-referential issue. Jesus said he
was Jesus, so therefore Christianity is the only path?
> Your perpective is, of course, as threatened by mine by the
> current war on faith. Actually yours is more threatened
> because you cannot base your views on anything other than
> personal need and choice.
Sorry, I couldn't follow you there... Are you suggesting that I should
feel threatened? (By credentials? Authority? Moral superiority? By
the people with "Resurrection Celebration" stickers on their cars? By
people with hijacked Pagan geometry Jesus fish stickers? By the
"liberal media"?) Seems to me that the faithful are the ones who feel
threatened. Or is it the authorities that want you to be faithful that
feel threatened? (Ever listen to Burns and Schreiber? "God needs your
financial help in the struggle against the atheistic, communistic
conspiracy! Send your dollars to Kill a Commie for Christ...")
Aren't all religious decisions based upon personal need and choice?
Doug
http://www.parisfaqs.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Well, this sucks... [message #81734 is a reply to message #81706] |
Mon, 19 March 2007 11:13 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
After reading this entire inspirational discourse by you guys I have decided
that I have no real choice other than to become a nun.
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.org> wrote in message news:45fe0308$1@linux...
>
> Ok, the synoptic problem.
>
> There has been much scholarly debate about the similarities
> of Matthew and Luke to Mark, and the suggestion has been
> that the others were therefore copied.
>
> This is a problem for the verbal-inspiration folks because
> they believe that each word was dictated by God and is
> infallible and original.
>
> I am a thought-inspiriation guy and I think it is clear that the
> words are the words of men. Hence, it is all very interesting
> to me, but the important thing is not the borrowing, if it
> happened, but rather the unity and quality of the mesaage.
>
> Should you try to assert that this apparent borrowing supports
> some sort of fraud, I would ask what the payoff was, since
> the disciples clearly believed what they said, to the extent of
> dying horrible deaths, and never recanting their beliefs. They
> lived lives of dedication and faith, spreading Christianity all over
> the known world with no payoff other than saved humans.
>
> it is clear that they believed what they preached, and they were
> there to witness it.
>
> So, the synoptic problem, and the existence or non-existence
> of Q, are interesting, but unrelated to the reality of Jesus.
>
> Lee Strobel has some terrific videos on the issue of the
> Bible's credibility. Here's one:
>
> http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/Bible/strobelT1041.htm
>
> Watch as many of these as you have time for.
>
> http://www.leestrobel.com/Bible.htm
>
>
> Your perpective is, of course, as threatened by mine by the
> current war on faith. Actually yours is more threatened
> because you cannot base your views on anything other than
> personal need and choice. The Bible calls this building your
> house upon the sand.
>
> Here's something I wrote on the coming war on faith:
>
> http://doncicchetti.blogspot.com/2006/11/assault-on-faith.ht ml
>
>
> DC
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Well, this sucks... [message #81735 is a reply to message #81712] |
Mon, 19 March 2007 12:22 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Doug Wellington <doug@parisfaqs.com> wrote:
>So you're basing everything on a self-referential structure?
Whoops! Selective quoting again... Follow the whole line
of reasoning please. This is a straw man.
Let me ask you a question that will resolve this for you:
Do you believe that the issues you mention show that Jesus
was not a real person, and was certainly not the Son of God?
If so, then you have your answer. If not, why are you raising
them?
>And of the four gospels, why is it that only John asserts that
>Jesus is God?
Do you doubt this? Why or why not? If you doubt it, how does
your definition of "evidence" influence your decision?
>(Refer back to a previous message when I wondered how the
>church would have been different if the Gospel of Thomas had been chosen
>by Irenaeus instead of the Gospel of John. But of course he couldn't do
>that; he was a fine upstanding member of the Orthodoxy.)
And of course, we all know that the church is simply based
upon human wishful thinking and the views of those closest
to the time of Jesus, and their judgements about the canon,
are much easier to critique and revise today, almost 2000
years later, right?
>(BTW,
>please use "AD" if the more scholarly "CE" offends you.)
That's hilarious... Your atheist assumptions are as clear as
can be aren't they? Any view of history that includes Christ
as a reality, is not scholarly.... ok Doug.
>Are you claiming that all non-Christians are atheists? There are at
>least three major religious groups that profess belief in the God of
>Abraham, yet not all of them agree on the role of Jesus.
Of course, the opposite of atheist is not Christian, it is theist...
Looks like you have a few more on the other side than you thought.
>NOTE: If you substitute the word agnosticism for atheism in that
>sentence, then there is a possibility that we may be able to agree.
Well, as soon as you determine what constitutes proof.
The belief that only the natural world, as we understand it,
is real, is not agnostic, it is atheist. It is an act of faith that
"science" as we know it, can explain everything. I am certain
that our definition of the natural is entirely too small, and if
so, as Clarke said:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
magic"
So, of naturalism cannot explain everything, don't you think that
would impact your definition of proof?
Which is it? How do you differentiate between atheism and
agnosticism?
>> than those who have provided the gospel canon to us, and
>> rejected some of the other writings, may have done so for
>> a good reason.
>Absolutely. My belief is that that good reason was and is to control
>the masses and indeed, keep them from true enlightenment, since
>enlightened individuals rarely make for an orderly society.
And so, there it is. Christianity is the opiate of the masses.
Ok, well. I certainly see where you are coming from.
Define enlightened.
>> What are your assumptions?
>(Since you asked...) :-) I believe I have articulated many of my
>assumptions through my questions, but adding to the previous paragraph,
>and to put it in the proverbial nutshell, I am not an atheist, I do not
>believe in the inerrancy of scripture, I believe that both canonical and
>apochryphal writings have been chosen and modified knowingly and
>unknowingly by humans over the centuries for various reasons and
>agendas, and any cries of heresy are purely protectionist strategies. I
>assume that the importance of the Bible is primarily allegorical and I
>do not take the resurrection to be a literal event. How's that for a start?
That's a good start. And I much appreciate your honesty.
Being a non-atheist, would you say that you are a theist of
any kind? What sort?
If not, then we have a divide we cannot bridge easily.
If it is impossible, and I believe it is, for any version of
Darwinism to explain life and the universe, then what is
your alternative? If, on the other hand, you believe that
as the atheists do, that science (meaning naturalism) is
adequate to explain it all, then of what use is agnosticism?
>*BINGO!* :-) Isn't this the crux of the entire conversation? How can
>you/anyone presume to tell me/us that "you" are right and "we" are wrong
>without providing a way to determine this?
There are many ways. The Bible says:
1 Corinthians 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come
from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he
cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Now, there are reams of objective reasons for believing in
God. But if you deny theism, you will always find a way
to deny the reasons as well. One cannot find God with the
maps of an atheist. You have to desire to know God first.
I spent years with doubt about all this. My temptations
were never drugs and drink and a lot of the other stuff we
get involved with. My temptation was, and it took a while to
realize this, atheism. There are times I hate Christians more
than Thad does, because I expect them to live up to their beliefs
and they often do not. Nor do I, yet I know God has
saved my very life on several occasions. I studied all this stuff
for a long time, and I know, that while there are, and there
will be many more, examples of proof and evidence, the best
you can do with atheist assumptions is a draw, and only then
after a long, long debate, as you know.
And it is that knowledge, that Christians do have substantive
reasons for our faith, and 2 more things that allowed me
to put this issue to bed.
The first was the day I realized, from years of study and reading,
that Darwinism is garbage. It is the last of the 19th-century
mystery religions.
Darwin said: "If it can be shown that the cell is more complex
than I had thought, than absolutely, my theory would totally
fall apart"
Well, it's thousands of times more complex than he thought,
and his theory is still around isn't it?
Take a look at this:
http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/php/book_show_item.php?id=26
and if you think, oh that's just one book, then just read
the abstracts for the first 20 of these books, and you will see
the trouble Darwin is really in today:
http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/php/book_show_catalog.php
The other was the realization that nothing else, nothing, is as
likely to be true, and fits the reality of human life, as well as
the words and thoughts of Jesus Christ. That is why all those
guys willingly died on crosses, upside down sometimes, others
beheaded, others torn apart by animals in the colliseum, and
still others burned at the stake as heretics, to keep the Bible
alive and Christianity vital. And so it is.
>Not enough time? Same reason you haven't answered the vast majority of
>my other questions?
Rubbish Doug. I was running out the door to a birthday party.
I did answer you. Did you see it?
>You seem quite willing to take the time to further
>your own agenda, imply that I am a heretic and directly accuse Thad of
>being a bigot, but when I ask for justification you don't have enough
>time?
First, Thad is clearly a bigot, and while he would not use that
word, he regularly expresses hate for millions of people, some
of whom would take a bullet to save his life. Second, your views
are clearly heretical with regards to Christianity. Do you deny
this?
Be a happy heretic. Heck, start a band and name it that.
You do not answer to me.
best,
DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: Well, this sucks... [message #81736 is a reply to message #81734] |
Mon, 19 March 2007 11:29 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
i don't know about you but i'm having a slight problem with "sister
deej" or "sister simplicity". how does amy feel about you becoming a
nun?
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:13:24 -0600, "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com>
wrote:
>After reading this entire inspirational discourse by you guys I have decided
>that I have no real choice other than to become a nun.
>
>"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.org> wrote in message news:45fe0308$1@linux...
>>
>> Ok, the synoptic problem.
>>
>> There has been much scholarly debate about the similarities
>> of Matthew and Luke to Mark, and the suggestion has been
>> that the others were therefore copied.
>>
>> This is a problem for the verbal-inspiration folks because
>> they believe that each word was dictated by God and is
>> infallible and original.
>>
>> I am a thought-inspiriation guy and I think it is clear that the
>> words are the words of men. Hence, it is all very interesting
>> to me, but the important thing is not the borrowing, if it
>> happened, but rather the unity and quality of the mesaage.
>>
>> Should you try to assert that this apparent borrowing supports
>> some sort of fraud, I would ask what the payoff was, since
>> the disciples clearly believed what they said, to the extent of
>> dying horrible deaths, and never recanting their beliefs. They
>> lived lives of dedication and faith, spreading Christianity all over
>> the known world with no payoff other than saved humans.
>>
>> it is clear that they believed what they preached, and they were
>> there to witness it.
>>
>> So, the synoptic problem, and the existence or non-existence
>> of Q, are interesting, but unrelated to the reality of Jesus.
>>
>> Lee Strobel has some terrific videos on the issue of the
>> Bible's credibility. Here's one:
>>
>> http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/Bible/strobelT1041.htm
>>
>> Watch as many of these as you have time for.
>>
>> http://www.leestrobel.com/Bible.htm
>>
>>
>> Your perpective is, of course, as threatened by mine by the
>> current war on faith. Actually yours is more threatened
>> because you cannot base your views on anything other than
>> personal need and choice. The Bible calls this building your
>> house upon the sand.
>>
>> Here's something I wrote on the coming war on faith:
>>
>> http://doncicchetti.blogspot.com/2006/11/assault-on-faith.ht ml
>>
>>
>> DC
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Well, this sucks... [message #81739 is a reply to message #81736] |
Mon, 19 March 2007 11:40 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
..........not sure yet. I think if I'm going to dress in drag though, the nun
thing would be preferable to an Anna Nicole
impersonation..........hey!!!...wait!!!!.......I could do an Anna Nicole
"dressed as a nun" impersonation and put those Judy Garland impersonators
out of business. I need the money.
"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7iltv2d5llpldnfl6a4a0rp9mn4hsegpkp@4ax.com...
>
> i don't know about you but i'm having a slight problem with "sister
> deej" or "sister simplicity". how does amy feel about you becoming a
> nun?
>
>
>
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:13:24 -0600, "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com>
> wrote:
>
>>After reading this entire inspirational discourse by you guys I have
>>decided
>>that I have no real choice other than to become a nun.
>>
>>"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.org> wrote in message news:45fe0308$1@linux...
>>>
>>> Ok, the synoptic problem.
>>>
>>> There has been much scholarly debate about the similarities
>>> of Matthew and Luke to Mark, and the suggestion has been
>>> that the others were therefore copied.
>>>
>>> This is a problem for the verbal-inspiration folks because
>>> they believe that each word was dictated by God and is
>>> infallible and original.
>>>
>>> I am a thought-inspiriation guy and I think it is clear that the
>>> words are the words of men. Hence, it is all very interesting
>>> to me, but the important thing is not the borrowing, if it
>>> happened, but rather the unity and quality of the mesaage.
>>>
>>> Should you try to assert that this apparent borrowing supports
>>> some sort of fraud, I would ask what the payoff was, since
>>> the disciples clearly believed what they said, to the extent of
>>> dying horrible deaths, and never recanting their beliefs. They
>>> lived lives of dedication and faith, spreading Christianity all over
>>> the known world with no payoff other than saved humans.
>>>
>>> it is clear that they believed what they preached, and they were
>>> there to witness it.
>>>
>>> So, the synoptic problem, and the existence or non-existence
>>> of Q, are interesting, but unrelated to the reality of Jesus.
>>>
>>> Lee Strobel has some terrific videos on the issue of the
>>> Bible's credibility. Here's one:
>>>
>>> http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/Bible/strobelT1041.htm
>>>
>>> Watch as many of these as you have time for.
>>>
>>> http://www.leestrobel.com/Bible.htm
>>>
>>>
>>> Your perpective is, of course, as threatened by mine by the
>>> current war on faith. Actually yours is more threatened
>>> because you cannot base your views on anything other than
>>> personal need and choice. The Bible calls this building your
>>> house upon the sand.
>>>
>>> Here's something I wrote on the coming war on faith:
>>>
>>> http://doncicchetti.blogspot.com/2006/11/assault-on-faith.ht ml
>>>
>>>
>>> DC
>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Well, this sucks... [message #81740 is a reply to message #81730] |
Mon, 19 March 2007 12:44 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Doug Wellington <doug@parisfaqs.com> wrote:
>So, you're dismissing the "problem" as something that doesn't concern
>you? Is it irrational? Does it not make sense? Is it a non-concern to
>all Christians? Should it be? Do you consider verbal-inspiration folks
>to be missing something? Can they be considered Christians? (In the
>C.S. Lewis sense of the word...)
It is an academic problem. Nothing more. Whether or not
anyone borrowed, the ideas are still intact.
>> I am a thought-inspiriation guy and I think it is clear that the
>> words are the words of men.
>Do we agree that the bible is full of the "words of men" then? This
>would seem to be at odds with the attitudes of many Christians.
Whoops!
Did you forget the times I said that the ideas are those of God?
Is that unimportant to you? If we both see Hulk Hogan at
an autograph signing, and you claim he was wearing the
yellow shirt, and I write he was wearing the red, does this
mean that there is no Hulk Hogan?
>Asking as a non-believer, which of you Christians should I listen to?
>Which of you is right? How do I determine that?
We all agree on how you can be saved. You do not believe in
such things. There is your problem.
>It seems to me that many different religions can be thought of to have a
>"unity and quality of the message". I don't see any religion as having
>a right of exclusive use on that concept... ("...hello? US Patent and
>Trade Mark office?")
Clever. Still, you have to decide this for yourself. Are you here
to debate, or do you care about which is right? Do you believe
in the possibility of rightness? Of God?
>I personally wouldn't use the word fraud. For me, it is merely a
>question of certainty. If I can't be certain about one part of the
>Bible, can I be certain about another? (These are "unity and quality"
>issues of course...)
No, they are verbal and historical issues that you use to dismiss
the content.
>> it is clear that they believed what they preached, and they were
>> there to witness it.
>The same can be said of the Jews, the Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists, and
>Hindus, right?
No one witnessed anything in Islam but Mohammed and he
makes no claim to divinity.
The Jews are still looking for messiah. Or are atheists.
Could they have missed him? Just a thought.
Hindus? I am not convinced. Are you?
I notice you left off the buddhists.. Of course, no God...
That leaves us with 2 things.
Make up your own beliefs
or
Jesus Christ.
I made my choice.
> From a philosophical point of view, I would say that you are absolutely
>correct. I might be so bold as to make the conjecture that the
>existence or non-existence of the entire Bible is interesting but
>possibly unrelated to the reality of Jesus...
But even the slightest examination of this claim would destroy it...
>> http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/Bible/strobelT1041.htm
>Interesting. Short, sweet, touches on all the things that many people
>WANT to believe. "Do you know of any other book that matches the
>credentials of the Bible?" [SHRUG] In a word, yes... To pick one
>example, we know way more about authorship of the Quran than we do about
>authorship of the books of the Bible. ...but wait, I thought we weren't
>going to compare credentials?
Clever. Substance-free, but clever.
Doug, let's give this NG a break OK? This is clearly pointless.
>Sorry, I couldn't follow you there... Are you suggesting that I should
>feel threatened?
No. I imagine you will grow comfortable with your beliefs
being dismissed with a wave of the naturalist hand.
>Aren't all religious decisions based upon personal need and choice?
As are choices to buy gasoline. That does not mean that
gas pumps are a myth created by man to comfort himself.
DC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Well, this sucks... [message #81751 is a reply to message #81735] |
Mon, 19 March 2007 13:43 |
Doug Wellington
Messages: 251
Registered: June 2005
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA
|
Senior Member |
|
|
DC wrote:
> Let me ask you a question that will resolve this for you:
>
> Do you believe that the issues you mention show that Jesus
> was not a real person, and was certainly not the Son of God?
I have not been able to ascertain, with the evidence I have so far, what
the answer to that question is, one way OR the other...
> If so, then you have your answer. If not, why are you raising
> them?
Exactly in order to answer that question one way or the other.
>> And of the four gospels, why is it that only John asserts that
>> Jesus is God?
>
> Do you doubt this? Why or why not? If you doubt it, how does
> your definition of "evidence" influence your decision?
I DO doubt this, as I doubt so very many other things. I will have to
think more about the "why" before I can give you a good answer. If it
helps you, my first thought is that I'd say it is just because it is
inconsistent with the other three gospels. I am continuously revising
my definition of "evidence" as I have continued to do during this
conversation...
> And of course, we all know that the church is simply based
> upon human wishful thinking and the views of those closest
> to the time of Jesus, and their judgements about the canon,
> are much easier to critique and revise today, almost 2000
> years later, right?
That comes across to me as a quite flippant answer. I truly believe
that I am asking legitimate questions, and I do not always believe that
I receive legitimate answers...
> That's hilarious... Your atheist assumptions are as clear as
> can be aren't they? Any view of history that includes Christ
> as a reality, is not scholarly.... ok Doug.
Again, this seems rather flippant to me. I have already told you that I
am not an atheist. Being scholarly is not exclusionary to any reality.
Some Christians are offended by the term CE - hence my advice...
> Of course, the opposite of atheist is not Christian, it is theist...
Sure, as the opposite of agnostic is gnostic...
> Looks like you have a few more on the other side than you thought.
Ummm, not sure what you mean by that... Would you please rephrase that?
> The belief that only the natural world, as we understand it,
> is real, is not agnostic, it is atheist.
Have I ever argued for "the natural world" being real at all?
> It is an act of faith that "science" as we know it, can
> explain everything.
What have I said to you that implies that I think science has anything
to do with religion? (Unless you consider "thinking" to be a science?
I don't think ;-) thinking is a science...)
> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from
> magic"
Cool quote.
> Which is it? How do you differentiate between atheism and
> agnosticism?
Well, there's strong atheism which believes that there is NO deity, and
there is weak atheism that assumes there is no deity but admits to a
lack of knowledge about deities. This is orthogonal to agnosticism,
which believes there is a deity, but doesn't know the details. Of
course, we should then add on a discussion of the term gnostic, which is
about direct knowing. Gnosis differs from the Orthodoxy in the sense
that (in my words) the Orthodoxy seems to believe that it is not
possible for the individual to know things at the same level that Jesus
knew them...
> And so, there it is. Christianity is the opiate of the masses.
> Ok, well. I certainly see where you are coming from.
Is that a flippant answer or a legitimate one?
> Define enlightened.
:-) I'll let you know when/if I find enlightenment...
> Being a non-atheist, would you say that you are a theist of
> any kind? What sort?
I was raised in the Unitarian/Universalist environment and still hold
many of the beliefs, if that's what you're asking.
> Now, there are reams of objective reasons for believing in
> God.
I do not deny the existence of God.
> I spent years with doubt about all this. My temptations
> were never drugs and drink and a lot of the other stuff we
> get involved with. My temptation was, and it took a while to
> realize this, atheism.
Rather Quixotic, wouldn't you think? I don't believe I have that same
issue...
> The first was the day I realized, from years of study and reading,
> that Darwinism is garbage. It is the last of the 19th-century
> mystery religions.
Darwin was searching for an explanation for something. With the
evidence he had, I think he did a mighty fine job. Does it answer my
questions about the world? No. Does it answer my questions about God?
Of course not. I don't even consider Darwin when I think about
religion...
> The other was the realization that nothing else, nothing, is as
> likely to be true, and fits the reality of human life, as well as
> the words and thoughts of Jesus Christ.
I'm glad that resonates with you. Many people feel the same about the
words and thoughts of the Buddha. Many believe the same about Mohammed,
and many feel the same about Joseph Smith...
> Rubbish Doug. I was running out the door to a birthday party.
> I did answer you. Did you see it?
I did indeed, and I see that you have replied to it. Thank you. I must
run out the door myself, so I'll read and reply to that one later.
> First, Thad is clearly a bigot,
I do not see that personally.
> and while he would not use that
> word, he regularly expresses hate for millions of people, some
> of whom would take a bullet to save his life.
Is this supposed to be some kind of guilt trip you're laying on him?
> Second, your views are clearly heretical with regards to
> Christianity. Do you deny this?
I readily admit that my views are sometimes in disagreement with
ORTHODOX Christianity.
> You do not answer to me.
True. And yet you throw that at me as if you are morally superior?
Doug
http://www.parisfaqs.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Well, this sucks... [message #81756 is a reply to message #81751] |
Mon, 19 March 2007 15:08 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Doug Wellington <doug@parisfaqs.com> wrote:
>I am continuously revising
>my definition of "evidence" as I have continued to do during this
>conversation...
Then, one day you will likely settle on a definition.
Answers will follow.
>> And of course, we all know that the church is simply based
>> upon human wishful thinking and the views of those closest
>> to the time of Jesus, and their judgements about the canon,
>> are much easier to critique and revise today, almost 2000
>> years later, right?
>That comes across to me as a quite flippant answer. I truly believe
>that I am asking legitimate questions, and I do not always believe that
>I receive legitimate answers...
Sorry for the tone, but it is 100% legit. It seems that you would
know to ask those questions about the primacy of direct
sources. We assume these first century people to be less
intelligent and in this case, less honest than we. That view will
produce skewed results.
>Being scholarly is not exclusionary to any reality.
This simply isn't true. 'Scholarly" once excluded coelacanths..
And that is it for me. Doug if you want to continue, let me know
and I will get you my email.
best
DC
|
|
|
|
|
|
| AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! [message #81758 is a reply to message #81756] |
Mon, 19 March 2007 14:25 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Why are you guys forcing me to read all this????????????? .............it's
not fair!!!!.......it's even worse than the TV I am forced to watch and the
radio stations I am forced to listen to!!!!!...............my brain is going
to explode and I'm picking out pumps.(are pumps appropriate for nuns?)
"DC" <dc@spammerinhell.com> wrote in message news:45fefbe2$1@linux...
>
> Doug Wellington <doug@parisfaqs.com> wrote:
>
>>I am continuously revising
>>my definition of "evidence" as I have continued to do during this
>>conversation...
>
> Then, one day you will likely settle on a definition.
> Answers will follow.
>
>
>>> And of course, we all know that the church is simply based
>>> upon human wishful thinking and the views of those closest
>>> to the time of Jesus, and their judgements about the canon,
>>> are much easier to critique and revise today, almost 2000
>>> years later, right?
>
>>That comes across to me as a quite flippant answer. I truly believe
>>that I am asking legitimate questions, and I do not always believe that
>
>>I receive legitimate answers...
>
> Sorry for the tone, but it is 100% legit. It seems that you would
> know to ask those questions about the primacy of direct
> sources. We assume these first century people to be less
> intelligent and in this case, less honest than we. That view will
> produce skewed results.
>
>
>>Being scholarly is not exclusionary to any reality.
>
> This simply isn't true. 'Scholarly" once excluded coelacanths..
>
>
> And that is it for me. Doug if you want to continue, let me know
> and I will get you my email.
>
> best
>
> DC
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Well, this sucks... [message #81784 is a reply to message #81740] |
Mon, 19 March 2007 21:02 |
Doug Wellington
Messages: 251
Registered: June 2005
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Don,
Since you seem to wish to stop this discussion, I will abbreviate my
comments in this message and will hold no expectation of answer to any
questions...
> We all agree on how you can be saved. You do not believe in
> such things. There is your problem.
That is a blanket statement and I'm not sure which "we" you mean. I
also find it interesting that you seem to know my beliefs better than I
do. I am not an atheist. I believe in salvation, redemption, and
atonement. But if salvation is between me and my Lord, then I don't
have to fear the so-called war on faith or the expectations, judgments
or condemnations of those such as yourself who presume to know the one
truth. The only real "problem" I have is determining which path is the
true path...
> No, they are verbal and historical issues that you use to dismiss
> the content.
I do not wish to dismiss the content, I wish to ascertain its truth. If
Jesus was indeed God-incarnate here on earth, why is it that the first
three Gospels don't mention that, and it is only near the end of the
first century that the idea is written down in the fourth Gospel? If it
were true, and the Christian writers were there to witness it, I would
have expected that idea to infuse ALL of the Christian writings in the
first century, regardless of the intellectual abilities or knowledge
levels of those writers.
> Doug, let's give this NG a break OK? This is clearly pointless.
I'm sorry you think it's pointless. Heehee, I won't ask what you think
is pointless about it - I think we both know. ;-) Thank you for your
input. I've learned a lot about you and your beliefs. I will continue
to seek knowledge and wisdom from other sources...
> No. I imagine you will grow comfortable with your beliefs
> being dismissed with a wave of the naturalist hand.
Well, I'm getting more and more comfortable with my beliefs being
dismissed with a wave of the Christian hand... ;-)
To speak in terms I think you understand, may The Lord bless you and
keep you, Don Cicchetti. Go in peace.
Doug Wellington
P.S. My real email address has been included in each of these posts. If
you are ever near Tucson, I invite you to be my guest. Please contact
me. BTW, have you ever visited a Redemptorist Center?
P.P.S. Might I prevail upon you to lay off the judgmentalism towards
Thad and others who don't share your beliefs? Pray about it and I bet
you'll know what is the right thing to do...
http://www.parisfaqs.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! [message #81802 is a reply to message #81758] |
Tue, 20 March 2007 07:47 |
Doug Wellington
Messages: 251
Registered: June 2005
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA
|
Senior Member |
|
|
DJ wrote:
> Why are you guys forcing me to read all this????????????? .............it's
> not fair!!!!.......it's even worse than the TV I am forced to watch and the
> radio stations I am forced to listen to!!!!!...............my brain is going
> to explode and I'm picking out pumps.(are pumps appropriate for nuns?)
Heehee! It's like your mother said about castor oil - because it's good
for you!
Doug (Imagining DJ in one of those nun outfits...)
P.S. Here's some other stuff that I need to force you to read:
> We assume these first century people to be less
> intelligent and in this case, less honest than we.
Less honest? You mean they had...an agenda? BTW, how do you prove the
assumption that they were less intelligent? I can easily see how they
might be less knowledgeable, but less intelligent? Hard to prove...
>> Being scholarly is not exclusionary to any reality.
> This simply isn't true. 'Scholarly" once excluded coelacanths..
So, "scholarly" is open to change, but faith isn't? How does one deal
with new information that challenges one's faith? Yell "heresy" and
call out the troops to fight the upcoming war on faith?
Oh, sorry, I'll stop now...
http://www.parisfaqs.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! [message #81827 is a reply to message #81802] |
Tue, 20 March 2007 14:57 |
steve the artguy
Messages: 308
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
well, personally, I found that exchange much more interesting than 99% of
the "this preamp is better than that preamp" posts I used to wade through.
What makes it more interesting than reading some anonymous internet exchange
is that I know these guys, at least through the Paris world, and that informs
the discussion in my head.
Thanks, guys.
-steve
Doug Wellington <doug@parisfaqs.com> wrote:
>DJ wrote:
>> Why are you guys forcing me to read all this????????????? .............it's
>> not fair!!!!.......it's even worse than the TV I am forced to watch and
the
>> radio stations I am forced to listen to!!!!!...............my brain is
going
>> to explode and I'm picking out pumps.(are pumps appropriate for nuns?)
>
>Heehee! It's like your mother said about castor oil - because it's good
>for you!
>
>Doug (Imagining DJ in one of those nun outfits...)
>
>
>P.S. Here's some other stuff that I need to force you to read:
>
>> We assume these first century people to be less
>> intelligent and in this case, less honest than we.
>
>Less honest? You mean they had...an agenda? BTW, how do you prove the
>assumption that they were less intelligent? I can easily see how they
>might be less knowledgeable, but less intelligent? Hard to prove...
>
>>> Being scholarly is not exclusionary to any reality.
>> This simply isn't true. 'Scholarly" once excluded coelacanths..
>
>So, "scholarly" is open to change, but faith isn't? How does one deal
>with new information that challenges one's faith? Yell "heresy" and
>call out the troops to fight the upcoming war on faith?
>
>Oh, sorry, I'll stop now...
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Dec 11 09:54:53 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.05439 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
